“I’m Sorry, Dad…”

I’m sorry, Dad, that you missed most all of my Little League baseball games. You didn’t see me hit my first home run. You didn’t see me throw out a runner trying to steal second base. You didn’t see the walk-off double I hit that plated the run to cinch our City Championship.

I’m sorry you were late getting to our final District basketball game and didn’t see me score 12 points in the first quarter — the most I ever scored in a quarter in high school. You did get there, but by that time in the 4th quarter we had put the other team away and our junior varsity and freshmen were on the floor getting game time.

I didn’t get to play much high school football. My sophomore year it was discovered I had only 1 kidney and doctors kept me out of the game. I’m sorry that you never saw me play my favorite sport in either my freshman or sophomore year.

I’m sorry you didn’t think much of my musical talent. From age 7 to age 14, I had a piano recital once each year. They said I was pretty good playing, but you never heard me play with other students so you could compare.

I’m sorry you were too busy to see me graduate from high school or to even know I graduated 13th of the 630 graduates in my senior class.

I’m sorry that in the 7 years in which I traveled playing in a ministry group that you never came to see or hear us in those several hundred services.

I’m sorry that you walked away from relationships with my children — who were your ONLY grandchildren — and never saw any of them graduate from high school, get married, and never even laid eyes on your only 7 great-grandchildren.

I’m sorry that you weren’t available to be with your granddaughter during her fight with breast cancer, her double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and the night in which at dinner, every guy in the family shaved their heads to show her support in her recovery battle.

I’m sorry, Dad, that you weren’t at the funeral of her firstborn baby girl that died. Today, Emerson — that baby girl — would have been fifteen years old. I’m sorry that I’m pretty sure you never even knew her name. I’m sorry that you didn’t know a children’s center at our church is named “The Emerson Center” in her honor — you missed the building dedication.

I’m sorry you missed every birthday, every school program, every t-ball game, soccer game, football game, baseball game and every graduation of each of your only biological grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I’m sorry you never met any of your great-grandchildren and that I’m fairly certain you didn’t know their names or how gorgeous they are.

I’m sorry you were absent from the Christmas family celebrations we had each year for the last 44 years. I guess you just kept right on missing family Christmases like you did with Mom, my brother and me.

I’m sorry when we lived in South Louisiana and I fell in love with hunting and fishing, bought my own boat, and fished every weekend, you never wanted to go fishing or, during the winter, duck hunting either. I spent many weekend nights camped out on Six Mile Lake and wondered what you were doing when I cooked freshly caught bass on the fire.

But, Dad, I’m NOT sorry about some things, too:

  • I’m NOT sorry I learned to not treat my wife (of 44 years) the way you treated Mother;
  • I’m NOT sorry I learned to pour my life into everything that went along with spending time with my wife and children — dance, basketball, baseball, football, plays, church, camp, and eating together;
  • I’m NOT sorry I missed a bunch of games with “the guys,” golf instead of a baseball game or a dance recital, or staying late at a friend’s house instead of watching Mr. Rogers with our youngest;
  • I’m NOT sorry I never missed a fish fry at my in-laws where all my wife’s sisters and their families were there. We created special memories grabbing a bass filet right out the hot grease, at fresh homemade hush puppies and fried pies and told stories until all the kids fell asleep;
  • I’m NOT sorry that we started a beach tradition that was an annual weeklong pilgrimage with our kids, cousins, and always some stragglers at Destin, Florida. I’m NOT sorry we vacationed together as a family every summer. I remember only a single family vacation with you — one on which you fought with Mom about everything WHEN you were with us at all;
  • I’m NOT sorry that I learned money and work are not everything and that enjoying doing EVERYTHING possible with my own family was and is far more important than working 15 hours a day, always coming home cranky and griping about dinner being cold.

Dad, you DID do something really good for me. And I’m thankful for that one thing if nothing else. You’ve been gone for two years this month and I never had the chance to thank for this, probably the MOST important thing I learned in my life.

You taught how to live a happy life, have a good life and a good family, to love being with them as often and as much as possible. How did you do that?

By living every part of my life exactly opposite of the way you lived yours.

Summary

Some of you reading this will think that I’m cold, unthankful for my upbringing, and just an angry 65-year-old guy who has “Daddy issues.” Before you draw that opinion of me, you need to know a few things:

I dealt with much hurt and anger that I allowed to darken a large part of my life. For a time, that hurt and anger clouded my other relationships. Thankfully, a pastor gave a sermon many years ago that I felt was directed right at me on forgiveness. I’ll share the simple sentence in his sermon that changed my life. This “sentence” actually is one verse of the Lord’s Prayer, which I’m certain you’ve quoted as have I hundreds of times: “Forgive me MY sins and I forgive those who sin against me.”

It shocked me to realize, when I prayed that I was actually asking God to forgive me ONLY “as” — which is defined as “at the same time, to the same degree, while, or only if/when” — I forgive all those who have sinned against me.

To that end, years ago I called my Dad and asked him to forgive me for all the anger and malice I had held against him for decades. He wouldn’t forgive me, because he said I had not ever hurt him. He didn’t understand that Lord’s Prayer importance. But that didn’t matter: I did.

I went to his funeral. The pastor who spoke asked me before if I wanted to say something. I thought about it, but I declined. Why? There weren’t many good things I could have honestly said about my Dad. And the one critically important and life-changing principle I COULD have shared with those there wouldn’t have been understood by most if not all of those who attended.

I owe everything the credit anything and everything that might have ever been good in me, every good thing I’ve ever done, every success I’ve ever had, and 100% of all good relationship in my life to the fact that I consciously made a determination and stuck with it:

“I looked at everything Dad did in his life as it pertained to me and all others in our family AND DID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IN MY LIFE!” 

I never got to thank you, Dad, for living a pattern that in some crazy way made my life wonderful!

Thanks, Dad.

“Obstruction of Justice”

Boy, have we heard that phrase “Obstruction of Justice” a few times in the last few years? I’m sick and tired of it. No matter, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) opened his hearings purported to be “to clarify the findings of the Mueller Report” with the lengthy testimony of John Dean. Dean served as an attorney for then-President Richard Nixon. And Dean knows a lot about “Obstruction of Justice.” He was charged with that, plead guilty to stay out of jail in the Watergate Affair. Archibald Cox was the appointed Special Prosecutor in the Watergate investigation. Here’s a summary of Dean’s involvement:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19—John W. Dean III, the former counsel to President Nixon, pleaded guilty today to plotting to cover up the truth about the Watergate break‐in. He made his plea as part of a bargain with the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox, under which Dean agreed to be a prosecution witness in future proceedings against alleged participants in the cover‐up — including, potentially, against President Nixon.

Mr. Cox allowed Dean to plead guilty in Federal District Court here to a single felony count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and defraud the United States, punishable by a maximum five‐year prison term and a $10,000 fine, with sentencing deferred until the bargain is kept. Mr. Cox also promised not to prosecute Dean for any other Watergate‐related crime, reserving only the right to prosecute the lawyer for perjury.

We at TNT have so far stayed away from what is being called the “Nadler Mueller Redo Circus” until today. If you didn’t look-in on that hearing on Monday, June 9, 2019, you missed a true circus. John Dean testified and answered questions for hours. Republicans, as you can imagine, fried Mr. Dean. Several questions and responses are worthy of repeating. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) grilled Dean unmercifully:

That was just the beginning.

The Nadler Circus

Democrats in the wake of the release of the Mueller Report which recommended no legal actions against the President are standing in line to attack President Trump: STILL. They’re universal talking point: “No president is above the law.”

Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said his panel has an obligation to investigate “who stood to benefit from the attack” on the U.S. election system “and the extent to which the Trump campaign welcomed it.”

He added that “the committee has a responsibility to do this work, to follow the facts where they lead…and to craft legislation to make certain no president, Democrat or Republican can ever act in this way ever again.” Nadler also noted the political divide the Russia probe has since created in Washington, saying that both parties should at least proceed with a common understanding that the U.S. was attacked.”

“We were attacked by a foreign adversary. President Trump’s campaign took full advantage of the attack when it came.  The descriptions of obstruction of justice in Volume II go to the heart of our legal system. If we can agree on this common set of facts as our starting place, and agree to follow the facts and the law where they take us, I believe we can make a great deal of progress in this hearing today,” he said.

And they dare to say to Americans “We want to get to the Truth! Though we told everyone who can see and listen for 2.5 years that Robert Mueller was THE most capable person on Earth to investigate this President and find any wrongdoing that was committed, we now know Mueller is inept and didn’t find what the President did wrong. SO WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT!”

John Dean

Who is John Dean really? One thing is for certain: he doesn’t like Donald Trump! How do we know? First, because he has tweeted continuously during the Trump presidency. “That’s not uncommon,” you say. But of his tweets, 970 have been negative. I think that would for certain move the “Like” or “Dislike” checkmark way over to the “Dislike” box.

John Dean (born October 14, 1938) is a former attorney who served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. Dean is known for his role in the cover-up of the Watergate scandal and his subsequent testimony to Congress as a witness. His guilty plea to a single felony in exchange for becoming a key witness for the prosecution ultimately resulted in a reduced sentence, which he served at Fort Holabird outside Baltimore, Maryland. After his plea, he was disbarred as an attorney.

Shortly after the Watergate hearings, Dean wrote about his experiences in a series of books and toured the United States to lecture. He later became a commentator on contemporary politics, a book author, and a columnist for FindLaw’s Writ.

Dean had originally been a proponent of Goldwater conservatism, but he later became a critic of the Republican Party. Dean was particularly critical of the party’s support of Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, and of neoconservatism, strong executive power, mass surveillance, and the Iraq War.

I forgot to mention one thing: John Dean’s guilty plea of a 1-count felony: do you know what he plead guilty to? Obstruction of Justice. Of course, according to Nadler, his doing so made him an obvious “expert” on obstruction of justice and qualified him to “clear the air” on the Mueller Report.

When asked if he had read the report, Dean’s reply was “No.” When asked if he knew anything about the Mueller Report that members of Congress or even those in the general public did not know. Dean’s answer was “No.”

So what was Dean’s qualification as an expert to appear before one of the most powerful and most important House Committee? He had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Watergate case!

One more important fact about John Dean when serving under Richard Nixon. When it was uncovered that President Nixon had secretly recorded all meetings in the Oval Office, the famous psychologist and memory researcher Ulric Neisser analyzed Dean’s recollections of the meetings, as espoused in his testimony, in comparison to the meetings’ actual recordings. Neisser, a sharp critic of studying memory in a laboratory setting, saw “a valuable data trove” in Dean’s recall. Neisser found that, despite Dean’s confidence, the tapes proved that his memory was anything but a tape recorder. Dean failed to remember any conversations verbatim and often failed to recall the gist of conversations correctly. Yet, Neisser did not explain the difference as one of deception; rather, he thought that the evidence supported the theory that memory is not akin to a tape recorder and, instead, should be thought of as reconstructions of information that are greatly affected by rehearsal, or attempts at a replay. Neisser further concluded that Dean’s memory, and likely everyone’s, merely retains common characteristics of a whole series of events.

In other words, Dean was pretty much a regular guy with a regular memory and that those “memories” of Watergate events about which he testified were probably recreated (or created for the first time) to make him appear in a good light. Honestly, if Nixon had not erased those tapes, Dean would almost certainly have served MORE time than he did and would have been convicted for far more than the 1 felony to which he plead.

Here’s what is hard to believe: Nadler has put the entire nation on notice of a serious investigation that carries with it HIS serious allegations that though lost by Robert Mueller and his 19 Democrat staff attorneys in their 2.5-year investigation, Nadler and other Democrats swear are backed with evidence. This hearing was supposed to bring that evidence forward to — as Nadler promised the World — “show that no one in the United States is above the law.”

We’ve seen no evidence, no credible witnesses, and instead of REAL facts in evidence, we watched a felon guilty years ago of obstruction of justice who has become nothing more than a “professional trial witness.”

“Once a famous witness, he’s made a life of being a witness,” Stephen Hess, a White House aide to Nixon and official under three other presidents, told Newsmax, “I feel sorry for John. It’s not the way I would like to spend my life.”

Hess said that Nadler’s calling on Dean to testify “seems to want to suggest a parallel between Nixon and Watergate and ‘Trumpgate.’ But political scientists don’t see the parallel at all.” He recalled how then-White House staffer Pat Buchanan was a highly impressive witness defending Nixon before the same committee as Dean.

“I say if you’re going to invite John Dean to testify, then give equal time to Pat Buchanan,” Hess told us.

We’ve been told that Buchanan was invited to speak but declined. I would too to keep from embarrassment in front of a national television audience.

Summary

For such committee hearings that are so important, Congress is always certain to release the hearings schedule including who will testify and the subjects of their testimony. But Representative Nadler’s hearing schedule was released in the following manner:

The House Judiciary Committee is planning a series of hearings on Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, starting with an appearance by Nixon White House Counsel John Dean on June 10.

“Russia attacked our elections to help President Trump win, Trump and his campaign welcomed this help and the president then tried to obstruct the investigation into the attack,” committee chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York said in a statement. “Mueller confirmed these revelations and has now left Congress to pick up where he left off.”

The committee also plans to consider in these hearings “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters,” according to a committee statement released Monday.

You know what the insanity of this debacle really is: Democrats led by Nadler think Americans are too dumb to see through this sham investigation. Americans watched phase one of this sham develop over 2.5 years! Let’s face it: Mueller was much smarter at hiding specifics of his investigation while passing out just enough data tidbits to keep the voracious media hounds satisfied! Nadler is not that crafty.

If Americans are to believe that members of the Trump Campaign were guilty of obstruction of justice and/or collusion with Russians during the campaign, then Americans must believe that previous presidential candidates and even presidents got away with the same crimes they are accusing Trump of? Hillary Clinton did it. Barack Obama did it. AND ROBERT MUELLER ASSISTED IN IT!

  • Hillary Clinton’s campaign funded the Russian Christopher Steele dossier! And besides that, her campaign press secretary even volunteered to go to Russia to get dirt on Donald Trump if necessary:

    Brian Fallon, the press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 campaign, once said he would have been willing to travel to Europe to confirm dirt about then-candidate Trump. “Opposition research happens on every campaign, and here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president, and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it,” Fallon told The Washington Post in October 2017. “I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election.”

  • Remember during his re-election campaign when Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling then Russian President Medvedev? It is unclear what was the subject of Obama’s comments when he told Medvedev to pass this along to Putin: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” More flexibility for what? Was Obama discussing “colluding” with Russia?

  • Robert Mueller when serving as Obama’s FBI Director personally flew a sample of U.S. Uranium to Moscow for the Russians to examine while negotiations were underway for the purchase of Uranium One. Mueller certainly was not there on behalf of the American people. What would the FBI Director be doing taking a U.S. uranium sample to Russia other than to somehow impact an ongoing deal with somebody or some people and Russia?

In closing, remember this: if every candidate for president is required to have NO contact with any foreigner during their campaigns, very few who run for President would be able to meet that requirement. Why? Most are business people who often have international business. Others are U.S. political leaders at the federal and/or state levels and certainly interact with foreign business and government leaders on behalf of their states and the U.S.

Why is all this happening? SO DEMOCRATS CAN KEEP A FAWNING SEGMENT OF LEFTIST MINIONS SATISFIED ENOUGH TO CONTINUE TO MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND TO PULL THAT BLUE LEVER IN 2020.

This all has nothing to do with the Truth. It has to do with one thing only: Get rid of Donald Trump either today or in November of next year.

Play

The Credibility Gap in D.C. is Wide — and Getting Wider

“What we are witnessing in D.C. is a likely bloodbath at the polls in 2020.”

Let’s just step back, all take a deep breath, and for a moment reflect on where the United States really is politically. And we may be in a place that you don’t even realize we are. While we are reflecting, let’s forget about the great obvious and very visually good things that have occurred in the first 2 years of the Trump presidency: unemployment all-time records (on the low side), federal revenue all-time records, more jobs available than people to fill them, corporate expansion and new hiring exploding, tax cuts for corporations and the middle class, etc. Instead of going into the details of those accomplishments, let’s dig deeper and examine those things that have led to the path on which we find ourselves — the “foundation” that has been prepared on which those “good things” could be and have been based. Then we will look ahead to 2020 and look closely at how the current political climate will directly impact the election results in 2020. In doing this analysis, let’s look at these categories that are critical in the lives of all Americans:

  • Healthcare
  • Jobs and employment
  • Taxes
  • Immigration
  • The American Political Atmosphere

Healthcare

In 1992, I started a Medical Reimbursement Management Company in the spare bedroom of my home. It was just me, a card file, and a telephone getting started. Without bragging, let me say it’s been a really good ride. I have transitioned ownership to a son-in-law who came aboard as IT Director about 15 years ago. I’m telling you this to say, we know Healthcare from the bottom up — from the perspective of what drives every successful business in America: the $$$.

The U.S. — in spite of what you hear every day — does NOT have a Healthcare problem. The U.S. has a Healthcare “Finance” problem.

American Healthcare is among the best healthcare systems in the World. The current political climate finds politicians clamoring for “Healthcare Overhaul.” That is a dangerous path for the nation to walk down. Medical Services provided under the current healthcare system are amazing. Costs and Healthcare Services are two vastly different things. And politicians are crying for the wrong things to happen — and in many cases, I think purposely so. We need to LEAVE healthcare itself alone, but fight for “healthcare finance reform.”

This administration has initiated a so-far successful plan to fight for an across-the-board reduction in the costs of prescription drugs. The same drugs we buy in the U.S. are bought in other countries. Yet we pay monumentally more for most of those prescription drugs than do those in other countries. Why is that? Legislative lobbying. Lobbyists give perks to members of Congress who then pass drug price legislation that favor American pharmaceutical companies and their American retail sales prices. Their reasoning: drug companies contend they MUST cover their costs for research, testing, and creation of bringing new drugs to the market by keeping drug prices high in the U.S. While that is happening, they contend they can sell the same products overseas for a “more reasonable price.” That certainly sounds good to folks in Canada! And there are Detroit residents who take advantage of that and drive across the border bridge to Windsor, Canada — just a couple of miles away — to buy American pharmaceuticals at MUCH lower prices! Fixing Healthcare starts there, and we’ve already made a good start.

Secondly, medical procedures and product charges need to be based totally on a fee schedule: the price allowed for every medical procedure and product available and used by healthcare professionals. There’s already such a schedule in place that has been used successfully in the U.S. for decades. It’s a “Medicare Part B” fee schedule. Retail prices are not considered in that schedule. It includes only “allowables:” the prices that providers will be paid by Medicare and secondary insurance companies. That schedule is adjusted based on zip codes for providers.

Obviously, a heart bypass operation costs a surgeon more to perform in Manhattan than in Arcadia, Louisiana. A Manhattan surgeon, therefore, will get paid more for the same bypass than does a surgeon rural in Louisiana. And they’re fair prices.

There are many on the provider side in healthcare who scream “Medicare fee schedule rates are too low. We can’t operate at those prices!” Here’s what I KNOW from managing this for so long: if EVERY provider (physician and/or hospital) knows that for EVERY service they provide they will receive whatever the exact amount allowed on that fee schedule within a certain amount of time — like 45 days — they’ll jump at that opportunity ONCE THE FACTS ARE PUT IN FRONT OF THEM. I am certain of that fact.

Why are medical prices so high now? Because so many medical bills NEVER get paid at all. Medical providers are forced to jack-up all their prices, hoping that insurance companies will pay those too-high prices that will offset their losses for the services they provide that go unpaid!

A fee schedule WILL work IF we try it.

Jobs and Employment

The facts speak for themselves: unemployment in various segments are at all-time lows; there are more jobs available than there are people to fill them; corporate expansions are sky-rocketing; wages have begun to rise steadily; there are more people employed than ever before in U.S. history; domestic companies are repatriating profits being held overseas back to the United States and putting that money into capital markets for corporate growth and expansion. It’s the capital market system of free market ideas. And it works! “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And it ain’t broke.

Taxes

Much of the good economic news in America is a direct result of the tax reductions under the Trump Administration, both for corporations and Americans personally. It is important to note that federal tax revenues have increased dramatically in the past two years, even with these tax cuts. How could that possibly be?

That’s the way a free market system works. Liberals wrongly think that reducing taxes automatically reduces federal income. But the exact opposite is true. Here’s how the process works:

  • In error, liberals think if taxes on corporations are lowered, those corporations will take that extra money and keep it as “profits.” That’s incorrect;
  • Corporations typically take that extra income and expand their operations, buy new equipment, add new buildings, market more aggressively to get new business, give existing employees raises, and add new employees as they attract new clients;
  • The same concept holds true for personal tax cuts. People who keep more of their own money buy new things, renovate their homes, buy NEW homes, buy NEW cars, travel more, etc. They seldom just stick that money in the bank;
  • When corporations and individuals have more money, they put more money into the free market. That in itself impacts the atmosphere of business and stimulates positive feelings derived from positive things happening. Growth happens in part just because consumer confidence levels rise.

Immigration

The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. But the U.S. is also a nation of laws. That fact seems to be lost to America’s lawmakers today. But it has served the immigration process well for 200+ years — until today.

Each year the U.S. Rewards 1 million foreigners legal status — mostly full citizenship — in the United States. In comparison, that 1 million number equals the total number of legal immigrants accepted into every other country on Earth — COMBINED!

No one knows for certain how many illegals there are today in the U.S. nor how many are sneaking into the U.S. every week. What we DO know is that number is in the millions.

What else Americans do not know is why we have ANY illegals here for ANY reasons. There is NO good answer to that question. But there are answers — just no GOOD ones.

  • There have been (and always will be) a number of illegals who find their way into the U.S. That though a criminal act occurs in every other country as well. But nowhere else has there been near the number of illegal entries as there are in the U.S. Many foreigners want to come here. But the current environment of there being so many here illegally is unsustainable. Yet politicians — mostly on the Left — continue to (as they have for decades) resist correcting the legal process to stop illegal immigration.
  • There are immediate financial benefits for having illegals. Illegals primarily find manual labor, which often is handled outside the normal U.S. employment process. Illegals generally do not have social security status and therefore in large get paid without payroll deductions — social security, federal, state, and local taxes — which allows employers to Illegally skip reporting those as employees. Employers therefore can pay lower gross wages to illegals. That — no payroll deductions — in effect means illegals for the same jobs receive higher take-home pay than do their legal counterparts. And employers because of not paying the legal deductions save money with illegal workers.
  • Illegals will often work in menial tasks that many Americans refuse.
  • The primary reason for the continuation of massive illegal entries into the country is for political purposes. Those on the Left identify illegals as certain future Democrat voters. There are many who feel strongly that even right now, illegals in some states find ways to vote illegally in federal elections. Democrats feel certain that when they regain a strong majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House simultaneously, they will be successful at passing legislation to change voting laws to allow ALL illegals to vote in federal elections.
  • Dems are certain the current class of illegals will certainly vote for Democrats, thus assuring the continuation of their party and its liberal policies.

It is important to note that the Democrat Party depends for its very existence on the perpetuation of a “Dependent Class” of Americans. Democrats must have in their control those who maintain government financial assistance to survive. Those peoples’ reliance on Democrats obligates their support of the Democrat Party and their candidates. Otherwise, Democrats have no policy offerings at all to counter the current good economic climate in the U.S. that was initiated under Trump.

The American Political Atmosphere

Here’s where the nation is in real trouble. Not in my lifetime has there existed a political atmosphere so negative, so vitriolic, so full of hate and so divided. Those on the Left blame this president and his followers. Those on the Right blame the Left for their quest to move voters in the nation so far away from conservative ideals.

There is little respect for diversity of thought and opinion anymore. I remember in the early to mid-70s when at my university in the South, there was a modicum of respect for the opinions of those who would stand and speak in the Quadrangle at noon expressing their political opinions. Yes, there were those with differing opinions. And, yes, there was sometimes arguing that escalated between some of those. But I never saw hatred and total disdain.

In American politics, we have devolved from “differing opinions” to outright “hatred” for those with opposing political views. When else in American history has any organized group that purports to protest against those who speak at a Free Speech rally show up at that rally to NOT support Free Speech speakers, but to attack them? That is exactly what ANTIFA has been doing for 2 years. And at those rallies, members of ANTIFA are seen physically attacking conservatives. “ANTIFA” stands for “anti-fascists.” Yet ANTIFA’s goal at these rallies is to demonize Free Speech and those who support it.

Do you know what’s odd about their doing so? Most Americans think ANTIFA really represents their namesake! Most Americans think those conservatives against who ANTIFA demonstrate are the bad guys in this whole thing.

It’s not much better elsewhere in politics. Congress — where conservative and liberal ideals are supposed to be turned into laws to govern every aspect of American life — has simply discovered the comfort in doing very little as part of the legislative process so as to not cause any heartburn regarding legislation — that instead of the process that should result in lawmaking. Instead, they are content to either investigate, hold press conferences in which their only agenda seems to be to demonize all those with differing opinions and to be careful in what and how they do the little they do to make only as few waves as possible.

Meanwhile, the electorate is steaming with partisanship they parrot from their Congressional counterparts. The rule of the day in politics instead of mandating peaceful discourse and discussion of ideas is to attack all ideas and all those who espouse such ideas that differ from your own. Even in the ’60s with the Vietnam War the anger and hatred for those with opposing ideas were not nearly as caustic as those today. Political opponents are not necessarily Democrats and Republicans. Those just represent opposing political parties. The hatred and animus run much deeper: Female against Male, Heterosexual against Homosexual, Black against White, American against non-American, Pro-Life against Pro-Choice, etc. And the vitriol between all of these is the type that can and does often turn into violence.

To complicate matters, the Left hates this president. Because of their hatred, everything they do in legislation or other parts of the federal government is colored by that disdain for him. Their angst for Donald Trump is primarily driven by the election trouncing of their certain 2016 White House victor: Hillary Clinton. None gave any chance to the New York billionaire. But enough Americans with differing opinions gave him a huge electoral college whipping over Ms. Clinton. And the Left have not forgiven Trump and will not do so.

That’s why we find ourselves where we are today: in pure political pandemonium. Don’t get me wrong: governing continues. Good things are happening, and the void between the two versions of political thinking get wider and wider with each passing day. And every Trump victory morphs immediately into another pointed finger in the eyes of the Left.

So what’s going to happen?

  • The Trump victories that are heretofore numerous in as well are unexpected will continue. Americans love the fact that a candidate made promises which when elected keeps those promises.
  • “It’s the economy, Stupid!” as first uttered by James Carville just before the Bill Clinton victory in re-election in 1996 is still the major contributing factor in Americans’ approval of President Trump. Based on what we know today and expect for the next 2 years, that will continue.
  • “Take No Prisoners.” Donald Trump is bombastic. He always keeps his opponents wondering what he’s thinking and what is his next political step. One thing that is certain for all: when he takes action, it’s always decisive, quick, and widely seen. Those on the Left hate it, but there’s no way they can stop it short of impeachment or a 2020 victory in unseating this sitting President.

Summary

Prediction: Trump will NOT be impeached before the 2020 election. He will continue to fight hard against the Left in the same manner in which he has the first 2 years of his presidency. It will get uglier. More outlandish allegations will surface and be thrown against him. But in each, he will be vindicated.

Why is all of this so vile? There must be something to hide. The attackers must have things to hide.

Democrats really wanted President Trump to do something horrific during the Mueller investigation — so horrific that it would prove he is unfit to serve as President. Why else would Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) continuously claim they had actual evidence proving that Donald Trump actually colluded with Russians who helped him win in 2016 and that he obstructed justice in doing so? That was the pair’s sharp stick. They expected the verbose billionaire from Queens to take their bait and do something — anything — to shut down the Mueller probe. Because they know Washington D.C. and the Swamp so well, they felt for certain that Mr. Trump had broken the law (like many who serve in Congress) and would be exposed for doing so during the probe. It didn’t happen. Why? THERE’S NO THERE THERE!

Play

“We Are the World, We are the People….”

Here we are: two years+ into the Donald Trump Presidency and STILL the United States media do not give this guy any credit. They  everyday still throw allegations of wrongdoing, insults regarding his hairstyle, the way he speaks, his skin color, his Queens accent — pretty much in every way a country’s media could demean someone. And when they do it, they laugh and snarl, kind of like they did shortly before Donald Trump announced he was actually running for president in 2016. They started laughing and making fun of him then. They haven’t stopped.

But things are a bit different now: Donald Trump has a political history. No, his political history is not one of his personal foreign policy accomplishments — at least no accomplishments from BEFORE he became President. His “pre-White House” political history probably exists only with his record of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has contributed through the years to local, state, and national candidates whom he supported. Several of those contribution recipients have donned the Democrat mantle of “presidential candidate” and are on the campaign trail for their party’s nomination to take their former “contributor” — Donald Trump — head-on in 2020. And none have very nice things to say about him — but they took his money!

There’s a bit of irony there, don’t you think?

Let’s face facts: this President gets very little support in the U.S., Of course, the ardent Trump supporters in the United States support him. And contrary to how the State Media portray this president, most understand facts and numbers and know what he has done for the country in 2 years. But also, those “Trumpsters” still cannot reconcile the fact that the American Media — NY Times, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post — give President Trump no credit for the economy, foreign trade, millions of new jobs, low unemployment across the board, more people employed than ever, etc. Almost daily there is a collective “SMH” you can almost hear across the nation. (For those of you in downtown Manhattan and San Francisco, “SMH” means “Shake My Head.)

Here’s what we’re going to do today: we’re going to take a look for yourselves at something as simple as Google, do a search, and see what’s important to the media in the U.S. and across the “Pond” regarding this President. It begins with his popularity overseas, takes a look at the domestic and European media portrayals of Mr. Trump’s just completed visit to the U.K., and then we’ll complete today’s offering with a story — a really GOOD story — about “Bubba” from Texas. And Bubba will help explain what the American State Media are missing about Donald Trump. Let’s start here:

Google

Take just a moment and Google this: “What is President Trump’s world favorability number?” I took that challenge, and here are some of the results I found:

“Trump is even more unpopular in Europe than he is in the U.S …”

“Trump’s Approval Rating Is Even Lower Globally, and He’s …”

“How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight”

“Trump Approval Worldwide Remains Low Especially Among Key …”

Notice the stories that Googles’ algorithm popped up with this specific search that had NOTHING to do with Europe. So President Trump’s favorability is low in some countries overseas. And according to media pundits in the U.S., that’s a really big deal. Meghan Markle spurned the President during his recent trip to Britain to celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Though an American by birth, she is now a married member of the Royal Family. Certainly, she was not a Donald Trump fan when he ran for president. And, certainly, members of the British press made very little about the comments made about the President and his response to hers.’ But not so across the Pond! America’s press went nuts with constant negativity about President Trump and details of his trip. Some even made fun of Melania and her attire!

Isn’t it a strange world in which the U.S. media would lambast the President while he makes a trip to the U.K. to join European government leaders and hundreds of World War II veterans celebrating the 75th anniversary of D-Day? Think about it: if the United States had not led the storming of Omaha Beach that day, most of Europe would probably be speaking German today. And the U.S. may have been also.

President Trump was actually applauded in the U.K. press. Not so in the U.S. Here’s a screenshot of a YouTube search with the search term “U.S. Media attacks of President Trump.” It may be too small for you to read, but basically, I’ll summarize the search findings: every story that comes up with THAT search sentence — rather than a video or story about the U.S. media’s attacks of this president — is about a video and/or story of PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTACKING THE MEDIA!

Are you surprised?

Wanna take a look at the headlines from the other side of the Pond — from European news outlets?

“Trump’s U.K. Visit Unites the British” 

Trump’s UK Visit: Trump, May discuss special alliance between the U.S. and the U.K.”

Nile Gardiner: Pres. Trump’s U.K. Visit Possibly His “Most Successful” State Visit

Here are the headlines about the Trump U.K. trip from U.S. Media outlets:

“Ignorant Donald Trump Remarks in Ireland Force Irish PM’s Clarification” (Rachel Maddow via MSNBC)

“Jeremy Hunt Calls Donald Trump a ‘Controversial President'”(Jeremy Hunt: RT )

“Day 1 Of Donald Trump Gaffs” (RT)

“Trolling Calling: Trump Gets ‘Baby Blimp’ Treatment In London”  (MSNBC)

President Donald Trump Causes Controversy In UK Visit”  (NBC News)

“Trump an ‘enemy of democracy,’ London protestor says | Trump’s U.K. Visit 2019 (CNBC)

Who Cares?

Let’s cut right to the chase: does anyone in America really care what people in Switzerland, Belgium, Turkey, Russia, or Lichenstein think about President Trump or any U.S. president? I know Barack Obama made it clear he wanted all of us to join all of “them” and become “Citizens of the World” instead of U.S. citizens. I would like for everyone to send me a $100 bill tomorrow, too. But just as certain I am that I will receive no $100 bills from anyone if I asked, I am certain none of us are going to become “Citizens of the World.” Donald Trump does not care to be the “President” or “King” of the World, either. I’m pretty sure Barack Obama would have liked that, though.

So why does anyone here care at all how the British or French or German media feel about President Trump?

It’s kinda like this for me: I love my wife. We’ve been married 44 years. Yes, her paint’s faded, her windshield has a few cracks in it, and her tires are constantly going flat. But you know what? I really like her THE WAY SHE IS! And, quite honestly, I don’t give a rip about what anyone else thinks about her, I think I’m going to keep her. Why? BECAUSE I LIKE WHAT SHE’S DONE AS MY WIFE, MOTHER TO OUR CHILDREN, AND NONNIE TO OUR 6 GRANDCHILDREN.

And I don’t care what anyone else thinks — especially not someone who lives in Zimbabwe!

Here’s what they’re all missing:

  • Does anyone think a stupid guy from Queens could turn a stake from his father into several billion dollars if he was stupid?
  • Does anyone think that same guy could build an enterprise from nothing into being the employer of several hundred thousand Americans and maintain it for 30 years?
  • Does anyone think that stupid guy could create and personally produce (while starring in) a multi-year #1 network television show?

Zig Ziglar is probably using that example in his career building seminars as an example of what someone — ANYONE — is capable of achieving if they only try and never give up.

The Leftist Media (and the Leftists in Congress) are just hacked off because — first of all — he beat their Star in her run for the White House in 2016. Secondly, they feel the way they feel because they do not understand how he operates, what his governing intentions are, and they certainly don’t understand this one thing about him: he makes promises and he KEEPS promises! They are not accustomed to seeing that in any national politician.

So they just stand back and throw rocks at him. Their fundamental premise is this: “He’s dumb, he’s stupid, he doesn’t know anything about politics, and we do. He simply needs to sit down, shut up, and let us tell him what to do and how to do it just like we have in the past.”

Donald Trump is NOT going to ever do that!

The Finish: Bubba

His name was Bubba. He was from Texas but he was in New York City and he needed a loan, So he walked into a bank in the Big Apple and asked for the loan officer.

He told the loan officer that he was going to Paris for an international redneck festival for two weeks and needed to borrow $5,000 and that he was not a depositor of the bank.

The bank officer told him that the bank would need some form of security for the loan, so the Redneck handed over the keys to a new Ferrari. The car was parked on the street in front of the bank.
The Redneck produced the title and everything checked out. The loan officer agreed to hold the car as collateral for the loan and apologized for having to charge 12% interest.

Later, the bank’s president and its officers all enjoyed a good laugh at the Redneck from Texas for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral for a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then drove the Ferrari into the bank’s private underground garage and parked it.

Two weeks later, Bubba returned, repaid the $5,000 and the interest of 23.07. The loan officer said, “Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely, but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out on Dunn & Bradstreet and found that you are a distinguished alumni from the University of Texas, a highly sophisticated investor and multi-millionaire with real estate and financial interests all over the world. Your investments include a large number of wind turbines around Sweetwater, Texas. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”
The good ‘ole boy replied, “Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $23.07 and expect it to be there when I return?”

Moral of the story: “just because he does things a little bit different than you do doesn’t mean he’s stupid! Just look at the results.”

Play

Pelosi-Schumer are “In the Box”

For the purpose of total transparency, please know I am NOT a Democrat. I am NOT a Republican. I am registered as “Other.” My state is one in which “Independent” is not a political category that is available for voter registration.

Honestly, in some ways, I am somewhat Libertarian, in some ways Republican, and though not inclined to support any current Democrat Party policies, on certain social issues I am antipathetic: not leaning Left and not leaning Right.

Whew! Now that we got that cleared up, let me make a statement to open today’s offering: The Democrat Party is in DEEP trouble! Its two leaders have gone totally off the reservation on which Reason resides. Nancy and Chuck are oblivious to YouTube’s capability to capture actual conversations in real time that often come up years later to haunt those who said those things. 

Besides that, both Pelosi and Schumer still act and talk like Americans are oblivious to all the things they say and do, and promises they break. (There has to be a reason for Congress’ approval numbers hovering in the teens) They’ve both been really good at showing the world their foolishness. But this time it is REALLY over the top.

“Nancy and Chuck Sitting in a Tree….”

By now everyone is familiar with the notification to Mexico by President Trump that unless Mexico stepped up to help take care of the flood of illegals through the U.S. border he would impose massive tariffs on Mexican goods. In all fairness, members of Congress — and not all are Democrats — balked at the possibility of Mexican tariffs. Concerns were primarily those for the negative impact tariffs would make on the U.S. economy.

They all looked for cameras so they could pontificate about the lunacy of such tariffs and how bad implementing those would be on U.S. foreign policy. Still, Trump restated, again and again, he was serious and would indeed assess tariffs, and that the first level — 5% — would become effective Monday, June 10, 2019.

Here was Nancy about the Trump lunacy regarding tariffs and Trump’s explanation:

Not to be outdone, the Senate Minority Leader stepped to the microphone to give the world his sarcastic analysis. Here’s what he said:

“This is an historic night!” Schumer said sarcastically in a Twitter post Friday night.
The president “has announced that he has cut a deal ‘to greatly reduce, or eliminate, illegal immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States,’ Schumer added, quoting the president. “Now that that problem is solved, I’m sure we won’t be hearing any more about it in the future.”

Even Beto added his thoughts:

“I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some case, months ago,” the former congressman from Texas said on ABC’s “This Week.” “They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has.”

A Mexican government contingent rushed to D.C. to negotiate a resolution with the U.S. State Department. The furor from the Left crescendoed as the tariff implementation date got closer. Friday, June 7th, Mexico capitulated and the President announced a resolution had been reached.

Expectations were that everyone in Washington would breath easier knowing that there would be no tariffs and that Mexico would take-on illegal immigration on their side of the border. But Nancy and Chuck brought any glee back to ground level. They are NOT happy.

Seriously?

Here’s where my head explodes. Pelosi and Schumer are the most powerful people in the Democrat Party. They supposedly represent “The People.” If they do, then please answer these:

How do you refuse to respond to the non-stop illegal alien entries into the U.S., the massive drug cartel floods of opioids across our border, and human trafficking that is mind boggling?

Why do you — the Democrats — not take ANY emergency actions to stop the travesty down South? In fact, when the President when responding to Dems inaction has taken executive action to help ICE and Customs Border Patrol stem the tide of illegal crossings, Democrats have run to the most liberal federal court judge they can find to file grievances against the President. Why is that?

Why did you flatly refuse the President’s offer in early 2018 to protect those DACA recipients and to provide a massive number of interim visas so illegals could remain and take steps for permanent legal status?

Here’s what the President offered them in that proposal:

It offered up to 1.8 million DACA recipients and other “in limbo” immigrants legal status in exchange for doing away with “chain migration” and the immigration lottery used in foreign countries to determine those that would come to the U.S. for legal immigration. As part of the deal, Congress would fund the building of the southern wall/barrier.

Pelosi and Schumer didn’t even bother to make the President a counter offer. They just flatly said, “No!” Meanwhile, those DACA recipients that the Democrat Party had claimed as their own are still left out in the cold — still with tentative immigration status, and are here in the U.S. without citizenship or any way to get it, all thanks to Nancy and Chuck.

The results of their “No”

January 2018 through May 2019, 1,354,202 illegals were “apprehended” at the southern border — more than any previous corresponding period in U.S. history.

At least $200 Billion has been spent by the U.S. government to process and take care of those illegals. And that does NOT include the money spent by state and local governments and for healthcare!

Hundreds of thousands of pounds of opioids and other drugs continue to find their way into the U.S. craftily transferred into the U.S. between ports of entries to escape the notice of border agents. Thousands of children have been trafficked by the Mexican cartels.

Most horrible of all is that there is no way to know for certain how many Americans have paid for the Dems callousness in allowing this to continue. But it is certain that many paid with their health, their safety and security, and many paid with their lives. Crimes committed by these illegals have cost border states, counties tens of millions of dollars.

And why? Why do Democrats following the lead of Pelosi and Schumer continue to turn their backs on legal Americans, legal immigrants, and the rule of law? Why do they allow the continuation of lawlessness and senseless deaths of Americans at the hands of illegals or as a direct result of the opioids they bring into the U.S.?

I would never respond by saying that Democrats don’t care about the carnage and dollars poured down the drain of Illegal Immigration. Certainly, if they really do care, they don’t show it.

What is their objective, then? What can possibly be the desired end result that would cost Americans so much and still be worthy to continue this madness? Why would they not just turn their backs on the success by this President’s putting definite tariffs on Mexico if they continue to ignore international immigration laws, but then laugh at his doing so while denigrating his intentions in taking such action and maintaining he did so for “personal reasons.”

And last but certainly not least, why do they think so little of everyday Americans, acting like all Americans are too dumb to understand exactly what Democrats are doing?

The answer is simple: Nancy, Chuck, Hillary, Barack, Uncle Joe, Mayor Pete, Kamala, Beto, Kirsten, and every other Democrat of prominence today doesn’t’ care about the opinions of Americans; don’t care about what is best for at-large Americans and their specific needs; don’t care that Americans in a huge majority have labeled Illegal Immigration as the great problem in America today. 

How desperately do they despise Americans? Think about it: Hillary (when she thought no one was listening) called Trump supporters — which are comprised of Middle Americans — “deplorables.” And most Democrats feel that Trump supporters are uneducated, of low income households, and, more importantly, unsophisticated and are therefore incapable of understanding what’s best for them, their families, and the U.S.

And, of course, Democrats DO know what’s best for Trump supporters and everyone else on Earth.

Meanwhile, Democrats are consumed with two things: Indictments of pretty much everyone in the Trump Administration and the impeachment of the President. Nothing else matters — especially not you or me. Their all-consuming agenda: control every American, every corporation, every social organization, and every dollar. After all, they certainly know best how to handle all of those, don’t they?

I forgot: what box are Nancy and Chuck in together? Their box is not made of cardboard or wood. Their box is made of mirrors. As far as they can see, they’re the only ones in their box. When they look up, who do they see? Chuck and Nancy. When they look to either side, front or back, who do they see? Chuck and Nancy. No one else is viewable from their box, AND THEY DON’T CARE! You are insignificant, anyway.

We haven’t forgotten about you at TNN. You’re on our radar. This week we’re closely watching what goes on in D.C. And we’ll bring the truth of all that happens to you.

Stay close!

Play

Political “Switch-A-Rooskies”

Isn’t it laughable as we American voters look-in during the campaign period and see the rush by political candidates to in that “moment of reflection” get an epiphany that prompts their “Switch-A-Rooskies” on very controversial topics? The latest is Joe Biden.

Former VP Joe Biden

Throughout his political career, Biden has been very clear: he’s Catholic by faith and therefore has struggled with abortion. His faith’s doctrine has always been pro-life. Politically, his party has always been pro-choice. However, even though “technically” he has been pro-choice, he’s been emphatic that he is against the Hyde Amendment — the legislative amendment which allows funding of abortions with federal tax dollars. That was a principled stance he steadfastly embraced — until just days ago.

Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond defending Biden’s view on Hyde Wednesday night (June 5, 2019) with CNN’s Chris Cuomo:

“He is a deeply religious man. … He is guided by his faith, his position on the Hyde Amendment has been consistent.”

But then, just one day later, here’s the Democrat Presidential candidate Biden himself:

“If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s ZIP code,” Biden told a cheering crowd at a Democratic National Committee event in Atlanta.

Why the sudden Biden “Switch-A-Rooskie?” He’s been attacked all week by Leftist pro-choice advocates for his political hypocrisy for stating that abortion is OK but that funding it with tax dollars was wrong. Why is that wrong? Those Leftists state that doing so would negatively impact the poor and therefore is wrong. And they said HE could not be elected if he was against tax dollar funding of abortion. 

So, he switched — just like that.

California’s Kamala Harris

** Before she was serving the people of California as a senator, Harris served as the state’s attorney general. As attorney general, Harris had to enforce California’s laws as written, but she also used her position to advocate for policies she felt would keep her constituents safe.

Formerly as California’s Attorney General she supported immigration laws that though controversial had to be enforced — even that which required the reporting of illegal juveniles to ICE, which flies in the face of sanctuary cities.

As a presidential candidate, her story has changed. She encourages all federal, state, and law enforcement members to NOT cooperate with ICE on anything that goes against the concept of sanctuary cities and supports deportation of illegals — a “Switch-A-Rooskie.”

** Then during a radio interview with “The Breakfast Club,” Harris claimed that she smoked pot when she was younger and that any claim that she opposes full marijuana legalization is “not true.” But, in her 2014 campaign, her Republican opponent for attorney general, Ron Gold, was very public about his support for full legalization of pot. Harris was not on the same page. When she was asked about legalization by KCRA in 2014, she laughed at Gold’s stance and said he was entitled to his opinion. Her presidential campaign may be pro-pot, but her time as attorney general certainly wasn’t.

**During an interview with CNN shortly after her presidential announcement, Harris told host Jake Tapper that America should “eliminate” the private system. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said of the private health insurance industry. “Let’s move on.”

BUT, according to CNN, “as the furor grew” toward her plan to ban private healthcare, her team announced that she is open to keeping a market system.

Harris has also done the old “Switch-A-Rooskie” on a required investigation of cops involved in killings and on mass incarceration.

Barack Obama

He had a bunch: he believed in the evolution of his positions on political issues, like gay marriage. Before he was a U.S. senator, Obama liked gay marriage. Then, when he ran for the Senate, he said gay marriage was wrong. As president, he claimed his views were “evolving” on it — and finally, Obama said he liked it again.

Mitt Romney

Democrats have not had exclusives on the “Switch-A-Rooskie’s.” During his run for the White House in 2012, Mitt Romney — who had long been pro-choice — announced he was pro-life. Romney during that campaign also made a 180 on gay rights.

George H.W. Bush

Remember his famous speech at the Republican National Convention in which he promised: “Read my lips — NO NEW TAXES!” Of course, that changed and NEW taxes were passed in Congress and signed into law by Bush 41. He was rewarded by voters who chose Bill Clinton over him in 1992 for the White House.

Presidential Candidate John Hickenlooper

Former Colorado governor and Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper does a good job with his “Switch-A-Rooskie.” He strongly opposed a 2012 ballot initiative that made his state the first to legalize recreational cannabis. But by 2019, he had long warmed to the idea, telling a CNN town hall that Colorado’s approach was “so much better than the old system where we sent millions of kids to prison, most of them kids of color.”

Beto

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke supported a government-run system embodied in the “Medicare for All” bill during his Senate run in Texas in 2018 that would effectively eliminate private insurance. But in March, after just setting out on the presidential campaign trail, he said he changed his mind and now favors legislation that would add a Medicare-like option to compete with private insurance, not abolish it. O’Rourke acknowledged that many people like their employer-provided health care insurance.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., in a “60 Minutes” Interview last year, said she was “embarrassed” by her opposition to gun safety bills and “ashamed” of her past support for proposals to scale up immigration enforcement and deny driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The NRA has since gone from giving her an “A” grade to an “F,” and she also has come out for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and transferring its responsibilities elsewhere.

Previously, Gillibrand had been a voracious supporter of the NRA. In fact, a letter from the Senator to the NRA just surfaced in which she praised the NRA for its support of the 2nd Amendment and gun rights for Americans. She also was a huge supporter of ICE and its efforts to protect New Yorkers in areas where illegals in MS-13 gangs have murdered many on Long Island.

Hillary Clinton in 2016

Hillary Clinton has a propensity to change her mind on big issues. She has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration, and the Iraq War, and on the Keystone XL pipeline.

When CNN moderator Anderson Cooper called Clinton on her flip-floppery in a 2016 presidential debate (“Will you say anything to get elected?” he asked), she defended her policy “Switch-A-Rooskie” as “expressions of political thoughtfulness rather than weakness.”

“Well, actually, I have been very consistent,” Clinton said, arguing her unyielding commitment to “the same values and principles” over her entire life. “But like most human beings—including those of us who run for office—I do absorb new information. I do look at what’s happening in the world.”

What’s This All About?

Sadly, all of these above and other “Switch-A-Rooskies” are definitely about something specific. Certainly instances like these are not new and are not unique. But they certainly ARE sad examples of what has happened in America.

I remember the stories of the fathers of our Nation when they were establishing our Nation in the first place. They met, they discussed, and they argued. Sure, during those discussions and sometimes in those arguments tempers flared, arguments turned into pushing and shoving, voices were raised and even fists came out from time to time. And there was that famous duel to settle a dispute.

But what this gang of politicos are doing today and have been for several decades is NOT what our forefathers did. There are today NO serious discussions between candidates or those already in office about issues. There is NO debate, NO logical examination of facts of any controversial matter. Such discussions are immaterial today. All that matters is specific political perspectives on EVERY issue.

Example: I listened today as television hosts grilled a political “expert” regarding the “Switch-A-Rooskie” by former VP Joe Biden regarding the Hyde Amendment. Biden was an ardent supporter of the Amendment for a couple of decades. (It prevents federal funds being used to fund abortions) This “expert” — a Democrat Party pundit — defended Biden’s sudden change.

His “Switch-A-Rooskie” was because his “position on federally funded abortions has “evolved” through the years — according to that Democrat pundit. He’s now making sure ALL applicable circumstances of a matter factor into all decisions he makes regarding all issues that are important to Americans.

But it’s NOT about “issues evolving;” it’s not about “new information” or the understanding of “scientific breakthroughs;” (like Climate Change); it’s about one thing and one thing only: whatever it takes to get enough votes to win.

That was not what drove the Washington’s, Franklin’s, Jefferson’s, the Henry’s, and the Burrs of the 1700s.

What’s changed? A whole bunch! But ALL these changes that happen every day among America’s politicians are tied directly to one thing and one thing only: “Moral Compass.”

Moral Compass

What’s that?

Simply stated, Moral Compass is the thing inside of us that tells us which direction we should go when we have to make decisions involving right and wrong.  This is how we judge a person’s character and whether they will make a moral and good decision.

Many claim to have a simple formula on how to evaluate a person’s character. When you hear their opinions on it, it is clear that they form the basis of their opinion on only a single issue.

This is wrong because the sum of a person is not whether they make no mistakes in judgment. Instead, it is the quantity and quality of those mistakes. A person could otherwise live an upstanding life, be very moral and very good in so many ways, and yet be guilty of a personal failing on a single issue.

When we evaluate a person’s character, the only fair way to evaluate them is to look at how they conduct themselves in many areas.  How do they treat strangers? How do they treat their enemies? Are they honest? Are they loyal?  Do they help others in need? There are many other criteria in which we can judge. None of this suggests that we weight all moral failings equally. Judging a person is based on the impact their moral failings have on other people.

To this Cajun who emigrated to North Louisiana, honesty is the chief arbiter of a person’s character. Honesty is something that I consider crucially important. What I consider lying (dishonesty) is the case where a person willfully and knowingly misleads others simply to get their own way.  It is a huge moral failing to be able to and be comfortable with bending the truth easily. People with a stable moral compass will feel uncomfortable with it, and may even be reluctant to do so. Unfortunately, sometimes people believe their own lies. That’s a sign of complete dishonesty and demonstrates a lack of conviction. It is being a hypocrite to oneself and to others.

How a person treats those they disagree with and those who are less fortunate in any way says a lot about one’s character. Many religions tell us to turn the other cheek when we are attacked. Living up to these standards can sometimes be very hard, maybe impossible. Many people have a difficult time of it. However, the true test of character or lack thereof is when a person is willing to treat their enemy with deliberate and sometimes calculated cruelty and abuse. It becomes clear that he or she has no moral compass and no compassion for other people. When we lack a conscience, then we lack humanity. Humanity is what differentiates us from others in the animal kingdom.

Summary

So what reasoning can we to accurately determine the reason(s) for all the “Switch-A-Rooskies” related by America’s politicians above? I must be honest when I take an objective view of these examples. And, honestly, I have serious doubts with the reasoning used for all of them. It’s NOT about the issues, although I have particularly strong feelings about each of them. And it’s not so much about which side of each issue on which any of these come down on. My issue is with the Moral Compass of each of those who made the “Switch-A-Rooskies.” How else can you explain the drastic changes, sometimes literally overnight? Biden held his views on federally funding abortions since Roe v. Wade in the early 1970s. And literally in one night last week, he abandoned that 40-year-old opinion he said previously was “embedded in his conscience.”

Our nation is letting our collective and individual Moral Compass slide and slide. We are making it easy for the generations who follow us to waffle on EVERYTHING they face in life — holding NO absolutes on any issues in their lives. We are slowly embracing the life philosophy of “fly by the seat of your pants.”

It seems to be the easy path on which to walk that teaches us anything goes at any time — just “do what feels good.” But with that goes all of the social skills that humans must use to interface with others.

Want an example of this slide?

We have no longer any political discourse in America. Opposing parties refuse to discuss, negotiate, and find a compromise on ALL issues they face. It’s “our way or the highway” on EVERY issue. And it’s not just Republicans and not just Democrats — it’s ALL OF THEM.

So very little or nothing gets done.

Is that the World you want for your children, your grandchildren, and their children? If so, you’re certainly very happy today. If we don’t want that world, we all must step up and say “Enough is enough!”

If we don’t do that, the only unanswered question will be, “Who’s gonna get all this stuff done?”

Nobody will answer this way, “I’ll do it!” No one will be there to make things happen — especially not with the determination of right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Play

How Dysfunctional is Congress?

Short Answer: VERY!

Not in my lifetime has the U.S. Congress been so slow, so inconsistent, and so unwilling to go about the People’s business. There is no doubt part of their job is to oversee the operations of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. But that is NOT their primary responsibility.

The Constitution of the United States outlines the responsibilities and duties of Congress. Article I offers an overview of Congressional power, while Section 8 provides details about each duty. Section 8 includes a total of 14 paragraphs of information about all the duties, including:

  • Borrowing money on behalf of the country
  • Regulating commerce
  • Developing a uniform system of laws
  • Establishing the Post Office
  • Declaring war

Wow! That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Though those 5 tasks for the Congress set by The Constitution seem to be simple tasks, we all know there’s a lot to it. But, in all fairness, there are 535 elected people who are tasked to work together to complete those 5 things every year. And those 535 elected folks each have a staff comprised of dozens of workers to make certain everything necessary for the completion of those tasks is taken care of.

So why does Congress get so little done?

Congressional Actions in 2017 (2nd Half of 115th Congress)

In that most Americans doubt Congress does much of anything, Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) argues that the U.S. House of Representatives is getting things done. The Congressman on his website published a list of the greatest accomplishments of Congress in 2017. Let’s look at them:

(If you want details of any of these bills, click on the hyperlink to be transferred to see the actual bill)

These ten Congressional accomplishments — according to Congressman Shimkus — are the MOST important Congressional accomplishments of 2017! Obviously, his list includes specific bills that originated in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed some bills, too. But it takes both Houses to pass bills that find their way to the President’s desk to be signed into law. Of those ten bills listed by Congressman Shimkus as THE significant legislative 2017 accomplishments, only two were actually signed into law! None of the others — including any that the U.S. Senate passed — even made it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for presidential signature.

Laws Passed thru 5/31/2019 in this the 116th Congress

Public Law Number Bill Number and Title Date
PL 116-19 S.1693 – National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2019 05/31/2019
PL 116-18 H.R.2379 – To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. 05/23/2019
PL 116-17 H.R.1222 – Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 05/10/2019
PL 116-16 H.R.1839 – Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019 04/18/2019
PL 116-15 S.725 – A bill to change the address of the postal facility designated in honor of Captain Humayun Khan. 04/16/2019
PL 116-14 H.R.2030 – Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act 04/16/2019
PL 116-13 H.R.276 – Recognizing Achievement in Classified School Employees Act 04/12/2019
PL 116-12 S.863 – A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the grade and pay of podiatrists of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 04/08/2019
PL 116-11 S.252 – A bill to authorize the honorary appointment of Robert J. Dole to the grade of colonel in the regular Army. 04/06/2019
PL 116-10 S.49 – A bill to designate the outstation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation. 03/21/2019
PL 116-9 S.47 – John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act 03/12/2019
PL 116-8 S.483 – Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 03/08/2019
PL 116-7 H.R.439 – National FFA Organization’s Federal Charter Amendments Act 02/21/2019
PL 116-6 H.J.Res.31 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 02/15/2019
PL 116-5 H.J.Res.28 – Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 01/25/2019
PL 116-4 H.R.430 – TANF Extension Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-3 H.R.259 – Medicaid Extenders Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-2 H.R.251 – Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act 01/18/2019
PL 116-1 S.24 – Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 01/16/2019

Are you counting? 19 laws in 2019.

Estimates are that American taxpayers’ costs for funding Congressional operations were $4.4 Billion in 2009 — a decade ago! Current numbers simply “are not available.” But using realistic assumptions, it is credible to believe that number approaches $10 Billion annually. Look at what taxpayers received in Congressional services in legislative actions for the entirety of 2017 and the first half of 2019: 29 pieces of legislation plus the one big meaningful one: tax cuts. Do you feel like we’re getting our money worth?

So What is Congress Doing?

Great question. The #1 concern among Americans is dramatically and emphatically Illegal Immigration. Last week, more than 1,000 immigrants surged through the U.S. southern border near El Paso, Texas — the largest number ever encountered by U.S. Border Control and Protection, with the previous record being set in the month of April, which was 424. This unprecedented invasion spurred President Donald J. Trump to slap a 5 percent tariff on goods from Mexico in an effort to get the Mexican government to take seriously the problem of undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

The mainstream media, predictably, started lamenting on how the price of avocados for American consumers may potentially increase a few cents and completely ignored the $200 billion American taxpayers pay each year in illegal immigration costs. Not to mention the cost of illegal drugs on our youth, and the cost to education and health care on American taxpayers. So, let’s take a look at these dollars and cents.

According to a recent analysis done by Chris Conover, an American Enterprise Institute adjunct scholar, “all told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year.”

Although current federal policy prohibits federal tax funding of health care to unauthorized immigrants through Medicaid or Obamacare, “rough estimates suggest that the nation’s 3.9 million uninsured immigrants who are unauthorized likely receive about $4.6 billion in health services paid for by federal taxes, $2.8 billion in health services financed by state and local taxpayers and another $3 billion bankrolled through ‘cost-shifting,’ i.e. higher payments by insured patients to cover hospital uncompensated care losses, and roughly $1.5 billion in physician charity care,” Mr. Conover wrote in Forbes.

Public education of illegal immigrants’ children is also hemorrhaging the American taxpayer, as, under federal law, all students are eligible to receive schooling regardless of their immigration status.

“Public education is where the real big cost comes in,” Randy Capps, the director for research for U.S. programs at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute told NBC News this year. “The amount of taxes that the parents pay on their earnings, that they pay through property taxes — passed through on their rent — it’s not going to be as much as is spent on public education for their kids and food stamps for their kids.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated it cost public schools $59.8 billion to educate the children of illegal immigrants, and almost the entirety of this cost, 98.9 percent, is borne by taxpayers at the local and state level, through property taxes, according to a 2016 study. At the time, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were driving increased funding programs for students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) — causing a major drain on school budgets. That was when 118,929 unaccompanied minors were crossing the border during the fiscal year. Already this year, 44,779 unaccompanied alien minors have crossed the border and 248,197 family units, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

More people have been apprehended illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border this fiscal year than in any year since 2009, according to the CBP.

Then there’s the human cost of the drug crisis. In fiscal 2018, the U.S. border patrol seized 480,000 pounds of drugs, including fentanyl, marijuana, and meth, on the U.S.-Mexico border. In January, the CBP saw the largest seizure of fentanyl in the agency’s history — seizing nearly $4.6 million, or 650 pounds, of fentanyl and meth from a Mexican national when he attempted to cross the border.

Drug overdoses, fueled by opioids killed more than 70,000 people in the U.S. in 2017, with fentanyl overdose deaths doubling each and every year.

And today we learned that ISIS has been sending English-speaking terrorists to sneak through Mexico to get to the U.S. And we have no idea how long that has been happening and how many have entered the U.S.!

Can Mexico do more? Absolutely. Mexico needs to do a better job securing its own southern border — which runs only 150 miles across. It also can do a better job cracking down on its domestic terror organizations — both the coyotes smuggling young children across the border and the drug kingpins. Lastly, Mexico could grant asylum to migrants within its own homeland. According to international law, if you leave a country seeking asylum, you are to seek asylum in the first safe country you arrive. Mexico is safe, and the Mexican government can address this.

Who has the legal requirement to take care of the flow of immigrants into the U.S.? Are there laws that regulate all types of immigration? Why are they not being enforced? If they are bad laws, shouldn’t they be changed?

The answers to all those questions are singular: the United States Congress.

Why Doesn’t Congress Act on Illegal Immigration?

The simple answer: They don’t want to.

For Democrats, illegal immigration assures them of millions of “potential” voters that are present in the U.S. Democrats feel certain that whenever they take back the power of the House, Senate, and the White House, they can pass legislation to legalize all those illegals. That gives them instant VOTERS! And they are certain they will be able to lump those in the same Democrat basket in which they have already relegated African Americans and Hispanics.

For Republicans, those in the House and Senate simply don’t want to rock the boat. On the most part, their driving purpose is to maintain the balance between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans know it’s just a matter of time for the Democrats to take control of the Senate and probably the White House. Republicans want to “not make waves” now so that when Dems are back in power, the “revenge factor” will not lead Democrat leadership to strip GOP members of the prestigious committee spots they currently now have.

Remember: Congressional membership is no longer about money like it was decades ago — it’s all about “Power.” With power, you not only control money — billions of discretionary dollars — but everything  else. Balance is the key.

Regarding the border crisis: now that Democrats have come around and dropped their talking point “there is no crisis at the border,” why don’t they just pass legislation to take care of the problem, fund the necessary items to underwrite the current issues, stop illegal crossings, and fund the border wall?

They can no longer blame President Trump. Remember his offer last year? All Democrats had to do in the deal Trump offered Congress was fund the $5.7 billion for partial construction of the southern border wall. In exchange, his offer included hundreds of millions of dollars in new humanitarian money for safety and health of illegal immigrants, it would allow Central American children to apply for USA asylum from their home countries, and it would create a three-year legal status for about 700,000 people now here under the Obama-era DACA program, and some 300,000 people here under humanitarian protections, who might otherwise become illegal immigrants soon.

Of course Dems rejected the offer. So Trump has watched as the crisis down South has reached epidemic proportions and is taking Mexico on in an effort to force them to stop the Central America flood of immigrants through Mexico to get to the U.S. His plan is to use tariffs on Mexican products that come to the U.S. It sounds reasonable to most. But not to Pelosi and Company.

Her patent refusal is sad but not unexpected.

But then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky weighed in on HIS thoughts of the tariff proposal:

President Trump cannot win for losing!

Summary

Here’s the rub: President Trump cannot do it alone. Congress can! They could in a 30-minute session in the House and a 30-minute session in the Senate pass the necessary legislation to stop illegal immigration — if not completely then to a crawl — and give DACA recipients the peace of mind that though their parents brought them here illegally, they have stayed and can stay with government protection while they follow a path to citizenship. But they don’t!

The ball is in the court of the U.S. Congress. President Trump’s options are extremely limited. Many don’t like increased tariffs on China and other countries that are already in place. But they’re having positive results. Those on Mexico would hurt a bit, but their results would mean fair trade, which the U.S. has not had with most countries for decades. And if Mexico would simply honor their own immigration walls for their southern border and turn Central Americans away if not emigrating legally, our southern border crisis would subside!

Each American has only one thing to put into this battle: a vote — one vote. It would be a good thing (if you haven’t already) find out how your House member and your U.S. Senator feels, has voted, and will vote on any illegal immigration legislation issue if and when one comes to the floor for a vote. Let them know where YOU stand. And make some noise.

After all, they are allowing and even encouraging illegal immigrants to keep on coming! And they are making Americans who want the flood of illegals to stop feel guilty for wanting the government to simply abide by the law and enforce it.

After all of this, do you think there’s a possibility that many in Congress are just stupid?!?

 

Play

Socialism: Coming Soon to the U.S.A.

What is “Democratic Socialism?” What is/are the differences between “Democratic” Socialism and the everyday Walmart-version of Socialism? What countries on Earth are Socialist nations?

In the age of the hunger for Socialism to replace Capitalism in the U.S., Millenials are crying daily for the latter. But do they really know what they are asking for? It is abundantly clear that a huge majority of those Millenials we see marching in the streets of larger U.S. cities promoting Socialism at the expense of Capitalism have NO idea what the system they are demanding really is, what it does, how it operates, and even if it works at all anywhere. They certainly have no clue as to how the U.S. would look under Socialism.

As is normal in every American generation, these young “Socialist-wannabes” decided to rename their dreamed-for utopia to “Democratic Socialism.” So what is Democratic Socialism as compared to the normal version?

Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism means that this political reality—the abolition of capitalism—to be achieved will be achieved and administered through democratic, as opposed to authoritarian, means.

DSA’s website (Democratic Socialists of America) explains: “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”

“Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control society either … We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them … Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.”

Every DSA member you talk to would articulate a different vision of the ideal future for America. This is probably true of Americans of almost all political stripes. It might be more useful to look at the work that DSA is doing and the policy positions they hold than to speculate on the specifics of the future world they want to create.

The DSA outlines three tactics it uses to shift the power structure in America. Two of them are “decrease the influence of money in politics” and “empower ordinary people in workplaces and the economy.” If the wealthy—or as Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders likes to say, the 1 percent—control the economy and dictate the terms of people’s livelihoods, economic equality is impossible.

The DSA supports movements like Fight for 15 and Medicare for All, and backs institutions like unions and cooperatives, as vehicles for people to gain more economic power. Some DSA chapters also support public banks, tenant’s unions, and advocate for the homeless with the same aim in mind.

All of these tactics are ways to “seize the means of production,” meaning that working-class people play a larger role in the labor they perform and deciding the way they are compensated for that work, while bosses profit less from the work of their employees.

The third goal that DSA lists is to “restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable.” Just as the rich have more power than those with less money, in the white, patriarchal society of the United States, white men have power and privilege that other groups do not enjoy.

In mainstream liberal politics, racial, gender, and economic liberation are often discussed as separate issues. Democratic socialists believe that all types of oppression have their root in the capitalist and colonial systems that dominate American life. The only politics to combat these forces, then, is “intersectional,” meaning that all types of oppression are taken into account. The only way to end this oppression is by a mutual struggle in which various oppressed groups fight on each other’s behalf.

Democratic socialists also see the struggle for equality as one that transcends national borders. For this reason, the group abhors ICE, stands in solidarity with Palestine, and opposes military imperialism. Among many groups on the left, you will often hear the phrase “No war but class war” used to sum up this position.

It is obvious to see that the “organized” socialists in America who are largely members of the DSA have very specific ideas of what our nation looks like. It is also obvious that they want a very different America! Of course it like many other political “ideals” that are floated as the perfect utopia in which we all should live, Democratic Socialists fundamentally demand the complete destruction of capitalism, which they view as pure evil. I cannot imagine what the United States would look like in that world. I have no doubt the destruction of capitalism would initiate a quick and dramatic death of the U.S. economy.

But there is “more” out there in the world of Socialism.

Plain Old Socialism

Socialism is the Big Lie of the Twenty-first century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

Socialism Ignores Incentives

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

“Pure” Socialism

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China were pointed out.  At the time of that debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. The Marxist on that panel admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, sometimes imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite wealth, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity, it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between sometimes imperfect capitalism (but capitalism no less) and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale. The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the Sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship.

Incentives Matter

Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic withering that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

No abundance of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farmland, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.

Winners and Losers in Socialism

Socialism leads to the politicization of society. Hardly anything can be worse for the production of wealth.

Socialism, at least its Marxist version, says its goal is complete equality. The Marxists observe that once you allow private property in the means of production, you allow differences. If I own resource A, then you do not own it and our relationship toward resource A becomes different and unequal. By abolishing private property in the means of production with one stroke, say the Marxists, everyone becomes co-owner of everything. This reflects everyone’s equal standing as a human being.

The reality is much different. Declaring everyone a co-owner of everything only nominally solves differences in ownership. It does not solve the real underlying problem:  there remain differences in the power to control what is done with resources.

In capitalism, the person who owns a resource can also control what is done with it. In a socialized economy, this isn’t true because there is no longer any owner. Nonetheless the problem of control remains. Who is going to decide what is to be done with what? Under socialism, there is only one way: people settle their disagreements over the control of property by superimposing one will upon another. As long as there are differences, people will settle them through political means.

If people want to improve their income under socialism they have to move toward a more highly valued position in the hierarchy of caretakers. That takes political talent.

Under such a system, people will have to spend less time and effort developing their productive skills and more time and effort improving their political talents.

As people shift out of their roles as producers and users of resources, we find that their personalities change. They no longer cultivate the ability to anticipate situations of scarcity to take up productive opportunities, to be aware of technological possibilities, to anticipate changes in consumer demand, and to develop strategies of marketing. They no longer have to be able to initiate, to work, and to respond to the needs of others.

Instead, people develop the ability to assemble public support for their own position and opinion through means of persuasion, demagoguery, and intrigue, through promises, bribes, and threats. Different people rise to the top under socialism than under capitalism. The higher on the socialist hierarchy you look, the more you will find people who are too incompetent to do the job they are supposed to do. It is no hindrance in a caretaker politician’s career to be dumb, indolent, inefficient, and uncaring. He only needs superior political skills. This too contributes to the impoverishment of society.

Summary

Plain and simple, “Socialism ain’t gonna work!” It works nowhere on Earth and has always been unsustainable in any versions as it has been tried. It certainly won’t work in the U.S. Why?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said in 2007, “…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”

It’s surprising to me that Democratic Socialists like AOC, Bernie Sanders and others don’t understand that capitalism rewards those who work hard, work smart, and build businesses with which other Americans want to work. That’s the main difference between Socialism and Capitalism.

Under Socialism, entrepreneurship is dead, ingenuity is dead, and working hard to get ahead is dead.

Making it as simple as possible, in case you didn’t get it a few moments ago: “Socialism ain’t gonna work!”

Play

Who is “Below the Law?”

“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the president is not above the law.”

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 3, 2019

The Law

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

  1. concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
  2. concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
  3. concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
  4. obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
That’s the law — 18 U.S. Code § 798 — regarding the handling of classified information: the Law. By any understanding of that law and the penalty for breaking the law, when someone does so, their doing so is a heinous act against the U.S. Government that in doing so allows someone — anyone — to access potentially serious national information that could be damaging to the United States in any number of ways.

“Anyone:” Then there’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

(Follow along very carefully these next sentences:)

  • According to documents, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured a senior FBI official into de-classifying emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s illegal private server. The FBI official notes that Kennedy contacted the organization to ask for the change in classification in “exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ More specifically, “State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” according to a conversation relayed by The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen Hayes. The FBI did not take Kennedy up on his offer.
  • Despite initial denials from the State Department, this exchange is entirely plausible. For one, State had plenty of expertise in the deployment of quid pro quo during Hillary’s years of enriching her family foundation by trading government access. Moreover, a senior FBI official has a lot less reason to fabricate a conversation about favor trading than a Clinton functionary has to pressure a senior FBI official into saving Hillary from criminal prosecution.
  • “Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views,” a State Department spokesperson said. No doubt this is true. So why did Kennedy wait until a criminal investigation was well underway to ask law enforcement to scrutinize that particular document at that particular time? Is it customary for undersecretaries of State to ask the FBI to alter the classifications of documents that just happen to protect political candidates at the center of a politically explosive investigation? Did Kennedy — a man who owes his high position to the Clintons — engage in this conversation on his own? Was he asked to do it? For months, law enforcement had attempted to contact him, and he ignored their inquiries. Why, according to FBI documents, did Kennedy only reach out to make this request?
  • What’s even more curious is that FBI Director James Comey didn’t consider this event — or, for that matter, the litany of other actions Clinton’s lackeys took to protect her — as a sign that there was, at the very least, an intent to influence the investigation. This is, of course, was just one revelation in the Hillary email scandal. It’s worth remembering that the illegal email setup was only inadvertently discovered through a congressional investigation into Benghazi. The server itself existed to evade transparency.
  • When caught, Hillary alleged that she “never sent any classified material nor received any marked classified.” This turned out to be a lie. Hillary claimed before becoming secretary she had merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This turned out to be a lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices,” not to mention servers. Clinton — the most competent person to ever run for president, according to Barack Obama — claimed she didn’t understand how classified markings work. This was also a lie.
  • According to the FBI, Hillary sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of these emails contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey said at his press conference in July of 2016. He acknowledged this could have happened because Hillary and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He also admitted that no competent foreign power would have left behind evidence of this hack.

Yet, for some reason, Comey would not admit that this is why U.S. Code makes mishandling information — not the intent of those mishandling it — illegal.

Those who ran Clinton’s server attempted to destroy evidence — government documents — after The New York Times reported on her wrongdoing. Probably another coincidence. Not that intent mattered to Comey, either. Before the FBI even cracked open their laptops, the Justice Department proactively gave immunity to the five people who could have testified that Hillary was lying. (One of these people, Cheryl Mills, later acted as Hillary’s lawyer.) The two Clinton aides with the most intimate knowledge about her email conniving were also given side deals.

Does anyone besides me see any conflict in the happenings detailed above and what Ms. Clinton said in her speech on Monday of this week and in her tweet: “…the president is not above the law?”

Then There’s Congress

Everyone knows that it takes an impeachment proceeding initiated from the House Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, then with that committee’s referral to the floor of the House followed by a successful House vote to impeach to start that process. If and when that occurs, the matter is turned over to the Senate for an actual trial on the merits. Obviously, much debate ensues during an actual trial. At the conclusion, the Senate votes on the charges. If two-thirds of the Senators vote to confirm the House resolution for impeachment, the President is convicted and removed from office.

We want to note here: there’s a process — a Constitutional process. That process requires charges, evidence of violation by the President of U.S. Constitutional mandate that states in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There’s a Constitutional process for impeaching the President, Vice President, and other “civil officers of the United States.” Certainly, Americans support everything within the Constitution, right? But let’s see what longtime Democrat and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has to say about what is being threatened by House Democrats right now:

“The mantra invoked by those Democrats who are seeking to impeach President Trump is that ‘no one is above the law.’ That, of course, is true, but it is as applicable to Congress as it is to the president. Those members of Congress who are seeking to impeach the president, even though he has not committed any of the specified impeachable offenses set out in the Constitution, are themselves seeking to go above the law.

All branches of government are bound by the law. Members of Congress, presidents, justices and judges must all operate within the law. All take an oath to support the Constitution, not to rewrite it for partisan advantage.

It is the law that exempts presidents from being prosecuted or impeached for carrying out their constitutional authority under Article 2. The same Constitution precludes members of Congress from being prosecuted for most actions taken while on the floor of the House and Senate or on the way to performing their functions. The Constitution, which is the governing law, precludes Congress from impeaching a president for mere “dereliction” of duty or even alleged ‘corruption.’ Under the text of the Constitution, a president’s actions to be impeachable must consist of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Consider Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA), who has said the following:

Congressman Waters said this the other day: “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment.”

It is she, and other like-minded members of Congress, who are claiming the right to be above the law. That is a dangerous claim whether made by a president or by a member of Congress.

So Hillary, members of Congress, and most in the Mainstream Media are claiming they are above the Law, who then would be considered to be below the law?

The answer to that is simple: anyone who disagrees with anything any member of the Democrat ruling “Elitist-ocracy” is certainly below the Law and obviously unworthy of the consideration of “Equal justice under the Law.” Who throughout history are some of those “folks?”

  • All those who fled the repression of European elitist members of the Ruling Class who considered anyone not deemed to be eligible for membership in their groups to be less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • African-American men, women, and children who were taken by slave traders in Northern Africa and sold in America had no rights and were certainly less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • Today’s working-class Americans who don’t live and work in Coastal American states or those several interior states comprised of like-minded elites who have garnered favor from the political elite “Overclass” are less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • According to Hillary and other Dems, everyone who did NOT vote for Hillary in 2016 but chose Mr. Trump instead is not only ineligible for “Equal Justice under the Law,” but are reprehensible human beings and deserve no consideration of the benefits of simply being Americans.

Summary

I know this may seem harsh today. But it is time for Americans to wake up and realize liberty and justice for all is about to be “liberty and justice for only an elite few.” And regardless of what the pundits on the Left want all to believe, those elites are NOT the current inhabitants of the White House. They are led by the defeated 2016 presidential candidate and all those who had surreptitiously created, implemented, and maintained her path to the White House so as to cover-up all the wrongdoing committed by her team and others comprised by a large number of very important government officials.

Even in the aftermath of two years of an exhaustive investigation into ridiculous allegations against this president, his staff, family, and many friends, those Elitists still shout in anger threats against all of those who are “below the Law” that support the duly elected president and the Rule of Law.

I never in my wildest dream we would ever see a day like this today. But it’s true: for at least the eight years of the Obama Administration, evil and deviousness ran rampant through the Capital and the Department of Justice in D.C. And the U.S. government was nothing more than a piggy bank for Elitists to tap for their evildoing. Taxpayers paid every dime for what they did. And our children will continue to pay that bill.

Play

Slippery Slope Target: The Constitution

Why the rush to remove monuments, change names of Universities and sports teams all the while denigrating their historical meanings?

Actually, what we are seeing is the fulfillment of Barack Obama’s major campaign promise when running in 2008: “To fundamentally change America.” Think about it: how could one change a nation fundamentally without altering its history? He did not say he wanted to alter the course of America or to change the processes in the U.S. Government. No, he wanted to fundamentally change America.

“Fundamentally” America was structured to operate as the most unique country on Earth. Our forefathers took the best of the political frameworks of European countries and added to it “liberty and justice for all.” They then memorialized that new type of government in the roadmap of roadmaps — the U.S. Constitution. That document and its contents are the fundamental backbones of the United States of America. Sure, people fight over whether or not the framers intended for it to be used in perpetuity as literally written or that it be a “living, breathing,” the process of laws that morph in interpretation to fit the inevitable changes in American life as they happen. But the argument today by some is to alter not the interpretations of the intent of the framers but to actually add, delete, and/or change phrasing and wording of the document.

That seems to be the justification used for the efforts to destroy offending monuments and statues and the removal of slogans and stone markers from places highly visible to the public. Which specific offensive historical reminders should be removed and which should stay? That remains to be seen. Of course, there are many that vigorously object to ANY removal, strictly for historical purposes.

To me, removing, hiding, or changing locations of these pieces of history is not the danger I am writing about. What petrifies me is the slippery slope America is now at the brink of sliding down into an abyss of societal culture never before experienced in America. So far the only thing that has prevented that slide is the strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the greatest judicial system on Earth. However, that too is under attack.

The “Intent”

What did the Framers envision the Constitution to be? I think the best way to answer that question is to list the items in Article 1 Section 8 (powers of Congress) and Article 2 Section 2 (powers of the President) of the Constitution. Here is the link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Upon reading these sections of the Constitution, most people will be shocked to see just how little power the Constitution gave to the new federal government. The federal government is mainly responsible for dealings with foreign countries such as treaties, commerce, wars., and little else (immigration, coining money, etc.). Yet today, Constitutional “detractors” on the Left want to tear up the Constitution and start from scratch!

We’ve all heard about the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Those are the first ten Amendments that are simply called the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and others involved in creating the U.S. Constitution had just after living under a European national government with top-down repressive and totalitarian operations for generations chose to move to a New World and establish a country that worked instead of top-down as a bottom-up governed nation.

The First Ten Amendments were the MOST important parts of the Constitution for those who had memories of awakening every day under that governmental oppression. Those ten amendments were written to make as easy as possible the understanding by all that the American people were creating a federal government that would operate using ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC RIGHTS AS GIVEN TO THAT GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. No other federal government rights were ever to be used unless and until they were expressly given to the government by the People!

An all-powerful central government had destroyed Western Europe. Those American settlers wanted nothing to do with that lifestyle then and certainly not moving forward in the new nation.

What Did the Framers Actually Think?

Let’s look at their OWN words:

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.  —Thomas Jefferson

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.  —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so? — James Madison

The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison

Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution. — Thomas Jefferson

To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power. — Thomas Jefferson

How does all this compare to what some contemporaries in politics had to say about the Constitution?

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.  All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine. — Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, A Call For The Emancipation Of The Generous Energies Of A People

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” — Franklin Roosevelt, President

It is the genius of our Constitution that under its shelter of enduring institutions and rooted principles there is ample room for the rich fertility of American political invention. —Lyndon B. Johnson, President

The words of the Constitution … are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life. —Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice

This understanding, underlying constitutional interpretation since the New Deal, reflects the Constitution’s demands for structural flexibility sufficient to adapt substantive laws and institutions to rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. — Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority

I cannot accept this invitation [to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution], for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention … To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start. —Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice

It can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our profound belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases. —Harry Truman, President

If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless. —Antonin Gregory Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

Just talk to me as a father—not what the Constitution says. What do you feel? — Joe Biden, Vice President

The Thread of Commonality

Wow! All of those quoted above — those from the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s as well as this century — represent different perspectives and different understandings of the intent of the framers and the actual meaning of the Constitution. But, thankfully, they acknowledge the significance of our nation actually having a roadmap to American governing that is recognized as the greatest in the World.

But there’s on more commonality that runs very obviously through each: Opinion. Yep. Each of those who weighed in with thoughts did so based on opinion — THEIR opinion.

And who among us is any different?

Several things about the framer’s offerings are very obvious:

  • they recognized that they could not foretell the future and therefore could not imagine what legalities their great, great, great, great grandchildren would face but would still need the Constitution for guidance;
  • they acknowledged that events in the future would dictate the necessity of flexibility in interpretations demanded by contemporary and unimagined occurrences in American life at the time of its creation;
  • they knew there would, therefore, be demands for actual editing of their original constitution.

To anticipate exactly how to adjudicate these future certainties they knew was a possibility in the 18th century. They therefore brilliantly included the ability and the process to alter the Constitution. That process is called “Amending.” But because of the importance of the strictest adherence to the blueprint of governing they created, they purposely made the amendment process extremely difficult. Why?

They hated the political process and knew that if allowed, that process would destroy true freedom created by the Constitution. They knew that political partisanship would initiate continuous amending of the Constitution not to better serve the basis of the Laws of the People, but to only satisfy the hunger for political power for the elite. They had lived through that and knew it could NOT be allowed to devour this new nation.

Democracy or Republic?

The cries from partisan political parties for either a Democracy or a Republic for a description of the form of government established by the Constitution have gone back and forth for the life of the United States. The winds of the political party in power have determined which form is desired at the time.

Jefferson and Company knew this would happen. They made clear how the U.S. government would work. And they guaranteed Americans would live in a Representative Republic with the establishment of the Electoral College that governs the process of electing the U.S. “Executive in Chief,” the President and Vice President. Also, states are to determine U.S. Senators: 2 from each state originally appointed by each state’s governor but changed via Amendment to be elected by each state’s electorate, Members that serve in the “People’s House,” Congress, are still elected by voters from each House district in each state.

Today, the political Left doesn’t accept the structure of the Republic, rejecting it for instead a Democratic government. Why? In a pure Democracy, there ARE no federal representatives of the People. Each person gets one vote. That sounds reasonable, right? Consider this:

”IF” the U.S. was a true Democracy, every federal election outcome would simply be what those from the states of California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas voted to be. Election results would be determined solely by the most heavily populated states and their voters’ desires. “Fly-over” Americans would have no say so at all in their government.

Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would be President instead of Donald Trump. That was the choice of the U.S. popular vote when the Electoral College elected Trump in something of a landslide. The same happened in the Bush 43 presidential elections.

Summary

So what’s fair?

That answer is simple: NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote.

True democracy is the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is mob rule. Thankfully we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government….”

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule, and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win.

The will of the People means ALL the People.

Play