Ominous Clouds Over Heretofore Guiltless Obama Administration

FOX News with the following headline set the stage for what appears to be a slow march up the hill to the castle by villagers with torches ablaze:

“Who could be in Durham’s investigative crosshairs? Obama-era figures have reason to sweat.”

During the first three years of the Trump presidency, those on the left still continuously hurl allegations against the President that run the gambit from treason, collusion with Russia, to calling a dead terrorist a dog. All of these portend the end of American civility in politics — as if civility in politics even exists.

This has been expected for a couple of years now. But until just recently, the alleged wrongdoing of those individuals from the Obama Administration — primarily those from Intelligence agencies that remained as part of the Trump Administration — seemed to be lost to those investigating. This followed the release of the abusive emails and texts between Peter Strozk and Lisa Page, along with a secret agenda of many holdover-Obama-officials committed to the destruction of the Trump presidency. It seemed to most that it all was to be forgiven — or at least forgotten. But apparently, that is no longer the case.

Who are the most likely targets of Federal Attorney John Durham of Connecticut who Attorney General William Barr assigned to follow-up on alleged wrongdoing at the inception of the Russia Collusion story? The likely Durham targets are former CIA Director John Brennan, reputed to be responsible for giving the infamous Steele Dossier to former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to pass to the FBI, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who is now a CNN contributor, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Justice Department officials Bruce and Nellie Ohr, previous #2 at the FBI Andrew McCabe, and a host of other upper-level management members. The person who was not named above and who many thought was “a” if not “the most” significant player in the apparent Trump Russia hoax was former FBI Director James Comey.

James Comey

On Friday, October 25th, Former FBI Director James Comey stated that if President Trump won the 2020 election, he would leave the United States and move to New Zealand. Comey has since being fired been on a whirlwind tour promoting his book, giving speeches to groups around the world, and has been a favorite for Democrats who have sought to use Mr. Comey to fuel the fires of Trump impeachment. New Zealand has some pretty stringent rules about accepting outsiders to become permanent residents in their country. And with the continuous cloud of allegations over James Comey, one wonders why former Director Comey would even mention that in his recent speech. But after a blockbuster revelation, it seems likely that “if” New Zealand had considered offering Comey residency, his invitation may be either withdrawn if it has been offered. Why is that? Mr. Comey’s new address may have a federal prison zip code.

Listen carefully to this disclosure regarding Mr. Durham’s ongoing investigation as it pertains to James Comey and others:

Many will find it puzzling that Comey would cooperate with John Durham in this entire matter. Comey has, from the beginning, brazenly staked out his position on moral high ground regarding all of his actions about President Trump. Comey took his termination at the hand of the President as a shot to his enormous ego and has  relished invitations to any stage, television camera, or microphone to demean President Trump whenever possible.

And then there’s his book. Have you read it? In A Higher Loyalty, Comey has made it clear that even though he’s spent most of his career in government, he sees himself as a different, more noble creature than the politicians around him. His superior “self attitude” is very evident. Take the choice Comey faced, as described in his book, about what to do after President Trump urged him in a private meeting to “see his way” to letting ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn go without charges. He could have passed on the president’s instruction and urged the investigators to turn their attention elsewhere. To rebel, he could have moved on the president’s remarks as possible evidence in the investigation — or ordered the bureau to start investigating Trump himself.

He did neither. Instead, he recorded the conversation in a memo but deliberately didn’t tell the people working on the Russia investigation about it because he wanted the investigation to unfold precisely as it would have in the absence of presidential pressure.

This illustrates the James Comey, who was terminated by a President, who, as FBI Director had already joined a concerted effort with others from the FBI and the DOJ to overturn a presidency put in office by the votes 63 million Americans. He never gave thought to what that might cost the nation, do to those American voters, or the Rule of Law. Comey proved his opinion directed all matters concerning the 2016 election and its results. That opinion? Comey knew best who should at least NOT be President: Donald J. Trump.

My Two Cents

I have always been an unrepentant “Truther” — an American who believes not only in the power of Truth but that, when allowed, Truth will always be revealed. We’ve  seen that happen again and again in our nation, in world politics, and in our personal lives. To that end, I have, for most of my life, refused to embrace desperation when uncontrollable circumstances seemed to potentially be fatal. I’ve always held firm in the face of dire circumstances content to wait patiently for Truth to ride in on a white horse and save the day.

My Mom and Dad thought I was gullible because of that. They didn’t understand. I have always been an optimist. And often, embracing that has proven costly. It’s cost me credibility, personal and business status, and job advancement. In my own company, believing naively in others cost a lot of money and caused much angst to my family because of my naivete. Not surprisingly, however, is that in every such circumstance, Truth has always shown up. It may have come too late to save my credibility, a job or a job promotion, and certainly a lot of money — in a case or two more than a million dollars. But it has always arrived at the right time.

Do you know what has accompanied Truth every time it has shown up in these dire circumstances? The joy of knowing that I did what I felt was right and best. And I always gave others the benefit of the doubt. Any lies, gross misrepresentations of others in business deals, (even criminality in several transactions) were never about my succumbing to temptation to say or do what was necessary to close a deal. The wrongdoing was of others. If there was naivete, it was on my part. More often than not, the sting of being taken advantage of disappeared whenever the light of Truth exposed the evil of others.

That’s a pretty good feeling.

And one more thing: as a Christian, I’ve always operated with the belief that if I act honestly, avoiding even hints of misrepresentation, God will always give me the benefit of any doubt and will always protect me. Sure, I’ve been lacerated, beaten up, and scarred several times. But the scars, bruises, and knife wounds, along with the mental anguish of being used, all have healed. And I can sleep with a clear conscious without looking over my shoulder every day.

I wonder if James Comey can say the same things?


So what’s next for Mr. Comey? I don’t know for sure. But I can surmise what might be ahead, based on past examples of federal law. Let’s suppose together what might be ahead for James:

  • Lawyering Up. No doubt, he is about to be on the receiving end of what he has forced on many others during his FBI career. Legal defense in federal matters is astronomically expensive. He can expect to spend $500,000 to $1 million on a defense team. But don’t fret: he can afford it. His $2 million book advance set his net worth at approximately $14 million. He’ll survive.
  • Public testimony. That would probably not be foreboding for most. But Comey is not only arrogant and proud, but he is also narcissistic and cares deeply for the opinions of others. His position at the FBI was one in which he felt superior (at least professionally) to not only those who worked for him at the FBI, but to all those from the private and public legal sectors. Comey will view his probable Congressional and courtroom testimonies as public humiliation that for him is undeserved. He is not one that processes humiliation well.
  • Plea Bargaining or a Trial. Neither is a good option for Mr. Comey. Whichever of these he chooses, he will view as a defeat. He is, by nature, a fighter. And he relishes the fight as much, if not more, than the result of the battle. But in both bargaining regarding potential jail time or the inevitable humiliation of a trial, James Comey will be confronted with the worst life circumstances that any narcissistic federal prosecutor could face: either would be a total failure.

Don’t think for one moment each of these possibilities — and probably many others  — have not already consumed James Comey’s thoughts. He’s at a dead-end for which he has no easy way to turn.

So what will James Comey do? He may already be doing it: cutting a deal. There are plenty of players  in this fiasco which James Comey can “give” to Mr. Durham. Unfortunately for Jim, he is the biggest fish in this pond called “Get Donald Trump.” I think his bargaining chits are very few. And I doubt John Durham is interested in anything Mr. Comey can offer. Even the Truth — certainly the Truth — will not do James Comey any good.


Exclusive: 2020 Predictions

Do you want to know what’s going to happen in 2020? “Wait,” you say. “If you know what’s going to happen in 2020, let’s go to Las Vegas!” It’s not about that: it’s about the political landscape of Washington D.C. after election day, November 3rd.

There are many things at stake in that election, not just the presidency. Today TruthNewsNetwork will give you some projections of those changes. Keep in mind; ours are only opinions — as if you didn’t already know that! But we’ve been successful with predictions far more often than wrong. There may be one or two in this list with which you disagree. Feel free to share those (and even your agreement with all or some of these) with us.

Predictions That May Shock You

  • Rep. Adam Schiff will be removed as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. I doubt that many will be surprised at this. Schiff has been a complete disaster for the Democrat Party. His conspiracy rhetoric, complete with multiple lies about the President and even alleged actions that were found to be untrue, plague the California Democrat. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already sick of him. She’ll remove him and replace him with a Moderate Democrat probably from somewhere in Middle America. Left and Right coast Democrats are pretty much under siege. Pelosi sees the 2020 House elections as the most important of her political career. For any hope of Democrats retaining the House, Pelosi must sprinkle some magic dust on Americans before November. With Schiff in her stable of thoroughbreds, she recognizes it is a lost cause.
  • AOC takes a hike. This prediction may shock some. The attractive yet naive New York Congresswoman’s luster has dulled in the past few months. While her far-left messaging burns bright with Democrat activists, it has diminished in credibility and, therefore, acceptance from Democrats who are convinced they must campaign closer to the center. And the New York Congresswoman seems to still be in a race to see just how far left she can go without alienating her Manhattan voters. In that quest, it’s relatively apparent she has failed. I doubt Pelosi will take any action to remove AOC before the November 3, 2020 election. Pelosi can certainly pull her from several committees on which she serves and can just let Ocasio-Cortez face a mounting G.O.P. tsunami without any DNC help. Whichever way is sufficient to remove the radical from the left will be good enough for “Pelosi and Company.” They never have, nor will they ever demean AOC. She has become a liberal hero to many Millenials with whom her message about free everything resonates. Getting support during campaign season is one thing, but turning that into real support is another. I’m confident that Pelosi is tired of dealing with the junior high school Representative and would love nothing more than for Americans to make a change to that seat to put a middle-of-the-road moderate in AOC’s district. That race will be exciting to watch.
  • Senator Dianne Feinstein Retires. Uh oh! What do we know that might prod Feinstein into leaving her Senate seat. The California senior senator has been in Washington for a long, long time: since November 4, 1992. Things are vastly different in the U.S. and Congress from what they were in her first term. Feinstein has been a respected moderate voice in the Senate for most of her career. But of late, she has ventured a little out of her element, moving more left than her traditional spot. For that, Feinstein has received some significant grief from her fellow Democrat Senators and voters in her very liberal state. Add to that the fact that she’s now 86 years old. She does not have the same fire as she once did. Indeed she is feeling tired from the constant fighting between Democrat and Republican Senate leadership. We’re not sure she will even serve out the term she just began. If she does choose to hang it up, look for a hard-left replacement for Feinstein. The California Congressional caucus moves farther left every month.
  • China Goes All-in With U.S. Trade Agreement. If this prediction comes through, American businesses of all kinds will see almost immediate windfalls. “How can you predict this when China has been so hesitant to complete the trade deal on the table with the U.S.?” China’s economy, even as large as it is, is tanking. China desperately needs the U.S. markets for its goods services. Since the 1980s, many Americans have taken for granted that China’s products are cheaper and of similar quality as those manufactured in the U.S. and have just accepted that. Chinese products have replaced not only American-made but Japanese-made products that took over U.S. markets in the 50s and 60s. The key to balance this deal with China will be how labor unions will adjust labor costs for U.S. manufacturers that will be a critical element of the success of this trade deal.
  • ”Corruption Gate.” 2020 will see a parade of corruption indictments, plea bargains, trials, and surprise retirements in the U.S. government never before seen. These will result from separate investigations by Federal Attorney John Durham and the Department of Justice. These will target mostly high-level intelligence staffers from the Obama Administration. Former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch will be caught up in this “net-casting” that will see lower-level intelligence and Justice Department workers rolling on those above them in plea bargains. The first to be implicated will be former FBI Director James Comey, DNI Director James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan. Evidence of widespread wrongdoing in illegal surveillance, falsification of documents, perjury, and massive mishandling of classified information and materials. Dozens who have nothing with which to bargain will face years in jail as a result. Bill and Hillary Clinton will be implicated but will somehow once again escape with slaps on the wrist except for the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation will shutter its operations as part of a plea deal with the Clintons.
  • ”Vladimir-Gate.” Russia’s economy is in big trouble. Foreign markets —especially those in Europe — are relying less and less on Russian products like natural gas and oil. A glut of petroleum products in the market will drive oil and gas prices well below price levels that have allowed Russia to at least sustain numbers necessary to prevent a major economic crash. However, a sliding gross domestic product (GDP) will drive Russian prices to new low levels. It will critically impact their military capability as well as severely handicap Russia’s ability to compete in World markets. Putin will reach out to President Trump for an economic summit to try to firm trade policies between the U.S. and Russia. Trump will demand Putin to negotiate instead with the European Union for financial assistance.
  • Everything Free for Everybody. Because of the election year, Democrat candidates will go all-in for government provision of everything for everybody. That includes college tuition and medical coverage. But they’ll take it to an even higher and more ridiculous and “more” unsustainable level. Besides college, they will float business school and post-graduate studies in Law, Accounting, Medicine (MD, Dental and DVM), and even in Architecture. They’ll tout government payment for it all as well as forgiveness of debt for those who currently have outstanding loans for secondary education. “Medicare-for-all” will morph directly into single-payer healthcare with 100% federal control instead of the current Medicare, Medicaid private/public partnership that operates these programs.
  • Impeachment of a President. The million-dollar question: Will Congress impeach President Trump? The House of Representatives will begin and go through a “sham” impeachment investigation, calling dozens of witnesses. It will try to subpoena the President himself for testimony (which will fail), and will try to twist evidence and hearsay into facts sufficient to reach consensus on several articles of impeachment to pass to the Senate for a trial. Efforts by Democrats will fall flat. No evidence presented will provide Dems proof of any allegations by Mr. Trump that rise to the level of “treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors.” The singular purpose of this process by the House is to discredit the President in the eyes of voters sufficient to result in their confidence in him plummeting to levels that will lead moderate Republicans far enough to the middle to NOT vote for Trump for re-election. The cost of this impeachment process will devastate the Democrat Party. It will take years for their ability to regain any margin of support to sustain any leadership in the House or Senate, and certainly will keep Republicans in the White House for a decade. Many Democrat leaders will be kicked to the curb in favor of younger and Democrats considerably farther to the Left than those currently in leadership. The Democrat Party will indeed be known as the “Democrat Socialist Party of America.”
  • Democrat Presidential Representative. Truth News Network some time ago predicted Senator Kamala Harris would win the Democrat Party nomination for the 2020 election. That was before the California Senator slipped into oblivion because of sloppy campaigning and several “quasi-scandals” that appeared to force her to defend those. There will be a Senator representing Dems in the election: Elizabeth Warren. In a nomination battle in the Democrat convention, Warren will edge former VP Joe Biden for the nomination. In the election, Warren will see her opportunity to break Hillary’s 2016 “glass ceiling” fall apart as her economic proposals for Medicare-for-all, free college, the cancellation of student debt, and historically ruthless taxes on the upper ten percent of Americans will doom her campaign.
  • Presidential Election. President Trump will win both the popular vote and the electoral college in a landslide victory. The Senate will remain with a Republican majority. Republicans will win a slim margin sufficient to control the House of Representatives once more.


If our predictions — or most of them — come to pass, 2020 will be a bleak year for many Democrats and the Democrat Party. But it will undoubtedly be a good year for most Americans. Donald Trump’s policies — especially those regarding the nation’s economy — have proven to Americans that economically, American excellence is still the best on Earth inspired again by innovation and the free market system of ideas and opportunity.

A new generation will move into the public arena beginning in 2020. The tired concepts of Socialism will continue to be exposed just like peeling an onion: one layer at a time. And Americans will learn that this still is the greatest country on Earth — not just for Americans, but for all those with which American companies, individual citizens, and government representatives interface regarding policies and operational structuring as never before. Donald Trump’s second term will be a mostly successful campaign to “Keep America Great.”

Just one question remains unanswered in all of this: What will implicate the Obamas? Remember Michelle Obama’s statement recently when asked about political corruption in the Trump Administration compared to any during the Obama Administration. Her response was, “At least there were no indictments during the Obama years.”

However, it appears her revelation will be short-lived. It seems that in just days, those indictments will be passed out.

It is truly going to be a wild ride in 2020.


The Racsim of Sudafed

Do you believe there is voter fraud in federal elections? Have you heard numerous politicians rail against claims by some that there is rampant voter fraud? So which is it: are those who would stake their careers on the fact there is no voter fraud deluded or are those who swear it not only is rampant but that many politicians know it exists and by denying it promote it? Before we finish today, you’ll have your answer.

There you have it: I guess we have our answer. According to President Obama, in his very last press conference as President put the claims of voter fraud to rest. Any news of voter fraud in his words is “fake news.”

  • According to a Pew Charitable Trust report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations in the U.S. are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale provide ripe opportunities for fraud.
  • In a recent poll of illegal aliens, 13% stated they had previously voted in federal elections.
  • In May 2016, CBS2 Los Angeles identified 265 dead voters in southern California. Many cast ballots “year after year.”
  • North Carolina announced in April 2014 that 13,416 dead voters were registered, and 81 of them recently had voted. Among 35,750 North Carolinians also registered in other states, 765 voted in November 2012, both inside and outside the Tarheel State.
  • South Carolina’s attorney general concluded in January 2012 that 953 people “were deceased at the time of their participation in recent elections.”
  • The Public Interest Legal Foundation recently discovered that Virginia removed 5,556 non-citizens from its voter rolls between 2011 and last May. Among these non-Americans, 1,852 had cast a total of 7,474 illegal ballots across multiple elections.
  • Philadelphia tagged 50,000 voters who had duplicate voter registrations.
  • Texas Secretary of State David Whitley announced his office had identified 95,000 non-citizens who are currently registered to vote in Texas — 58,000 of whom have voted in one or more elections.
  • Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting. Based on national polling by a group of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in that 2016 presidential election. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

We could go on and on giving you example after example, statistic after statistic, story after story illustrating voter fraud in America. Examples like a rental car found the day after Florida elections at the Tampa airport with boxes of completed ballots that were forgotten by the renter. Conventional wisdom is that those were to be used to help pick winners.

But even in the face of all these facts, even in the front of all the cases in which actual criminal litigation takes place, and people actually go to jail, the U.S. Department of Justice does nothing to implement a process or several processes to assure Americans that every American of legal age who registers and votes can be confident their vote really does count and that no one is able to cheat by rigging the voting system against them and all other legal voters.

Why does the DOJ sit on its heels about this? We know they’re swamped, finding crimes committed in many other areas that impact Americans and even our government. But in the wake of learning foreign governments are working diligently to influence our elections and these examples of voter fraud given above, yes, the Justice Department realizes the most important and precious thing in our nation that differentiates us from most other countries is our election system. And Americans want it protected.

But do our politicians?

Politically Speaking

The easiest way for politicians today to influence the tide of American opinion is blanket allegations of racism. We see it happen all the time. We will not get into a discussion today on what is and what is not racism. We all know that it’s real and that it is a horrible stain on the historical fiber of our nation. But let’s be clear on this one thing: with all of the allegations by politicians of systemic racism in our elections they allege is to disenfranchise minority voters, where are specific examples they give to Americans that justify those claims? We don’t see or hear of them! Why is that? Because they’re not happening.

Indeed, there are isolated examples of people attempting to impact elections for one reason or another. And when those appear, Americans certainly expect law enforcement to take care of those holding any offenders accountable for their wrongdoing. That said, Americans are tiring of every time someone of another political party wins elections those in the other party start screaming about vote tampering and voter fraud. The simple fix is for local, state, and federal officials to all get on the same page, identify the already identified election fraud and deal with those, but put in place a process to make sure that none happens moving forward. There is no better defense against allegations of voter fraud than “that did not happen because it cannot happen in the American voting system. Our government has instituted a failsafe process to make certain no election tampering can change any votes.”

What’s the holdup for such a system? Unfortunately — in this case, at least, there are not sufficient in number enough Congressional members who are willing to take definitive action to stop voter fraud. I know: it’s hard to fathom that such exists. But it does. Who is it?

Why do you think Democrats have so viciously attacked President Trump and other Republicans for trying to close our southern border? Think about how ridiculous and dangerous their obstinance in implementing closed borders has been. The answer is simple: they want the border to remain porous and actually would prefer if we’d do away with the southern border completely.

Their Reasoning

Democrats have for at least 60 years appealed to minorities — especially the African American community. Democrat leadership has convinced a vast majority of that group that their party is the party that cares for minorities and that Republicans are evil.

In doing so, they paint a version of history that is the opposite of the truth regarding the political support for minority rights in America. In doing so, the Democrat Party has created a narrative that tells black Americans that they owe their votes to Democrats because of Democrat Party policies that those black Americans should know help blacks and other minorities.

None of this is true.

First, Democrats brought slavery to America, built it into a monster enterprise, and did not want it to stop. “That’s not what was taught in history class,” you might say. “We were taught southerners — primarily wealthy Republican plantation owners — fought to keep slavery. It took Democrats from the North to free the slaves in the Civil War against those southern slave owners.”

Yes, southern plantation owners were indeed among many who wanted slavery to remain. But those plantations owners were almost all white Democrats. Just remember this: 300,000 white Americans lost their lives in the Civil War fighting to give slaves their freedom.

But even as the Democrat cries of racism against Republicans through decades, facts prove otherwise:

  • A Republican president led the nation to abolish slavery and not a Democrat Party president. Abe Lincoln made it happen:
  • The Republican Party passed legislation to free slaves against stiff resistance from Democrats.
  • The Republican Party passed legislation that gave blacks the right to vote over intense Democrat angst.
  • A Republican President — Dwight Eisenhower — gave African Americans the right to serve in the American military.
  • A Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, tried to pass the Civil Rights Act but could not get it done. He had hardly any support from Congressional Democrats. It took a large contingent of Republicans to join Johnson to pass it.

There are many members of a minority that have heard these lies so many times they feel they have but one choice: to accept them as fact. I listened to this first when I was a kid, “Tell a boy he can jump over a barn over and over again until he actually will believe he can jump over a barn.” The same holds true here. But there must be some way we can find a consensus regarding two things: there is systemic voter fraud in almost every federal election, and we must find a way or several ways to build a system to prevent voter fraud.


Let’s get right to it. Please note: this should apply for every voting precinct in the U.S. for every federal election. Because currently national elections are overseen and operated by local and state voting authorities, it will require a federal-state partnership with the two entities working together. Probably, states would piggyback on this federal process to assure their elections are tamper-free. We will NOT discuss logistics or operational details here. These would necessarily be worked out by state and federal authorities. In our opinions, here is what to be failsafe this process must contain:

  • IT security products at both federal and state levels that prevent outside electronic intervention and surveillance;
  • a state central IT clearinghouse that can both view actual elections as they occur and can tally voting results for every federal election in almost real-time;
  • real-time communication from these state election offices with a national clearinghouse run by the U.S. Department of Justice;
  • the ability to police each voting precinct as voting occurs to spot any who attempt on-sight voter tampering;
  • probably the most critical part of such a system is a backup paper ballot system to use if/when any electronic voting system has fatal errors or if surveillance shows voter tampering.

But the most important piece of this process is to protect the entire system in the easiest fashion — the one that Democrat politicians have fought for years: Mandatory voter ID verification for each voter for each time they vote. Seeing or hearing this will make Democrats go crazy! Why? It foils the numerous opportunities to cheat in elections!

Factually it has been proven that millions of voter registrations are incorrect, those registered are deceased, or voters no longer live within the precinct of registration. Using voter ID would end these from impacting votes. But Democrat politicians scream at possible legislation for Voter ID as being “Racist!” That’s their fallback every time. When asked how it is racist, here are the most common reply:

It is unreasonable to expect an African American, only by the color of his or her skin, to be able to procure, hold, and present a photo ID. Primarily, according to the Left, from the Democrats to their allies in the media, Black people, as opposed to Asian Americans and Whites, lack the mental capacity to take a valid photo ID to the polls.

Yes, that is laughable.

I recently watched a news special in which a reporter walked through downtown Philadelphia — a predominantly Democrat stronghold — and randomly stopped black people to ask about this common excuse for Voter ID. To a person, those questioned thought this was incredibly biased and untrue. One young college student put it this way: “I must have an ID for everything — driver’s license, to cash a check, open a bank account, rent a car, board a plane, go to a doctor, or to even go to a Congressional campaign rally! It’s an insult to every black person I know to say it’s too hard for us to get a government ID,” the college student stated.

Further, no person can receive Welfare benefits, Medicaid benefits, unemployment insurance, or even a job application without an ID. There are very few important things we all must do that do NOT require identification — identification that almost all have already.

But the most outrageous requirement for an ID is this: even though Democrats are the ones who trumpet this travesty and have whipped their followers into a frenzy about it for years, one cannot enter the Democrat Party Convention in 2020 without a picture ID!


It’s time for Democrats to stop playing the race card — period — and especially about Voter ID. Voting as someone else in federal elections is a federal crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. Americans can get official ID’s — especially voter ID’s — at no cost from local voting registrar offices universally. And if transportation is a problem, they will arrange to make that happen. There is no justifiable reason for any eligible voter to be unable to obtain an official ID sufficient to vote. And those who say otherwise are lying. Americans need to make ourselves heard to our elected representatives. Congress must pass comprehensive Voter Fraud legislation that begins with Voter ID.

Oh, and that title above regarding racism of Sudafed? No matter your age or color, when one goes to a pharmacy to get the common cold and flu medicine Sudafed, he or she must present an ID. Sudafed is one of the main ingredients used by those who make homemade meth.

But how is that racist? That’s simple: most meth-heads are Southerners — white Southerners. And making those Southerners provide an ID to purchase Sudafed is Racist — because almost all of them are white!


Bullet Points: October 26, 2019

It’s really tough to talk about anything other than the Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry and all the hoopla surrounding it this week. But, thankfully there are a few more stories that actually may displace the faux impeachment stuff. Inspector General Horowitz, Connecticut Federal Prosecutor Durham, and Attorney General Barr are uncharacteristically making some news headlines.

As usual, we’ll give you the highlights of these and other stories: “Bullet Points.” For those of which you want to read details, click on the link afterwards and it will take you to the complete stories.

Fall is here! Actually, Winter is here in some places. Stay warm in front of your fire and bone up on the week’s news. Have a great weekend.

Bullet Points

  • Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the origins of the FBI Russia investigation of Donald Trump and his campaign has apparently completed as the DOJ has been checking it for possible redactions for classification purposes. It is expected to be released in the next week. Its contents are likely to confirm suspicions by many as to wrongdoing by former FBI officials in the process of through FISA warrants obtaining authorization to electronically surveil members of the Trump Campaign. For details click on this link:
  • Sydney Powell — General Michael Flynn’s attorney — reported that new bombshell evidence in FBI wrongdoing have been uncovered. An explosive new court filing from Michael Flynn’s legal team alleges that FBI agents manipulated official records of the former national security adviser’s 2017 interview that led to him being charged with lying to investigators. It’s Flynn’s lawyers latest attempt to get the case thrown out. For details click on this link:
  • Federal Attorney Durham’s investigation into the details surrounding what actually instigated the Russia Collusion investigation into the Trump Campaign was officially changed to a “Criminal Investigation.” That means Durham has DOJ authority to initiate Grand Juries, issue subpoenas for evidence and testimony, and can indict those implicated. For details click on this link:
  • A few dozen Republican House members filed into the secure hearing in the Impeachment Inquiry headed by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Their complaint is though these hearings are not classified, Schiff has forbidden Republicans  on his committee and the media to NOT be in the room during hearings. Although news video clearly shows those GOP members quietly walking down a staircase and into the SCIF (secure hearing room), almost in unison news headlines use the words “Republicans STORMED into the hearing.” For details click on this link:
  • Florida Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel who was fired by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appealed to the Florida Senate for reinstatement. This past week the full Senate voted to NOT reinstate Israel. The Sheriff has been under siege since the school shooting a year ago in Plantation resulted in numerous student deaths. Several of Israel’s deputies were caught up in investigations showing failure to intervene in the shootings. Israel has been alleged to have, through mismanagement, allowed the shooter to remain on the street though numerous formal complaints were made by teachers, neighbors, and even other lawmakers. For details click on this link:
  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has come under fire by many in the U.S.— especially by Republicans — for his puzzling impeachment inquiry hearings that have been restricted from public view. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has introduced a resolution in the Senate condemning Schiff for taking this action to prevent transparency to let all Americans to look-in at the testimony in these hearings so as to understand all things impeachment related. For details click on this link:

That pretty much covers the bullet point issues of the past week. As you know, it changes daily! For that reason, make sure you login at everyday to get the latest.

On another note: to make sure you never miss a story or podcast, enter your name and email address on the home page so that you will receive an email every time a new story or podcast goes up. There’s a link to each new story in each such email. We never attempt to sell anything and your email address and name never go anywhere except here! Your privacy is critical to us. We simply want to make sure you see and hear everything important.

Thanks for being a part of this!

Oh, don’t forget: you need to start Christmas shopping!





The Ruling Class

I’ve always loved riding motorcycles: road motorcycles. When we married and began having children, my wife put her foot down, and I left the motorcycle world. Twenty years ago, when our kids left home, she told me I could get a Harley. I did, and I hit the road.

I’ve ridden for more than 100,000 miles seeing North America. And North America is breathtaking from the ground. I had for years, primarily for business, flown all over the Continent but never gave thought to what was 30,000 feet below the plane. The World is vastly different 30,000 feet below that commercial jet — at least different from the perceptions of a jet traveler. At ground level, the “real” America unfolds.

In the United States today, we everyday citizens have evolved from a “salt-of-the-earth” group of gritty settlers who did everything into a country full of “flyover business owners and  vacationers.” Instead of the multi-generational hands-on ways of our forefathers, we live a life based on news headlines and soundbites and find shortcuts for everything. We trust a group of several thousand elected and appointed bureaucrats to run our company for us. We live our hectic lives chasing the dollar while raising a family: you know: a house, three cars, vacation homes, hobbies, being soccer moms, and weekend golfers. We’re just “chasing the dream.” Meanwhile, our government is quietly and steadily taking our company down the tube.

Americans must awaken to the reality of an impending disaster. Our company is in jeopardy — not from a foreign takeover but a hostile management takeover. And somehow, members of our very own management team have stealthily slipped into the ownership of OUR company. Most of those no longer even consider us in their decision-making to run the company, The United States of America.

They have become the “U.S. Ruling Class.”

It’s real, it’s here, and it’s deadly.

Who Are They?

Just look around. Who did you vote for in 2018 to represent you in Congress? No, not every member of the U.S. House of Representatives is part of this “ruling class.” But your representative might be. If they are, they are members of what has heretofore been the most powerful political group in U.S. history.

It’s a closed group of single-minded politicians who have, through decades, developed a method of operating government that requires they walk a thin line. They must simultaneously conduct “normal” government business that company stockholders — American citizens — can watch, along with the sinister operations in which they subvert their positions and the assets of our corporation to achieve their personal long term goals that rarely coincide with ours.

Goals: What Goals?

That’s a great question. I could speculate about the goals of politicians and their objectives. But I won’t do that. But it IS realistic and makes sense for us to look at their actions — at least those we can see — and make logical determinations of what their goals “might” be. Let’s start with something that is seldom mentioned, and when it comes up, conversations about it stop quickly.

Did you know American taxpayers have for decades paid those who are lawmakers’ victims of sexual assault settlements to make those incidents go away, thereby avoiding public embarrassment and litigation? News of this law that structures a process for this has been around for a while. It was only made public in 2017. Let’s look at how all this works:

In 1995, Congress passed the CAA, an effort to apply 12 federal laws to the legislative branch, “Congress has notoriously exempted itself from accountability measures,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, an organization focused on promoting transparency in government, in an email. “It’s no wonder the public has such a low approval of Congress given that they exempt themselves from workplace laws that they apply to the rest of society. It is long overdue for Congress to live by the standards of conduct they appropriately demand from others,” Brian said.

The 1995 law also established “an account of the Office in the Treasury on the United States for the payment of awards and settlements” — a fund paid for by taxes from taxpayers to pay settlements.

The payouts have varied widely, from just under $40,000 in 1997 to more than $4 million in 2007 to just under $1 million in 2017. The fund is virtually unlimited. Much is necessary to pay awards and settlements, and a spokesperson for the Congressional Office of Compliance said that money is only added to the fund when needed for a payment.

The exact source of the money is still a question. The source of the money in the fund is excluded from the standard appropriations budget made public by Congress each year. There’s no process by which voters — or even potential government employees — can find out who are the harassers in the office, or for what they’ve been accused, or if they’ve settled with victims before.

The fund used to settle violations is perhaps just one of several pockets of money throughout the government used to handle judgments made against government employees. As harassment accusations topple prominent men in media, comedy, and Hollywood, it’s come under more scrutiny.

The Settlement and Awards Fund comes from an effort to hold Congress accountable for the federal laws that all other employers have to follow. But as prominent men in other fields have faced snowballing accusations of sexual harassment, it’s instead shielded members of Congress from publicity.

What’s the goal there? It’s to maximize personal opportunities while serving in Congress and pushing responsibility for their “questionable” deeds downstream to American taxpayers.


Average members of Congress struggle with travel to and from their districts. Airplane tickets in and out of Washington are not cheap. But if you’re the Speaker of the House — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as an example — your travel is not only first-class, it’s in private jets paid for by taxpayers. And the Speaker has taken it to new levels.

We looked at documents from the United States Air Force detailing Speaker Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft between March 2009 and June 2010. And they pretty much tell the same, outrageous story as previous documents we’ve uncovered and released here.

Here are the highlights from the newest batch of documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:

  • Pelosi used an Air Force aircraft for a total of 85 trips, covering 206,264 miles, from March 2, 2009, through June 7, 2010. Pelosi, her guests, and Air Force personnel logged a total of 428.6 hours on these flights.
  • Members of Pelosi’s family were guests on at least two flights. On June 20, 2009, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter, son-in-law, and two grandsons joined a flight from Andrews Air Force Base to San Francisco International Airport. That flight included $143 in on-flight expenses for food and other items. On July 2, 2010, Pelosi took her grandson on a trip from Andrews Air Force Base to Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, which is northeast of San Francisco.
  • One trip in particular — to Milan, Rome, Naples, and Kiev — has received considerable scrutiny. The 2015 tour, from July 30 to Aug. 6, cost the Air Force $184,587.81, documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show. Pelosi, along with several other Democratic members of Congress, made the trip with members of their families. The exact purpose of the trip remains unclear. A Politico news story at the time alleged Pelosi’s congressional delegation “intended to underscore the U.S. commitment to security in that region.”
  • In 2011, Judicial Watch exposed Pelosi’s rampant use of luxury Air Force jets to travel between Washington, D.C., and her congressional district in California, a 5-hour, 3,000-mile journey each direction. In just two years, Pelosi accumulated $2,100,744.59 worth of travel expenses, which included $101,429.14 for in-flight conveniences, such as food and alcohol.

And Then The Junkets

Travel junkets became a point of discomfort for many voters in 2006-2007 following the discovery of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s frequent use of excursions to influence several elected officials. These fact-finding missions included hard-hitting research such as rounds of golf at Scotland’s famed golf course, St. Andrews, and trips to the Fiesta Bowl and Super Bowl. In actuality, those are just some quick highlights. The list of absurd Abramoff coordinated trips is relatively lengthy. Of course, following the public revelation and the eventual indictment and conviction of Abramoff, all of these trips were deemed either demonstrably illegal or, at the very least, gross misappropriations of an official’s time. Congress passed a bill reigning in gifts, meals, and travel packages from lobbyists, and the number of congressional junkets fell off a cliff—dropping from an all-time high of nearly 5,000 trips in 2005 (at the cost of almost $10 Million) to 1,846 visits the following year. The bill limited trip length on foreign travel to seven days and domestic travel to four days but also allowed for—wait for it—some exceptions. These exceptions included the allowance of educational and charitable groups to finance trips for elected officials.

In entirely unsurprising fashion, it didn’t take long for lobbyists and lawmakers to figure out the best way to utilize the exceptions to their full extent. As an article in the Columbia Journalism Review explained recently:

“The arrangement works like this: a congressional caucus—an official group of lawmakers (there are many) with common characteristics or interests, such as the Congressional Black Caucus or Blue Dog Democrats or the Congressional Marcellus Shale Caucus—sets up a charitable organization. That organization, in turn, seeks donations, which do not have to be disclosed. In addition to its good works, the charitable entity then organizes events, such as conferences or retreats, in which the caucus members rub shoulders with contributors. The nonprofit can invite special interests—corporations, unions, and others—to fork over large donations to sponsor and participate in these events.”

So, not only have lawmakers figured out a way around travel junket reform, but they’ve also figured out a way to turn their vacations into a fundraising tool.

Perhaps the most ostentatious abuse of this new “charitable” junket system came in the summer of 2011, when Eric Cantor arranged for eighty House members and their families to visit Israel through a charity affiliated with the pro-Israeli lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This massive “fact-finding mission” was capped off quite embarrassingly, with a (quite possibly drunk) Kansas Representative Kevin Yoder taking a late-night skinny dip in the Sea of Galilee.


None of these things we mentioned today have much to do with the legislative nightmares we are currently watching play out on the international stage. But they illustrate in part just how many (if not most) members of Congress go to D.C. planning on milking the system — our system of government — to line their pockets most often as a direct expense to taxpayers for all kinds of perks that Americans on the most part don’t know about and certainly do not know how or why they exist and work. These examples are just a fraction of the ways those on the Left are shading American taxpayers. How do they let it happen? Let’s face it: there’s nothing about this for which any member of Congress will take responsibility. If and when someone wants to try, they usually explain this way: “Everybody on Capitol Hill does this. Why shouldn’t I?”

Do you know what’s worse? They get away with all of this! Let’s face facts: having foxes guard a henhouse is a pretty stupid decision on someone’s part.

They’re doing this is NOT just about money. It’s NOT about bringing some low-level employee back to Earth — REAL Earth. It’s about teaching us all a lesson they are confident they’ll win every day.

Last but not least: does any of this illustrate why some, if not all, that we see today in the “Schiff-Pelosi ‘faux’ impeachment inquiry are permeating our 24/7 news cycle? What is right, necessary, and justified for members of Congress to do as part of their jobs for us is diminished by THEIR personal need to perpetuate a gravy-train of benefits that include perks, dollars, investment opportunities, and, most of all, power that comes with “fitting-in” with the D.C. power brokers. The American taxpayers are not on the radar screen of accountability to these Congressional members. Their fantasy world does not extend to the borders of their Congressional Districts. Its boundaries are a two-mile circle around Capitol Hill in D.C. Nothing, and pretty much no one outside that circle is significant to them.

For these and other reasons we have no time to mention, we need to understand that you and I are just a social security number on an IRS tax bill or a zipcode on a contribution check to most of the Congressional members caught-up in the D.C. Circus. There are certainly a bunch who wear white hats. But for the most part, the bad guys are controlling our government.

If you didn’t understand why so many in Washington — even Republicans — expend so much effort, time, and taxpayer money to rid their world of Donald Trump, now you do. He may be rough and he may mix it up like no other politician. But he’s in the corner of everyday Americans. And he always wears a white hat. And he continually fights political corruption. He’s looking under rocks, around corners, and even in the swamp. Someone certainly needs to.


The Constitution: Who Cares?

The short answer to that question is that We appear to not care at all.

Never before have I seen such hatred for a president. And I don’t understand it. There are many things one can say are wrong with this president, but which president could those same things have not been mentioned? Presidents are human beings — flawed and incorrigible, as they may seem to some. But Presidents are not hired to necessarily be politically correct. Presidents are elected for a purpose.

Nowhere in the Presidential oath of office is there a sentence binding a president to a particular way of speaking or way of thinking. Honestly, if on Election Day the electorate does not know the person being voted to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it is because the electorate doesn’t care to know them. Media coverage in the ramp-up to an election is replete with everything about anyone running for the White House.

Presidents are hired to run a country. They have assistants (Vice President and cabinet members), have a board of directors (Congress), have legal counsel (Attorney General), and a dispute resolution panel (The Supreme Court). They have offered up during a year-long campaign every policy they support, clearly stated all those they will do away with if and when elected, their economic and healthcare plans, immigration ideas, foreign policy, and legislation they support or are against.

Donald Trump, like no other president in my memory, has done more things he promised to Americans while campaigning than has any other. Why are his opponents so set to run him out of Washington? The answer to that is not singular, but the multi-part answer explains much.

First, he’s achieved tremendous and dramatic successes in the labor market that his predecessor and the Congress under him maintained that there was no way what Trump as a candidate said he would achieve if elected could be achieved. In creating record low unemployment across the board, gross domestic product said never again to be delivered, bring back massive manufacturing operations that Mr. Obama said were dead to the U.S., and even having great success in foreign policy with relationships with international leaders, he has embarrassed those across the aisle.

Secondly, he has taken corruption in government head on to the chagrin of his detractors. So far, he has turned the light on the Deep State, exposed massive wrongdoing in the various agencies that comprise the Intelligence Community, and has unearthed the quid pro quo atmosphere that has permeated the government for decades. Many Americans have, for years, sought an answer for how almost every member of Congress who makes about $170,000 a year in office amass millions by the time they finish a term or two in office. Donald Trump has shown Americans how it is done: “quid pro quo.”

Third, Mr. Trump has been anything but politically correct. And the angst for his forthright attitude is not specific to members of the Democrat Party. There are plenty of Republicans who regularly lash out at Mr. Trump. And he does not hesitate to call those out who have committed outright fraud against American voters.

Let’s be honest: if Barack Obama had accomplished even twenty percent of what Trump has in his first 2 ½ years, he would be destined to be known as the greatest United States president in history. As it is, almost daily new details expose the Obama Administration the same graft and corruption that politicians have hidden from Americans through many previous administrations.

Donald Trump has been a thorn in the eye of establishment politicians. There’s no other logical answer for the hatred that is spouting from Washington, like lava from a volcano.

So what’s next?

The House of Representatives will impeach President Trump. In doing so, Democrat Party leaders will continue to march out on the public stage accuser after accuser to defame Mr. Trump for wrongdoing. None will contain substance — all will contain hearsay, blame, and innuendo.

Why would Democrats do this? First, they are horrified at what is included in the Inspector Generals’ two reports pending release right now. They feel they must ratchet up the angst against the President among as many Americans as possible before those see the public’s eyes. They hope doing so will temper the outcry when the corrupt minions are named, and their illegal actions are seen by all.  Using this ploy is one of the oldest and most juvenile acts of all time: “Mom, I know I broke that vase, and it’s a bad thing I did, but look at what HE did!” For that line of attack to succeed, they MUST find some wrongdoing by Mr. Trump. They’ve not so far been successful in that task!

Even if the House hands even one Article of Impeachment to the Senate, there’s a good chance the Senate will not also take it up. Why? The Republican-controlled Senate has stood by and watched the House conduct witch-hunt after witch-hunt, throwing every possible Trump allegation available against the wall, praying that one or two will stick. NOTHING’S STICKING! Why should 100 Senators feel they are empowered to unseat a duly elected President who can only be removed from office for committing “treason or high crimes and misdemeanors?”

What should Democrats do? They should trust the will of the People, let that wish prevail in government, logically present their arguments to the public sufficient to win the support of their ideas, and allow voters to make a presidential change in 2020. This impeachment idea is NOT what Americans voted for when Mr. Trump trounced Ms. Clinton in 2016.

Choosing who serves as President is something voters do and that voters did in 2016. Democrats are stepping across a line into really nasty territory if they continue down this impeachment path.


It’s Good for the Goose but NOT for the Gander

Have you wondered what is the purpose of these “impeachment inquiry” hearings not being made live and publicly televised? Remember, the first such hearing WAS televised live with the testimony of Acting Head of the DNI Joseph McGuire. That hearing was a devastating blow to House Democrats led by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Those Dems have been like rabid dogs chasing an elusive and sly old fox, yelping all the time what they commit they will do when they finally run down that fox. But the fox continues to elude those dogs. And the dogs hide their embarrassment for being humiliated again and again. But the fox had done nothing against those dogs anyway.

Democrats have just one opportunity regarding Trump’s impeachment in these hearings. And that is to cherry-pick snippets of witness testimony that when put in Democrat context are purported to be an “Ah-Ha!” soundbite that implicates President Trump in some way. Rep. Schiff has no problem hiding from Americans any of the considerable witness testimony, which they determine is troubling for the Democrat rhetoric which has only one objective: “Impeach 45!”

Why else would Schiff not allow Committee Republicans to have equal time in questioning witnesses, call their own witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, nor allow President Trump’s attorney to participate in these hearings? In any reputable such hearing in U.S. history regarding presidential impeachment, all of the above were considered to be essential for fairness and were allowed by the majority for the House minority members at each impeachment process.

Schiff’s departure from House precedent in former impeachment proceedings has received much criticism from Republicans and many from outside of Washington. Let’s be honest: this is a case in which a duly elected president is being attacked in what is just a faux impeachment inquiry by a political party void of policies to appeal to American voters sufficient to elect their candidate. To make that case, Democrats must hide multiple facts and testimony given by hearing witnesses. There is NO historical precedent for what is playing out each day in Washington.

But let’s pause for a moment and walk across the aisle: to Republicans. It’s common knowledge that the Democrat-led House of Representatives has suspended consideration of any real bit of business to take care of their only legislative desire — impeachment. But what about the Senate? Republicans control the Senate. Why isn’t Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as chair of one of the most powerful Senate committees having his committee hearing testimony of Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, James Clapper, John Brennan, even Hillary Clinton and dozens of other Democrats who have each been implicated for felonious wrongdoing during the Obama Administration? It is factual that James Comey lied to Congress on numerous occasions under oath.  Millions of Americans have examined the limited information allowed in the public domain and have reasonably determined there is plenty of factual tidbits there to justify the investigations of all the smoking guns of insurrection being used now and previously to thwart this presidency?

One explanation for Graham’s reluctance is that Senator Graham does not want to embarrass his close friend, the late Senator and former presidential candidate, John McCain. There are many who “know” that McCain actually put the infamous Steele Dossier in the hands of federal authorities. You certainly know that dossier was the piece of “evidence” that instigated the Russian collusion witch-hunt. John Brennan allegedly personally brought that comic book to McCain. That’s the only reason I can fathom for Graham’s inaction other than his possible inclusion in the “never Trump” crowd. I don’t think he’s there. I PRAY he’s not there. That group membership is pretty high in number already.

There are stark differences between the methodology used by Republicans in hearings and that of Democrats. Democrats cringe from the light of transparency they promote as being their # 1 objective. Republicans, unless conducting a hearing with a fully classified status regarding hearing content, always open the hearings to Democrats, the Press, and even to all Americans via television. Why would Democrats in any circumstances not do the same? There should be no demand by Republicans or any Americans necessary to chide Dems into doing so. Transparency in government should be of the utmost importance to them. Why not? There’s something to hide. Try as I might, I can only surmise what their justification could be. I’m certain their reasons (not necessarily justification) are to hide the parts of witness testimony they refuse to allow all of us to see and hear.

Rep. Schiff has earned the reputation of being if not THE most corrupt member of Congress in American history, at least in the top five. Yet he wears that badge of dishonor with pride. He’s never seen a television camera from which he runs, a network microphone to which he will not run, and a lie he may “want” to be justified by some leftist reason that he would not tell. Everything he says and does revolve around his and the Democrat Party’s political desires and necessities to achieve those. Simply stated, “Donald Trump stands in the way of both of those.”

King George III

Do you know who he was? He was the ruthless king of Britain who governed when the weighty decision was made by early American settlers to leave for the New World. What kinds of things did King George III do that were so egregious that hundreds and eventually thousands of former Britts would leave their homeland to immigrate to America?

George III was an elitist, a pure bureaucrat, and a spendthrift. George III taxed colonists without letting them have a representative in Parliament, he created the Quartering Act which stated that British troops would be sent to ‘protect” colonists [From nothing in particular] and that if a troop came to a colonists door then the residents would have to take care of that troop or troops. He also created the stamp act which taxed colonists for every piece of paper they used. The famous “Boston Tea Party” was a revolt by American settlers for the regressive and abusive taxes by George III on tea. Rather than pay taxes, settlers dumped huge amounts of tea in Boston Harbor.

George III refused to allow the freedom of religion. He demanded every Britt be a member of his church. That alone instigated the emigration of thousands of Britts to America to pursue their own religion or the right to choose not to be part of any religion at all.

He demanded that laws for the New World were to be made by Britan’s Parliament. American settlers refused to accept British government rule. Hatred for the tyranny they experienced regarding lawmaking figured dramatically into the decision to fight the Revolutionary War.

George III had dismal human rights violations. He and others in his government did not recognize those in low economic classes in Britain or in America. They refused to give those equal rights with other Britts and many America settlers. And those in America grew to hate the inflexible and most demanding monarch of that century anywhere in Europe.

Donald Trump

I laugh at the depictions by many of Donald Trump as an “Authoritarian,” a “Dictator,” or a “Despot.” He could not be further from the mindset and position which these names denote.

One of the chief reasons for the angst held by Democrats and their press minions is that Trump is too loyal to everyday Americans, their needs and their desires for the government. In fact, no previous American President during the past century has been more committed to working-class middle Americans than has Donald Trump. His commitment is not one of only talking points and lip service. He has issued numerous executive orders to roll-back untenable regulations that crippled corporations so that former U.S. companies that left under the Obama presidency have returned to the U.S., many of which have located in the Midwest — “Middle Class America.” He’s fought for wage increases that are dramatic and verified for the Middle Class. Middle-Class tax relief is dramatic despite what the Mainstream Media report. Economic and job numbers bear-out the truth that under Mr. Trump, the Middle Class in the U.S. are significantly better of financially as direct results of massive job creation and subsequent employment, historic unemployment lows in every segment of the economy and for every economic class of Americans — especially that of African-Americans.

“Authoritarian” government is that which is dominated by “A” person who demands and takes control of all or most of that nation’s operations in every sector. Mr. Trump even while campaigning for the White House made clear his feelings for average Americans. Each of his policies, his executive orders, and job programs have been and are targeted as “what’s best for the American Middle Class.” By any measure, the Middle Class in the U.S. is growing in number as never before, wages are making dramatic improvements when compared to those numbers under Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, and labor participation is at an all-time high. Americans are working and making good money for the first time in at least a decade.

Who’s In Control?

Regardless of what Democrats scream through their Media minions, Donald Trump is NOT in control of government, has never CLAIMED to be in control, and has always in each piece of proposed legislation during his administration fought for policies, bills, and even laws specifically targeted to help the poorest of Americans and the Middle Class. Leftist pundits continue to scream that wage increases are insignificant and have not made differences for the Middle Class. Those pundits are apparently without reasoning, listening, and/or understanding. Statistics confirm the highest increases in American Middle-Class families’ wages in twenty years if not longer. Those pundits don’t tell us about that. They don’t tell us about any of the myriads of other great things accomplished for the Middle Class under Mr. Trump.


Democrats have always, do now, and probably will continue to put Americans in economic and social buckets which those same Democrats feel authorized to do. Those buckets are NOT the same buckets for everyone. Working Class and Middle-Class buckets hold far more Americans than does the one for America’s wealthy. But that makes no difference to Dems.

Picture a couple of geese swimming in your pond: a male and a female. (They’re called “a goose and a gander” — gander being the male). Besides the obvious — male geese are considerably larger than females — there are noteworthy differences in behavior. The breeding behaviors of geese provide an interesting contrast. Geese are perennially monogamous, meaning that one male and one female form a lifelong pair bond. Like ducks, paired male geese protect their mates from harassment by intruders, but their larger size allows ganders to defend against not only other males but also many predators.

American politics can often be viewed the same way we consider male and female geese. Let’s for the sake of this conversation only consider ganders all as Democrats and geese as Republicans. The ganders are territorial and protective. They need to always be in charge. The geese, on the other hand, are content just doing what they do best and do not worry or fret about other ganders or other geese. Ganders seem insecure. Geese are drastically different from ganders.

Today’s Dems are larger, much louder, territorial and confrontational. One can visualize a male goose (or gander) thrashing about in the water to “strut his stuff” in front of other ganders and even geese to make an impression and also to intimidate. Meanwhile, the geese are quiet, busy with their babies, and are content to simply just get along with all who are in their lives. That picture reminds me of Republicans. While I am a confrontational person who finds it unbearable to allow a Leftist to strut around making allegations and statements as factual without confrontation, I more often than not just shut my mouth and let them do their thing. That doesn’t mean I’m fearful or afraid of confrontation at all. It means that I pick my battles and measure all opponents. Most Republicans operate that way. And Democrats cannot or do not wish to understand.

Maybe it would be better for the geese to act more like ganders. I’m fairly certain President Trump would often like that from Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. But at the end of the day, a goose whether male or female is going to act like a goose or a gander, whichever they are. And not everything is good for both all the time. Sometimes something is “Good for the goose but not for the Gander.” And Ganders cannot and will not always be right and will not always be in charge. The same holds true for the Geese.

I wish today the Ganders — Democrats — instead of hating Geese and all they stand for — the Republicans — would find a way to accept the differences for the common good of the family. But so far it seems that’s not in the Gander Instruction Manual. With that thought in mind consider this: Ganders are big and tough. But Geese control the most important things in that family just like at my house…and your house….and every other American house!


Death By Anonymity

In my company that is 27 years old, we had an employment attorney craft our personnel manual. Personnel issues are so intricate, so detailed, and thus relevant that I felt it was critical to get it right. We turned to a professional to do that. In that manual, I authored one section and one only: Conflict Resolution. The purpose of doing that was to assure every employee who had a conflict with any other person in the company had a way to achieve resolution.

The first such incident happened, and my “Conflict reasoning” kicked in. By regulation in the manual, the two went into a private office to confront each other regarding the conflict. If that was not successful, the two invited a supervisor into the meeting to attempt to achieve resolution. If that did not work, a senior member of management joined in for the ultimate decision. You know what? It worked! Here’s why:

Anytime two people have conflict, what should be the foremost matter is a resolution. Having a bunch of “he said, she said,” never does that. Face-to-face meetings between the two all the while knowing if they did NOT resolve the conflict, their knowing that a supervisor or manager would step in often instigates resolution by itself. The results have been useful and resourceful in every such incident in company history since. Why? Conflict Resolution was made most important by Senior Management from the beginning. Employees at every level know management cares. A comfort level prevented a caustic working environment for all those with personnel issues with others. But everyone knows when that happens, the process of a resolution will keep any negativity out of the workplace environment.

Wouldn’t that be a good policy for Washington D.C.?

Anonymity as a Weapon

“I can’t say who it was, but someone who knows told me that Robert still beats his wife.”

How many impactful decisions have happened in families, businesses, and politics based on similar statements? I would venture that number to be far more than most think. That’s a play on human nature. Unfortunately, most of us like a story from which we can ascertain our own truth. “My truth” and “Your truth” are the latest toys used in sharing information about conflicts. Those tools are killing communication in the U.S. The leaders of this movement seem to be leaders in American politics along with the Media. And their doing so appears to be a concerted effort to attack one’s opponents selectively. And the Mainstream media have perfected its usage. Sadly, it seems that everyone has entered the “Anonymity Attack” mode, including a star for conservative and right-leaning Fox News: Chris Wallace.

Fox’s Chris Wallace said a “well-connected” Washington Republican told him that there’s a 20 percent chance enough Republicans will vote to remove President Trump from office in an impeachment trial in the Senate.

Wallace mentioned his source’s comments during an interview with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on “Fox News Sunday.”

Wallace, whose father was a longtime star on the investigative show on ‘‘CBS: Sixty Minutes’ — formerly leaned left just a bit in the stories he covered on “Fox News Sunday.” But it seems that Wallace has taken a note from many of his news associates from other networks and is using the weaponized anonymity in his reporting.

Chris Wallace is in no way alone in this. For three years, Americans watched as President Trump was tried, convicted, and sentenced by the Media for everything from being a Russian agent to colluding with Ukraine to stealing chickens.

During those three years, it seemed that media outlets just doubled-down on what their compatriots and fellow news conspirators’ claims about Trump’s impeachable wrongdoing in their reporting. But in almost every such case and story — 95% plus — the sourcing for each was “an unnamed source” or “anonymous sources” or as in the case with Chris Wallace, “a well-connected” Washington Republican.

Do Americans feel that is right?

The Truth

Americans more than ever rely on the News Media to give us thorough but concise and accurate news about all those things of importance. Today more than ever, occurrences around the World are critical for Americans to know and understand. Truth in reporting is expected of news sources. But since those in news management learned of the ability for their organizations to impact ideas and subsequent decisions made by consumers about essential happenings, they have created a weaponized newsroom. When they staff their news producers, news directors, and even on-air reporters that are willing to “color” news stories sourcing and and then to report those stories as truthful and adequately sourced, truth is not mandatory. Upper management found this practice to be necessary and surprisingly successful. But the news itself has very little to do with their reasoning and justification for instituting this process.

It’s all about money!

As a college journalism major, I have not a single memory of a professor or associate conducting a class entitled “How to Get Along with Management.” There are numerous historical examples of instances in which outstanding reporters have gone public with news that was known to possibly shed a negative light on even their own news organization. But most often, the potential conflict for reporting these stories was because of personal or business relationships between their news bosses and persons or organizations on which these stories when told put forth a negative but truthful perspective.

Enter the “Anonymous” sources.

Anonymous sourcing is so common Americans have become numb to it. In the current case, I’m confident that in the next few weeks, investigations by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General will reveal evidence of the damage perpetrated by this type of reporting. Let’s face it: the entire Russia collusion story initiated by members of the Obama Administration was fabricated based entirely on not any wrongdoing by those other than Donald Trump et al. The basis for the $40 million Mueller Investigation was simply “Donald Trump must have done something evil to entice Russia to assist with election tampering to help him get elected. He couldn’t have possibly defeated Hillary without outside help. Let’s find the evidence to support that.” How could the News Media effectively create a three-year news scheme that required a daily dump of information palatable and believable to the American people, especially when there was no evidence of any such wrongdoing? News management found a way: quoting “anonymous sources” for every negative bit of news to be reported.

They even (when questioned by Americans when President Trump named such reports “Fake News” realized there was so much news necessary to achieve the success they were going to be required to quote sources. How is it possible to cite sources when stories were devised in newsrooms where reporters creatively crafted evidence that was fake? It didn’t take long for a few editors to realize that this impeachment story would be the most important of the past three or four decades. Because of that, they could realistically expect a percentage of Americans to believe whatever negative things about Mr. Trump they reported. After all, their favorite candidate Hillary Clinton captured more of the popular vote than did Trump. It would undoubtedly be an easy sell. And it was.

Why cannot Americans get consistent reporting using known sources for information? There’s only one reason for this. News agencies will say that sources will not go on the record in some cases without assurances of anonymity. Why? Those sources fear they’re giving that information could endanger them personally or professionally. My question in those cases is “If it is so dangerous to anyone, why is it necessary to report at all?” The answer to that is: “Because someone somewhere can either receive a fat paycheck for the report or the political agenda of someone is legitimized or heightened in importance by that news, whether it’s fake or true.”

Sadly, professional journalists seemed to have –on the most part — signed-on to that process. It seems that every news organization in the U.S., to some degree, gives “anonymous” or “unnamed sources” legitimacy because “Americans deserve to know everything of importance.” But is something about someone or some organization that has not been verified by at least one source essential to roll the dice at the expense of the American people simply to get a story into the public’s minds? The answer: doing so has been given the green light over and over again.

Attacking Donald Trump continuously has been an approved action by almost every news organization today: forget about sourcing, forget about verification and authentication. Just be the first to get it on the internet, in the paper, or a television interview is sufficient to justify the release of a story. “We’ll deal with any blowback after-the-fact,” the editors say.


You may ask, “What does all this have to do with today’s story opening in which you shared a company process of dispute resolution?” The answer is simple and it parallels the legal process in operation in the U.S. Justice system from its creation. First with “the presumption of innocence.” That guarantees that all caught up in the U.S. criminal justice system in their legal battles will always be considered innocent unless and until they are proven guilty. Secondly, the right of the accused to always be able to confront their accuser is another guarantee.

In our company conflict resolution process, though not in criminal cases, we determined all conflicts should be resolved — period. We recognized that people will exhibit personal preferences for and with others often based on feelings rather than with facts. Human nature being what it is, people often put their own thoughts, ideas, and wishes ahead of others. And in working together in a closed environment, we feel it is necessary to make certain no person is ever treated as being less worthy, or their opinions, ideas, and personal values less important than those of fellow workers.

How does that play into news reported with the use of anonymous or unnamed sources? Those reports with such sources are almost always derogatory to the subject or subjects of the news story. To that end, are journalists better than other humans regarding their truthfulness about others? Do journalists automatically receive a pass from the responsibility to tell the truth?

Opponents state the importance of getting stories out to Americans quickly trumps any need to make certain of the truth of what is being reported. But wait: is there ever a justifiable circumstance in which it is OK for a journalist to roll the dice on the potential destruction of an innocent person’s life by reporting a “factual” story that may possibly contain false or fabricated information? Is getting news to the public that, really is NOT news, but it is important enough to destroy careers, relationships, families or businesses just to publish before another news outlet? I think not. But many in the news business give no thought to doing so every day and with impunity.

How is that done with impunity? Adults know when a news item or story probably will hurt someone. Reporters also know courts have rules for reporters stating they cannot be forced to reveal story sources based on the freedom of speech promised in the First Amendment. Knowing a story might contain unconfirmed information should prevent news organizations from publishing a story without fact confirmation.

Until the advent of satellite and internet news with a 24/7 hunger for instant news, news outlets had reporting requirements of fact confirmation before any story was published. With stiff competition in news, the editorial demand for source confirmation was eased or even dropped because of the need to be first with a story. The chance of destroying one’s life or career with the release of a story was tossed out of the window with instant news demand forcing organizations to “be first.”

I’m a journalist. While I want to be first with an idea or story whenever possible, I am conscious of each story’s impact on all who read it and all who are story subjects. The “need to know” should always trump the “want to know” in the release of any story. People are more important than information. And if every news organization would resume that age-old mandate of editors and publishers from the past to require every source to be confirmed at least once and in some cases twice, we’d seldom or never see a story that we must question its accuracy. To continue down the path of supermarket tabloid news from companies with billions of dollars in resources that have the capacity to generate 100% accurate stories every day is unacceptable. And it should not matter which side of the political aisle on which an editor sits, truthfulness and source confirmation should be an “always” requirement for every story. News publishers and editors: Stop it!

America, we’re better than that.


Liberalism vs. Populism

What’s the difference? As we ramp up for the 2020 election, Americans need to know the difference between the two. Why? Because in every 2020 election involving U.S. Senators, House Representatives, and the Presidency, Americans’ choice will be to elect either a Liberal or a Populist. Let’s look at the differences.


Defined by Webster, Populism is “A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.”

That definition pretty much tells the whole story. Before 2016, most often U.S. presidential candidates came from either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. The Democrat Party for two hundred years espoused policies that were somewhat skewed toward the empowerment of the government regarding political operations which directly impacted the lives of Americans. The Republican Party policies leaned toward giving more power regarding political matters to the People.


Defined by Webster, Liberalism is ”a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution.”

It’s interesting to Google the word “Liberalism” and read the differences in definitions. Liberalism is sometimes described as being a “bottom-up” political process in which the people control their government; of being a political process that promotes individualism with a limited government that encourages citizens to reject an oppressive government. In practice in today’s United States, the exact opposite is true of how liberals view government who, feel anything but that.

Democrats have not accepted that Americans understand what liberalism is. And Americans reject it for the most part. Democrats because of their being “outed” for their socialist-leaning liberal concepts and that Americans are onto that philosophy have stopped calling themselves “liberals” and their political ideology that of  “Liberalism.” Dems adopted the terms “Progressives” and “Progressivism” instead. It’s just the “same song — second verse.” The two are one and the same.

Living the Change

Democrat leadership thought their moniker change would be lost on most Americans. That could not be less true. Americans for decades have looked at Democrats as the party of big government, socialist policies, for less citizen-control of politics in Washington with more dependency on D.C. by Americans with less reliance on state and local governments. In other words, “We know what’s best for you. Just keep electing us and we’ll keep doing for you what we KNOW you need.”

The reality of who the Democrat Party and Progressives are is in our faces every day. And Americans started during the Bush 43 first term paying close attention to government matters and which party (or “parties”) had taken over political processes, and which were and are stealing as much power from the people as they can without the people even understanding what was happening.

The “Trump Factor”

Enter Donald J.Trump. Mr. Trump is two things if there are only two things with which he can be labeled: Conservative and Populist. It has been saddening to watch American voters listen as Elites in politics have labeled Mr. Trump again and again with titles that are demeaning and play into the narrative they have created to describe their political philosophy.  To Democrats, President Trump is a despot, a dictator, a demagogue, an authoritarian and a fascist who is not “of” the people, but says without true meaning what he thinks U.S. citizens want to hear. The Leftists think their philosophy is the only one that is realistic and attractive for the U.S. They now fight to no longer be called Liberals. They want to be considered Progressives. Progressivism is nothing like their political structure. Progressive means moving forward with ideas that are positive and encouraging to individuals and groups. Progressivism as Democrats are using it today is actually RE-gressive. They espouse more control by government, less individualism among the populace, and much larger government with a top-down operating political structure.

It’s humorous to know that in numerous foreign countries, Mr. Trump’s populist ideas have been adopted by many who are already serving in government and others who are candidates running for office. It’s unbelievable that some of those candidates are even calling themselves “Trump Populists” as they campaign while comparing their policies which are similar if not identical to those of Trump.

We need to consider the real differences between today’s Democrat Party (Liberals or Progressives) and today’s Donald Trump G.O.P. (Populism and Populist). What better way than to have a well-known, self-proclaimed liberal and longtime member of the U.K. media to make the comparison between Populism and Liberalism, Piers Morgan?:

The “Difference”

Here’s the reality of the struggle by Liberals to reconcile political life in America with Donald Trump right in the middle of it: he’s an enigma! They have never seen an American politician that has accomplished so quickly as Donald Trump. What are those accomplishments?

  • He promised to lower taxes — he lowered taxes;
  • He promised to rebuild our military — he has rebuilt our military;
  • He promised to get NATO members to pay their fair shares of NATO defense — they have begun to pay their fair shares;
  • He promised to reduce crippling regulations put on businesses during the Obama Administration — he’s done so which has envigorated corporate growth and expansion;
  • He promised to push GDP to 3-4 % — He has GDP between 3-4%;
  • He promised to decrease unemployment by creating thousands of new jobs — U.S. unemployment is at all time lows in every employment segment;
  • He promised to get corporations and companies to increase wages — companies and corporations have raised employee raises far above any in the Bush 43 or Obama;
  • He promised to get corporations keeping billions of dollars of profits offshore to bring that capital back to the U.S. — multiple corporations have done just than creating tens of billions in new operating capital for corporate growth, payroll increases, and expansions.

To sum it up: Donald Trump has done what he promised he would do if Americans elected him as the 45th President. The Left still refuses to accept that.


In a world in which labels are arbitrarily created and passed around by members of the American political class ad nauseum, Donald Trump has those elitists stymied. They have tried all the labels with which they can demean him. None stick. And that drives them nuts.

Trump’s public success is an enigma. In modern history, there is no reference to which any political historian can point and say “Here’s what and who Donald Trump is duplicating with the way he governs.”

Control is the elitists’ political weapon of choice. We’ve seen them utilize that tool of dominance both when in control of both houses of Congress and even when the G.O.P. is in the drivers’ seat. They have an uncanny sense of how to manipulate circumstances to fit perfectly within their talking points and their agenda. And many current Trump supporters are aghast when seeing Republican leadership allow this to happen.

A Conservative rebellion began in the U.S. Middle American voters that started the tide of “Trump Populism” in 2016. That message spread from coast to coast during the first three years of the Trump presidency. It is fueled by the positive results of Trump’s policies. Further pushing the cause is that President Trump is the first president in these Americans’ lives who has stood in the face of political assault, one after another, never wavering, never giving in, and never compromising.

We’ll leave today’s story with the words you just saw and heard from one of the U.K.’s foremost objective yet liberal voice in politics — Piers Morgan. Morgan correctly revealed and demonstrated the current wave of Populism ushered in by Mr. Trump. And every day it looks more and more likely that America’s first 21st century Populist President will get a few more years to implement his campaign promises that Congress refused to implement legislatively plus many more.

Stay tuned. We’ll keep track of his progress in doing so at TruthNewsNetwork.




It could not get any worse: the President is trampling on the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution!

Wow. Just think of it: Donald Trump signed a contract to host at HIS resort property in Miami — “Trump Doral” — the upcoming G7 Summit. Everyone knows it is illegal for a president to politically enrich themselves purposely by using the office of the Presidency to create any financial gain for themselves. Mr. Trump owns Doral! What did he think when he signed that contract?!?

Emoluments Clause of the Constitution

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or another thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive. The common purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country’s leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift-giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats.

How dare the President think he would get a pass from his obligation under that clause in the Constitution and contract with the G7 to host that world gathering? Hotel rooms, meeting rooms, food, and services cost money. Those international diplomats with security and support staff will pay Trump Doral for their visit! That’s unconstitutional and, of course, is an impeachable offense!

You will probably be surprised to know that there are already several lawsuits filed against President Trump using as their purpose and legal support the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. Those were filed immediately after his election in 2016. There is an excellent and comprehensive analysis of these cases and how several state and federal courts have already ruled on those. This specific analysis is written in legal language and certainly is not in the format I prefer: “Executive Summary.” I’m a bit slow, and it takes pictures with explanations to help me understand intricate legal issues. I am attaching the three-page analysis of existing Emoluments litigation against President Trump. Here’s a link:

Feel free to examine it yourself. For those of you like me who prefer the “executive summary” version of the intricate and court-tested legal opinion of these, here it is: “There’s No There There!”

So why the uproar? There IS much uproar.

How about a swim to cool-off at Trump Doral?

Here’s the take of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): “The Administration’s announcement that President Trump’s Doral Miami resort will be the site of the next G7 summit is among the most brazen examples yet of the President’s corruption. He is exploiting his office and making official U.S. government decisions for his personal financial gain. The Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution exist to prevent exactly this kind of corruption. The Committee will continue investigating, litigating and legislating regarding these matters—including pressing for answers to our prior requests about the G7 selection process—but we will not allow this latest abuse of power to distract from Congress’ efforts to get to the bottom of the President’s interference in the 2020 election.” 

And it’s not just Democrats. The FOX News Legal Contributor — former Judge Andrew Napolitano — weighed in: “He has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. This is about as direct and profound a violation of the Emoluments Clause as one could create,” Napolitano told Neil Cavuto on Fox Business. Napolitano also pointed to Mick Mulvaney’s insistence that Trump would not “profit” from hosting the G-7 Summit at Trump Doral in Florida.

“Most respectfully, Mr. Mulvaney’s focus on profit, while it may make sense in the economic world, is not what the Framers were concerned about,” Napolitano said. “They were concerned about a gift or cash coming directly or indirectly to the president of the United States, even if it’s done at a loss. Now, the president owns shares of stock in a corporation that is one of the owners of this, along with many other investors. He also owns shares of stock in the corporation that manages it. So those corporations will receive a great deal of money from foreign heads of state because this is there.”That’s exactly, exactly what the Emoluments Clause was written to prohibit,” he said.

Let me analyze for you my perspective from spending much time reading and researching the Emoluments Clause and how it impacts President Trump. I have also spent a few hours reading the linked legal analysis and courts’ findings in litigation against the President since his election. I have much respect for Judge Napolitano and his experience. In full disclosure, I hold NO respect for Rep. Nadler, who, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in my opinion, are the bookends to Democrat Party and “Deep State” corruption in Washington. But, Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee, so I must say as a Christian “Render to Caesar that that is Caesar’s.” (That means to respect the office Mr. Nadler holds)

After my research and those existing court decisions, my finding is that Trump Doral hosting the G7 summit is NOT in any way a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. 

But I’m just a blogger/podcaster. What do we know? The Democrats always know more than others about pretty much everything. Once again, they know more than we do. And they are screaming — LOUDLY.

So what basis is there for the Noise?

The Noise

I know this will come as a surprise to you, but the Emoluments Clause uproar is just one more link in the Impeachment Debacle that Democrats have forced on the American public. They’ve tried so many things to rid themselves of Donald Trump. None have so far been successful. Why? Because there’s been no impeachable offense on the part of the President that support his impeachment.

First, it was Russian Collusion. Then Conspiracy and Obstruction of Justice. Those were just the tips of the iceberg. There are plenty more: 91 more, to be exact!

Do you think I’m kidding? Heck no. Democrats have floated allegations of Trump impeachable offenses that so far number 94. Want to see what they are? Click on the following link that will take you to a page listing those. Then for complete details of each, you can click on the number of that allegation and see complete details:


With those two attachments and your looking and reading their contents closely, your Saturday is full of essential information. I hope it’s not too much for you to process. After all, it’s Saturday with college football! But I want to illustrate to you how voracious these Democrats are to get rid of Mr. Trump. I have only been able to surmise why they are so deadset to impeach him. Do they not interact with American voters who are in their lives experiencing the fruits of the improvements in the nation that are results of Trump’s accomplishments? Do they think that Americans are dumb and cannot watch the national news and examine products from liberal and conservative news sources and determine on their own which are legitimate and which are providing us the news organization’s perspective and not merely the news that we can use to assess the reality of what has happened? I do not understand.

                         A little Golf?

This is NOT solely a conservative issue. This is NOT solely a liberal issue. This is an American political issue that has become an information war. “DoralGate” is simply the latest arrow in the quiver of liberalism that the anti-Trump proponents grabbed that might be the right ammunition to exterminate the 45th U.S. President.

By the way: DoralGate might be number 95 in their list of impeachment justifications. But it will not be the last. There’s another 15 months in President Trump’s first term in office. At the present rate, Democrats could run that number up to 200 impeachment reasons!

One more thought: How would Democrats feel if the President said this to the G7 partners regarding their stays at Doral: “We’ll comp the hotel rooms and meeting rooms for your entire contingency. Just pay for your food and tip the help.” Do you think that would pacify the anti-Trump Democrats and never-Trump Republicans? Probably not. Remember their continuing mantra: “Facts don’t matter. We believe in ‘Symbolism over Substance.'”

In closing, let me pose just one question to you: Do you think that maybe the President purposely put this G7 deal together knowing the amount of uproar from the Left it would initiate? If so, who would be surprised? The President is really good at carrying around that sharp stick and pokes his political opponents consistently. I think it would be hilarious if that’s what he’s doing. More uproar, more noise, and more drama between Donald Trump and the Left.

Nothing more needs to be said.