A Myth Called “Bi-Partisanship”

Let’s face facts: the words “Bi-Partisanship” is an oxymoron when it references politics in Washington. Bi-Partisanship requires two or more people to work on any one project or issue together to reach a consensus or agreed-to result. Nothing in that resembles today’s Washington D.C. Congress.

Honestly, we could spend all day every day chronicling the disparities in the legislative methodology used today compared to just a few years ago in Congress. It may have existed for some time, but the first I remember an eternal rift between parties was when former President Obama made this statement: “Elections have consequences.” He was referencing many who complained about the unwillingness of members of both parties to work together. But Obama in saying that was highlighting the fact that Democrats won a second term in the White House and control — albeit temporary power — of Congress. To Obama, that meant his political opponents needed to follow his lead on all matters of government as long as Democrats were in control.

Where had Bi-Partisanship gone?

I cannot answer that. Indeed, the unwillingness for Congress to reach across aisles for the common good of the nation is not a single party issue. But it has reached outlandish heights in unified efforts on the part of those on the Left to resist anything and everything put forward by President Trump. I will not bore you with a list of examples. We all see them as they happen. And they happen so often we have grown numb to them. It’s as if we yawn when they occur and think, “It’s just another day in D.C.!” That’s sad.

The Sheriff in Town

Almost without question, you know who the “Sheriff in Town” references: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). He’s the boss! Formerly that role belonged to the Speaker of the House. And everyone in Congress stayed inline or drew the ire of the Speaker. Nancy Pelosi was and still should be the Sheriff in Congress. But her position was compromised immediately following the 2018 midterm elections. With the House additions of members of “The Squad,” Pelosi found herself in a difficult situation. Her power was threatened. Those freshman House members challenged her authority and threatened a mutiny to keep her from assuming the role of Speaker in the new Congress. So the Sheriff became “The Squad” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). They took control of the House of Representatives putting Pelosi on defense. And it has been that way since.

How powerful are the members of “The Squad?” We’re currently in the midst of the demonstration their power: Impeachment. The four immediately after assuming office began a unified cry for the House of Representatives to impeach the President. None could venture a guess as to an impeachable offense with evidence, but their insistence began to infect other members of Congress. The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates each joined the impeachment cause. Before long, House Speaker Pelosi found herself the target of threats by “The Squad” to dump her as Speaker if she did not bow to their demands.

Pelosi and other House leaders created the myth of this “Impeachment Inquiry.” It has no teeth at and is nothing but a sham investigative operation to find dirt on Mr. Trump that Dems hope will lead to articles of impeachment. In other words, this Inquiry is the Mueller Investigation Part II. And so far, it’s effect on finding any Trump wrongdoing is only is as useful as was the Mueller Investigation.

Pelosi quickly discovered that her appointed Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — Jerold Nadler (D-NY) — had about as much hope at putting together a successful path to impeachment process as do I. She dumped him! She then passed the mantle to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Without getting wordy, Schiff is the evilest member of Congress in my memory. And my memory is relatively lengthy because it’s 66 years long.

Schiff rewrote the Congressional impeachment process. He made it his own; he made it unconstitutional; made it partisan; and he made himself chief prosecutor, judge, and jury in its proceedings. And in “his” process, he has ignored the Rule of Law.

His objective is simple: find a way to put President Trump on trial in before the Nation and drive him from office. It makes no difference to Schiff there is no evidence through three years of nonstop investigation into the Trump organization that justifies impeachment. Schiff created a new way to handle this entire thing: impeach the President for emotional and psychological wrongdoing.

I know it sounds crazy — and it is. But this process we see unfolding day by day, chapter by chapter, has no historical reference. Nothing like it existed in the three previous presidential impeachment processes. Schiff immediately ditched the idea of “precedent” in pursuing impeachment. He created a new path for unseating a duly elected President: “Do as I say and forget about everything else.” And his objective remains front and center every day. And he has made the process all his, all about him, and all to unseat Donald Trump.

The Charlatan

What is a “charlatan?” I struggle even to spell the word. But Mr. Schiff rolled it out over the weekend in a speech he made to the California Democrat Party. Let’s set the stage.

Schiff had just completed two days of public hearings by his committee in the Impeachment Inquiry. The three witnesses that appeared brought NO facts to the table about any wrongdoing on the part of the President. All three made comments that were negative about Mr. Trump, but each comment was purely an opinion that had no evidentiary basis.

Schiff — who has now made himself a rock star — then jumped on a plane for California to give a speech that was nothing more than a version of a “Schiff victory lap.“ Schiff feels as if his committee was victorious and was successful in showing the public just how evil is Mr. Trump. And Schiff told Californians exactly what his objective in this Impeachment Inquiry is.

Adam Schiff branded Donald Trump a ‘charlatan’ in that fiery speech delivered to California Democrats.  The House Intelligence Committee Chairman, who has been tasked with overseeing the impeachment inquiry into the President, received a rousing round of applause as he unleashed the insults at the 2019 Fall Endorsing Convention in Long Beach on Saturday.

“Schiff, who was introduced at the event as ‘Our Protector’, stated: ‘Two years ago I stood before you and I urged you to resist and you did, but we are more than a resistance now – we are a majority!’ He added: ‘We are a majority in one house, and we will become a majority in the other, and we will send that charlatan [Trump] in the White House back to the golden throne he came from!'”

Put that in perspective: Schiff chairs the House Intelligence Committee. His role is to manage the operations of that committee. In that role, he has now rewritten the guidelines so that he determines each process of the committee. He controls witnesses, whether or not they can testify publicly, what they can and cannot say in their testimonies, who can or cannot question the witnesses, whether or not anyone on the committee can present evidence, ask specific questions of the witnesses, and what topics in each hearing are allowed and are not allowed. In other words, Schiff is lording over a Soviet-style process designed to allow the “ruler” (or Chairman) to control every part of the hearing. And there are no judges, prosecutors, or controlling entities to which anyone can appeal to challenge Schiff on any part of the process. Adam Schiff has become “Vladimir Schiff” with the same power as the Russian President. That’s ironic, isn’t it?

Schiff is The Wizard of Oz!


We’ll end with this example of the “Schiff-Schizzle” Lunacy.

One of the prize Schiff witnesses who we were told had blockbuster evidence that proved Donald Trump was guilty of extortion of Ukraine and obstruction of justice was former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. She was an Obama Administration holdover. Shortly after Ukraine’s election in 2018 of a new President, Trump fired Ambassador Yovanovitch. Schiff feels certain that Trump’s doing so was an effort to interfere in Ukraine to impact the 2020 presidential election in his favor — but there is NO evidence of that. We all know about the Biden corruption investigation by the former Ukraine prosecutor that was stopped by then V.P. Biden who threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if that prosecutor was not fired.

Schiff planned to use the firing of Yovanovitch as proof that Trump obstructed. Her testimony would undoubtedly prove that. And her firing (according to Schiff) was unprecedented.

But a problem with that popped up. Former President Barack Obama fired all ambassadors appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, the Washington Post previously reported.

Yovanovitch testified that the Trump administration, including the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, “kneecapped” her. She said that she was not supported by State Department leaders after being recalled in May.

“Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush’s ambassadorial appointees,” WaPo’s 2008 article about Obama’s decision to fire all political ambassadors reads.

Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016. Newly-elected presidents typically re-vamp the positions with their own choices once taking office. Yovanovitch was allowed to stay on for three years after Trump took office, but has testified that senior officials “declined to acknowledge” the “smear campaign” against her leading up to her firing, Politico reported.

A 2017 Snopes fact check also noted that Trump firing appointed ambassadors was not an unprecedented move and certainly not an obstruction of justice. Doing so is part of being head of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.

The resignation and replacement of ambassadors at the end of an administration is routine,” the fact check reads, adding that some presidents have fired everyone at once while others decide on a case-by-case basis.

Democrats said during Friday’s public testimony that they were angry at Yovanovitch’s sudden dismissal, despite Obama doing the same thing when he became president in 2008.

Have you had enough? Take another deep breath: Schiff has only just begun!

Remember last week when we predicted that Pelosi would pull the plug on this impeachment inquiry boondoggle during the weekend? I stated that if she did not, I’d be here today to eat crow and to say that I was wrong. Here’s what I WILL do: I’ll say that I was wrong on the timing. As of this writing, Pelosi has taken no such action. However, her terminating the ”Schiff Schizzle” is inevitable! Why? There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing by President Trump that rises to the level of impeachment.

If Pelosi allows this to continue, “The Squad” will be her least significant issue in the Democrat House of Representatives. There will be a certain wholesale firestorm during the 2020 election as Americans send Democrat members of the House and even the Senate packing in the wake of this impeachment charade.

Stay tuned: we are certain Pelosi’s intervention of this inquiry is imminent!


Trump Losing Support of Suburban Women

We’ve all heard it: Suburban women cannot tolerate the President’s blunt and sometimes caustic rhetoric and are fleeing the GOP in advance of the 2020 elections. But here’s a caution for us all: Conservatives are preached to by the Media Mob, who consistently tell us their version of the truth on all Trump matters. They are the source of the suburban women rush to turn on the President. But is what we are being told the truth?

It should come as no surprise to any that this news is not news at all. Facts do not bear this out.

A new report showed that President Donald Trump is seeing a surge in donations from women and is tops in receiving significant contributions from suburban women—more than any Democrat candidate. 

Despite the narrative from mainstream media claiming that suburban women are “fleeing the Trump party,” a study from OpenSecrets.org, part of the Center for Responsive Politics, shows the sharp contrast. President Trump has the most big-dollar suburban women donors, 10,534, and has received the most from them with more than $8 million—the most significant amount compared with his Democratic rivals.

“Suburban women, who power a significant electoral battleground, are a key demographic for 2020,” reads the study. “The suburbs are more important as the political divide between Republicans and Democrats grows starker.”

“Trump has received more itemized large-dollar contributions from women than a majority of the Democratic candidates—$15 million since he started fundraising the day after his inauguration,” it adds. 

Even some conservative show hosts have noted the alleged support loss of Trump female support. But statistics do not bear that out.

Media reports following Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 pointed to the apparent Clinton loss of support from women as a significant factor in the election outcome. The media then could not accept that with all of Mr. Clinton’s “dirty laundry” from his past, women could still support him as president. CNN found a group of southern women in Dallas who explained precisely why the Trump support among women was rock-solid among Conservatives then and will continue:

The Blue Wave

Here we go again! That famous Democrat “Blue Wave” that in 2018 put Democrats back in control of the House of Representatives is, according to Democrats, now a tsunami headed for the shores of the Potomac in 2020 to sweep Mr. Trump from office. And swept up in that wave are suburban women who will determine who will replace Mr. Trump.

But we DO know a few things that the Blue Wave rumors do not confirm:

  • As the above-quoted report confirms, suburban women have NOT fled from the support of the President or GOP candidates;
  • Women still are the key demographic that determine election outcomes. Therefore NO GOP candidate (or any candidate) can take that voting block for granted. Despite what Media pundits want Americans to believe, many Trump policies are purposely aimed at female voters. What would those issues be? The economy. This American economy is and will continue to be the critical factor for women voters in 2020.


Who controls the election narrative in America? No matter how easy it is in today’s 24/7 instant media environment, the mass media control the political narrative. We have watched in horror in the past decade as the Media Mob has en masse directly and purposely impacted the flow of “truth” in the marketplace of ideas. And most of the time, that media agenda has become a concerted effort to impact election results with “slanted” information — or as the “Woke” American media prefer to state it is “Their Truth.”

Remember the 1990s marketing line that we all learned the hard way: “Perception is Reality?” There was much truth in that statement in the 90s, and it has never been more appropriate than it is in today’s media messaging.

Regarding the Blue Wave in 2018 and the flow of the support of women, NBC illustrated the “Perception Doctrine” in Media:

We are living in the year 2018, and the GOP seems to have only just now discovered it has a woman problem. The blue wave of the midterms — substantially propelled by women’s organizing and woman candidates — has left the Republican party scrambling to shore up support among suburban, college-educated women, who seem to be fleeing the party en masse. Yet for a party that has thoroughly and obsessively defined itself based on white male needs and sensibilities for at least a decade, the call to change may be impossible to heed. Times are moving too fast for Republicans to catch up. There is one big, obvious reason why women are fleeing the Republican party, and it’s currently sitting in the Oval Office: Trump, the big, orange, ugly, angry reminder of exactly how much men can get away with.

Can Trump Win Without Women?

That is a subjective question that can only truthfully be answered subjectively. Results rely solely on exit polling.

In 2016, Reuters conducted exit polling of 24,558 voters of all ages and both sexes. Of both of those gender groups, those polled “said” the following:

  • Of male voters polled, 41% said they voted for Clinton, 52% voter for Trump.
  • Of female voters polled, 54% said they voted for Clinton, 41% voted for Clinton.

Please note this was NOT scientific polling. It is justifiable to suggest that there could be significant assumptions made based on various factors in the exit polling process. But substantively, one can assume there were more women supporting Clinton than supported Trump.

Why do you think that is so?

The Media would love for Americans to believe it was because women as a group rejected Donald Trump. But wait: women regarding their politics have been shown to reject making decisions based solely or in large on the emotions of elections. Women are far more practical than are men.

When voting, women’s votes depend on their confidence that a candidate will perform based on issue promises made while campaigning which are most important to women: healthcare, taxes, employment, consumer prices and inflation, and other mostly economic issues. These are NOT assumptions on our part. They are historical norms from elections as far back as the 1950s.

That should be no surprise: it’s been common knowledge in marketing for decades that reaching women ages 25-54 is mandatory when it comes to economic issues. Why is that? Women in this age bracket not only earn a significant portion of household incomes, they control the purse strings of families.

For those reasons, it is safe to say that as long as the U.S. economy remains stable, shows steady growth, unemployment remains low with wages climbing at even low rates, women will feel far more comfortable than their male counterparts to vote to keep economic conditions in place that have given good results to Americans — especially those in the middle class.

To boil that down: as long as the economy remains good, Donald Trump will NOT lose female voters. In fact, it is expected he will INCREASE voting percentages among women from 2016 percentages.

That certainly is not a popular message among Democrats. But, like it or not, facts are indisputable.


Let’s be honest: November 2020 will be here before we know it. But in reality, there is still plenty of time in which much can happen both good and bad. It is certainly premature to state factually where women in America are going to be regarding their votes in the Presidential race.

Election choices are fragile, polarizing, and very personal. personally I feel it is ridiculous for anyone to measure the voting trends of 160+ million voters by talking to a thousand or so after they finish voting. How unreliable is it to sell that concept as being an accurate representation of the eventual voting results in any election? The Media sell their stories to us about that very thing.

Do you know why they harp incessantly on “Trump is losing the votes of women” story? They are horrified to think that primarily because of the economy, women that are in support of a second term for Mr. Trump are steadily growing in number. Americans as a whole (and certainly American women) are not willing to turn the reins of the American economy over to a political partisan who plans to turn the booming economy over to a novice who promises to flip it 180 degrees. American women in large are no different than American men: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

One of the most in-touch political pundits of the last thirty years — James Carville — put it best during the run up to the Bill Clinton impeachment of the late 1990s. When asked by a news anchor how he thought women would vote in the 1996 presidential election with the cloud of impeachment hanging over Clinton’s head. Carville immediately responded with the now-famous line about what is really important to women in elections: “It’s the economy, Stupid!” was Carville’s response.

When my mother remarried, she married a wealthy much older man. I was a teenage idealist in the 1970s who had a slightly different view of money than I do today.

In my adolescent way I tried to make Mom feel guilty about marrying for money. “After all,” I said, “Money’s not everything.”

My mother’s reply was, “No, money’s not everything. But it makes everything else a lot nicer.”

I cannot think of any statement that better explains exactly where women are in their thinking — not just today, but every day.

Whey Momma feels good about how the money’s going in the house, everybody in the house feels pretty good.

Momma feels pretty good right now.

The “Trump Train”

Yessiree: I jumped on the “Trump Train” Thursday night at the CenturyLink Center in Bossier City, Louisiana. The President joined 15,000 of his closest friends inside the arena and a large number (uncountable) of those looking in from the outside who could not enter because of capacity limits. The picture to the left was taken from a suite about 100 yards from the stage. I used it here so that all could see just how crowded the event was and how close he was to the crowd. I came away with many unexpected feelings and opinions.

  1. Mr. Trump seemed much more gracious and thoughtful when I listened to his entire speech and actual conversation with the large and biased crowd. I guess that when I’ve looked in to see his other rallies at other locations, most of what I saw were edited or at least just partial segments of those rallies. In context, he certainly showed a communication prowess I did not expect.
  2. He connects with an audience. I was not a fan of The Apprentice. Quite honestly, I never watched an entire episode. But in retrospect, even on that television show, he spoke to a small number of people gathered around a table at the end of the teaching show. In Bossier City, it was a huge crowd that were there to see him and experience interactions with him. No one was disappointed. He spoke “To” those 15,000+, not “At” them. They responded in kind.
  3. I was surprised at the makeup of the crowd. Because of news reports that I’ve seen and heard from a year prior to the 2016 election and since, I fully expected to be there with nothing but redneck white supremacists dressed in camo or white sheets. There certainly were a number of folks from Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas who looked to be working-class Americans, but I saw dozens and dozens of people I know who are business owners, retired wealthy people, and many elected officials at local, state, and federal levels that I was shocked to see in attendance in a Congressional election off-year. To my surprise Mr. Trump has an appeal to a diverse cross section of Americans.
  4. The President was actually respectful on the most part when speaking of his opponents from the Democrat side: that is, except of Rep. Adam Schiff of California. Remember: this was actually a rally for the GOP Candidate for Louisiana Governor in Saturday’s election. Eddie Rispone — a south Louisiana businessman — is running against a one-time heavily favored incumbent Democrat, John Bel Edwards. This was Trump’s third trip to Louisiana stumping for Rispone. And polls show those first two trips at least gave Rispone a couple of large bumps. We’ll see what this the third such trip will accomplish.


Let’s be honest: it’s late here. I wanted to share with you my initial feelings about the Trump Rally while they are still fresh in my mind. Additionally, there were no impeachment inquiry hearings on Thursday and I felt I could give you a break. They will resume on Friday. On Saturday we’ll reconvene to discuss and share our thoughts on the Friday testimonies. But one bit of news was released to coincide with Mr. Trump’s arrival when he stepped off Air Force One: The Ukraine Foreign Minister released some information regarding the Trump “Ukraine-Gate” debacle.

Ukraine Foreign Minister Prystaiko released the following on Thursday regarding Ambassador Sondland’s comments and conversations about links between U.S. aid to Ukraine being delayed that was tied to initiation by Ukraine investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma.

Ukraine did not hear from U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland about a link between the delay in military assistance to Ukraine and the investigation into the case of Burisma Holdings, where son of former Vice President Joe Biden Hunter worked.

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. You should ask him. I do not recall any conversation with me as with foreign minister. It was not we, the Ukrainian officials (who were told this),” Prystaiko told the journalists in Kyiv on Thursday.

He said he had no contact with Sondland as an official.

“I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events,” the minister said.

Once again, an official from Ukraine has countered U.S. Democrats continuous assertions that in that telephone conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, Mr. Trump threatened to hold foreign aid from Ukraine unless Ukraine restarted their corruption investigation into Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian company whose board on which he served: Burisma. That alleged extortion or “quid pro quo” was the fuel that lit the fire of the whistleblower that came forward anonymously. That jump started this latest Trump impeachment investigation.

Apparently, there’s “no there there.”

Oh well, they’ll be plenty more to divert the attention of Americans away from the actual extortion by an American politician who demanded Ukraine fire a prosecutor investigation then Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and his Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. Vice President Biden was caught on tape explaining how he had told the former president of Ukraine that unless that prosecutor was fired within six hours, the U.S. would NOT pay to Ukraine the nearly $1 Billion of aid Congress had authorized. Biden’s actions documented by his own confession was NOT a quid pro quo. It was extortion and blackmail.

Do you like me wonder why no one on the Left has assigned any importance at all to what the VP did? Also, why do they continue to simply shop for wrongdoing by Mr. Trump while ignoring the 900-pound gorilla in the room!

Back tomorrow (Saturday) with analysis of Round 2 of the public impeachment inquiry testimony.

Bozo or Pennywise?

I’m not sure which clown Rep. Adam Schiff claims to be, but he certainly is the Ringmaster of a Three-Ring Circus. Schiff indeed represents either Bozo, the classic circus clown kids have adored for decades, or Pennywise, Stephen King’s clown of horror that stars in his book and movie IT.

I purposely did NOT watch the first round of the public impeachment inquiry questioning of Ambassador Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, and I’m glad I did not. But what I did do was scan various news media outlets for snippets of their hearing synopses.

Before we wade into this hearing contents let’s address quickly the uproar that purportedly started this latest impeachment proceeding: The Ukraine alleged wrongdoing of the President.  Yes, he spoke to Ukraine President Zelensky about investigating Burisma and the Bidens about possible corruption. But the U.S. and Ukraine have a formal treaty for this exact thing to ferret out corruption. As promised here’s that treaty that you can download and read. It clearly was negotiated by Bill Clinton for “mutual cooperation between the U.S.and Ukraine to work together to find, expose, and prosecute corruption:”

Ukriane US Treaty

As one would expect, the members of the Leftist Media were well-prepared in advance for reporting the details of the hearing. But that wasn’t what the two star witnesses were supposed to do. They were there to drop the blockbuster bombs that would prove to all Americans that Donald Trump, besides being an incorrigible American, is surely not qualified to serve as President. And Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent bombed at that quest.

I won’t spend your time today to puzzle through the minutia of the hearing content. But I’ll summarize with a few points followed by our Summary today, which is a short back and forth between Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Ambassador Taylor.

  • This impeachment inquiry is a circus. Adam Schiff is conducting this hearing for one of two reasons or maybe both: he’s in a desperate act he considers to be a job interview to serve in the “next” Democrat administration as Attorney General. To that end, he is using his legal expertise to showcase the use he as a Democrat sycophant would be for a Democrat President to resume the Obama promise to lead “the fundamental change of the United States.” His second reason would be because of his undeniable hatred for the New Yorker who beat not only the Democrat Congress but the Democrat in the White House that was completing his presidency and their party’s mistress who fate had destined to be President — Hillary Clinton. He, as their savior, feels destined to save the face and the credibility of their party.
  • There was not a single shred of evidence presented by either star witness of any wrongdoing at all, let alone an impeachable offense by the President. That is unbelievable! That Schiff would waste the time of Congress to present to Americans his version of an impeachment circus proves just how broken the House of Representatives is in their leadership. Remember: Nancy Pelosi dumped Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which is to handle the impeachment process. She did so because his hearings were simply a charade in which Nadler lost control. She passed the impeachment baton to Schiff because he supposedly is much smarter and more devious than is Nadler. Pelosi was confident Schiff could pull this off. Pelosi is certainly not a stupid person. But in this case, she made the wrong choice.

In a few moments, we’ll shock you by predicting the steps Ms. Pelosi is about to take regarding next week’s hearings scheduled for this committee and moving forward with the process.

But before we do that, this short video/audio represents what this Schiff circus has revealed to Americans. These two witnesses are NOT experts in political matters regarding what should and what should not be done by U.S. presidents in foreign policy. These two were NOT elected to handle foreign policy. Neither was elected at all — they were hired. These two were NOT hired to shape or implement any pieces of foreign policy for this or any other administration. These two are political bureaucrats who were hired to give their advice on foreign policy so that this administration can make policy decisions that the President of the United States after input from his foreign policy experts determines is in the best interest of the American people. 

Do you know how crazy Adam’s circus is? Neither of these two had any first-hand information or evidence that showed any wrongdoing by Mr. Trump, and certainly nothing even approaching an “impeachable offense.” What each had was a story that went something like this: “I talked to a guy who knew a guy who lived next door to another guy who heard in a cafe that Donald Trump said this to a White House aid who told his mother.” And that’s what Americans think should be the basis of the impeachment of a President?

This debacle cannot be illustrated better than with this short bit of testimony and questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH):


Do you want my prediction? Here you go!

By no later than Sunday evening this week — November 17, 2019 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will “call off the dogs,” meaning she will quietly put an end to this impeachment fiasco.

Wow! That’s a bold and brave prediction. How can we do that?

Nancy Pelosi is a brilliant person. Sometimes she doesn’t seem to be, but she has not achieved her success by not being a wily member of Congress. Here’s what she has done and what she now faces:

  • The far-left of her party have threatened her again and again if she continued to rebuff their calls for impeachment. She can now say to them that she gave impeachment her best shot;
  • What small remnant that remains of the moderate element of her party will now be able to breathe a bit easier looking ahead at 2020. Democrat moderates know that Americans will NOT return a Democrat majority in the House if this impeachment craziness does not stop and there certainly will be no shot at a Senate majority;
  • Pelosi knows the Democrat Party field for president is extremely weak at best. There’s no one with the pedigree of Hillary Clinton in the foal, even though Hillary could be a stand-in if necessary. To that end, Pelosi is already looking ahead to 2024.

There you have it: that’s our best shot. If Pelosi does not stop the insanity this weekend, I’ll be back on Monday with my hat in hand to concur with you my stupidity for predicting anything regarding these Democrats. Oh well, I’ve made worse decisions than this.

And for those of you prone to want to do so, feel free to pile on if I’m wrong:


In spite of what my wife will say, I admit being wrong when I’m wrong. (I’m just not wrong very often!)


Impeachment Final Words

  1. As I write this, it’s the eve of the beginning of what Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff has termed the “bi-partisan” Intelligence Committee hearings in which the American public will hear directly from witnesses who testify before the committee. Here are the elements of this Americans need to remember if and while one chooses to look-in on that testimony:
  • Republicans are allowed to call witnesses to testify unlike the closed-door hearings held by Schiff. However, a small caveat in the structure gives Chairman Schiff the right to block any witnesses that he alone feels should not testify.
  • The Chairman when the whistleblower stepped forward with alleged damning firsthand information about Trump wrongdoing regarding Ukraine told the nation this committee would hear from the whistleblower. Suddenly, Schiff has switched directions and is NOT going to allow that testimony to occur. Why? Apparently Schiff and his staff coached the whistleblower and possibly even assisted in the preparation of the original whistleblower complaint submitted to the Inspector General. Schiff certainly does not want Republican committee members before the public to ask the whistleblower questions about his involvement with Schiff and Schiff’s staff.
  • From the list of witnesses Republicans on the committee presented to Schiff they wish to question in these hearings, Schiff has already stated several will not be allowed to testify — and at least two of those already testified before the committee behind closed doors. Why would Schiff not want their testimony publicly seen and heard?
  • Schiff and Company have decided to no longer term their allegations against the President “Quid Pro Quo.” They now have termed those “extortion and blackmail.” Former UN Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley stated this on CBS: “A ‘Quid Pro Quo’ requires that a party demands something from the other party in exchange for something. Ukraine received their aid. Democrats claim the President held that aid demanding Ukraine President Zelensky have a prosecutor immediately launch an investigation into former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter. That investigation of the Bidens never happened and is not happening now. What President Trump did was encourage Ukraine to act according to the mutual corruption treaty between the two countries committing mutually to ferret-out and stop political corruption in both countries. That’s detailing terms and conditions of foreign policy between the two countries set out in that 1999 treaty signed by President Clinton.”
  • The President has NO right in these hearings to representation by an attorney in the public hearing and therefore cannot cross examine any witnesses. That in any court in the U.S. would result in immediate case dismissal.
  • Schiff sent Republicans a warning to not in anyway try to demean either Biden during the public hearings or he would close the meeting to the public.

Extortion and/or Treason

That Ukraine phone call according to the transcript released by the President had NOTHING within it that discussed any demands for any actions by Ukraine at all, yet alone tied to the release of U.S. financial aid. But there certainly WAS extortion of the Ukraine government by the U.S. Here is the video proof:

That obviously was not the actual conversation Vice President Biden had with the former Ukraine president. But it certainly in a federal court in the United States would be admitted as evidence of extortion!


I’m done. The next week these hearings will continue. The Media Mob will watch and listen to every word, use every negative sound bite they can in their reports to prove to the American public that President Trump is guilty of extortion and treason.

Arm yourself with truth. Then do what I’m doing: ignore the hearings! As tough as it may be for me, I refuse to legitimize the Schiff Circus by wasting a moment of my time to do so.

I suggest you do the same. And we’ll be here to keep the air clear for you.

What Are They Hiding?

Try as they might, and try as they have, Democrats, along with “Never-Trumpers,” have failed to find the secret widget with which to drive Donald Trump from office. We’ve all shared our thoughts and ideas for the reasoning for their doing so, but ours has been a subjective opinion. Here are my thoughts on why those from the two groups want Mr. Trump gone:

Democrats. That’s an easy one to answer. Their perpetuation of the concerted efforts to take the U.S. down the path toward socialism and away from democracy is the headline of their master plan. Ms. Clinton was to be their anointed heir-apparent. Donald Trump not only upset the Clinton applecart, but he also defeated their socialism gameplan.

It seems impossible to accept that Democrats were so angry at President Trump for winning that they would create this atmosphere of alleged treason in which to thwart the will of 63 million American voters. It is hard to believe they’ve been doing so to put their socialistic trainwreck back on the tracks.

First, it was Russia collusion with the Trump Campaign. That boondoggle began before the 2016 election and was spearheaded by James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, and others. When the 2016 election results shock and horror subsided a bit, the Mueller probe was launched and perpetuated for 2.5 years. When it did not show Russia collusion, it moved to obstruction of justice. Then it was “Stormy-Gate,” then the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing debacle. With “no there there,” it morphed into “Ukraine-Gate” where we sit today.

“Never-Trumpers.” This one has been a bit tough to understand and explain. Conventional wisdom is that the entire GOP would be delighted to win back the White House. Put the brakes on! A relatively large contingent of Republicans were/are not only unhappy with the Trump presidency, but they have also joined with their across-the-aisle counterparts to remove Mr. Trump. What could their reasoning be?

They love the atmosphere in D.C. in which they live and work and don’t want anyone to upset it.

It’s the Swamp! And no one loves the Swamp more than those who live and thrive in the Swamp. Anyone who wants to change that immediately becomes the enemy. And the Never-Trumpers will not stand idly by allowing that to happen. How else can one explain the anti-Trump antics of the late Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mitt Romney, former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and many others who despise Donald Trump as do the following list of Never-Trumpers? (This list will shock you)

Former President George H. W. Bush

Former President George W. Bush

Former presidential candidates from 2016:

Florida Governor Jeb Bush; Mark Everson, Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Carly Fiorina, CEO of Hewlett-Packard (1999–2005); John Kasich, Governor of Ohio (2011–2019); George Pataki, Governor of New York (1995–2006)

Eleven sitting governors from 2016, Eleven previous governors — all Republicans

Thirteen current and former U.S. Senators — all Republicans

If you conduct an internet search for “current and former GOP politicians who were against the election of Donald Trump,” you will see dozens and dozens of others including the names of many that will surprise you. This begs the question,”Why would any Republican not support a Republican nominee over a Democrat opponent in a general election?” There can only be one answer and that is given above: They love the atmosphere in D.C. in which they live and work and don’t want anyone to upset it. (I think we’ve heard that reason before) These and other “Never-Trumpers” are so vehemently committed to the maintenance of the gravy-train called Washington they would then (and many would now) do whatever they could to guarantee their Swamp infrastructure is maintained. And Donald Trump made it clear to all he would never allow that to happen.

He went after Democrats; he went after establishment Republicans. And the American people like that and voted to give him the job to do just that while serving in the White House.

Bubbling Below the Surface

Does it seem to you that there is something not mentioned above that is a critical part of this anti-Trump activity that you cannot quite put you finger on? It certainly seems to be there. I’ve tried for a couple of years to identify it. While I have seen bits and pieces, Bigfoot just will not step into the sunlight. But it’s important that Americans discover and understand what’s really going on that remains unseen. Americans need to understand this “need” of Democrats and Never-Trumpers for impeachment so that in the 2020 elections, Americans can vote from an informed position.

How do we get answers which we can trust without evidence and only possibilities? Here’s what we’ve done at TruthNewsNetwork: we’ve worked backwards from the obvious — “they’re trying desperately to kick Mr. Trump from the White House.” Why is that? There is something or are some-things they do not want Americans to know. What could those be? What are they trying to hide?


Who are those trying to hide corruption and what corruption is there for them to hide? Let’s start at the top, Joe Biden being chief among those.

Joe Biden. The former VP had been designated the Obama overseer of Ukraine corruption and to work with Ukraine to ferret it out. Just before Trump took office, Joe was in Ukraine giving a goodbye speech: “You’re fighting both against the cancer of corruption, which continues to eat away at Ukraine’s democracy within, and the unrelenting aggression of the Kremlin,” he told local leaders, politicians and parliamentarians in Kyiv, the capital. “It’s imperative that you continue to strengthen all of your anti-corruption institutions to root out those who would return Ukraine to rule by cronyism and kleptocracy,” he added.

This speech tied a bow on the Vice President’s “job” for President Obama in Ukraine. It happened in the shadow of the obvious blackmail of the former president of Ukraine to stop government investigation of corruption in Ukraine by the VP’s son, Hunter. The blackmail material was $1 Billion of U.S. foreign aid that Biden would withhold unless Ukraine stopped investigating Hunter Biden for corruption! How ironic was that?

Shady dealings by Bidens were carefully hidden but included several in the family. Not only Joe and Hunter, but Joe’s brother James was also involved in shady Ukraine dealings. Click the ink for details: https://www.pacificpundit.com/2019/10/07/joe-bidens-corrupt-brother-involved-in-ukraine-scandal/

Nancy Pelosi. It seems seldom did shady dealings take place during the Obama years without Nancy Pelosi. Ukraine was no different.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul Pelosi Jr. visited Ukraine in 2017 to meet with government officials in connection to a business initiative. Now, unearthed records reveal that Paul Pelosi Jr. was an executive of a gas industry company that did business in Ukraine – and his mother Nancy Pelosi,was featured in one of the company’s promotional videos. Click the ink for details: https://whiskeytangotexas.com/2019/10/04/nancy-pelosi/

Bill and Hillary Clinton. From 2009 up to 2013, the year the Ukrainian crisis erupted, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which is headquartered in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, a new report claims.

In 2008, Viktor Pinchuk, who made a fortune in the pipe-building business, pledged a five-year, $29-million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative, a program that works to train future Ukrainian leaders “to modernize Ukraine.”

Don’t forget that Crowdstrike — a Ukraine IT company — is believed by U.S. authorities to be where the Clinton email server was copied and stored. Click the ink for details: https://www.rt.com/usa/243017-ukraine-clinton-foreign-donors/

The DNC. Ukrainian government officials tried to help The Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. Click the ink for details: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Comey, Brennan, Clapper and others. CIA analysts involved in the intelligence assessment of Russia’s activities during the 2016 US election have begun to hire attorneys, as Attorney General William Barr expands his investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, led by US Attorney John Durham. NBC learned of the ‘lawyering up’ from three former CIA officials “familiar with the matter,” while two more anonymous leakers claim there’s tension between the Justice Department and the CIA over what classified documents Durham has access to. Click the ink for details: https://realconservativesunite.com/2019/10/20/cia-analysts-lawyer-up-as-brennan-clapper-ensnared-in-expanding-russiagate-probe/

But there are a few other players that so far have remained unmentioned in this discussion. I think we should look closely at those.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Noise from Sen. Lindsey Graham(R-SC) — chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — that he plans on his committee convening and “inviting” Mr. Schiff to testify regarding the Whistleblower and the details of how he or she came to meet with Schiff’s staffers and others prior to filing his Whistleblower complaint. Suspicions of many are the Schiff himself set those meetings up and “coached” the whistleblower in the process of actually filing his complaint with the Inspector General. There are even thoughts that Schiff himself may have prepared the professionally produced whistleblower complaint. If any of that is true, Schiff will become an actual “fact witness” in this impeachment process. Remember this: Schiff now claims the Whistleblower is not even going to testify under any circumstances. Thoughts by many are that Schiff does NOT want his personal and staffer interaction details with the Whistleblower made public.

The Whistleblower. Who else in this impeachment process has more to hide than this person? After all, this chapter of “D.C. et al vs. Donald Trump” would not exist without this person and the whistleblower claim. And the claim has been 100% discredited. Why? There was no first-hand direct contact that even justified the original claim. Purportedly the “evidence” presented to the IG by the Whistleblower was second, third, and even fourth-hand, certainly insufficient to justify impeachment proceedings.

Bill and Hillary Clinton. There are no two people that had more to gain from the discrediting of Donald Trump than the Clintons. The Durham Report will almost certainly reveal details of “government for sale” by the Clinton Campaign, the DNC, and the Clinton Foundation. All of those plans were railroaded by the Donald Trump election. What exactly will be exposed about their wrongdoing? Just one note here: the Clinton Foundation has received more than a billion dollars in contributions through the years. Virtually every 501 © tax-free foundation with revenue even 10% in receipts of this foundation are audited by the IRS. In all the years and with all that money, the Clinton Foundation has never experienced an IRA audit, even with some improprieties being exposed. 


Let’s face facts: this entire impeachment thing is not even close to resolution. It has many moving parts. Today we concentrated on some of those who have to most to hide by deflecting attention from their own actions to the impeachment process. In the coming days we will share with you the Grand Scheme that is in the Democrat oven slow-cooking and exactly what that details.

Just know this: what we have just begun to see and hear details of will probably be the largest, deepest, and most encompassing political corruption case in U.S. history. It will certainly dwarf Nixon’s Watergate.

But there’s still one unknown detail that can thwart the discovery of all the expected evil: Where in this process are the so-called conservative D.C. power brokers in all this? Where they stand and how they respond will determine if Americans ever see and hear the truth of the anti-Trump movement.

Know one thing that IS certain: Donald Trump comes down firmly on the side of 100% federal government transparency. And everyday we see the President peeling back layers of the corruption onion one at a time.

But Mr. Trump is not the only player in this production and does not have unilateral power to control who sees and hears what. The questions Americans must get answered are who controls the narrative and the release of the truth? What things are being hidden from us? What will be the repercussions of their exposure to the involved parties? And what will happen if these atrocities are NOT revealed?

That last question should be the one that keeps you up at night. If we do not get all the answers and if all the perpetrators are not held responsible for any wrongdoing, we are living in nothing better than a Caribbean banana republic. And the United States of America as our grand parents, parents, and even many of us have know will be nothing more than a small picture in the rear view mirror of American history.

We are really close to dealing with that reality.



Let’s Celebrate our Veterans Together

Every Veterans Day we would be remiss if we did not stand with all of our friends and partners at TruthNewsNetwork and say “Thank You” to all those 40 million + veterans who have served through the years in the United States Military. Far more have gone on than are still with us. Their gifts and sacrifices are sacred to us and will never be forgotten and certainly always appreciated.

A few days ago I walked into a Panera in our city where Barksdale Air Force Base is located. A group of 8 current Air Force members were ordering bagels and coffee for breakfast. I stepped in front of the line, turned to them, and said a simple “Thank You” to them. I bought their bagels and coffee. Doing so was no big deal to me and probably not to them. When I look back I actually think it might have seemed a bit trivial to them. But they all beamed their thanks for my gesture.

When it comes right down to it, each of them signed up to take a bullet for me and for you if they are ever called to do that. Someone smarter and much greater than I once said, “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend.” Jesus really put the truth out there when He said that.

Those 8 Air Force members may find themselves facing that themselves. A bagel and a cup of coffee bought for them by an old man at Panera seems like a really trite thanks for their potential sacrifice. I hope none thought of me that way. But that moment was NOT about me at all. It was and is about their commitment to the men, women, and children of the United States for which they stand watch 24/7 to protect us against the evil of which we know and certainly that we have not seen.

When I pray that the evil will never overtake our country, I will always end that prayer this way: “God, please protect all those men and women who have already volunteered to give their lives for me and every other American if ever called-on to do so. Please protect them and give them peace in knowing that Americans not only appreciate them, we love them for their willingness to give their lives for the rest of us.”

I know you echo my thanks today for all those men and women. And for those of you in our family who are veterans, thank you for being who you are.

Powerful Politicos Implicated in “Ukraine-Gate:” Eight and Counting

Romney, Kerry, Biden, McCain, Pelosi, Schiff, Mueller, and Clinton are all tied to sketchy Ukraine deals. No wonder they want to impeach President Trump.

This news and information is pretty detailed. So here’s what we’ll do: we’ll Bullet Point these notes to make them easier to follow. Feel free to download this story to use  Let’s go!

  • Mitt Romney’s top adviser, Joseph Cofer Black, joined the board of the Ukraine energy firm, Burisma, while Hunter Biden was also serving on the board. Hunter Biden was taking a salary of $50,000 per month from Burisma, and was simultaneously engaged in a relationship with John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, and mobster Whitey Bulger’s nephew, in a private equity firm, that allegedly appeared to be laundering millions of dollars in foreign money from China and Ukraine, through Latvia, and back to the U.S.
  • Romney’s adviser, Joseph Cofer Black, trained for covert operations and eventually became the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. After September 11, 2001, Black was appointed ambassador at large and coordinator for counterterrorism in December 2002 by President George W. Bush. John Brennan succeeded Black in his job as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Cofer Black left the CIA in 2006 to join Blackwater, the massive contractor for services related to military and intelligence action, where he served as Vice Chairman until 2008.
  • It appears that Romney, Kerry, Biden, McCain, Pelosi, Clinton, Mueller, and Schiff all have ties to Ukrainian firms. V.P. Biden bragged on camera that he was able to force the former Ukraine President to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son, Hunter, by threatening to withhold $1 BILLION in U.S. loans from Ukraine – all with approval from Obama.
  • While Communist China ran $1.5 BILLION through the Biden/Heinz private equity firm to purchase U.S. companies with military ties, John Kerry, as Secretary of State, approved questionable acquisitions that threatened national security but enriched his family and friends.
  • Kurt Volker, who served as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO under Obama, and was just fired from the Trump White House as a special envoy to Ukraine, is the executive director of the John McCain Institute.
  • Nancy Pelosi’s son, Paul Pelosi Jr., is involved in oil-importing from Ukraine, and his company, Viscoil, is under investigation for securities fraud. In 2015, Pelosi used the Air Force to fly her entire family to Ukraine at the cost of over $185,000. Nancy Pelosi’s legislative aide, Ivanna Voronovych, is from Ukraine and is connected to the Ukrainian Embassy, the Ukrainian military, the Ukrainian government, and Ukrainian party life. Pelosi and Schiff are also both connected to a Ukrainian arms dealer.
  • We also know that Ukraine was involved in helping the Clinton campaign fabricate evidence against Paul Manafort to smear the Trump campaign. We also know that the firm the DNC used to “inspect” the DNC email server, Crowdstrike, is funded by anti-Russian Ukrainian Oligarchs and run by a man who used to work for Mueller at the FBI. Many believe Crowdstrike backed up Hillary’s server and hid the DNC server in Ukraine.
  • Most concerning of all, the former CEO of Danske Bank in Estonia, Aivar Rehe, a bank known for money laundering during the years Obama and Biden were in office, was just found dead in his yard. He was a witness for the prosecution in a $220 BILLION money laundering scandal involving transfers to Latvia.
  • Rudy Giuliani intimated that this corrupt banking network was likely used by Biden and pals to launder foreign dollars from the Ukraine and China – to Latvia, Cyprus, and on to America. Records show that some 10,000 “non-resident” accounts were involved. Giuliani says he began investigating Joe Biden before he announced his run for President and that more “corroborating” evidence is forthcoming. Giuliani, who was once James Comey’s boss, and the former Mayor of New York during 9/11, took down the mob and ran one of the biggest private investigation firms in the world. Don’t underestimate Rudy. He already has videotaped interviews of the Ukraine prosecutor that Biden forced out of office. Giuliani says frenzied Democrats are using impeachment to try to cover up their crimes more significant than you think.
  • It appears that Obama’s administration was helping George Soros, the de facto head of the Democrat party, control and take over the former Soviet state of Ukraine to steal her wealth and resources. Soros also used Obama’s DOJ and Mueller’s pal, Andrew Weissmann, to prosecute and seize assets from Soros’ foreign competitors under the guise of corruption. Why are so many wealthy, corrupt Ukrainians tied to the Deep State, the Democrats and Communist China? Ukraine was formerly known as UkSSR, Soviet Ukraine, run by Communists until 1991.
  • New testimony reveals that a Adam Schiff staffer flew to Ukraine days after the “whistleblower” complaint. The trip was paid for by Hunter Biden’s Ukraine firm.
  • Hunter Biden’s Chinese business partner stole American nuclear technology and accepted a plea deal two weeks before Trump took office. Joe Biden also claims the Ukraine prosecutor investigating his son was fired for corruption. Yet, his replacement was corrupt and nobody fired him.
  • Kurt Volker just testified that Adam Schiff privately pushed him to frame Trump, but he refused to do it. An Obama State Department staffer also testified he complained about Hunter Biden’s Ukraine deal in 2015 and Biden’s staff “blew him off.”
  • Hunter Biden received $700,000 from a company that held a 20% stake in a Chinese private equity firm with close ties to the Bank of China.
  • Colonel Vindman, an anti-Trump Ukraine expert on the NSC, testified that he altered and leaked Trump’s call to secret operatives.
  • John Bolton told Ukraine to shut out Rudy Giuliani because he was too close to President Trump and posed “obstacles to engagement.” The U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, the one Trump fired, gave a “DO NOT PROSECUTE” list to Ukraine. Was Hunter Biden on it? Tim Morrison, the NSC’s Senior Director for European Affairs, was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees: “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.”
  • Eric Ciaramella is the alleged whistleblower. Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella was a registered Democrat who previously worked in the Obama White House with former Vice President Joe Biden, Adam Schiff’s staff, and former CIA Director John Brennan.
  • Ciaramella was an intelligence officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine. He was a staffer on the National Security Council, where he was responsible for policy regarding Ukraine. He was H.R. McMaster’s aide and during the Obama administration worked with Susan Rice.
  • Ciaramella had gained a reputation as an inveterate leaker, which, he claimed, had resulted in “death threats” from “right-wingers.” This was the reason he gave for leaving the NSC in 2017. In reality, he was fired from the National Security Council in 2017 for leaks and returned to the CIA. Ciaramella was a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
  • Lawfare, the legal gurus behind Pelosi’s end-run around the Constitution in impeachment, are tied to Brookings, Huawei & Communist China. In other words, it looks like Communist China is funding the removal of President Trump. Steve Bannon is building an “impeachment war room” to counter Pelosi and Lawfare’s political disinformation campaign against Trump. BANNON: “Joe Biden is the hand grenade and Hunter Biden is the pin. When it’s pulled, the shrapnel will blow back all over the DNC.”
  • SMOKING GUN: John Solomon revealed emails showing that Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings pressed Obama’s State Department to help them end the investigation into Hunter Biden and another Burisma board member, ONE MONTH BEFORE Joe Biden extorted Ukraine to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter, who sat on Burisma’s board.
  • Did you know that Obama put John Podesta in charge of “upgrading” the NSA databases in 2014? Now I know why. For SpyGate.

MULVANEY: “Difference between Trump family and Biden family is the Trump family made their money BEFORE they went into politics!”

(Joe diGenova says Horowitz IG report is held up because of Durham’s grand jury issuing indictments to Obama’s senior DOJ and the  FBI.)


There are some salient points worth mentioning in the wake of just THIS batch of information:

  1. There are far too many people in every department and branch of the federal government for all this to just be “accidental” occurrences. They ALL certainly were and are coordinated by someone or several “someone’s.”
  2. Far too many of those are pointed to folks part of and active during the Obama Administration. It is ironic that none of these situations have pointed directly to the former President — yet.
  3. All those Obama mid-level management folks have seemed to quietly slip into the darkness as more light shines on all this corruption. I can’t name them all, but I can some. And these are in addition to those eight mentioned at the beginning of this story: Former A.G.’s Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Peter Strozk, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weismann, Lisa Paige, Andrew McCabe, Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. The list should contain many other names that I cannot recall or that no evidence has showed up — yet.

Please note that all this information is documented. This has been prepared by a number of journalists who pieced these tidbits together. TruthNewsNetwork has compiled a laundry list of names, links, and documents that include sources of all this and more. If you’d like that list, send me a request with your name, mailing address, via email to Dan@TruthNewsNet.org and we’ll send it to you. It’s exhaustive, so be prepared to spend some time in personal research — which is not such a bad thing to do!

Finally, the “Schiff Charade” is about to be exposed for what HE is: a fraud. I will never reconcile how so many intelligent Americans fall so easily into the trap of Rep. Schiff’s deceit and hatred for Donald Trump. I’ve actually spent far too much time trying to understand his motivations for the string of lies and misrepresentations for which he is personally responsible. My conclusion is simple: he is over-the-top jealous of Mr. Trump who has  successes that many have resulted from just being open and honest. Those are two of Mr. Trump’s traits that Schiff in no part of his mind can possibly understand, yet alone duplicate.

No matter, his days of owning a sliver of credibility (if he still has any) are numbered. Nancy Pelosi has given Schiff enough rope that he’s about to hang himself. And it’s going to happen on the World’s greatest stage for us all to witness. And it’s not going to be pretty for Adam!

Trump Thunderstruck

I’ll bet you that you have not yet seen this video. I cannot think of a better way to start a Saturday in November that with a hot cup of coffee, the volume on my audio/video system turned WAY up, and watching and listening to members of this “integrous” group of professional journalists who each earn six-figure annual salaries — some more than that — to be what their title denotes: Journalists. Few are that. What are they?

I’ll let the President with the help of AC/DC answer that question.

Turn it up!

Oh, I forgot:

“Geaux Tigers — Beat Bama!”

Gun Control: Here We Go Again!

Before you click away from this story or shutdown the Podcast, listen to this: we’re not today going to take any position on gun control. We’re not going to blast those on the Left for wanting to confiscate guns. We’re not going to demean Democrats or anyone else for feeling the way they think about anything — including gun control. What we ARE going to do is something novel: we’re going to watch and listen to a Virginia Representative and former Green Beret who “discusses” — not “argues” — realistic opportunities for us to stop mass shootings and protect Americans from them.

Watch or listen to this. We’ll gather after this short exhortation by this American Patriot and conclude or two:

None of what he had to say had anything to do with the pros and cons of gun control. What he addressed exclusively was the attitudes of American legislators on both the federal and state levels regarding gun control. And it’s unusual for us to see and hear ANY legislator speak objectively and non-emotionally about this critical topic. In the wake of several mass shootings, Americans typically turn away from any objectivity and respond totally from personal emotions. And until we can find ways to objectively and factually discuss meaningful and possible solutions that WILL work, no answers will ever be implemented. There most certainly will be pieces of legislation that grow from emotional lawmakers in the wake of new and unfathomable gun killings. But seldom do any of us make rational decisions that originate in instances of horror, death, and destruction. Gun violence is undoubtedly such an example.

Grass Too Long

Somewhere back in history, some wife realized there was long grass around their home. It looked messy, and critters hid out deep in the grass. There were bugs everywhere. The kids couldn’t comfortably go outside and play because the grass was just too long. What to do?

The grass had to be shorter. So how does one shorten the grass? There were no biological labs that could experiment on cross-breeding grass to find a way to shorten the grass. Somehow someone was going to have to cut the grass.

The combustion engine had not yet been created. Neither had electric motors or string cutters. Someone thought of a way to fashion a long, skinny metal blade on the end of a pole. That pole could be slung across the grass, and the grass could be cut. It worked! But it sure took a long time. And even though it was shorter, the grass was still pretty messy.

Her brother-in-law Bubba had an idea: a machine that automatically could sling a similar blade to cut the grass. It required the use of a recently discovered liquid tha burned when ignited and exploded in the right situations. He crafted a metal box with a small tank in which he could put some of that liquid, seal that tank so no air could get into it, and he could make a few drops of that liquid explode, forcing that blade to turn. He had invented a lawnmower!

After years of refining and revising that machine, Bubba discovered many others wanted to cut their grass. His machine made it much more accessible, much quicker, and the demand for the device was unimaginable. Everyone wanted a grass cutter machine.

Bubba, one day while sitting out back, started thinking about how that entire process had come together. It began with something simple: there was grass everywhere. While the grass was good for certain things — it fed the farm animals, made great stuffing for pillows and mattresses, and even made horse stalls smell better — it only was useful in certain situations. He had to find a way to allow the grass to do all the right things it did but stop it from getting out of hand. He conquered the issue by inventing that machine.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the Word. There are many good things those guns do. But guns cause problems in spite of the good they do. Just like grass growing everywhere that gets long and unsightly, guns too can create some not-so-good situations.

Bubba never thought about ridding the world of grass. He just wanted a way to control the grass without infringing upon all those situations in which the grass played significant roles.

Guns in the World have put us in a similar situation.


What can we do? What do we do? There are many possibilities — many opportunities — to quell gun violence. But the Representative nailed what keeps us from reaching any consensus on fixing the gun violence problem in America: answers NEVER result from nasty attacks from any side of any issue which always demean someone or some group on a personal level. Real solutions result only from the meaningful and respectful discourse between Americans. Practical solutions can result only from respectful discussions among those — ALL those — who have ideas they wish to share with others to effect a solution.

That type of discourse in the wake of mass shootings has been non-existent. Emotions seem to always take over conversations exploring possible ways to stop the violence. Americans must first face the same dilemma Bubba and his wife faced about handling the long grass. No one had come up with the right solution for controlling that grass.

Guns certainly are not grass. And there is no machine that alone can solve American gun violence. I’m no expert, but I’m fairly certain there is no single and no simple solution to end gun violence. That fact does not mean Americans are stupid. What it means is the creative Americans who have invented everything from a lightbulb to a Space Station have not crafted “a” or “several” answers sufficient to end gun violence. Until that happens, we must keep looking.

But you know what? We may have already seen a solution and just missed it. In the outrageous back and forth in the political sphere of solutions based almost solely on political ideology, there could very well be a solution buried on the pile of ideas thrown out that simple were discarded because of distrust of who offered them.

We maybe cannot fix the problem, but I’m confident we can make the problem better. Conversation is necessary to have any chance of getting to the end of this. Conversations are rare in today’s politics.

So why don’t we take the conversation totally out of politics? Isn’t doing so a novel idea? Why not let law enforcement specialists, medical doctors, theologians, and businessmen begin roundtable conversations to embark on a journey to end gun violence. It’s much more likely without any politicians in those meetings, the odds are much better than “a” or “several” solutions can be identified, discussed, and recommendations made that if and when implemented would if not totally at least partially eradicate gun violence.

Gee, isn’t having adult conversations minus insults and political perspectives something we ought to try: just once? It pains me to say this, but in our 250-year-old nation, those conversations, under those circumstances, have never happened before. That speaks poorly of not only American leadership but of Americans who have the power to force those to happen.