The 30,000 Foot View

Have you ever heard the saying “You can’t see the forest for the trees.” For years my company managers heard me say this quite often: “Just skip the ‘stuff’’ and give me the executive summary.” Both pretty much mean the same thing. And just in case you don’t understand either of these, let’s make it easy: Often we get so caught up in the nitty-gritty of what we’re doing that all of our attention is given to JUST what we’re doing at the moment and not what the overall picture is supposed to look like. For that reason, it’s often better to occasionally back away from the detail to make certain to see or imagine what the final result is to be.

So it is when we look at something from 30,000 feet in the air rather than from ground level. Stand on a street in Durango, Colorado and you are simply standing on the street of a small town in southwest Colorado. Fly over that same street at 30,000 feet in altitude and look out the plane window, you’ll see you’re above the Rockies. That street in Durango is still there, but it’s just a blip on the map you are looking at. Both are true, but each has different perspectives.

The picture at the top of this story is of Beirut, Lebanon was taken from a  jet. Imagine how different Beirut looks from a downtown street than from looking at it from a plane.

So which view are you using today to look-in on the American political world? If we’re honest with our answer to that question, most of us will answer, “I can’t see the forest for the trees.” And today’s American political “forest” is pretty nasty.

Perspective

Would you like to change your perspective? Honestly, it’s probably driving you crazy. I’ve asked hundreds of times in the last decade or so why we cannot easily discern the truth about our political landscape. We certainly don’t hear the truth about it from politicians, political pundits, or the media. Everything THEY say is skewed from their political perspective and their political agenda.

Remember Bill Clinton and his response during his impeachment process when under oath he answered a question by saying, “It depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is!” How are we to know today’s political truths so as to shape OUR perspectives to prepare us for whatever changes we should and could make going forward? We’re a year and a half away from elections for Congress and the presidency, and there are already 20 Democrat candidates announced to run. Talk about noise and confusion! Not only are our perspectives flavored by what we hear those candidates say about their ideas and plans, but the media also takes those ideas and puts their spin on them to filter for Americans who watch, read, and listen. Political perspectives are certainly problematic for the process of voters making educated choices. How can we shape our perspectives based only on facts? That’s a really hard one, but it’s one that we MUST find a way to implement.

Facts

The foundation of shaping a factual perspective is to find facts. Contrary to what today’s media wants you to believe, there are NOT different versions of the truth of any issue, political position, statistic, or policy. Each is absolute. Our problem in getting facts is the methodologies used in today’s politics in distributing facts. Why so?

Newspapers sell newspapers. Radio and television shows sell 30 and 60-second ads. Their goal is readers, subscribers, and viewers. Facts are secondary (at best) to the media!

How do we make certain we really get the facts? In reality, we may not get all the facts from our current politicians and candidates for future office. But if WE are honest and if WE are diligent, there are ways to find MUCH of the facts. And we can ferret those out minus the filter of bias that engulfs ALL of what we see, hear, and read about them from the media. How?

  • Read. Reading is almost a lost art. The internet and electronics have just about destroyed it. Baby-Boomers grew up in an environment that encouraged reading to obtain information. We had no other option. Unfortunately for finding facts, we must sort through the noise, and reading gives us the best vehicle for doing so. Get your hands on as much of the writings available directly from the candidate or politician you are looking into. That’s possible using today’s media vehicles. Look for quotes. Search for legislation for which they have expressed their support or have written themselves. Find some of their historical writings and/or speeches. Getting it from the horse’s mouth is the only way to find the truth.
  • YouTube. I think it is asinine for today’s politicians to say one thing or take a controversial position on a matter when many know they’ve previously expressed the exact opposite. It’s as if they have forgotten in this YouTube generation, everything is on video. It may take some time, but use your search engine to look for their writings and speeches. Again, getting it from the horse’s mouth is the best way to know for certain what they say is where they stand OR if they’ve changed positions on a matter. And then find out why and when they made those changes. Examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton years ago called themselves Pro-Life. They changed. Barack and Michelle Obama AND the Clintons were all against same-sex marriage. Now they support it. How do I know that? YouTube!
  • Interviews. It will be tough and require careful timing, but we all should certainly be willing to find and watch or listen to as many interviews as possible for as many candidates as possible who are running in 2020. Unfortunately, the liberal media outlets have proven again and again they have an intense bias for conservative candidates while being “in the tank” for Democrats who are running. But watch and listen — not so much to the interviewers as you do how candidates respond and the content of what they say. Make some notes, especially when something they say gives rise to another question you may have for them.  Because there are so many candidates already that have declared for a presidential run in 2020, you will have ample opportunity to examine their answers on specific positions that interest you. Start early: soon they’ll start dropping out like flies. That in itself will open the door for new questions. Typically, the closer we get to nomination time, candidates began to firm their positions. Comparing policies closer to conventions with those candidates hold today will tell you something about their character.
  • Town-Halls and Debates. This is going to be an even more contentious season of Town-Hall meetings and candidate debates. Candidates will find it more and more necessary to begin to harden on their stances on controversial issues like Pro-Choice/Right-to-Life, Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration, Healthcare, taxes, First and Second Amendments, and even more. They will do this when it becomes more and more necessary to showcase the reasons why they would for voters be a better choice for each office than would their opponents. Town-Halls are typically better at garnering facts because they are usually more inclusive of audience members and questions and answers are more in number and allow more follow-up after the candidates respond to questions. This season will be much more difficult to watch regarding these public displays, but buckle down and stick in there because seeing and hearing what they say checked against details of their policy positions that are already in the public domain will be very important.
  • Endorsements. This is always a tough one. It’s tougher now because of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the “Citizen’s United” case. It pretty much allows unlimited financial contributions to PACs and SuperPACS. It’s impossible to know who in total have made campaign donations to any candidate because these organizations are not required to identify contributors as the candidate’s campaigns must. But the telltale sign of some of those contributors is endorsements. Two examples are the NRA and Planned Parenthood. Each organization has specific political agendas that are extremely controversial: the NRA private citizens’ gun rights and Planned Parenthood abortion rights. Checking endorsements for candidates from these and other organizations against their stated positions an be a sure signal of candidate’s truthfulness.
  • Speeches. One might think this is an unnecessary practice because candidates will almost always use the contents of speeches carefully so as not to raise alarms regarding policy conflicts. That is true MOST of the time. But often candidates find themselves caught up in the excitement of campaign rallies and giveaway certain ideas that just may conflict with their previously stated policy positions. We’re often guilty of relying on the media to point to such conflicts for us. But as we’ve seen so many times, Leftist media are quick to give Democrat candidates passes on conflicts while slaughtering Republican candidates. They typically call GOP folks “Liars,” while covering for Democrat candidates for their “mistakes” in the conflicts they expose.

Summary

Wow! That sounds like a lot of stuff to do and keep track of. It is. And it is true that most Americans are not willing to pay the price to find facts and confirm those facts are real. Here’s what most of us do: we say “I’m too busy to watch that debate, listen to or read that speech, Google the position on taxes and healthcare that they promoted when they ran for state office and see if they’ve changed. I’ll just wait until tomorrow morning and catch the analysis on CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or FOX News.”

That’s the REAL danger! Answer this: why are so many Generation Z members so open to socialism and so against capitalism? It’s because they’re going to high schools and universities who most of their teachers and professors are hardcore Liberals from the 60s and 70s. Those educators hated conservatism and despised capitalism then and demonstrated for socialist and even communist causes. What do you think they are going to teach our kids but their own ideas?

Here’s the scary part of the above scenario: these educators know that these kids were raised in a freer environment than did Baby-Boomers. They abhor personal accountability and responsibilities. Their parents were and are enablers. These students are sponges and therefore subject to what they are exposed to for the duration of their formative years. Those kids get all their information from 24/7 electronic news, the internet, and cable television. For the most part, most of the information and “news” disseminated to them comes from news anchors and reporters who are the same 60s and 70s people as are those teachers and professors! 

So how do we spend most of our time at the 30,000-foot level and get all this information we need to absorb that’s at ground level?

We can get just as absorbed and distracted at 30,000 feet as we do on the ground in the middle of everything. To ferret out the facts we need, let’s face it: we MUST engage. But we must do so without letting the “noise” at ground level drown out the realities and truth that we find there.

Organization and planning are the keys. I know, I know: we too can get caught up in electronics, in “instant news,” and in letting social media shape our political positions. We’re NOT saying we cannot take advantage of those to “assist” us. But we must use them as nothing more than “A” tool rather than “THE” source of our information. Use them to confirm what we have learned.

Honestly, it is much easier for conservatives to simply listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, and FOX News for information. On the most part, they do give out conservative info. But I don’t agree with everything THEY say. I DO agree with certain things I see and hear from MSNBC, CNN, Rachel Maddox, and Chris Matthews — granted, it’s not much though!

It ‘s unbelievably important for us to find facts and use every resource we have to do so. And we cannot always verify that every “fact” we surmise is really true. But I promise, if we truly investigate objectively and organize our doing so, we can then form objective opinions based on facts rather than emotions.

Remember this: there are many people around the World who still believe the world is flat! How is that possible? I’ve actually flown around the world, and it really is round! But everyone has done that. We form our “facts” based on our own experiences. And doing so is the ONLY WAY WE CAN KNOW FOR SURE.

I guarantee you that November 2020 election results need to be based on facts of policies. If results are based on emotion and “maybes,” we may find ourselves soon speaking in Chinese.

Electoral College: Who Decides?

No other part of our election system is as important as the Electoral College. No other part of our election system has come under fire through the years since its establishment than the Electoral College. The furor over its existence ebbs and flows through cycles. But in recent presidential elections that were decided by the voting results of the Electoral College which totals were different than the results of the American popular vote have put discussions about ending the Electoral College front and center again.

It IS controversial. And that controversy in large part is the result of American voters not understanding its structure, its purpose, and its controversy. Those Americans that are confused pretty much all subscribe to the thinking “Why even have it at all, especially when in 2000 the Bush 43 election and then in the 2016 Trump election its results (and ultimately the presidency and vice presidency) were decided by other than popular vote totals of ALL Americans?”

So in all the confusion and misunderstanding, we thought it best to delve into ALL the details of the Electoral College so everyone can participate in educated discourse about its value, its history, and its impact on the country going forward.

Let’s take a look, after which in our Summary we will share OUR conclusions.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College members for each state are voted on by the state’s residents on voting day. In some states, the electors’ names are printed on the ballots directly under the presidential candidates’ names or grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. In other states, the names of electoral college nominees are not even listed on the ballot.

When you vote for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, you are really voting for the electors of the political party (or unaffiliated candidate) by which they were nominated. Take the North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, for example: “A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors.”

This is the case for 48 states. It’s known as the winner-take-all system, where all electors go with the candidate who wins the popular vote regardless of how close the vote is. So if the Democratic candidate narrowly wins the popular vote in Texas, for instance, 38 Democratic electors (38 being the total number of electoral votes in the state) will represent Texas as a voting block.

The other system, known as the congressional district method, is observed in Maine and Nebraska. In these states, the vote is split between the electoral vote which goes to the winner of the statewide popular vote and the congressional district vote. The state is divided into congressional districts, each with one electoral vote. The winner of the popular vote in each district is awarded an electoral vote. Potentially, this could result in a divided electoral vote but so far it has not happened in either state.

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in the state he or she represents, or for the candidate affiliated with his or her political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people’s decision. When electors cast their vote without following the popular vote or their party vote, they are known as faithless electors.

In response to faithless electors’ actions, at least two dozen states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine. For example, the state of North Carolina fines faithless electors $10,000. However, a number of scholars believe such state-level laws would not survive constitutional challenge; of the 158 faithless electors, none have ever been punished.

In most presidential elections, the candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. Some electors abstain from voting, while others vote differently than they pledged to vote. Despite 11th hour changes within the Electoral College, only five candidates in U.S. history have won an election by losing the popular vote and winning (or deadlocking) the electoral vote:

  • 1824: John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, received some 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.
  • 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado’s three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.
  • 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country, he lost by more than 300,000 votes [source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration].
  • In 2000, Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received 50,455,156 votes. The race was so close in Florida that ineffectively punched ballots (known as “hanging chads”) required a manual recount because the voter intent couldn’t be deciphered by machine. Eventually, Bush was awarded the state of Florida by the U.S. Supreme Court and had a total of 271 electoral votes, which beat Gore’s 266 electoral votes.
  • 2016: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million over Donald Trump, the largest margin by a presidential loser in U.S. history. But Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232. He won all the Great Lakes states that traditionally vote Democrat, plus four big battleground states (including Florida and Michigan) by less than 1 percentage point. Clinton had bigger leads in fewer, but more populous states, like California.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Play

Over The Top

According to Rasmussen Reports, as of Thursday, April 11, 2019, 50% of Americans approve of President Trump’s job while 49% disapprove. In light of the incessant negative noise that permeates throughout the United States from media reports, achieving that 50% approval number is significant.

While we are considering thoughts about the President, what about Congress? According to Real Clear Politics polling division, as of April 9, 2019, just 18% of Americans approve of the job performance of members of Congress while 61% disapprove. Why do you think that is? And do you think the media might have something to do with that low approval number for members of Congress?

Let’s look at what Americans think about the media. Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year. Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

To those of us at TruthNewsNetwork, the combined low approval ratings by Americans of members of Congress AND the media are tied directly together. In objectively reviewing both groups, one can reasonably compute that American distrust of its elected leaders AND validity of what the media disseminate daily go hand in hand.

Why?

Great question. Under today’s circumstances, it is critical for Americans — including those in Congress AND the media — to finally and in earnest open discussions to “right the ship” of the distrust of Americans for both groups. Can those honest conversations begin? Will they begin?

If we base our hopes on what happened yesterday (Wednesday) and the day before (Tuesday) that set fires previously unseen in the media and in Congress, our hopes are already dashed! Attorney General Barr in yesterday’s Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing lit the fire when said this:

He actually used the word “Spying!” His saying that has set the media world on fire, also among Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, who said that Attorney General William Barr was “going off the rails,” citing his public testimony over the past two days that appeared to support President Donald Trump’s claims that his campaign was spied on by the intelligence community in 2016.

“How very, very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails,” Pelosi said at the start of Democrats’ annual retreat. “He is the Attorney General of the United States, not the attorney general of Donald Trump,” she said. 

Pelosi’s comments, which followed an Associated Press interview featuring similarly harsh criticism of Barr, followed two days of appearances by the attorney general on Capitol Hill in which he said he wouldn’t provide Congress with an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and raised concerns that the government was “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016.
It came as no surprise that media outlets took the lead from Congressional Democrats and started in on Barr with furor unseen in quite a while. CNN got things started:

CNN — Congressional Democrats are furious over Attorney General William Barr’s statement Wednesday that Donald Trump’s campaign was spied on, accusing the attorney general of mischaracterizing the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation in an effort to please President Donald Trump.

Barr’s comments are likely to ratchet up Democrats’ unease over the attorney general that’s already simmering over Barr’s role in the Mueller investigation and the decision there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice.
“I’m amazed that the AG would make that kind of statement, I think it’s in many ways disrespectful to the men and women who work in the DOJ, and it shows, I think, either a lack of understanding or willful ignorance on what goes into a counterintelligence investigation,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN. “He almost seems to be endorsing one of these theories that have been debunked time and time again by the various, even House Republican-led, investigations trying to show some kind of resentment,” Warner added.
Not to be left out of the relentless attacks on the Attorney General, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) piped in:
Chuck Schumer accused Attorney General William Barr of spreading conspiracy theories on Wednesday after the Justice Department chief said he thinks “spying did occur” on President Trump’s 2016 campaign. In a terse tweet, Schumer demanded a retraction from Barr.

“AG Barr admitted he had no evidence to support his claim that spying on the Trump campaign ‘did occur.’ AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up. Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Reality

If anyone wonders about American distrust of Congress and the media, this back-and-forth unanimous attack by Democrats and members of the media illustrate the reason for the distrust better than any one person can explain. What Congressional Democrats AND members of the media have not even mentioned are the “facts” that are known already. These “facts” are those that have appeared over the last two years as the basis for the investigations of all things going on regarding tampering in the 2016 Election. And there are plenty of pieces of evidence of such that have resulted in ongoing (yet quiet) investigations by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz and former Federal Attorney Jim Huber out in Utah. Those investigations have been quietly underway for more than a year. And the “facts” that initiated those two investigations are the “facts” on which AG Barr based his “Spying” comments in his testimony. Obviously, Democrats and the media ignore those two investigations AND those widely known facts.

What are they? Here are some “Facts:”

  1. The Steele Dossier.  We will not even discuss the details of that expose prepared by former FBI informant Christopher Steele on behalf of the Clinton Campaign who paid Steele for what they called “opposition research.” It was nothing more than a fake story that we just found out had existed for years, but was reshaped and edited to implicate Donald Trump for the Clinton Campaign. We know for certain that dossier was an important part of the FISA warrant application if not THE important information that began the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign that later became a key element of the Mueller Investigation. Former FBI Director Comey testified before Congress that the FBI knew that dossier was unverified as to its truthfulness. Christopher Steele himself testified in court that HE could not verify its validity. And he’s the one who wrote it!
  2. Trump Campaign Surveillance. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers may have notified Team Trump of Obama’s Intelligence Community (James Clapper and John Brennan) spying on their activity. As you look at the FISA request dates below, it’s important to note that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers would be keenly aware of both the June request – Denied, and the October request – Granted.  Pay specific attention to the October request. “October”!.

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

♦ On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held.  Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.

♦ On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

♦ On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.

Remember, historically The Washington Post is the preferred outlet for the CIA and Intelligence Community within Deep State to dump their “leaks” and stories.  The State Department “leaks” to CNN for the same purposes.

♦ On Saturday November 19th Reuters reported on the WaPo Story and additional pressure by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper to fire Mike Rogers.

Many feel that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers didn’t want to participate in the spying scheme (Clapper, Brennan, etc.), which was the baseline for President Obama’s post presidency efforts to undermine Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into the Obama labyrinth underlying his remaining loyalists.  After the October spying operation went into effect, Rogers unknown loyalty was a risk to the Obama objective.  10 Days after the election Rogers travels to President-Elect Trump without notifying those who were involved in the intel scheme.

Did NSA Director Mike Rogers wait for a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) to be set up in Trump Tower, and then notify the President-elect he was being monitored by President Obama?

Summary

It is clear to Americans that there IS plenty of detail exposed to the public in the two-plus years of the Mueller Investigation that it is likely something was going on regarding some type of “spying” on the Trump Campaign. What is still unknown is who did it, what was its purpose(s), and if its implementation and operation was justified under U.S. laws that regulate surveillance of Americans.

It is further clear to Americans that Democrat leadership and media pundits are obviously in the tank for Democrats. How else can one explain how they can possibly justify ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room that has already pooped on the floor? Attorney General Barr simply made it clear that, when he was asked, an investigation into the specific details of that already known surveillance was legal and legitimate.

But the media and Democrats both ignore his revealed purposes AND have done nothing but attempt to destroy the impeccable reputation he developed and earned from both Republicans and Democrats over decades. That’s the way they operate.

“If” they had really listened to the attorney general, and “If” they really cared about truth, they would be instead of attacking Mr. Barr nonstop would be talking about what he stated further into that testimony. As always, we at TruthNewsNetwork have it all for you:

“Later, Barr was asked twice whether he wanted to clarify his statement. Barr first said he wanted to make sure no ‘unauthorized surveillance’ occurred, and then offered up his own clarification at the conclusion of the hearing.

‘I just want to make it clear, thinking back on all the different colloquies here, that I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred,’Barr said. ‘I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.’

When Barr spoke of ‘spying,’ according to a source familiar with his thinking, he meant it in the ‘classic sense’ of intelligence collection. The source said Barr doesn’t view the term as ‘pejorative’ and is focused on where there was proper ‘predication’ for any surveillance. The source said Barr did not use the term ‘spying’ in order to throw red meat to Trump and those who have voiced concerns over surveillance tactics.”

Here’s the sad part of this entire story. Our elected officials — and NOT just Democrats in Congress, but every member of Congress — each take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States. Taking care of U.S. citizens and protecting everything to do with our nation is their Job #1. To that end, they each should be concentrating on those things that come into the lives of Americans that attack the one thing that differentiates our government from other world governments: “The Rule of Law.” That means anytime any law enforcement agency uncovers such a possible attack, prudence AND their oath of office dictates that a true and full investigation must be conducted to either prove the attack was not real and was not going to happen, or to vett details, determine the specifics of the wrongdoing, and guarantee those responsible are brought to justice.

But in this case we watch as members of the media and Congressional Democrats go stark raving crazy because the senior law enforcement official of the United States — Attorney General William Barr — when asked in a Congressional hearing states he is making certain that the acts of surveillance that occurred against the Trump Campaign that are known to have happened were legal, warranted, and conducted in the legal and proper manner. Something’s not right about that!

Would Democrats and the media prefer that even though it is known that such surveillance occurred to turn a blind eye and just ignore the possibility of such surveillance being illegal in nature? Normally the answer would be “Certainly not!” Sadly though, it appears that Democrats and the media don’t want the truth of the matter to be confirmed OR that they want the possible wrongdoing to remain hidden.

THAT’S THE REASON WHY AMERICANS DON’T APPROVE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND DON’T TRUST THE MEDIA TO TELL THE TRUTH!

Play

Democrats Dig In

It was a House Budget Appropriations Subcommittee meeting with Attorney General William Barr. One would think it was the House or Senate Judiciary Committee because Democrats to a person on that subcommittee drilled the Attorney General about the Mueller Report. “Russia, Russia, Russia!” Very little referenced Department of Justice appropriations. Even in her opening remarks, the Chairperson of the full House Appropriations Committee, Nita Lowery (D-NY), attacked the A.G. for not already releasing the full Mueller Report to the World, AND that he chose to send to Congress a 4-page “Summary Letter” — her words, not his — instead of simply releasing the approximate 400-page Mueller Report in its entirety to the American people.

Fortunately for all those members of Congress in the room, Attorney General Barr immediately when asked explained how the report will be released:

  1. It WILL include redactions. Those redactions (according to the A.G.) will occur in 4 specific areas. One is to keep confidential details of the significant number of cases that are currently still being litigated by various courts; Two is pursuant to federal law the redactions will include details of grand jury testimony that legally cannot be released; Three is to protect the identities and details of confidential investigators, their witnesses, and their ongoing investigation details of cases; and Four is the complete details of those who were investigated by the Mueller team but were not implicated or indicted.
  2. A.G. Barr stated his intentions are to color code each redaction in his report so as to identify which of these 4 categories apply to all redacted material.
  3. When asked, the Attorney General stated details of a case decided last week by the Washington D.C. Federal Appeals Court confirming the law that prevents grand jury testimony and identities from being released publicly and that the DOJ will comply with that law.

Under United States law, there are certain details of the report that Barr is prohibited from revealing, including details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime. Bob Mueller indicted 37 people and probably investigated more than that and many of them were not indicted, and material about them can’t be released. That’s NOT an “opinion” of someone at the DOJ — it’s in the law.

One conservative pundit explained Democrats scurry to get the full Mueller report said the Democratic push for the full release of the Mueller report is not a legal argument at this point, but a political one. “Democrats want to know what is in there that is negative about the President, but not negative enough to meet the level of beyond a reasonable doubt that prosecutors have to meet in order to charge him. They don’t need to know it, they want to know it for political reasons.”

Here’s “The Rest of the Story:” The Law

Pursuant to 28 CFR § 600.8: “At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” The counsel’s report is to be “handled as a confidential document as are internal documents relating to any federal criminal investigation.”

The attorney general also has an obligation to share the special counsel’s findings with Congress, although there is no duty to disclose the full report. Under 28 CFR § 600.9(a)(3), the attorney general must provide to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, “to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” According to Barr, “There were no such instances during the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

The regulations are silent on whether the Judiciary Committees can release the reports given to them from the attorney general. With regard to the full special counsel report, the decision is in the hands of the attorney general. Under 28 CFR § 600.9(c), “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”

Democrats “Change” History

You may be old enough to remember the Bill Clinton/Ken Starr Whitewater Investigation that rocked along for years and resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. (Of course, the Senate declined to confirm his impeachment) Under the law that was used to start and operate Ken Starr’s investigation of Clinton, there was NO stipulation regarding the release of Starr’s report when the investigation was completed. Starr chose to release the full report to the public. Democrats went NUTS! Current House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler (D-NY) was a member of Congress at the time and went absolutely mad in public at the release of the full Starr report, and the certainty of the damage that release would do to the Department of Justice and its sources.

Nadler was not by himself. Numerous other Democrats expressed the same feelings. But it’s different in THIS Special Counsel Report. Of course! This president is not a Democrat. Enough said.

“Congress has asked for the entire Mueller report, and underlying evidence, by April 2. That deadline stands,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said last Friday after Barr said he would provide the full Mueller report to Congress by mid-April. “In the meantime, Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material.” He added: “Redactions are unacceptable.

Schiff in making the above statement made a 180 degree turn from his previous stance on the public release of similar information.

 

Schiff (D-CA) is one of several Democrats who blasted then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA), during the last Congress for releasing a GOP memo on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The memo described the unverified Trump “dossier” as critical for obtaining surveillance warrants to spy on a Trump campaign aide. The GOP memo, which was also four pages long, was released in an unredacted and declassified format, with White House approval.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said at the time that President Trump’s decision to release an unredacted version of the memo was a danger to national security. “President Trump has surrendered his constitutional responsibility as Commander-in-Chief by releasing highly classified and distorted intelligence,” Pelosi said in a statement on Feb. 2, 2018. “By not protecting intelligence sources and methods, he just sent his friend Putin a bouquet.”

Following the release of the report, Schiff, who was the ranking member of the committee at the time, joined with Democrats on the committee to declare the GOP memo “risks exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.”

The only difference of current Attorney General Barr NOT releasing the full Mueller Report as written is because the report is regarding an investigation of alleged wrongdoing by members of the Trump Campaign in conjunction with Russia during the 2016 election cycle — a claim that was totally debunked by the Special Counsel.

Democrats reasoning? Totally based on allegations — NO PROOF!

     Schiff and Nadler

One more thought: Democrats Schiff, Swalwell (D-CA) and Nadler have each made subsequent claims — even after the completion of the Mueller investigation in which he found there to be NO wrongdoing by the Trump Campaign — maintain there has been and is absolute evidence of Russian collusion during the election by the Trump Campaign.

It is laughable that these three with their weighty Congressional obligations of leadership and purported claims to embrace full transparency have NEVER offered up to the DOJ or Robert Mueller that evidence they claim to have that implicates the President. In this journalist’s opinion, IF they actually have such evidence that would implicate the President of illegal activities, their NOT providing it in its entirety to DOJ officials or the Mueller investigators would in itself be Obstruction of Justice!

 

Summary

Let’s just be completely honest. Democrats are proving, again and again, they have NO agenda other than doing anything to get rid of Donald Trump. Remember the definition we gave you two years ago that explains the difference between Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republicans? If you don’t remember, here it is again: Republicans do not like it when someone holds opposite political positions than they do. Democrats not only do not like it when someone holds opposite political positions, but they also HATE THE PEOPLE THAT HOLD THOSE VIEWS!

“You’re being a bit cruel, Dan,” some will say. “Democrats just have different ideas.” While that definitely is true, Dems formerly were only too glad to enter into discussions with those with opposing views, respecting the rights of others to disagree. We don’t see that anymore. Democrats have been bolstered in presenting their “alt-left” ideas to the public in a new and dangerous way: media attack dogs have actually weaponized the delivery of Democrat messaging. It all revolves around this theorem: “Of course anyone can hold a differing opinion. But they’re wrong in holding that opinion. And because they don’t believe the same things Democrats do, they are not only wrong, they are evil as are their ideas!”

How can Democrat leaders expect to garner sufficient votes from the American populace to win the Senate and the White House in 2020? As shown in the 2016 presidential election, there are not enough Democrat voters in the nation to give them the margin necessary to win. Are they so bold as to think the current noise and hatred being spewed by the 18 declared Democrat candidates for president in 2020 will make-up enough votes to push them over the top? Surely not! Yet their actions on a daily basis seem to show that is exactly what they are thinking.

Meanwhile, the American economy is soaring, unemployment in every sector is at historical lows, job creation is through the roof, and paychecks are increasing take-home pay for those in the middle class. All of these were promises made by Donald Trump as a candidate that he has somehow through all the noise and venom emanating from the Left put in place for Americans. And the Attack Dogs in the media simply ignore these facts choosing instead to concentrate on one thing: “Dump Trump!”

I’ll close by saying this: I must be stupid. I cannot — try as I do — understand why ANY American voter would support any of the 18 declared Democrat presidential candidates and the two others expected to jump in when all they do is scream AGAINST President Trump, totally ignoring the significant accomplishments listed above and the many others by this administration.

I don’t want to say Democrats are stupid. In fact, I know they are not. But one thing is abundantly clear: “IF” Democrats are NOT stupid if they expect the support of the limited legitimate policies that they are promising to Americans they will implement if elected, they definitely think American voters are stupid!

And you know what? I think I’ve hit on something: I think Democrats not only hate President Trump and all he stands for, I think they feel exactly the same about his conservative supporters!

Play

Donald Trump: He’s Different (Duh!…..)

He Fights

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Here’s my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as did John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality, and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob. I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatred because racial hatred serves the Democrat Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.

I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery, and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality, and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking soldier. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, but he’s also defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN.. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”… Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. They need to respond.

This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper?” Of course, I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it – he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!

Summary

(This is from TruthNewsNet staff)

Here’s the biggest problem in understanding and acceptance of the way the U.S. government functions. The government does NOT operate as a smoothly running machine. It operates more like an ancient Model T that requires constant surveillance to keep it running. Members of Congress are like family members. Mom wants Dad to slow down. She is constantly telling him he’s not paying attention to the road. Kids need to stop every 3 miles for a bathroom break. Meanwhile, they have a flat tire and the engine overheats.

Does that sounda little like the U.S. Government?

Somebody has got to be the “designated driver.” That’s President Trump — at least for the next 2 years. There will be some who are riding in the car that can’t stand the windows down, hate his driving, but they go ahead and ride with him because that’s the only way to get where they need to go.

And the driver — President Trump — always gets them there. That’s really the only thing that matters.

“MAGA” — There are those that try to spin what that stands for into racism, hatred, elitism, etc. But what it stands for is all the promises made by Candidate Trump that he would fulfill if voters elected him President. His promise was “if” he won the presidency, and “if” he was given the opportunities, and “if” Congress would pass applicable laws and fund as necessary, he would “Make America Great Again.” Despite many who detest Mr. Trump, every member of his family, his Cabinet, and Republican leadership in D.C., he’s pretty much accomplished all that he possibly could so far. And most Americans realize that he would have accomplished far more “if” the laws and resources necessary for the other parts of his platform had been made available.

Few can argue that on almost every front, America is much greater in 2019 than it was in 2016. (Oh, they can argue, but not justifiably or truthfully.)

Where does the nation go from here? That’s up to Americans. He’ll be in the driver’s seat for another couple of years. And every day he gets behind the wheel and starts driving down the road. Even with all the complaining and unnecessary pit stops and the occasional flat tire, that Model T keeps moving down the road pretty well.

As far as this American is concerned, that’s the way it’s supposed to happen!

Play

Illegal Voting in our Nation

It is becoming more and more obvious that Democrats are dead-set on finding ways to allow illegals to vote in U.S. elections. Their reasons are many, but all rely on one basic premise that is being confirmed again and again as being true: rank and file Democrats who have voted for their party’s candidates are falling to the wayside. More and more are becoming true independents while many are deciding they are conservatives. This is due in part by the dramatic slide to the left in Democrat Party policies. As an example, economically comparing 1960 J.F.K.’s tax policies to those of this Democrat Party would define President Kennedy as an outright hard right conservative!

Each American understands the dangers in our two-party political system. We will not go into the details of its structure nor the good or evil each possess in their methods, but it IS important for all to understand this one thing: membership in the Democrat Party in America is NOT growing. In fact, their membership is sliding away. Americans can no longer ignore the #Walkaway campaign formed in 2016 that has embraced Democrat Party voters who have become disenfranchised with Democrat policies and candidates and have moved “across the aisle.” This swift yet steady decline in party membership has sent Democrat leaders into a frenzy: “We MUST find Democrat voters!”

That’s the fundamental reason — no, the ONLY reason — Democrats in Congress refuse to honestly and sincerely address the Nation’s unimaginable illegal alien problem: VOTES!

But admitting that is what the Democrats really want, can they get away with somehow allowing non-citizens to vote in United States federal elections? There is evidence of at least 800,000 non-citizens’ votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 actually happening. (see the proof of that in our 3/20/2019 story “Illegal Voters ARE Changing Our Elections”) Democrats certainly “want” that to happen, have already “allowed” it to happen in certain cases, but without changing Constitutional law cannot “allow” illegals to vote in federal elections legally.

But that has NOT stopped them from trying. Like here:

Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2018, only 49 House Democrats voted “Yes” on a resolution ( H. Res. 1071) expressing disapproval of non-citizen illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections, which is a criminal act. 71 Democrats outright voted “No”; 69 Democrats took the cowardly way out by answering “Present”; 4 Democrats refused to take a stance by not voting. In effect, 144 Democrats refused to agree with the resolution that it is wrong for illegal aliens to vote in U.S. elections.
House Resolution 1071, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), states the following:
Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
Whereas voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy;
Whereas the Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age;
Whereas it is of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats and illegal voting;
Whereas the city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections; and
Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
H. Res. 1071, which is not a bill and has no legal power, was passed on Sept. 26, 2018. The roll call vote was 279 Yeas; 72 Nays, 69 Present:
* Republicans: 230 Yeas, 1 Nay, 4 Not Voting
* Democrats: 49 Yeas, 71 Nays, 69 Answered “Present”, 4 Not Voting
The Republican who voted “No” is Justin Amash (Michigan).

But it gets even worse! Fast-forward to March of 2019 and the House now with a Democrat Majority. One California television station reported this:

“The House passage of the For The People Act (H.R.1), a bill designed to improve election integrity by focusing on voting and election laws, campaign finance, and ethics. The bill also defends localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections.
‘It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?’ said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican.
Supporters say the For The People Act expands early voting while simplifying absentee voting. It enhances federal support for voting system security. It expands disclosure requirements for donations and campaign transparency while creating a multiple matching system for small campaign donations. Lastly, it will ease the creation of automatic voter registration rolls as well as restoring voting rights to the formerly incarcerated.
The bill now moves to the Senate where it is highly unlikely to pass, let alone be voted on. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it would not receive any floor time ‘because I get to decide what we vote on.’
San Diego Congressman Scott Peters voted to pass the  For the People Act saying, “These groundbreaking reforms will help us rebuild trust in government. Now, we must continue to work together to solve problems most important to San Diegans and all Americans like climate change, gun violence prevention, access to higher education, comprehensive immigration reform, and more,” said Rep. Peters.
Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi spoke on the importance of passing H.R. 1, ‘So, when we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America.'”

What The U.S. Constitution Says

Which right appears most often in the Constitution’s text?

It’s “the right to vote.”

In voter ID cases all over the country, courts are considering the proper level of “scrutiny” to apply to “burdens” on the right to cast a ballot. In 2008, the Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law, even conceding that it had a partisan basis because it was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. (Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, concurred separately to suggest that the proper level of scrutiny was more like “whatever the legislature wants.”)

Courts will defer to the wishes of legislators who wish to protect the election process. There was no evidence of fraud in the Indiana case; there’s none in the Pennsylvania case or the others currently being heard. State officials claimed to be worried that someone somewhere might think there was fraud.

This is deference to bureaucrats that neither courts nor citizens would tolerate where a right considered truly important is at stake. Consider the right to free speech. The majority in Citizens United brushed aside public perceptions of corruption to allow unlimited “independent expenditures,” even though far more citizens are cynical about campaign donations than about “fraudulent” voters. What about freedom of religion? Would we tolerate licensing of churches so atheists won’t worry that “fraudulent” religion is being practiced?

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, “All individuals have the right to vote.” It simply rules out specific limitations on “the right to vote.” A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn’t really a “right” in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say “here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person,” there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution is more in the “rights-preserving” than in the “rights-proclaiming business.” The First Amendment doesn’t say “every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion.” In the Second, the right to “keep and bear arms” isn’t defined, but rather shall not be “abridged.” In the Fourth, “the right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures” isn’t defined, but instead “shall not be violated.” In the Seventh, “the right of (civil) trial by jury” — whatever that is — “shall be preserved.” And so on.

In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any federal or state election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The Fifteenth states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” can’t be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can’t be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” in federal elections can’t be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote.”

So if our courts treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, they aren’t reading that in the Constitution but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a “right,” but a “privilege” — something granted by the powerful to the deserving.

But the fundamental inferred and stated that CITIZENS are those in the U.S. whose rights to vote “shall not be abridged.” CITIZENS are the only people who can legally vote in federal elections.

Summary: “The Democrat Party Illegal Voting Plan”

Before we summarize and discuss the objective of the Democrat Party as a whole regarding illegal voting, here’s what Independent Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Democrat Party said about criminals’ right to vote WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND BARS:

 “I think that is absolutely the direction we should go. In my state, what we do is separate. You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders explained. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.”

The average American voter cannot understand why Democrats are so resistant to stopping illegal immigration at all costs. In spite of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts committed by illegals against American citizens, Democrats refuse to take whatever legal measures are necessary to stop this criminality! And those Americans want Democrats to work with Republicans to do just that: STOP IT!

Voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats want to stop it. Cutting foreign aid is one tool voters are willing to consider. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious.

One would think Democrats — who will say and do anything to pave the way to seize total control of Congress AND the White House in 2020 — would examine these polls and assist conservatives in creating and implementing immigration legislation to streamline the existing legal immigration laws, shorten the process for immigrants to become U.S. citizens, while ferreting out the gang members, human traffickers, and cartel drug traffickers who are by all accounts flooding across our southern border. Democrats unwillingness to enter this process that MUST begin by demanding enforcement of ALL immigration laws prove their objective can be one and only one thing: get enough illegals into the U.S. and find ways to surreptitiously insert them in the election system to vote in the 2020 federal election. There can be NO other explanation for Dems resistance.

Oh, they couch it with fake stories about caring for the abused and poor who inhabit Central American countries that wish only to find a “better life” for their family members. How can we say their charitable feelings are fake? If they REALLY care for those people with legitimate issues mentioned above, they would DEMAND immediate repair to the U.S. immigration system so as to pave the way for the American Dream these immigrants supposedly desire — and many do.

What price is being paid for Democrats open-border policies? Forget about the hundreds of billions of dollars. Just look back at our stories about illegal immigration from March of this year to get statistics that validate the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts perpetrated by illegals against American citizens. They range from purse-snatching to auto theft, assault and battery, all the way to child sex trafficking, rape, and murder. AMERICANS ARE PAYING THE PRICE DEMOCRATS FORCE US TO PAY FOR THEIR QUEST TO GET NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS! And the price is often the losses of our sons and daughters.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: how many more must die, be trafficked, robbed, assaulted, or raped before you think enough is enough and that Americans should NOT have to beg you to stop the criminality at the southern border?

I close with this: Isn’t it a travesty that Americans even have the need to have a conversation because our elected officials want ICE and U.S. Customs to simply turn their backs on illegals flooding across our southern border? Democrats are hoping that “Mob Rule” will cause our resistance to illegals to crumble and that Americans will just say, “OK. We give up. Let’s just give them all blanket amnesty and citizenship.”

Members of Congress: Are you going to continue to allow that to happen?

 

 

Play

In The Beginning…

We’re two years in and now with the completion of the Mueller investigation, and at least six months more investigating by the FBI pre-Mueller. We have a Mueller declaration of no-finding of collusion with Russia on the part of the Trump Campaign and also no finding of obstruction of justice. And you know what else? We still don’t know how and who started this entire war against Donald Trump!

There are many ideas being thrown about by very intelligent people who certainly have access to a bunch of government intelligence that folks like you and me do not. But even those people have come up empty — “so far.” But how could that be? I’m an amateur in all this investigating stuff. But I am a researcher. And using all of TruthNewsNetwork’s considerable contacts for inside information, we have come up empty as well. But we’ve stumbled onto something that is the first piece of concrete information we’ve identified in this cesspool of Washington D.C. regarding this concerted and coordinated effort to unseat a sitting President.

Who has the power to bring to bear the considerable resources necessary to orchestrate such an attack and potentially win a battle to drive Donald Trump out of Washington? Who can do so and keep quiet his or her involvement in it for two years plus?

The book with the answers to this is still not on the menu at Amazon. But someone who very few expected has turned on a light — a bright spotlight — on this entire situation. And that someone has come forward with a big bunch of answers.

We have those answers to your “Mueller-Trump Debacle” questions. And we are bringing them to you straight from the proverbial “horse’s mouth.” This is about 24 minutes long. But once you begin this, you will NOT turn it off. In fact, you’ll watch and listen and again and again and again. Better yet, you’ll tell someone elsewhere to go to watch and listen for themselves.

So, here we go! I suggest you don’t turn this on until you know you can do so in twenty-four uninterrupted minutes. Then we’ll get together to summarize what we’ve seen and heard. Here with what happened “In The Beginning” is Dan Bongino.

Summary

If you did not know already, Dan Bongino was a longtime Secret Service Agent, New York policeman, has a widely viewed daily podcast and is a regular FOX News contributor. He also ran for Congress in Maryland. He like few has access to those who work inside the federal government — some currently and many formerly with various Intelligence Departments.

Now that you have listened and watched to this narrative, think back: how often did we maintain with our deductive reasoning that the chain of responsibility had to far up the chain of power in Washington — all the way to the White House. But think it through: all of the “leaks” of data and information by the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, and others had to be initiated by not just a flunkie on the White House staff. Someone with access to the Oval Office had to be in that loop. In the Obama Administration, that narrowed the group of those possible to Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Senior “Handler” Valerie Jarrett, or Michelle Obama. But even if one or several of these were included in that information stream, none would have initiated it. It has to be President Obama himself.

So what happens now? Certainly, federal attorney Jim Huber in Utah who was given the green light in 2017 to investigate all things to do with the Clinton Campaign, the 2016 election, and all illegalities that may have occurred regarding any of these, has unearthed facts that will document these conclusions. Additionally, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is deep into a separate investigation. Most do not realize that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions authorized Jim Huber to use all of the federal resources directed by the Inspector General that are necessary to get to the bottom of all this. Those resources: 400+ federal attorneys already engaged in this in the Department of Justice.

What happens now? There is very little left to occur but the exposure of those involved in this non-military coup to remove a duly elected President from office.

One final note: many think some of those 70,000 sealed federal indictments issued since October 27, 2017, are for some of these people mentioned above and others that participated in this operation. It is certain that those indictments are for very serious wrongdoing by a bunch of people. In American history, there have NEVER been more than 3000 such indictments issued in any 12-month period.

When will we find out? It certainly will be soon. But here at TruthNews Network, we are confident this entire matter has never been seen before in American history. It runs really deep, and it involved hundreds of people. When revealed, many people who we know well with lengthy political histories in D.C. will be named.

I think we’re seeing the layers of the onion being peeled already. How many layers and how many in each layer is still to be determined. One thing is certain: as the onion layers are peeled away, there will be many tears for those guilty of wrongdoing.

Then maybe — just maybe — we can allow this President to get about the business of America for which he was elected.

Mysterious Disappearances

The coordinated vitriol from the Left has been deafening during the entirety of the 2016 Presidential election campaign period and continued through the Trump Administration. No reasonable person can claim that someone somewhere is “passing out” Leftist talking points that are parroted by Democrat lapdogs in the media and Democrat politicians themselves.

Want an example? Google this: “Attorney General Barr is Trump’s hand-picked attorney general choice.” I’ve heard that from at least a dozen House Democrats and Leftist news anchors.

Why would that be unusual? Just name one Attorney General in U.S. history who WASN’T hand-picked by the President in office at the time! They all are.

But there have been far more than just that one example of coordination in political messaging. We’ve seen and heard them all. Am I complaining about that? Absolutely not! Let’s face it: coordination of all kinds in governing is an admirable trait that Democrats have perfected. Congressional Democrat leadership has been amazingly effective at keeping their caucus united, especially when it comes to hot political topics that are seen as being advantageous to the attraction of voters. Republicans have been absolute failures at doing so.

What else has been obvious is that of late many Conservative noise-makers have grown suddenly quiet on the national stage. I wonder why that is? Where have they gone? Doesn’t the media have an obligation to bring news — ALL news — to the American people?

I have thought it through for more than a year. Apparently so has FOX News’ Tucker Carlson. He recently penned a column about that very subject. We at TruthNewsNet could not make these “disappearances” more understandable than did Carlson.

Ever notice how certain people have started to disappear? Not vagrants or runaways, the usual missing persons. But fairly prominent, well-educated people with dissenting political opinions. One day you’re watching or reading them online. The next time you check, they’re gone. You can’t find their videos. They’re not showing up in your Facebook feed. Suddenly you can’t buy their books on Amazon.

You Google them to find out what happened and discover they’ve been banned. They’re being called dangerous extremists, bigots and Nazis. For the public good, they’ve been shut down. Disappeared.

You’re a little surprised to hear this. They didn’t seem evil or radical to you. They were just free thinkers, saying something a little different from the party line on CNN. You don’t complain about it, though. You don’t want anyone to know you were watching forbidden videos. There’s a penalty for that.

This is what an authoritarian society looks like. It’s a place where the group in charge will tolerate no criticism at all. That’s what we’re becoming.

It was only a matter of time before they came for Fox News. Of the top dozen news networks in the United States, only Fox has an alternative view. The other channels speak with one voice. They are united on every issue, every time. They’re in almost perfect sync with the priorities of the Democratic Party.

Fox News stands apart. The opinion shows on this channel have another perspective. You might consider that valuable diversity, something different in a sea of sameness. The left does not think that. They would like Fox News shut down tomorrow. The other news channels agree. They would like that too. They are trying to do it now.

It’s worth explaining how the process of banning ideas works, the means by which so many voices have already been silenced. The first step is defining political disagreement as a mortal threat to the country. Something that’s dangerous. That’s the job of a group called the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization whose name intentionally masks its role as an enforcer for the Democratic establishment.

Groups or individuals who challenge the official story on virtually any subject find themselves designated as a “hate group” by the SPLC. This is a handy way to crush your political enemies. By definition, hate groups don’t have legitimate ideas or positions. They spew only hate. You don’t have to listen to them or debate their claims. You can ignore everything they say. Your only duty is to suppress them. That’s the beauty of the SPLC: Once they call the people you disagree with a “hate group,” you can immediately move to shut them up by force. That’s what they do.

That’s where Media Matters comes in. Media Matters is a George Soros-funded lobbying organization whose sole mission is to punish critics of the Democratic Party. Media Matters often uses propaganda from the Southern Poverty Law Center to bully corporations, news executives and tech companies into punishing people it doesn’t like. Not surprisingly, the media love Media Matters.

One former Media Matters employee described the group’s relationship with MSNBC this way: “We were pretty much writing their primetime.” When Media Matters issued a press release, MSNBC picked it up “verbatim.” Media Matters staffers once explained the organization’s close relationship with many journalists in the national press corps were vast. Here are some quotes:

“Greg Sargent of the Washington Post will write anything you give him.”

“Ben Smith [now at Buzzfeed] will take stories and write what you want him to write.”

“The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate.”

“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff.”

“Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”

Brian Stelter has since left the New York Times. He’s now more CNN spokesman than journalist, specializing in announcing proclamations from his boss, Jeff Zucker. He takes his talking points from Media Matters.

“It’s about decency!” cries Stelter. “We must have decency!” By which, Stelter means, less disobeying. More obedience. “Stop criticizing the program!” Or else.

This is the face of state media. Why does Fox even exist, they wonder. We’ve got 11 other perfectly good channels, all of them approved by management and obedient to the people in charge. How could anybody watch something different? Fox can’t be legitimate. They must be lying. Their viewers must be stupid. Listen to “Don L’Mon” and the New York governor’s brother tell you why Fox News shouldn’t even be allowed:

Don Lemon, CNN anchor: As journalists, we have to give you the facts, but what happens there (at Fox) is you don’t talk about the substance of what you said or if it’s factual or not. You don’t talk about that. What you do is you say “Everybody’s out to get me. Everyone is out to get conservatives … They just say, “There’s outrage on the left, and they have Trump derangement syndrome” without ever addressing the substance.


Chris Cuomo: They’re not about facts. They’re about feelings.

Lemon: And then their audience just eats it up. “Yeah! that’s right!” Not even caring about the facts.

Don L’Mon is calling you dumb. Savor the moment. But there’s an ominous undertone to all this.

Don L’Mon doesn’t have the power to have you arrested. Dana Nessel does. Nessel is the attorney general of Michigan. She has created a special “hate crime unit,” whose charter is to investigate any organization identified as a “hate group” by the SPLC. This is what weaponized politics looks like. Criticize the people in charge, and the SPLC will sick men with guns on you. It’s terrifying.

Even worse, you’re subsidizing it, without knowing it. Both the SPLC and Media Matters are, amazingly, tax-exempt organizations. In its original tax application to the IRS, Media Matters claimed that the American news media were dominated by a pro-Christian bias and that they were needed to balance it. Despite the obvious absurdity of this claim, the group received non-profit status. It has been violating the terms of that status ever since.

During the Obama administration, Media Matters held weekly strategy discussions with the White House about how to hurt its political enemies. Media Matters kept an “enemies list” of Republicans to destroy, including Steve King of Iowa. This is a violation of federal tax law. Tax-exempt non-profits can’t function as an arm of a political party. Media Matters clearly does.

According to a piece in the liberal magazine The New Republic, Media Matters changed its mission during the 2016 Democratic primaries to campaign for Hillary Clinton. We were “running defense for Clinton,” one Media Matters staffer said. “Defending Hillary from every blogger in their mother’s basement.” In a leaked 2015 memo from inside Clinton’s campaign, staff discussed cooperating with Media Matters to attack Republicans and accuse the press of biased coverage.

In an email from January 5, 2016, Hillary’s staff discussed working with Media Matters to counter a Vanity Fair article on Huma Abedin. “We have Media Matters and core surrogates lined up, which we can expand on tomorrow,” the email read.

This isn’t just unethical. It’s illegal. Under IRS regulations, 501(c)(3), non-profits are totally prohibited from participating in the campaigns of political candidates. Media Matters broke the law. The group has never been punished. It retains its tax-exempt status.

That means you and every other taxpayer are subsidizing attacks on their own First Amendment. Why is this? How can this be happening? Someone should call the IRS and find out.

Democrat Attack: The Rule of Law

Americans are growing numb to the Trump attacks at the hands of Congressional Democrats. That numbness we are experiencing is real, but its impact is lessening everyday because its use by Dems is incessant and just morphs into a newer version almost daily. That is a dangerous thing: it’s much like the frog and the pot of boiling water. Put a frog in a pot of boiling water and the frog quickly jumps to safety. Put that frog in a pot of cold water and slowly increase the water’s heat and the frog will stay in the pot until it’s too late. For Americans, the pot contained cold water at the beginning of the Trump Administration, but Dems have steadily turned up the heat.  Their attacks are obviously all aimed at Mr. Trump. But in doing so, we are watching a planned and coordinated attack against the Rule of Law. And conservative Americans are ALL in their sights with the President.

What is The Rule of Law?

The rule of law is a framework of laws and institutions that embody four universal principles:

1. Accountability
The government, as well as private actors, are accountable under the law.

2. Just Laws
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons, contract and property rights, and certain core human rights.

3. Open Government
The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient.

4. Accessible & Impartial Dispute Resolution
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are accessible, have adequate resources and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Before we move forward in this conversation, it is important for us to break-down the specifics of Law so we can relate them directly to today’s United States legal operations by our government and exactly what House Democrats are really up to.

  • Constraints on Governments Powers measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional and institutional, by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and held accountable under the law. It also includes non-governmental checks on the government’s power, such as a free and independent press. Governmental checks take many forms; they do not operate solely in systems marked by a formal separation of powers, nor are they necessarily codified in law. What is essential, however, is that authority is distributed, whether by formal rules or by convention, in a manner that ensures that no single organ of government has the practical ability to exercise unchecked power.
  • The absence of Corruption measures the absence of corruption in a number of government agencies. The factor considers three forms of corruption: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. These three forms of corruption are examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch, the judiciary, the military and police, and the legislature, and encompass a wide range of possible situations in which corruption – from petty bribery to major kinds of fraud – can occur.
  • Open Government measures open government defined as a government that shares information, empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. The factor measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicized, and evaluates the quality of information published by the government. It also measures whether requests for information held by a government agency are properly granted.
  • Fundamental Rights measures the protection of fundamental human rights in the United States. It recognizes that a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under the U.S. Constitution is at best “rule by law,” and does not deserve to be called a “rule of law” system.
  • Order and Security measures how well society assures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of any rule of law society and a fundamental function of the state. It is also critical in the realization of the rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance.
  • Regulatory Enforcement measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. Regulations, both legal and administrative, structure behaviors within and outside of the government. Strong rule of law requires that these regulations and administrative provisions are enforced effectively and are applied and enforced without improper influence by public officials or private interests.
  • Civil Justice measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. The delivery of effective civil justice requires that the system be accessible and affordable, free of discrimination, free of corruption, and without improper influence by public officials.
  • Criminal Justice evaluates the criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule of law, as it constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances and bring an action against individuals for offenses against society. Effective criminal justice systems are capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal offenses successfully and in a timely manner, through a system that is impartial and non-discriminatory and is free of corruption and improper government influence.

Clear Enough?

It certainly should be. Each area detailed in the above simple explanation of the Rule of Law is critical for the process of government that sets the U.S. apart from every other country on Earth is critical and MUST exist in tandem with the others. Without each and every one of them in force and adhered to in every area of government, NO government can truly be a democratic republic that promises “equal justice under the law.” 

Folks, we’re not in danger of losing that justice, IT’S ALREADY GONE!

How can I say that? It hasn’t been hidden very well. Its demise began decades ago while we benignly sat by and allowed it. We turned our eyes away from day-to-day government operations in D.C. We trusted our lawmakers to do the right things. As we watched, a seedy group of unscrupulous politicrats (Who together invented the perpetuity in positions of power that they solely control) quietly enacted a “new” legal system totally controlled by that group of elites. And it is in full operation.

Have you wondered how the FBI senior staff could almost en masse collude to perpetrate a coup against this sitting President who was duly elected? And they did it with impunity! Have you wondered why it has been so difficult for the “white hats” in Congress to obtain — even through subpoenas — documents, testimony, and other evidence of the “alleged” wrongdoing by many of those elites? How have people like Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, and dozens and dozens of others skated through the most egregious non-military takeover of the American government while we Americans simply slept while they did it? And that doesn’t even take into account the “leaders” of that coup — the only ones that could have originated the idea, built the operation, put it in motion and managed it to its end: Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. THEY ARE IN THIS THING UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS!

Summary

Our only hope is that enough of the 60+ million Americans who were awakened during the Trump campaign, had their eyes opened (at least to some small degree) to the horrors and illegalities that were underway right before our eyes and voted to keep that “cartel” from completing the government takeover began by the Clintons during their 8 years, and put in full gear during Obama’s 8, are still watching this horror as it is revealed one page at a time. (Yes there was a momentary pause in their plan during Bush 43)

Is there still time? I believe there is. But I’m not certain of that. Fortunately, Americans are in large part still a creative lot. There are enough free-thinkers that refuse to swallow the Leftist Koolaid of Socialism being peddled by the Democrat Party to right the ship, IF the “white hats” (the “good guys”) are allowed to continue the digging up and exposing those wrongdoers.

What can go wrong? Plenty! If this Democrat Party has its way, their attempted coup which is with total impunity attacking EVERY part of the Rule of Law we detailed above will take this country down. Even right now — today — the U.S. has lost a large part of its freedom. And they want to steal the balance. How?

  • Democrat hypocrisy in governing. Remember their glorification of their “savior” Robert Mueller? They even attempted to pass legislation to keep Trump from interfering with or even firing Robert Mueller. Then his report (though we haven’t seen it yet) apparently exonerates President Trump. And now those same Dems want Mueller’s head!
  • They seriously intend to force President Trump to release his tax returns. There is absolutely NO law that allows them to do that! Can you imagine a United States in which someone — ANYONE — can petition the IRS to release YOUR tax returns? Yet these Democrats are doing just that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez actually tweeted a threat to the President today about that, saying “We didn’t ASK you to release your returns.” In other words, she was saying they TOLD the President to do so. As if Congress has such authority!
  • They are more and more loudly shouting and demanding the release of the FULL, unredacted Mueller report, saying they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. They do that when it is already clear: there IS American law contained within the Special Counsel statute THAT PROHIBITS DOING SO! It is imperative to protect the hundreds of Americans whose grand jury testimony could potentially damage the reputations of those who were NOT indicted in that investigation. Remember: 500 witnesses testified; only 37 people were indicted. But Democrats don’t care!

If these attacks and Democrats intentions are allowed to be carried out, privacy of working class Americans will be gone: FOREVER! Once that liberty is taken by Big Brother, he will NEVER give it back.

There are enough guys who wear the “white hats” to take this on who are willing to “take one for the team” if necessary. Chief among them is Donald Trump. Let’s face it: I cannot think of one other Republican who ran that if elected, would have had the staying power this President has. It is simply amazing to watch how he refuses to cave even with the non-stop harassment he and his family sustain every day.

Encourage all you know to ferret out the truth in everything they hear spewed by each arm of the Democrat Party: The House of Representatives, and the Mainstream Media. Every conservative needs to turn up the volume in conversations with those with whom they interface when discussing these political matters. Remaining silent will allow the Rule of Law to be killed — permanently.

”Pray for all those who are in authority over you.” That is NOT instructions from TruthNewsNetwork. That’s from the Bible. I encourage all to make that a daily practice — including EVERYONE in authority. You cannot skip those with whom you disagree when you pray. In doing so, hold on to this:

”The effective and continual prayer of my people will bring to pass what is asked for in those prayers.”

Managing Crisis and Chaos

“I finally figured out that not every crisis can be managed. As much as we want to keep ourselves safe, we can’t protect ourselves from everything. If we want to embrace life, we also have to embrace chaos.”
Susan Elizabeth Phillips

Wouldn’t the world be a much better place for us all if we knew factually that no matter what crisis we ever face, we can work right through each every time they show up?  Count my vote as “Yes” for that ability.

Everyone faces a crisis at some point in their life. Every company and organization deals with a crisis every once in a while. Unsuccessfully understanding and dealing with a crisis every time leads to chaos. Chaos will destroy any organization, individual, or even a family if not dealt with promptly and thoroughly. Leaving loose-ends in any crisis is suicide for the entity or individual to which it occurs.

Most Americans universally feel like the U.S. government is in a state of chaos right now, ushered in by both real and unreal crises. No doubt there are a plethora of issues that come up daily in governmental operations. That has and always will be ”business as usual.” The difference today is that an always-critical media shines a continuous spotlight on everything to do with our government, but not always with an objective purpose in mind. They often, it seems, are agenda-driven in crisis reporting. And their interpretations are too.

We have several “crisis of the month,” “crisis of the week,” or “crisis of the day” it seems in perpetuity. And we have one boiling over today. Are you surprised?

“Selective” Outrage: Congressman Steve King

A few weeks ago, we looked in to see a GOP Congressman chastised, excoriated, derided, and benched from House committees for speech:

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was stripped of his committee assignments by his fellow House Republicans Monday evening following bipartisan condemnation of King’s recent remarks on white supremacy and white nationalism.

“We will not tolerate this type of language in the Republican Party … or in the Democratic Party as well,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters. “I watched what Steve King said and we took action.”

In a formal statement, McCarthy said King’s comments were “beneath the dignity of the Party of Lincoln and the United States of America. His comments call into question whether he will treat all Americans equally, without regard for race and ethnicity. House Republicans are clear: We are all in this together, as fellow citizens equal before God and the law. As Congressman King’s fellow citizens, let us hope and pray earnestly that this action will lead to greater reflection and ultimately change on his part.”

In a statement of his own, King insisted that his comments had been “completely mischaracterized” and blasted McCarthy for what King called “a political decision that ignores the truth.” According to his website, King was previously a member of House committees on the judiciary, agriculture and small business.

A senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives getting stripped of prestigious committee assignments is a really big deal, believe me. It wasn’t just fellow Republicans, of course, the anti-conservative Mainstream Media weighed in:

Congressman King was not the only member of Congress who in this very young 2019 stepped across the “racist faux pas” line.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

 Freshman representative from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, cheerfully repeated this anti-Semitic trope, implying that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, pays politicians to support Israel. Top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have called on Omar to “reject anti-Semitism in all forms,” according to The Washington Post, while Republicans have argued that her comments reveal the depth of anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party. “I unequivocally apologize,” Omar said in a tweeted statement. “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA, or the fossil-fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

The CBS Evening News gave this scathing analysis of Omar’s actions:

Who Determines When Outrage in D.C. is Justified?

That requires an answer if we are to understand when outrage in D.C. is real. And that answer in today’s news cycle is easy: whoever is writing or broadcasting about that specific “outrage of the day!” But we, unfortunately, can narrow that answer even further: if President Trump is involved, it’s ALWAYS an outrage — not so much Democrat leaders in Washington or Democrats anywhere else in the U.S.

Here’s the scary thing about all this: remember the little boy who cried “Wolf?” He did it so often his audience was numbed to his cries. So when there really was a wolf and he cried, no one paid attention. In the case of Donald Trump, more and more Americans are growing “Wolf-numbed” at the constant attacks on the President and all in his camp. And it’s beginning to appear that Democrats are trapped in the “wolf” mode, and that they cannot get out of it.

America is dangerously close to watching as their government loses all of its once amazing power and credibility. Our elected officials have abandoned all reason in governing and have simply walked away from integrity. Political partisanship dominates every conversation, every policy discussion, and every legislative item. If Democrats like it or think it is good, Republicans automatically reject it as worthless for the American people. The opposite is true in the same way.

And we wonder why Congress gets very little done? Take a look at the current fallout from the release of the Mueller Report.

Integrity in D.C.

What a joke! Democrats and Republicans alike must literally think Americans have not discovered YouTube yet. EVERYTHING — yes EVERYTHING — that is said by legislators shows up in a YouTube video. Yet still members of Congress double and triple down on lies that are exposed over and over via some recorded news report or interview. And by doing so they expose one thing to Americans: THEY SIMPLY DON’T CARE! They say what they say when they say it in total disregard of what they have said about  the same issue previously. That can be for only one reason: they think Americans are so stupid we don’t remember!

That comes as no surprise to me. Don’t agree? Want some examples?

In 2017, Adam Schiff and fellow Dems went bonkers at the release by Congressman Devin Nunez of a Memo. Schiff stated that by doing so, “Congressman Nunes was ignoring the serious nature of the information contained in the memo that would certain jeopardize national security interests of the U.S.” Nunes sent the memo to the President for his final approval before its release to the public.

That was Congressman Schiff then voicing his concerns about sensitive information being released publicly and that doing so would damage national security. But today, Schiff is singing a different song about the same issues:

Schiff has maintained his strong belief that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, after the nearly two-year probe came to an end last week without directly implicating the president.“

“Undoubtedly there is collusion,” Schiff told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “We will continue to investigate the counterintelligence issues. That is, is the president or people around him compromised in any way by a hostile foreign power? … It doesn’t appear that was any part of [special counsel Robert] Mueller’s report.”

Schiff made these demands without SPECIFIC knowledge of what is contained in Robert Mueller’s 300+ page report, knowing full well that names of individuals who are undercover intelligence operatives are contained in the counterintelligence report. Further, their demands include for full release of grand jury testimony which is illegal without a presiding judge’s full approval to do so.

Schiff’s doing so — especially in light of his charade in 2017 to NOT release that memo because of national security damage — proves he does NOT care what his previous position on any issue was. All that matters is what Democrats want today.

Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY) who is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee went bonkers during the Bill Clinton impeachment matter when Ken Starr was pressured to release his report on the Lewinsky Scandal to the public. Nadler demanded the report be released only to members of Congress.

Imagine Nadler’s position today looking at a report release from the OTHER side of the aisle. He has actually threatened President Trump, Attorney General Barr, and others with criminal subpoenas if the entire report is not only released in full, BUT BY THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK!

Summary

There is no doubt there has been, still is, and will be for years to come all-out crisis and chaos in Washington D.C. Why is that so? Because partisanship is the only thing lawmakers can think of to try and maintain their upper hand in negotiations of any kind regarding any issue (no matter how large or small) so as to give their minions the appearance that they are working hard for the People. Poppycock!

What is encouraging for conservatives to note, however, is that in spite of what Democrats want Americans to believe, Donald Trump did not bring Crisis and Chaos to D.C. the day of his inauguration. He didn’t bring it at all. IT WAS ALREADY THERE! What Donald Trump did was from Day #1 shine a light of exposure on all the chaos and every crisis every day! His using Twitter to circumvent the Drive-By media and take his message directly to the American People is the reason the nation awakened to the fact that there IS Crisis and Chaos in D.C. Further, Americans now understand sending Donald Trump — the “Fixer” — to D.C. was the right thing to do to tackle both Chaos and Crisis. Why? Because his history is getting things done.

He certainly has gotten things done, hasn’t he!

What happens when the light gets turned on in the middle of the night in the kitchen? Roaches scramble to get away from the light.

Those D.C. roaches are getting bright light in their eyes everyday! And (hopefully) they’ll see the same light every night for the next 5+ years!