Citizenship No Longer Necessary to Vote in the U.S.

Most Americans have looked-on with growing concern as states across the nation are allowing non-citizens the right to vote. There are many reasons for such concerns. Those reasons center on fears of the weaponization of the votes of illegals for partisan political gain. A political party, if able to convince illegals that party can “help” those illegals in some ways sufficient to gain their votes, can gain control   of those votes. If you’ve ever wondered why Democrats from top to bottom of their party fight closing the southern border, resist the revision of immigration laws, hate ICE and Border Patrol agents, and continuously berate those inu Congress who support legal immigration, wonder no more. For Democrats, their immigrant support is about one thing: votes.

There certainly are those in the Democrat Party who have soft hearts for real refugees who are seeking asylum from persecution in their home countries. But the majority of Dems look at each illegal immigrant that finds their way into the U.S. as a potential future vote for the Democrat Party.

Why are Democrats so set on increasing their base in this way? Why do they fight legal immigration laws currently in force while refusing to legislatively work with members of Congress to fix laws that they dislike?


The Democrat Party (and the Republican Party for that matter) conduct massive amounts of continuing research — primarily polling. This polling is to discover what voters think and try to corral as many as possible into the Democrat Party while picking off as many as possible from the Republican Party (That cuts both ways.) Voters who are NOT party-affiliated are BIG targets.

It is apparent that Democrats more than the GOP have launched significant efforts to seize political power across America. Dems are sure that with political power, they are better able to easily control the political processes — ALL of the political processes — in the United States. Dems are no longer content to go with the normal flow of election results every two years. They want permanencypermanent political power.

But here’s their problem: during the last four decades, Americans have become more involved in the political process than ever before. The information that flows from satellite communication, the internet, and the availability of 24/7 news and other information, has captured the eyes and ears of the nation. One would think that is great news for everyone, including political parties. After all, the “whole” truth beamed to Americans from multiple sources should always result in decisions that are rooted in facts. For some, though, facts are often undesirable. And sometimes, plans are implemented to change those facts or at least the perception of what “real” facts are in political matters.

Try as both parties have, in the last twenty years, the percentage of voter-split between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents has barely changed. According to Gallup, in 2005, 29% of registered voters were Republicans, 32% were Democrats, and 36% were Independents. Fast-forward to 2019; It’s 28% Republican, 28% Democrats, and 41% Independents. Considering the two-decade registered voter split, political power remains almost equally divided. Independents hold the balance for victory in every national election. (See the voter numbers in the following chart)

              Registered Voter Split for all U.S. States and the District of Columbia

Non-Citizen Voting: Illegal

Mass immigration has made a significant impact on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress based on U.S. Census results.

In addition, there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens have voted in recent elections. Noncitizens have been discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania.  And the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York recently announced that it charged a Canadian woman with making a false claim to citizenship after she registered and voted in more than 20 elections.

Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections. Consider how close the 2000 presidential election was as was the 2016 presidential election. Could the outcomes have been affected by noncitizen voting? The answer is yes.

With the 2020 election fast approaching, the possibility exists that voting by noncitizens could significantly influence the results. Many immigrants’ rights groups contend that noncitizen voting constitutes a harmless misunderstanding of the rules and should not cause great concern. Many feel  it enables individuals whose interests may not coincide with those of the American people to exert influence on our domestic politics. Given the rate at which both the legal and illegal alien populations have grown, the United States should be concerned with ensuring that the electoral power of U.S. citizens is not undermined and with protecting the United States from foreign influence.

In March of 2019 (3/20/2019) we shared examples of verified findings that in the 2016 federal elections several million illegal votes were cast in the U.S. Yet our government refuses to diligently and aggressively prosecute illegal voters with maximum felony sentences for doing so.

Voter ID

The United States does not currently issue any general-use document intended to confirm both identity and citizenship. There have been numerous attempts made to mandate some form of acceptable legal identification for all to use to vote in a federal election. Those on the left have fought vigorously in the courts to keep such a requirement from being implemented. Though the mantra in opposition universally centers around such a requirement being unfair, unnecessary, and racist in nature, most Americans simply shake their heads in disbelief. One cannot fly on a plane, rent a car, apply for or receive federal government assistance, open bank accounts, purchase a car, marry, or enter many buildings without proof of identity. An ID is required for anyone to enter any national Democrat Party meeting or convention and even a called meeting of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).

The cries for identification for voters have been ratcheted up by recent actions taken on the part of several states. Knowing that state-issued drivers licenses seem to be the easiest method for personal identification, several states are now allowing licenses for illegal aliens.

Democrats in the New York Senate January 9, 2020, passed a law that would automatically register anyone as a voter when they get their driver’s license, something all illegal aliens can get since December. Senate Bill S6457B, which is in the process of being passed by the Assembly, provides that anyone who obtains a driver’s license in New York state will be registered as a voter by default unless they specifically mark a box waiving membership on the voter roll.

What is disturbing about this measure is that it would de facto grant the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who, as of December 2019, can obtain a driver’s license in New York state thanks to a law passed in June. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Green Light Act last year, which allows anyone over the age of 16 to apply for a driver’s license regardless of immigration status, and will also not require a Social Security number.

The Right to Vote

Those that fight so aggressively against Voter ID claim such requirements circumvent the right to vote. What enfuriates millions of legal Americans is the Constitutional guidelines that gave Americans the right to vote and the laws that control voting eligibility are being trampled or just ignored.

“Wait a minute,” you say. “Where in the Constitution is the process of voting guaranteed to every American? That’s a good question.

You may be surprised to learn there is NO specific section of any Article or Amendment in the Constitution that grants or guarantees the right to vote to every citizen. But there are certainly mentions of the right to vote.

The phrase appears for the first time in the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation “when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.”

But whatever Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment means, it really can’t mean that everyone must be allowed to vote. It penalizes states that withhold the ballot but does not require them to grant it. The Fifteenth Amendment, however, does speak specifically of “the right of citizens of the United States to vote.”

In this form, it will appear a total of three more times, each time now protected against abridgment, as an individual right “of citizens,” one that can be enforced by both courts and Congress. Yet courts and citizens remain oddly ambivalent about it; it is common to regard voting as a “privilege,” an incident of citizenship granted to some but not all. The “privilege” over the years has been made dependent on literacy, or long residency in a community, or ability to prove identity, or lack of a criminal past. None of these conditions would be allowed to restrict free speech, or freedom from “unreasonable” searches, or the right to counsel, even though each of those rights is mentioned once in the Constitution. The right to vote of citizens of the United States remains a kind of stepchild in the family of American rights, perhaps because it is not listed in the Bill of Rights.

In the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote is not to be “denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Note the second verb. Many things might “abridge” a right without “denying” it altogether. Whatever the status of the right as a right, it is apparently strictly protected from any kind of limit — any kind of limit, that is, based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The target is clear — racial restrictions on voting, or restrictions of the voting rights of former slaves. It is common to describe the amendment as aimed solely at racial restrictions on the right to vote.

Voter ID

This process is claimed by strict Constitutionalists to be one of preserving the privilege of voting by preventing anyone who is not a citizen from voting. As mentioned above, it is a federal crime to vote illegally in an election for federal officials. States that have passed strict voter ID laws find themselves in federal court defending against suits based on discrimination charges alleging that such laws actually “abridge” the right to vote based on race. Somehow their conclusion is that minority people under such a requirement it is discrimination. Why? Because, they say, minorities do not have the same capabilities to register to vote as do white Americans: obtaining drivers licenses, state issued ID cards, passports, etc.

Though those claims are really vapid, liberal courts around the nation in multiple such cases agree with those making these claims. I find it humorous to watch interviews with dozens and dozens of African Americans in multiple cities both large and small that state the racism in this matter is from those who say minorities do not have the capabilities in large to obtain ID’s. 

One 55-year-old African American woman  who lives in New York expressed it best: “It is insulting for anyone to think blacks don’t have ID’s.” She continued, “Think about it: we can’t fly on a plane, apply for social security benefits, Medicaid, federal assistance, buy cigarettes or beer, drive a car, and even go our children’s school without proof of identification.” She concluded with this: “I don’t know a single African American adult that does NOT have a photo ID.”


What should be the ONLY factor that weighs on the minds of any Americans about being able to vote or not is the “LEGALITY” of someone to vote. What IS included in the Constitution is the Rule of Law. In our Constitution, in Congress, and in State House across the country, bills are passed, agreed to as required and signed into law by Presidents and governors. Each of these is part of the process of governing legally — or adherence to the Rule of Law.

To that end, here’s what EVERY American should demand: the enforcement of every passed law in the United States…period. Certainly, everyone has a right to object to any law. But no one has the right to break any law.

There’s a process in the U.S. regarding federal laws, in states regarding state laws, and locally regarding local laws to amend laws, change laws, or doing away altogether with laws the populace desires. That’s part of the Rule of Law. And anyone who breaks any of those laws does so illegally and, by definition, is guilty of breaking the law.

When did it become OK for anyone — anyone at all — to arbitrarily break laws or simply ignore them? Doing so is NOT OK.

And if Democrats choose to fight to allow illegals who enter the country by breaking laws, or to encourage any to vote illegally, they should be held accountable.

One final note: it is the height of anti-Americanism to vote illegally and/or to encourage others to vote illegally. And it’s stupidity for any American to facilitate such actions.

The “Inconvenient Truth” Isn’t an Al Gore Movie

Do you think that Democrats are petrified to believe that Donald Trump is looking more and more likely to be re-elected in 2020? Few will acknowledge that the 45th President’s support among Americans is NOT falling in the wake of the non-stop attacks mounted by Democrats and their bevy of Leftist supporters. Their attacks seem to encourage Americans who have tired of the “same old thing” in Washington: tax and spend, political corruption, ignoring federal laws, refusal to enforce immigration laws while repairing U.S. immigration, and tearing apart American healthcare. Add to that the massive loss of jobs of all kinds to foreign nations that drove millions even to quit looking for jobs in the U.S. Americans just had enough. Then came Donald Trump.

In the wake of the three-year plethora of amazing accomplishments on all fronts during Trump’s first term, one would think Americans — ALL Americans — would trumpet (pun intended) the American achievements in every sector and fall in line. Instead, the Left has just ramped up their nonstop attacks on the President. Tagging right along (if not leading the charge) is the Lame-Stream Media. They not only miss-report actual news, but manufacture story after story that demean the President personally and professionally. They report fake news as real news while ignoring every accomplishment achieved for Americans during Trump’s first term. They even use Americans on a personal level to fuel their attacks:

“Mark” tells a really sad story in this political ad. According to media reports, Mark is just one of the millions of Americans who, with the hope of change, voted for Donald Trump in 2016 who are appalled and ashamed of their 2016 votes. The only problem with this story is that “Mark” didn’t even vote in the 2016 election! BL News reported the story recently this way:

News reports revealed that a man who appears in an ad saying he regrets voting for Donald Trump did not even show up to vote in the 2016 presidential election. The controversial video was funded by Democratic Party supporters.

The controversial American Bridge 21st Century ad features Mark Graham, a man from Erie, Pennsylvania, who claims to have voted for Trump in 2016 and today regrets his decision.

“I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 because I thought he would make a change,” Graham said in the video urging Pennsylvanians not to support President Trump and even comparing voting for him to pouring “gasoline on a fire.”

However, Erie County elections office records indicate that Graham did not vote in the 2016 election.

What could be going on here? Was this an honest mistake that happened to a group of American patriots diligently trying to get the truth out that Pennsylvanians who voted for Trump are so disappointed they regret those votes? That doesn’t appear to be the reason for this ad and others like it.

American Bridge 21st Century, the entity that financed the ad, is considered a Super PAC. Political action committees (PACs) are organizations that pool contributions from donors to use those funds for campaigns for or against candidates, election initiatives, or legislation.

The American Bridge PAC, one of the significant liberal groups coordinating election fundraising, is funded mainly by Democratic donors and unions. Controversial billionaire speculator George Soros was the group’s largest donor for the 2012 and 2014 cycles, contributing $1 million in 2012 and more than $1 million in 2014, according to reports by the NGO Fact Check.

It’s one thing to point to the actual failures and wrongdoings of elected officials as reasons for voting for their removal or against their re-election. But it’s another thing to unethically seed the ground with falsehoods and fake ads to try to in underhanded fashion impact election results.

Wait a minute: isn’t that what the Mueller Investigation was about? Didn’t the Media implicate the Russians for subversively through social media ads and fake accounts to induce American voters to vote against Hillary and for Trump in 2016? I guess, in this case, it’s OK because it’s not a foreign government committing the fraud. Most would probably agree that both were incorrigible attacks on America’s election system. But only one was illegal.

The “Real” Story

Mark Graham’s story — at least as used in the context of that television ad — is not unique. One can put two and two together and conclude that if Mr. Soros and others of his political persuasion are willing to conflate facts and even outright lie, there are far more campaign tricks with which to fool Americans.

Democrats for generations have shouted from the mountaintops that they alone have been the supporters of minorities in America. They with the support of numerous African-American leaders have successfully led the majority of Blacks in the U.S. to their staunch support of the Democrat Party. Why? Because “conventional wisdom” proves that the GOP has always fought against the rights of African-Americans and even fought to keep Blacks suppressed in every way.

Indeed, there have always been Republicans who have discriminated against African-Americans.  But, it’s a fact that Republicans have pushed through legislation that gave the African-American community more freedom, more opportunity, more justice than have Democrats. Doing so created more chances to fulfill the promises made by our forefathers to all Americans in the Constitution.

In this brief audio/video report, one gets the truth of the Democrat Party’s lies about their Civil Rights gifts to African Americans:

It comes as no surprise to most that the tools of the Left are NOT legislative, social, or racial accomplishments for the poor or disenfranchised. In fact, Democrats fought against such freedoms for 100 years or longer. Their purpose is so obvious to some while so confusing to others that they have been successful in keeping members of the African-American community and other minorities from “seeing” the truth. Democrats are undoubtedly masterful communicators. But their achievements for minorities in America do not support their promises, nor their touted accomplishments.

Most Americans have known for decades the truth of the Democrat Party: their existence as a party depends solely on the maintenance of a nationwide voting majority. In the last twenty years or so, they watched as their voting majority began to slip. Why? Because Americans realized that Democrats had actually become the Taskmasters of minorities. How could these minority members allow this? Democrat Party leadership planted the seeds of deception that taught minorities that Democrats are the only Americans who care. Democrats supposedly were the only ones that would help them achieve the American Dream. That lie has been perpetrated in minority communities for more than half-a-century.

Under Donald Trump, Democrats have been exposed!


Here’s what’s happened: Donald Trump’s policies in total have given minorities massive life improvements in just his first three years. They are fleeing the Democrat Party in droves. Why? They are tired of empty promises, party policies implemented to perpetuate party power over its members, and legislative proposals that, if ever signed into law, would do nothing but further stifle opportunities for ALL Americans.

Democrats have been exposed.

It’s not just African-Americans that have seen the truth. Native Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and immigrants from all over the world who have emigrated to the U.S. SEE the benefits in their lives they never saw under Democrat presidents. They more than ever understand the promises given to them for decades by Dems have been empty promises devised to do nothing but keep their votes.

The video ad at the beginning of this story today proves just how desperate they are. The Democrat Party lies in shambles. They watch as its storied history fades into a distant past. Their power is dwindling, and that scares them the most. They know that without that power, they are doomed. They refuse to admit it, but to their horror, the Democrat Party is taking its last gasps.

The George Soros millions put into advertising and promotion along with the zillions of dollars from Bloomberg and Stern flooding this election cycle has done little to attract new Democrat voters. Polls show dramatic numbers of Democrats are leaving the party altogether.

The alternative for Democrat voters — Donald Trump in 2020 — leaves them speechless. Donald Trump and the Republican Party together form “The Inconvenient Truth”  of today’s political landscape. They are clamoring to overcome that “Truth.” But everyday ends for them saying, “What can we possibly do to prevent this from happening?”

There’s not much they CAN do: Americans have awakened.

Impeachment: Where Are We Today?

  1. Today’s special interview with a TNN subscriber-partner is just moments away. This conversation with a middle-American businessman is NOT an entire podcast. To hear it, click on the link directly below the section titled “McConnell and the Senate.”

House Speaker Pelosi pushed and pushed. With the help of fellow Dems. Adam Schiff of California and Jerrold Nadler of New York, Pelosi was able to wave her magic wand and achieve two Articles of Impeachment of President Donald Trump from the full House of Representatives. What’s next? What’s next SHOULD be those two articles presented to the Senate for a trial. But Pelosi made a historical decision to not send over those articles. Congress took a couple of weeks off for the holiday,s which meant nothing — nothing at all — was achieved by our government. That includes impeachment proceedings and any other legislative matters that are piling ever high have even been considered. Congress has done virtually nothing except the bare essentials while they do everything possible to get rid of Mr. Trump. That’s not “Job #1” for Democrats in Congress. It’s “Job Only.” Nothing else seems to matter to Democrats. So what’s next?


“Queen Pelosi,” as she is often called on Capitol Hill behind her back, is holding the cards on impeachment timing. According to the Senate rules, any impeachment trial cannot begin without articles of impeachment being presented along with the names of House prosecutors who will act as the Impeachment Trial prosecutors during the Senate trial. Neither has been provided to the Senate Majority Leader McConnell of Kentucky. And it appears no one has any idea of when that will happen.

Many are struggling to compute what could be Pelosi’s reasoning for these delays. Some say it is to, in some way, gain an advantage over the Senate for such a trial to be able to force Senate Republicans to bow to her wishes. That’s virtually impossible since the Constitution in Article II states that the Senate has sole power over an impeachment trial. And Republicans have the majority in the Senate.

Could it be to simply prolong a trial or to keep the trial in “pending” status throughout the entire year? One explanation for that would be to guarantee that Mr. Trump has an “Impeachment cloud” over his head throughout the entire 2020 election cycle to somehow discredit his credentials to voters sufficient to prevent his 2020 re-election for four more years.

And then there are those who have stated House Republicans can and will keep looking for Trump wrongdoing that supports MORE articles of impeachment, even IF he’s acquitted by the Senate if a “first” impeachment trial happens!

Maybe Ms. Pelosi plans to never turn those articles over to the Senate at all. There is no Constitutional requirement for her to do so. That too might discredit voters during this presidential election.

What would happen then? Who knows! As was just stated, the Constitution leaves such issues up to Congress. And, of course, when Congress gets in unresolvable dilemmas like this, the federal courts weigh-in. If this should happen, one can bet the U.S. Supreme would immediately step-in. And nothing like that has ever happened.

McConnell and the Senate

Majority Leader McConnell too has been all over the spectrum of possibilities regarding this impeachment. He first stated that when the House sends over articles of impeachment, they will be “dead-on-arrival.” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC,) who is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would make a motion immediately following receipt in the Senate of those articles for the Senate to decline to even consider impeachment.

McConnell then stated, “The Senate has no Constitutional choice but to conduct a trial.” Graham then stated though he does not want any further witness testimony if/when such a trial occurs, he knows many Americans want to have all those involved in the Mueller investigation, old and current FBI investigations, and investigations by U.S. Attorney John Durham stand before Americans in an open Senate impeachment trial and, under oath, answer questions about their alleged wrongdoings before and during the Trump presidency.

So what will it be? That’s the million-dollar question. Many think that before the end of business this Friday — January 10, 2020 — we will know in what direction the impeachment of Donald Trump will go regarding Congress.

One thing is certain: we know that every member of the American press has their own ideas of what “is” happening now in the impeachment trial and what “should” happen going forward. Our guest today — “Phil” — is an Oklahoma businessman that, in full disclosure, is a Republican and a Trump supporter. He has his own opinions about “all things Washington” as do all Americans. By the way, you’ll hear him with some very pointed observations about today news media.

Meet “Phil”

(Click the link below)

Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress: Huh?

Here we go!

The House Judiciary Committee introduced the first two Articles of Impeachment. They plan to present to the full House of Representatives for a vote to impeach the President: “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress.” The Abuse of Power claim alleges President Trump insisted that Ukraine’s President Zelensky immediately jump-start corruption investigation into Hunter Biden, Vice President Joe Biden’s son, or would risk losing foreign aid. The Obstruction of Congress claim is for actions taken by President Trump to keep current and former members of his Administration from honoring Congressional subpoenas to appear before various House committees to answer questions about matters that occurred in the White House.

These certainly are serious allegations made in these two draft Articles of Impeachment. And, if true, will portend egregious actions to be taken against the President. “If true”  in form and content will determine the outcome of the charges. Let’s take a look at the context of the allegations and any historical precedent on which the Judiciary Committee has based them.

Abuse of Power

According to the House Judiciary Committee, the reason President Trump mentioned to Zelensky the previous investigation of Hunter Biden’s alleged corruption was to force Ukraine to investigate Biden or lose U.S. aid. His demands for Ukraine to do so were to discredit Joe Biden as a candidate running against Trump in 2020.

(Just as a reminder: that Ukrainian prosecutor was fired because of a threat by then-Vice President Biden of the withholding of $1 billion in U.S. foreign unless the Ukrainian prosecutor doing the investigation was fired. In fact, in clear video evidence of Biden bragging about the incident, Biden gave Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor.)

While you are considering the validity of this specific article of impeachment, consider the following:

  • In all of the testimonies of those brought into closed-door and the subsequent public hearings on these matters, not one single person provided evidence showing that was the President’s intention. The several people who heard the conversation when asked about the alleged Trump quid pro quo, none could factually state President Trump did such.
  • President Trump (or any U.S. President) has an oath-of-office mandate to take responsibility that any money from American taxpayers given to foreign governments in the form of aid is being used legally and for the purposes upon which the support was made. VP Biden was appointed by President Obama to oversea corruption investigations in Ukraine and was purportedly doing so during those meetings.
  • President Zelensky has, on numerous occasions, stated there was no quid pro quo, no request by the President or anyone else in the Trump Administration to investigate Hunter Biden as a prerequisite for foreign aid. Ambassador Sondland, who participated in that process, recalled a conversation with Mr. Trump in which Sondland asked what Trump wanted from Ukraine. President Trump stated he wanted nothing but Ukraine to do the right thing: no quid pro quo.
  • There is an actual treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine dating back to 1999 in which both nations agree to partner to identify and prosecute political corruption of any kind that impacts either country. That is a formal treaty, not merely an executive action taken by a president. That means Congress approved the deal. That treaty prompted Obama to send Biden to oversee corruption in Ukraine. Biden committed Abuse of Power in taking his actions to protect his son.

Note: Rep. Adam Schiff, during this impeachment probe unilaterally subpoenaed cell phone companies AT&T and Verizon for the telephone records of numerous people who “allegedly” had conversations about this alleged abuse of power. Several of those whose records were provided are Rudy Guiliana, reporter John Solomon, Rep. Devin Nunes (D-CA) and others. Schiff had no legal authority to do so. Schiff released to the public information regarding some of those callers and those calls. In some states, those actions are illegal.

In doing so not only did he unilaterally violate the law, the release exposed private telephone information and content of members of the media — a violation of the First Amendment.

Schiff did not release all of the calls or identity of all of the callers on the receiving end of calls. But who else on those call records somewhere down the road could be exposed for some alleged wrongdoing just because Schiff wants to hurt them or blackmail them into preventing exposure!

Schiff’s actions were definitely his Abuse of Power as the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

Obstruction of Congress

President Trump’s reason for preventing current and former members of his administration from appearing before Congress was Executive Privilege. We hear that term used quite often. What is it?

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications.

Of course, stopping someone from responding to a subpoena to cover-up illegal activity would be Obstruction. But in this case, Mr. Trump personally demanded all applicable information be provided not only to Congress for investigations but to Robert Mueller’s team. The Trump Administration had produced 2 million pages of documents to Robert Mueller. And this all is available to each House oversight committee. And those committees have access to all the witness testimony from the Mueller case. But that isn’t good enough.

That said, past presidents have, on numerous occasions, ignored Congressional subpoenas for their staff members because of executive privilege. No Congress has ever used his doing so as a precursor to Impeachment. Want recent examples?

  • Eric Holder refuses to provide subpoenaed Fast & Furious documents. The investigation of the botched Fast & Furious investigation is perhaps the most significant example of the Obama administration using executive privilege to justify their refusal to cooperate with an investigation. Holder refused to provide subpoenaed documents to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
  • Lois Lerner refuses to testify on IRS targeting. Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS when they were inappropriately targeting conservative and tea party groups, appeared before Congress in May 2013. She gave a statement but refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment. Republicans called her back in March 2014, when she pulled the same stunt. At the time, Rep. Elijah Cummings blasted Republicans for wanting to question Lerner.
  • Ben Rhodes not allowed to testify on Iran Nuclear Deal. The Iran Nuclear Deal was so bad Obama didn’t even try to get Senate ratification for it, and much of the negotiations were done without Congress notified. When Congressional Republicans wanted to get answers after Ben Rhodes (the failed novelist turned Obama speechwriter turned top foreign policy adviser to Obama) let it spill to the New York Times that the administration relied on a false narrative to sell the Iran deal to the public, the White House wouldn’t let him testify, using the “separation of powers” excuse.
  • Treasury officials blocked from testifying on Obamacare subsidies. When Obama started making all sorts of unilateral (and illegal) changes to Obamacare, Republicans were none too happy about the abuse of power. When Obama’s IRS decided to expand Obamacare subsidies to be used in federal exchanges in addition to state exchanges, the Obama administration refused to allow Treasury Department officials to testify on the rule changing process, using the excuse that the issue was soon to be decided in the Supreme Court.
  • White House refuses to allow the political director to testify. In 2014, Democratic operatives were concerned that the Obama White House wasn’t doing enough to help in the forthcoming midterms. In response to these concerns, Obama launched the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach. This raised eyebrows for some, who were concerned that Obama and his minions were using White House resources for political activity. So, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began investigating in order to make sure the White House was complying with civil services laws designed to prevent executive branch employees from engaging in political activity. David Simas, the director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, was subpoenaed, but the White House refused to allow him to testify before Congress. In a letter to Congress, White House Counsel Neil Eggleston claimed Simas was “immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties” and thus would not appear before the committee.
  • Justice Kagan’s Obamacare conflict of interest. Before being nominated as a justice for the  Supreme Court, Elena Kagan served as solicitor general for the Obama administration, during which time she was heavily involved in crafting a legal defense for Obamacare. This conflict of interest was important since issues revolving around Obamacare would be going before the Supreme Court. Federal law dictates that Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves when their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Naturally, the Obama administration didn’t want Kagan to recuse herself from any Obamacare-related cases. So, when the House Judiciary Committee requested documents and interviews to get a clear understanding of her role relating to Obamacare while she was solicitor general, the Obama/Holder Justice Department refused to comply. When Eric Holder testified before the committee, he claimed to not know about the request.
  • Refusal to provide subpoenaed Solyndra documents. Remember the Solyndra scandal? The Obama administration wasn’t exactly interested in letting Congress exercise its oversight responsibilities when they investigated how the Obama administration could have given them a considerable loan when they were going bankrupt. When House Republicans subpoenaed documents for their investigation, the Obama White House fired back, claiming their request would put an “unreasonable burden on the president’s ability to meet his constitutional duties.” House Republicans accused the Obama White House of hiding information, and they responded with accusations of a partisan investigation.
  • Refusing to let the White House social secretary testify on party crashers scandal. In 2009, two-party crashers successfully got by the Secret Service during a state dinner, succeeding in meeting and shaking hands with Barack Obama. Congress investigated the breach in security, but when White House Social Secretary Desirée Rogers was asked to testify before Congress, the White House refused to let her testify. Obama’s press secretary explained during a press briefing that  “…based on the separation of powers, the staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress.”
  • Fighting subpoenas in the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation investigation. When the Obama administration inexplicably dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia, many questions were asked as to why. The NBPP had dressed in paramilitary uniforms outside of polling places in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, and the case against them, which was started by the Bush administration, and the Obama administration won the case by default when the NBPP didn’t show up in court to defend themselves, but the DOJ decided to dismiss the charges. Former Justice Department attorney (and current PJ Media contributor J. Christian Adams) quit his position in the Justice Department to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the case and confirmed the racial motivation behind the decision to drop the case against them.

I just had a thought about the claim that the President is Obstructing Congress by not allowing his folks to testify or turn over information Congress want to hear and receive from them: how does Congress know there is anything for which the President is hiding from them? They haven’t seen it! How can they charge Obstruction of Congress when there’s nothing there for him to obstruct?


There’s no “meat on the bone” of Democrats’ Impeachment process. “Bribery, Treason, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are the requisite presidential actions necessary to impeach a president. Those are from the U.S. Constitution, not from some lawyer’s opinion. When each of the legal experts that supposedly had evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing was asked this question, “What action did the President take that are impeachable?” not one person could name a single thing. Monday’s hearing in which attorneys for House Democrats testified about Trump impeachable offenses, 100% of their testimony was based on this one word: “Opinion.”

No doubt, some people do not like President Trump. No doubt, some members of the political bureaucracy in Washington don’t like actions Trump has taken. But the opinions of those who feel that way are not sufficient to impeach a president!

It is anti-American for any public servants to believe the removal of any President can be justly implemented based solely on political partisanship. Just imagine the U.S. government holocaust that would ensue in those circumstances. We would certainly see the political party in power in the House either actually or just through threats control for partisan purposes the acts of every president. “If you don’t do exactly what we want you to do, we will impeach you!”

If the House impeaches President Trump — and that is appearing more likely each day — every president going forward will face that as an inevitability. Some who are qualified for the office will refuse to run, not wanting to consider that with a win, they will probably be impeached — not for doing something wrong other than just being a member of a political party not in control of the House.

Who is completely left out of this conversation? The American people. Don’t forget that 63 million Americans voted to elected Donald Trump. This House of Representatives is about to remove Mr. Trump with no regard for the American voters who put him in the White House. To those who state that doing so IS Constitutional, consider this: in less than one year, American voters will once again pick a U.S. president. Do Democrats in the House think Americans are too stupid to see and understand what is going on? Do House Democrats feel they must step in and save us all from Donald Trump?

If you believe that way, God help Americans from such an environment. Our forefathers knew such a situation and left their homeland to get away from it. Tyranny and Despotism were alive and well in Europe at the time. My ancestors came to America to make something better. We have.



The Beginning of The End

It’s over! President Trump is done: his presidency is in tatters, NATO nation leaders laugh at the American president, American voters have lost confidence in President Trump’s ability to lead, and the nation is doomed.

That’s the message that has been presented to Americans for month after month by the American Press. While doing so non-stop since the 2016 election, they giggle with glee for Trump’s non-existent failures! The irony of all this? Americans don’t agree with them!

Likely Articles of Impeachment Content

It is not likely the House Judiciary Committee will complete as soon as this week’s proposed Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. What will those probably include?

The articles of impeachment are likely to cover two major themes — abuse of office and obstruction. But they could be divvied up into multiple articles.

An impeachment article accusing Trump of abuse of office, or abuse of power, would focus on the findings of the Ukraine investigation and his efforts to persuade the Ukrainian government to investigate Democrats as the U.S. withheld military aid. That conduct is the focus of a House Intelligence Committee report that will be presented to the Judiciary panel for consideration in a Monday hearing.

Some lawmakers have suggested that Democrats could break out “bribery” as a separate article. It would likely center on Trump withholding the aid and also withholding a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in exchange for the political investigations.

Obstruction articles could be broken up into obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice, or the two could be combined.

The administration’s repeated refusals to provide documents and testimony would serve as the basis for an article charging Trump with obstruction of Congress. If Democrats decide to draft an article on obstruction of justice, it could mention the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

The Impeachment Process

If the House continues down the impeachment road, here is how it will most certainly look like:

  • The Judiciary Committee will present their finalized charges — “Articles” — to the full House for approval by a House vote. Each Article will be presented, debated, and determined by a House vote one at a time.
  • It is likely as few as three Articles to as many as five or six will be presented, considered by the House, and determined by votes whether to move forward.
  • At the completion of the House process, however many of those Articles are approved by the House will then be presented to the Senate for a trial.
  • The Senate could actually via a motion determine to not even take impeachment under consideration. That is unlikely to happen.
  • If/when the Senate initiates a trial, each “charge” (or Article) will be presented by an appointed prosecutor who will present evidence that will include documents and the testimony of witnesses. The President’s defense team will also counter with the cross examination of each prosecution witness presented as well as evidence. Then the defense team will also present witnesses and evidence that the prosecution will also cross examine and challenge as desired.
  • U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial. He will have total control of the process of the Senate trial according to Senate rules. When trial details are completed a vote will be taken. The President would if found guilty of any charges be removed from office.


How likely is it that President Trump will be removed from office? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. Most Americans when confronted with facts of Democrats’ allegations will shake their heads in disbelief this is actually happening. Sure, many Americans disagree with the President’s demeanor, his way of speaking, his brash, confrontational communication, and even his bragging. But most Americans question those things are impeachable offenses.

But I must be honest: this is only the third time in U.S. history this has happened. And the fact the Democrats are actually pushing down this road with the tremendous across-the-board Trump accomplishments that have and are significantly impacting Americans is scary. Common sense should dictate impeachment of a president might be appropriate for criminal activity by a President or unethical actions in office that include ”bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no one has presented any evidence of any of those necessary wrongdoings by this president.

Because those facts have not been sufficient to shut the door on impeachment is giving millions of Americans pause: this really could happen!

Fear is gripping the hearts of millions! This fear is of a government that is considering overturning the votes of 63 million Americans. Their doing while ignoring not just those voters but the best economic data in the nation in decades should make all Americans afraid. The fear is that Democrats just might pull this off.

The next two weeks will show the World exactly where the U.S. is in support of the Constitution, the American people, and the Rule of Law. If Democrats succeed in this, it will be the death-nail in history’s greatest country ever.

Democracy will die.



A Myth Called “Bi-Partisanship”

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

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

Where had Bi-Partisanship gone?

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

The Sheriff in Town

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Charlatan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schiff is The Wizard of Oz!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Trump Losing Support of Suburban Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blue Wave

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Can Trump Win Without Women?

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

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

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

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

Why do you think that is so?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Momma feels pretty good right now.

The “Trump Train”

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently, there’s “no there there.”

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

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

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

What Are They Hiding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former President George H. W. Bush

Former President George W. Bush

Former presidential candidates from 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

Bubbling Below the Surface

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

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


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

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

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

Shady dealings by Bidens were carefully hidden but included several in the family. Not only Joe and Hunter, but Joe’s brother James was also involved in shady Ukraine dealings. Click the ink for details:

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

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

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

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

Don’t forget that Crowdstrike — a Ukraine IT company — is believed by U.S. authorities to be where the Clinton email server was copied and stored. Click the ink for details:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

We are really close to dealing with that reality.



A Blue Wave

It is humorous in this political environment that for every election at any level — federal, state, or local — those from both major parties declare specific partisan certainties of each election’s results. None of the specifics of those election results seem to matter to the parties. When their candidate wins, it’s because the other candidate’s policies were summarily rejected, and voters roundly approved their candidates. It’s the old “Glass half-full or half-empty” example in each election.

November 5th’s runoff elections around the nation resulted in a few changes — very few changes. But to read the major newspapers or watch or listen to national television morning shows, President Trump certainly was the candidate running on each ballot in each state that held elections. The moving trucks are today at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue moving the Trumps to their new permanent residence in Florida. America saw a “Blue Wave!”

“Morning-After“ 2019 November Election Blue Wave Headlines

(CNN) “Democrats were celebrating November 5th, while President Donald Trump and Republicans were left to explain why they were behind in one of the reddest states in the nation.”

(MSNBC) Morning Joe: “Trump lost Kentucky for the Republicans.”

(NBC News) “In a blow to Trump, Democrat Beshear is the apparent winner in Kentucky governor race, NBC News projects.”

(ABC News) “The Note: Blue wave continues the ride through Kentucky, Virginia.”

(The Philadelphia Enquirer) “The blue wave crashes down on Pennsylvania again, as voters from Philly to Delaware County turn left.”

The Philadelphia Enquirer’s FrontPage Election Headlines:

  • Trump is on borrowed time after Democratic election massacres in battleground Pa. suburbs | Maria Panaritis
  • Democrats win across the Philadelphia region as Republicans are fading even on friendly turf
  • Democrats make history by winning control of Delaware County

Wow! I guess this means it will be President Elizabeth Warren or President Joe Biden moving in to replace the Trumps at the White House. But, seriously, this “Blue Wave” process needs to be discussed at least once during this election cycle. So we’re going to do that today. But first, consider this:

Conventional wisdom is that after a defeat of almost any kind, the loser fades away into obscurity. The above media reporters and editors certainly expect that throw-in-the-towel response by Republicans regarding the Democrat wins. Democrat Party leadership feels this way: “Let’s beat them down mentally so they’ll simply pack it in.” You know what? Much of the time that works. But I doubt it will in this 2020 election madness.

Politically, any edge — even a perceptual one void of facts — opens a door for votes.

If you raise a pig as your pet and keep that pig in the company of a bunch of dogs, sooner or later, that pig will try hard to bark. The pig will believe it’s a dog. Of course, the pig is not a dog and certainly cannot bark like a dog. But “perception is reality.” That specific reality? “The pig’s gonna bark. Just listen!”


You should know that these election headlines we see and hear are NOT accidental. Nor is the term “Blue Wave.” There’s a “Blue Wave Political Partners, LLC” in the Northwest. Who are they and what do they do?

Based in Seattle, Blue Wave Political Partners, LLC was founded in 2014, evolving from H+P Political Compliance in order to accommodate the firm’s expansion into political fundraising. Lora Haggard and Jay Petterson have worked together since 2003. They were joined by Sue Jackson in 2007. Each brings a breadth of experience in accounting, budgeting, and federal committee compliance developed through treasury management on dozens of Democratic campaigns, committees, and organizations. With Kevin Geiger’s outstanding background in political fundraising, Blue Wave now offers fundraising services to Democratic campaigns and initiatives. Having each served in senior capacities on campaigns and committees, the partners of Blue Wave offer more than thirty years of cumulative political campaign fundraising and compliance experience. Blue Wave is also located in Georgia, Oregon, and North Carolina.

The fact that Democrats have a formalized arm — albeit a non-profit — to raise campaign dollars for Democrat candidates across the nation should tell us the importance to the Democrat Party of a “Blue Wave.“

There’s been no Democrat “Blue Wave” in recent elections. Not just in the federal government but in state and local elections, Republican and other Conservative candidates have increased their numbers. There are 27 Republican and 23 Democrat governors. That’s a slight edge, but an edge no less.  The Kentucky gubernatorial race (the results of which are still not final) would be the 24th Democrat governor. That mix can hardly be called that of a “Blue Wave.”

The shouts proclaiming a “Blue Wave” reverberated throughout the nation in 2018 when the midterm elections saw control of the House of Representatives go back to Democrats. One would have thought that all Republicans had been banished from the House, the Senate had turned blue in a landslide victory, plus, President Trump had resigned in disgust.

Keep this thought in mind: a reality in politics is not necessary for Democrats Shangri-la. Dems are masters at messaging “absolutes” to their members that are not absolutes at all. Often, those absolutes are outright lies. We’ve seen it happen countless times before. It happened in 2016 when Hillary failed to break that glass ceiling. And no matter Dems called their House victory in 2018 or the Kentucky governorship or the Virginia statehouse victories, none of those can truly be termed a “Blue Wave.” At best, they were “pale blue ripples.”

Democrats have a long way to go to get to the beach!

How can Dems “grease” the “Blue Wave” wheels?

For starters, how about a faux impeachment process? How about getting the most untruthful, arrogant, and least qualified attorney in Congress to head a fictitious impeachment process to rid the world of President Trump? Pelosi Democrats cannot afford for the American people to look-in on their secretive official/nonofficial, truthful/dishonest, hearings. Why is that? Americans would quickly discover that Rep. Adam Schiff (CA) has been lying to Americans about all-things-negative-about Trump for three years! He carries around a sharp-pointed stick, a microphone, and a notebook 24/7. What are their purposes?

The sharp stick is for Schiff to continually poke President Trump with untruthful allegations, knowing that the President will never allow false charges against him to stand without a response. Schiff thinks if he can goad the President into responding, Americans will automatically believe the lies Schiff is telling about Mr. Trump. (Schiff in doing that shows just how little he thinks of his fellow Americans)

The microphone is for the California representative to reach-out to his inside sources at the New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the news departments of the Big Three to give them exclusive uncorroborated, unsubstantiated and from “anonymous sources” facts about this impeachment matter currently underway. He’s never seen a microphone or TV camera he could not schmooze into carrying an interview in which he feeds Americans lies and rumors. Let’s face it: many Americans love them some gossip!

Schiff’s notebook? He must jot down all of his allegations and claims made against the President so that when he’s referred to previously answered questions, he has a point of reference to guarantee he’s not caught in any lies.

It’s a pretty good process IF your target audience does not require the truth. The funny thing for Schiff is this: it appears that he believes his own lies and is confident that Americans do as well! How could ANY reasoning member of Congress continue to peddle the same worn-out lies with which he has been trapped numerous times since Donald Trump was elected? Schiff orchestrated each of the conspiracy theories that have been used by press lackeys to fuel confusion in the minds of American voters regarding the truthfulness of the President. How else could he and other Democrats distract Americans from this historical economy and employment data? How else could Dems keep their blind sheep in line if the sheep all saw and heard the truth of all this?

It’s working masterfully for Democrats!

Make no mistake: Nancy Pelosi is no “dumb broad.” She has earned her political stripes by learning from the best and most deceitful politicrats through the years: Bill Clinton, Barney Franks, Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, David Axelrod, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and the Obama Gang. Rep. Pelosi knows the system, and she knows how to work the system. Adam Schiff is her pride and joy and her first graduate from the Democrat School of Corruption. And Adam graduated Magna Cum Laude.

That’s what a Politicrat does!


All of this “Blue Wave” hoopla is by design. It’s sending a unified message primarily to rank-and-file Democrats that says, “House Leadership has this under control.”

But they don’t have it under control. Anytime the opposition is led by a crafty New Yorker who has worked through the most corrupt business environment in the nation to build a multi-billion dollar empire, and his political opponents are without any hope of success.

Just sit back and watch the next two to three months. Schiff and Company will crash and burn in this their Part IV of their “Get Trump” novel. They’ll be required to unleash Part V. I’m sure it will be more crafty, more devious, more intractable than the first four, but there’s one common thread through them all: President Trump did nothing wrong!

Honesty and hard work seem always to fuel great results. Why would Democrats think that the process no longer works?

It IS working. And it will see Mr. Trump at the podium in January of 2021 for his second oath of office.