“To My Democrat Brothers and Sisters….”

I’m NOT a Republican. I’m NOT a Democrat. I’m registered as “other” in my state, where one cannot register to vote as an “Independent.” But I AM a politically conservative independent.

That said, today I am making a few points addressed primarily to the thousands of my friends and relatives who are Democrats. I in no way am today demeaning the process of political parties in the U.S. But I echo the sentiments of the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson when he said:

“Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.”

It’s safe to say that Jefferson was not a fan of political parties. There were two major parties just as now. It’s uncanny that Jefferson’s America experienced the same or similar angst with political parties as do we. However, just as did Jefferson in his day, we too need to find ways to mitigate the damages perpetrated by political parties in our America. And attempting that today is proving to be just as tricky as then. I’m beginning to feel the same way Jefferson felt when he said this:

If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

The “Villains”

I’m certain political parties themselves are not the entities with which Jefferson had his beef. The same holds today. The methods used by political parties and the reasoning that initiates their operating tactics are the aggravating elements of political parties. After all, their very existence is to coordinate efforts and garner resources sufficient to work to destroy their party counterparts continually! There’s nothing in party operations that can be considered “peaceful while diligent” methodology.

So who ARE the villains in politics? Today, there are several different parties on the nation’s political landscape. But the main two are apparent: Democrat and Republican parties. Let’s chat a bit about OUR political parties.

The GOP

I am by no means a Republican hack. I have today (and also in the past) many issues with the Republican Party. Most of those things the GOP has done that rub me wrong are simply things that, when put in the perspective held by most Americans, are useless attempts to give Republicans an advantage of some sort regarding some political issue. And most of those end up being useless at worst and ineffective at best.

Take, for instance, the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

No doubt Bill Clinton made some horrible choices in his personal life. No doubt, some of those personal choices spilled over into his “public” life — particularly in the Oval Office. I understand that everyone has the explicit right to feel he should have been removed from office. But in my mind, as bad as were those improprieties with the intern that occurred in the White House, my question was then and still is, “Were those impeachable offenses?” Here come the Republicans.

They didn’t care about Hillary Clinton as Bill Clinton’s wife and how horrible it was her finding out about her husband’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky in a news report. They didn’t care that the President of the United States had taken advantage of a 20-something-year-old young woman. All they cared about was that President Clinton’s wrongdoing justified their desire to run him out of the White House. Using that information alone, they launched a multi-year impeachment debacle that resulted in nothing but embarrassment for the President.

Then House Speaker Newt Gingrich spearheaded the Clinton impeachment. His doing so along with the House impeachment set the Republican Party back for quite a while. All that resulted is that Bill Clinton is today, and probably always will be, considered one of America’s most accomplished modern presidents.

George W. Bush

Republicans were ecstatic after the Clinton debacle to see one of their own back in the White House. “W” was able to take advantage of some excellent economics and international circumstances that he inherited. But he had that Middle East “thing” — Iraq — eating at him from the day of his inauguration. His father, who had tangled first with Saddam Hussein felt he left a job undone. The World Trade Center bombing took us right back into war with Iraq that many say should have never happened. Those weapons of mass destruction Bush used as fuel to start that war never were uncovered.

Thousands of young men and women paid the price for that uncertain war with their lives. Many think Bush 43 did that only to finish the feud between Hussein and Bush 41. We probably will never know for sure.

“W” missed some great opportunities for doing some extraordinary things for the U.S. during his eight years in office. He was the perfect president to initiate actions to fix the southern border illegal problems. I felt certain he could have mastered an effective immigration overhaul that would have repaired the border issues while simultaneously closing loopholes in other areas of immigration. He neglected to instigate any real immigration reform.

Though he gave it a valiant effort, Bush 43 gave up his proposed reform of Social Security to protect its longevity. I attended his Social Security reform meeting in Louisiana in which he promoted a partial conversion of the system to privatization that would have given participants options for the investment of at least their contributions into the system. He, of course, received major Democrat pushback for the idea. He walked away from it.

In his second term, it was as if he walked away from the campaign promises he made — like he just gave up. Spending went through the roof. He let Democrats run roughshod over budgets while deficits and U.S. debt went through the roof. It seemed the Iraq war wore him out, and he just gave up.

Mitt Romney

I thought Mitt had a decent shot at turning the White House back to red. He fought hard for a while. But at the very end of his campaign, when polls showed he had cut into Obama’s standing with Americans to a level many thought would not happen, he seemed just to quit. It appeared to many — including me — that he at some point decided he didn’t want to take on the responsibility of running a nation. The last 45 days of his campaign proved that to be true. And Obama easily won his second term.

Today’s GOP is looking more and more like a “status quo” party. Until the impeachment attacks on the President, Republicans played into the sense that all they want is to make no waves — to be the party of “Can’t we just get along?”

Impeachment brought the GOP back to attention. Impeachment, in the wake of the tremendous Trump accomplishments, even with scant support, opened their eyes. Little by little, I have watched as more Republicans have jumped aboard the “Trump Train.” As a party, they are as united as I can remember since the Twin Towers toppled.

Republicans seem more engaged, more challenged, and more resolute to prove the Trump Agenda is real, productive, and all-inclusive. None of it is politically motivated but driven by one thing: Mr. Trump, when campaigning, made promises that he has kept today.

Then The Democrats on the Left

This is where I part ways with Democrats: we have nothing in common anymore. When Trump beat Hillary, it was on. And the war instigated by Democrats against President Trump is one of historic proportions. And in starting and perpetuating this war, Democrats are daily giving Americans new clues proving that Democrats have lost touch with average Americans.

What is most troubling and what confirms that Democrats have lost it is their immediate and total dismissals of facts regarding Mr. Trump. Add to that their consistent expressions of anger and hatred for first Mr. Trump then for every American who supports him and more and more Americans are leaving the Democrat Party.

It appears that Democrat leadership and most Democrats have abandoned all reason. Think about this: they’re impeaching Trump amid many amazing accomplishments handed to Americans by this Trump Administration:

  • Lowest unemployment in decades;
  • More Americans employed than ever;
  • More jobs available than Americans to fill them;
  • Record federal revenue;
  • Lowest income tax rates in a generation;
  • Re-patriation of hundreds of billions in corporate income with a Trump deal that has put billions into new jobs, benefits, and expansions;
  • Two of the most significant trade agreements in U.S. history:  China, and USMCA — the treaty with Canada and Mexico;
  • Six million fewer Americans on government assistance because they have jobs which didn’t even exist four years ago.

We could continue listing his accomplishments but will stop for the sake of time.

This investigative impeachment process has been a charade — a clown show. Orchestrated by Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, and Adam Schiff, it has each day exposed Democrat hatred and subsequent losses of reason. It’s all over the marketplace. And Americans are learning the truth of the Democrat Party: they want only to control the lives of Americans — all Americans.

After a faux House investigation that resulted in articles of impeachment, and after the stall by Speaker Pelosi for three weeks to refer those articles to the Senate, she finally did while simultaneously “finding” new evidence with which to implicate the President in something else.

Here’s the synopsis of this evidence as presented by the Associated Press:

House Democrats have released a trove of documents they obtained from Lev Parnas, a close associate of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, including a handwritten note that mentions asking Ukraine’s president to investigate “the Biden case.”

The documents, obtained as part of the impeachment investigation, show Parnas communicating with Giuliani before the removal of Marie Yovanovitch, who was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. A man named Robert F. Hyde disparaged Yovanovitch in messages to Parnas and gave him updates on her location and cell phone use, raising questions about possible surveillance.

Among the documents is a screenshot of a previously undisclosed letter from Giuliani to Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelenskiy dated May 10, 2019, which was before Zelenskiy took office. In the letter, Giuliani requests a meeting with Zelenskiy “as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent.” In the letter, Giuliani said he would be accompanied at the meeting by Victoria Toensing, a Washington attorney and Trump ally.

The notes were scratched by hand on a Ritz Carlton note pad paper and are barely legible. Additionally, the wrongdoing alleged is at best second-hand and provides no evidence that the President knew any of the conversations or if he even knows those included in the comments!

One important note was left out of of the plethora of stories about this “blockbuster” expose: Parnas and his business partner, Igor Fruman, both U.S. citizens who emigrated from the former Soviet bloc, were indicted last year on charges of conspiracy, making false statements and falsification of records!

You can’t make this stuff up. And Democrats make no apology for their ignoble allegations of this ridiculous “evidence” that lacks any remnant of the possibility of holding any truth.

Keep in mind, however, that Americans have never seen any piece of the mountains of evidence held by Rep. Adam Schiff that — according to Schiff himself and confirmed by other Democrat House members — are absolute that Mr. Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin and other Russians to steal the 2016 election. And Schiff will be in the Senate on behalf of the House trying the President of the United States! Why doesn’t Schiff simply reveal the Trump treasonous he has claimed for more than two years exist and end this impeachment debacle?

Summary

To my friends that hold to Democrat blue, I am sad to be an observer of the fall into oblivion by your party. Fueled by a fawning media that very obviously take marching orders from Democrat Party leaders have failed to convince Americans of Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing. While doing so, their hatred for “all things Trump” and “all Trump supporters” is there now for all to see.

Democrats as of today summarily reject that Americans wanted and still want a president who can deliver to Americans for the first time in ten years accomplishments that EACH are 100% for middle Americans and NOT just for elites that are mostly Democrats. And Trump has accomplished what he promised to accomplish when campaigning.

There are reasons why Mr. Trump won Americans’ votes in 2500 counties and parishes in 2016 while Hillary Clinton won votes in just 500 counties. Yes, those 500 counties happened to be from California, New York, Connecticut, Chicago, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. That election and its results are the reason for the establishment of the electoral college. Democrats refuse to accept that as viable.

For my Democrat brothers and sisters, only one thing ahead is certain — at least in my projections for 2020: Donald Trump will not only win in a margin far wider than did Obama and Bill Clinton in their elections as President, Republicans will win a larger margin in the Senate AND Republicans will gain once more the majority in the House of Representatives.

Why will all this happen? Americans have had it with the constant untruths and gross misrepresentations made and given to Americans by Democrats and other Leftists. And Americans, while glorying in their larger net paychecks and lower taxes and new jobs and skyrocketing investment and retirement accounts that withered away under Obama, are not so stupid as to snatch all the actions put in place by Mr. Trump and go back to 2016 financially. Americans are smarter than that. And most Americans understand today that Totalitarianism is unwanted here. Americans are more committed than ever to a market of free ideas.

Those Americans will gladly support Mr. Trump in November.

Play

“Yeah…But…”

Roadblocks, losses, rejection, failures, being not good enough: all these are things that most of us can relate to. It is rare when someone — ANYone — can say honestly, “I’ve not experienced any of those.”

Going through these things are normal occurrences. And each contains unique elements that do no impact everyone the same way. That makes it almost impossible to create a perfect how-to manual with accurate instructions one can use to solve the problem. Because of that, many just throw-in-the-towel.

Thankfully there has always been a sense of “anyone can do anything if they try hard enough” spirit in the U.S. That encourages many to dust themselves off after failures and go after the same objective again or go tackle a new one.

Have you known anyone that seems bullet-proof? No matter what they face that doesn’t work out, they just move on to a different way of doing it, or they just move on to something else.

Have you ever faced one or two of these circumstances? How did you handle losing or not being good enough or rejected? Did you give up or stop trying?

Today just might be a magical few minutes that change your life and maybe even many others through you. What follows is a video that is timed perfectly for this topic and today especially.

LSU faces Clemson tonight in the College Football National Championship. These are without question the best two college football teams in the nation. That means each roster is bloated with phenomenal athletes. Each has a quarterback that most experts feel are not just the best two college quarterbacks this season, but maybe the best two QB’s to play at the same time in college history.

I’m an LSU fan: a Louisiana “lifer.” I’m excited that the Tigers — “our” Tigers — are facing Clemson’s Tigers for the trophy. More than the chance to win that championship, I am ecstatic that for the last two years I have personally witnessed one of the most amazing responses to adversity ever seen in college athletics. Take a few minutes and watch this video then let’s get back together for two minutes.

Meet “Joe.”

Joe when not allowed to play at Ohio State knew he had failed. He kept trying. He worked hard to be the best at quarterback. He never quit.

After things like this happen to most of us and we choose to give up, we quit. But worse, most of us want to place blame for our failure.

“Your wedding didn’t work out and you divorced your husband.” Our response to that: “Yeah…But….”

“You were fired at your job.” Our response: “Yeah…But…”

It’s the “Yeah…But…” that destroys millions of lives yearly. How? Just look at Joe Burrow.

He was benched again and again at his dream college, Ohio State. He kept working. He kept getting better. He never gave up. He never quit. His friends and teammates taunted him and maybe his position opponents talked down to him. He almost certainly heard this: “Hey, man. You aren’t good enough. You got permanently benched. You’ll never play quarterback.”

Joe could have said, “Yeah…But…” and rattled off a list of excuses. He didn’t do that. He simply found a way to push through. He transferred to LSU and began a college football historical run that is probably long from over.

If Joe had listened to and accepted what the Ohio State coaches said and did to him, he’d be somewhere working today, probably in the private sector. Instead, Joe Burrow leads LSU tonight into the college championship game. And in a couple of months, he’ll undoubtedly be the first college quarterback taken in the NFL draft — maybe even the #1 player drafted — and begin what portends to be a dramatically successful NFL career.

Joe never said “Yeah…But…” When anyone said any of those things to him, he probably just looked at them and smiled.

Geaux Tigers!

Soleimani: An American Hero!

Wait: Qasem Soleimani was an American hero? Do I believe that? I don’t. But it’s apparent that many do. He’s been labeled many things since he was taken off the Earth by that U.S. drone-fired missile. And one of those is “Hero.” How egregious is that!

The Hero

Soleimani was an Iranian Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and, from 1998 until his death, commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations.

Soleimani began his military career at the start of the Iran–Iraq War during the 1980s, eventually commanding the 41st Division. He was later involved in extraterritorial operations in providing military assistance to Hezbollah in Lebanon. In 2012, Soleimani helped bolster the government of Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally, during Iran’s operations in the Syrian Civil War and helped to plan the Russian military intervention in Syria. Soleimani oversaw the Kurdish and Shia militia forces in Iraq and assisted the Iraqi forces that advanced against ISIL in 2014–2015. Soleimani was one of the first to support Kurdish forces, providing them with arms. He maintained a low profile during most of his career.

Soleimani was widely popular among Iranians, where his supporters viewed him as a “selfless hero fighting Iran’s enemies.” Solemaini was personally sanctioned by the United Nations and the European Union and was designated as a terrorist by the United States. (President Barack Obama)

This “great man” is known to have personally (or by others under his command) killed more than 600 Americans. Additionally, he led forces that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners and personally directed terrorist activities of Hezbollah and Hamas. Additionally, he is believed to have been directly or indirectly responsible for the development and implementation of the IED.

This armored vehicle was hit by an IED in Iraq

An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. It may be composed of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery shell, attached to a detonating mechanism. IEDs are commonly used as roadside bombs.

 

Today, there are hundreds of U.S. military families who are missing a loved one who was killed by a Soleimani IED. Thousands more survived IED attacks but today are handicapped for life, some in horrendous ways, primarily with the loss of limbs and even eyes.

Yep. To many, even in the U.S., Soleimani is a hero in spite of this horrendous record.

Soleimani’s American “Posse”

You can imagine who they are: the Leftist media. And they make no apologies for their support of this former human butcher:

Washington Post: “Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani.”

CNN: “Imagine the French Foreign Legion, at the height of the French empire. This guy is regarded in Iran as a completely heroic figure.”

“I was trying to think of somebody, and I was thinking of [Charles] de Gaulle.”

“He is regarded as personally incredibly brave. The troops love him.”

CBS: “Military genius … inspirational.”

New Yorker: “a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard, and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows.”

New York Times: “Many saw him as a larger-than-life hero, particularly within security circles. Anecdotes about his asceticism and quiet charisma joined to create an image of a warrior-philosopher who became the backbone of a nation’s defense against a host of enemies.”

CNN’s John Berman: “Trump’s killing of Qasem Soleimani was a murder.”

Uh-Oh: Another Trump Mistake

The Hollywood Left and the Washington Left have made it clear: Donald Trump stepped over the line by instigating the killing of Iran’s highest-ranked general. Of course, the consensus of all of those anti-Trumpsters is that the President is too stupid, too narcissistic, to self-centered to have thought through potential consequences before pulling the trigger.

What do the American Leftists say?

Politicians

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a letter sent to House Democrats on Jan. 5 said, “The Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials. This action endangered our service members, diplomats, and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) admitted Soleimani was plotting against American interests. Still, he said, “The question is, did the plotting here rise to the level that required his elimination from the battlefield?” 

Among Democratic presidential candidates, former Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement after Soleimani’s death, “No American will mourn Qassem Soleimani’s passing. He deserved to face justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region.” “This is a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region,” Biden said, adding that President Trump “just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.” 

Another White House runner Bernie Sanders said, “Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions of more dollars.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the Trump administration’s decision to kill Soleimani was a “reckless move” that “escalates the situation with Iran.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he worried that “the actions the president took will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East. He promised we wouldn’t have that.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) tweeted Friday: “We are outraged the president would assassinate a foreign official, possibly setting off another war without Congressional authorization and has zero plan to deal with the consequences.”

Other “Famous” Leftists

“There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism,” lamented the professionally and permanently offended Nike spokesman Colin Kaepernick on social media following the U.S. military’s killing of Iran’s top military leader Qasem Soleimani. Kaepernick later added, “America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad.”

CNN complained that the “air strike feels like [an] attempt to create a distraction from impeachment and build support for Trump.” Furthermore, CNN has embraced Iran in spinning the flawed narrative that Trump’s decision has now endangered Americans.

It has even been so controversial, USA TODAY initiated their crackerjack polling entity Ipsos to poll to find out what ALL American citizens feel about the attack on Soleimani. Here’s what their poll said:

  • Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead.
  • A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called President Donald Trump’s behavior with Iran “reckless.”
  • Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport last week that killed Soleimani and others: 42% supported it, 33% opposed it; 25% said they didn’t know what to think. Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats; independents were almost evenly split.
  • There was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war (62%).

I don’t want to be considered a hater, but polls are just that and no more: just someone’s opinion. Of course, Ipsos did not provide any information about the poll’s structure, who and what determined with whom they spoke, in-person or via cell or landline, demographics, time of day, etc. You can bet that in such a short time, this polling data is unscientific. And even if it IS scientific, the typical political poll includes no more than 1000 people. Don’t be lulled into believing that a capsule of 1000 American’s opinions can offer a fair determination of 330 million people! But even if it did, what’s done is done. And Americans will sustain any repercussions.

Summary

I don’t want to be viewed as a partisan: I am NOT Republican or Democrat. I’m a conservative American. My opinion is just that: my thoughts on any subjects I consider. Yours should be the same.

That said, my opinion of what is being illustrated by this Qasem Soleimani madness is the total disdain by the Left for Donald Trump. Example: The House of Representatives last evening passed a ceremonial “rebuke” of Donald Trump for taking action to terminate Soleimani without discussing it with Congress. They maintained — and rightly so — constitutionally, Congress holds the sole power to declare war. Their rebuke demanded that, in the future, Donald Trump and every subsequent president must come to Congress to get permission to take any military action. That House motion is unenforceable. Know why? Because there’s legal authorization for presidents to take such action without Congressional approval.

Congress has periodically given the President the power to engage in what amounts to war by passing such “statutory authorizations.” The one currently in effect is the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) passed by Congress in response to the 9/11 attack. The argument for the AUMF is that Congress is slow and deliberative, and it is frequently the case that military intervention needs to be immediate. To say that “Congress is slow and deliberative” is a gross understatement!

Let’s just be realistic: this U.S. Congress that has done less legislatively, taken more time off, had less debate on issues, and has fought in purely partisan fashion than any previous Congress. And they wasted precious time in governing — OUR precious time they are paid handsomely for — to debate, discuss and then pass a meaningless and ridiculous reprimand of this President for doing exactly what Barack Obama did again and again. Obama gave the orders to launch hundreds of drone attacks that killed handpicked targets in the Middle East — none of which was approved by Congress.

The AUMF gives the president a great deal of latitude in responding potential threats to the US, (particularly about governments and organizations which might be related to terrorism), and was mainly what legally allowed the President to invade Iraq and what would enable the president to fire on Iran in response to the Iranian attack if he were to choose to do so in response to some Iranian attack on Americans.

Using military intelligence provided by the President’s National Security team, killing Soleimani was part of a list those experts gave to Mr. Trump as options for retaliation for Iran’s killing of an American contractor. President Trump authorized that strike based on his authority in the AUMF.

His critics immediately cried “foul!” for his doing so without Congressional authorization. But, more importantly, they scream that he didn’t even notify Congress of the strike. They feel, of course, that, at least as a courtesy, he should have done so. I, for one, can think of several hundred reasons why NOT to notify Congress before such a strike: thousands of people would know because of Congressional leaks! And some of those notifications by members of Congress would have certainly made their way to Iran.

By the way, no matter what you are told, Barack Obama did NOT notify Congress before the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He had informed them earlier that the U.S. was diligently working to find bin Laden. But none were notified in advance of the Pakistan raid.

Here’s what this all illustrates: there is a Deep State. That Deep State is comprised of a (now) large group of bureaucrats who have amassed over the years enough power to control the inner-workings of the U.S. government. That group has been untouchable for decades. They, in total, are petrified to have Donald Trump in the White House.

Their goal is similar to that of Hitler and other groups of historical totalitarians and dictators that took control of nations throughout history: “gain control of the people by making them feel comfortable that we provide everything they need and know what’s best for them.”

That may sound conspiracy-centered. If it does, so-be-it.

You may attack me, label me, laugh at me, and tell everyone I’m nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. That’s OK, though. Why? Because, at the end of the day, I can peacefully and quietly spend that night going to sleep with no worries about any tyrannical government despots coming after my family and me. Yes, I believe there certainly are those who fully intend to (and are prepared to do that), but the great awakening to the truth of all this and more have begun to unite a monstrous glob of Americans that are so blended they look like just one monster.

This ploy of the Deep State almost succeeded. We were a sleeping nation that was content with the “good life.” We are awake now. And we know about the plans and wishes of the Deep State. Thankfully we are too many to fail.

Be diligent, and stay awake!

Selective Hatred

In 2017 at the Academy Awards, Meryl Streep went hard after Donald Trump for mocking a disabled reporter (Trump vehemently denies he mocks the man’s disability, but no one doubts he was insulting). In doing so, she eloquently stated the moral imperative that the strong not prey on the weak:

“But there was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good; there was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh, and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it, and I still can’t get it out of my head, because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life. And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kinda gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose.”

Ms. Streep illustrated for us all the hypocrisy of her angst at Donald Trump when just a few minutes later at the Oscars, she rose to her feet with hundreds of other Hollywood elites to welcome one of their heroes who was awarded an Oscar. Why would she doing so be hypocritical?

The recipient of that Lifetime Achievement Award was the famous director Roman Polanski. No doubt, he directed some highly acclaimed movies in his career. He made producers a whole lot of money in doing so and made some actors and actresses famous in those hits. But Polanksi was not there in Hollywood to accept his Oscar. Why? He years earlier fled the United States to keep from being arrested and still lives in Europe.

For those who don’t remember, Roman Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape and admitted in open court to having sex with his victim when he knew she was only 13 years old. Polanski was 43. In so doing, he avoided trial on a number of more severe charges. His victim’s grand jury testimony was chilling:

According to Gailey’s April 4, 1977, grand-jury testimony, Polanski drove her to Jack Nicholson’s house. The actor wasn’t home, but his ex-girlfriend Anjelica Huston was there when they arrived. Polanski poured Gailey champagne and they took more photographs. After they shared a quaalude, he instructed her to strip and enter a Jacuzzi, where—despite her protests—he soon joined her, after removing his own clothes. She lied about having asthma as an excuse to leave the hot tub. Although Gailey repeatedly told him “no” and asked him to drive her home, he proceeded to perform oral, vaginal, and anal sex on her inside the house. Gailey told the grand jury she was reluctant to resist because she was “afraid” of Polanski.

Gailey said Polanski asked her to keep their encounter a secret before taking her home, later telling her, “You know, when I first met you I promised myself I wouldn’t do anything like this with you.”

As bad as it is to mock a man’s disability (again, Trump has denied that was his intent), Polanski’s conduct is several orders of magnitude worse. Compounding the injustice, Polanski fled the United States rather than serve his sentence. He lives overseas, where he has directed a number of films starring a cavalcade of Hollywood liberals.

The choice of any actor to work with a man on the run from prison for rape is absurd, the partial standing ovation (including from Streep) is disgusting, and the decision not to tell the audience why the Academy was accepting the award on his behalf is cowardly.

Do these people purport to be our moral betters? Millions of Americans look to them for inspiration and guidance?  Talent is no substitute for wisdom, and one can appreciate the art while still being wary of the artist. There are good people in Hollywood, including good, misguided people, but the American film industry lacks the moral standing for its many lectures — including Streep’s address that night. It’s a shame that more people can’t see the empty moral core behind the glittering facade.

And this is just one of many examples of Selective Hatred that have overtaken our nation.

The Issues

American hatred is everywhere. Any single group of people does not own it, is not gender-related, race-related, sexual-preference related, religiously-related, place of origin related, language-related, or even politically-related. It is United States related and encompasses everyone who is here in the U.S. No one is exempt — either from being targeted or being the target-“ER” of hatred.

Hatred is nothing new. I think the first historical reference of an act of hatred was when Cain, who was fueled with jealousy-turned-hatred for his brother Abe, murdered his brother. And things for humans headed downhill from there.

We continually argue about anti-Semitism, Islamaphobia, Homophobia, Xenophobia, and even Politiphobia — my word — that all seem together to soak up all the air in our Nation.

What is the source of all this hatred? Who creates it and who determines what is and what is not hatred?

The Sources

Headlines like this appear far too often: “The uptick in right-wing terrorism comes amid a renewed national focus on hate-driven terrorism.” Then there was this headline: “Since the election of President Donald Trump, news outlets and social media accounts have swelled with reports of swastikas at schools, racist taunts, and other hate-fueled attacks and acts of intimidation.”

If anyone pays attention to media reports regarding acts of hatred committed in the U.S. over the last three years, almost universally, the universal source has been President Trump. If you disagree with that premise, pause for just a moment and do an internet search using the words “acts of hatred in the U.S.” You’ll see page after page blaming President Trump for virtually every one of them.

But is the President responsible?

Anti-Semitism

“Several Democrats have blamed President Donald Trump for the repeated attacks against Jewish people in New York. There have been at least eight reported incidents of anti-Semitic violence in New York during the last few weeks; the latest saw five people stabbed at a rabbi’s home during a Hanukkah celebration.”

(October 2018) “Donald Trump has fuelled a climate of hatred in general and antisemitism in particular, with the Republican party acting as his enabler,” experts warned on Monday. “The U.S. president’s tone has been under renewed scrutiny after Saturday’s massacre of 11 worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, believed to be the deadliest attack on Jewish people in American history.”

(New York Times Editorial) “Mr. Kushner’s father-in-law, Donald Trump, and members of the administration are mostly to blame for the rise of violence and discrimination against the ‘other’ here in this country, including Jews. I would be more apt to support the president’s executive order if I weren’t overwhelmingly disgusted by the overt racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism displayed by this president and his supporters over the last three years. It is the president who has engaged in divisive, dangerous rhetoric, fueling the flames of white supremacy and anti-Jewish sentiment.”

National story after story throughout Mr. Trump’s first term as President have all subscribed to this theory: anti-Semitism in total lies at the feet of Donald Trump!

Think about that: His son-in-law is Jewish, his daughter in Jewish, his grandchildren are Jewish, and everyone who knows anything about the “personal” Donald Trump knows just how devoted he is to Jared Kushner and those grandchildren. Yet the Left continue to bash the President as the source of violence against Jews.

Could the onslaught of these reports of horrendous violence against Jews and other minorities have a racial basis? Nope — according to the Lame-Stream media. Donald Trump causes them each. He’s a “White supremacist, Homophobic, Islamaphobic, Xenophobic old guy” that has called his “followers” to constant attacks on Jews — most recently in New York. But, consider these:

  • In a recent spate of hate crime attacks on Hasidic Jews in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, virtually all the perpetrators have been African-American, according to local activists, elected officials, and victims. Yet at a recent news briefing reporting an 82 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the city, when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was asked about the attacks, he connected the attacks to national trends, blaming “white supremacy” and “nativism.”
  • Four people were murdered recently, and two assailants killed in an anti-Semitic attack on a kosher market in Jersey City, New Jersey. It was one of the deadliest strikes against Jews on American soil in the history of the United States; if the perpetrators had succeeded in detonating a pipe bomb they had built, the carnage could have been even worse. The assailants were all African-Americans.
  • Orthodox Jews in New York City, specifically in Brooklyn, have experienced alarming rates of physical assault over the past year. The New York Police Department says that hate crimes in the city were up 67 percent in 2019. Of those, a whopping 80 percent have been anti-Semitic hate crimes. This story is an all-too-familiar story in Brooklyn these days, and there is a reason it isn’t being treated as a crisis by our media or government. That reason is that many, if not most, of the assailants, are black or Hispanic men.

Story after story detailing anti-Semitic attacks plainly states the assailants are acting at the beckoning of the racist and anti-semitic language of the President. These claims are blatantly false. So why does no national media source refute those claims to clarify the picture?

Besides that almost universal hatred for President Trump by members of the “Lame-Stream Media,” it would be politically incorrect for those media reports to suggest any other person or sect of people could be responsible. It just HAS to be Donald Trump!

And their methods are working. A lazy American populace when asked today, “Who is responsible for the scourge of recent anti-Semitic attacks?” most would answer: “President Donald Trump.” That mindset is the fuel of hatred fomented by today’s Media.

Play

Big City/State Leadership: No Accountability

The feud between the leadership of the two largest states by population and Washington D.C. has reached monumental levels. California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo have far more than professional “issues” with President Donald Trump. “They hate the guy.” Having such feelings should make everyone sad. But in this case, because of who is involved, it makes everyone uncomfortable. Political leaders are supposed to work together for the common good of their states and the nation. It is hard to find “common good” when both governors and the President feel the others are inept and inferior leaders.
This personal animus goes far beyond the standard policy disagreements that are so common between those from different political parties. It has consumed these two governors so much that they each have stopped even trying to fix dire situations in their states in their war with Mr. Trump. And while they continue to hurl insults toward the Potomac, their states are falling apart.

Homelessness

The nation is struggling with homelessness. The levels to which homelessness has risen is unconscionable. According to the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, California has 129,972 living in the streets while New York has 91,897.  No other states are even close.
Both states receive billions of dollars of federal assistance earmarked for social issues. California gets $376 Billion (for the Fiscal year 2017) but does not explicitly budget for handling the homelessness situation. Most of that money goes to specific obligations like Social Security, Medicare, and other social agencies. New York receives about the same.
The “story” is that neither governor accepts responsibility for the homelessness in their states, nor do they have concrete plans to address that issue. Instead, both point toward D.C. and blame President Trump for not just their homelessness, but pretty much every other issue within their states. That is called “No Accountability.”
Their stance on refusing any accountability has spread through their state governments and trickled down into county and city governments. Every politician wants the money but declines responsibility.
Therein lies the problem we face today. Instead of rolling up sleeves and digging-in for solutions, these and many other governors prefer to point to others who should be accountable.
Want some more examples?

The “Left” Coast

President Trump supporters will clean up excess feces in the Democratic city of San Francisco
The city of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has a big problem concerning homelessness, and that includes the issue of feces. For this reason, pro-Trump activists decided to take action to assist with a group cleanup in the city of San Francisco, California.

TheDaily Signal reported that the San Francisco Department of Public Works responded to 30,136 cases of “human or animal waste” this year, up from 28,353 in 2018. The city launched a $750,000 “poop patrol” in September 2018 to combat the plague of feces, but that didn’t stop this year’s numbers from exceeding last year’s. This data shows that the city of San Francisco, governed by the Democratic Party, is becoming increasingly dirty.

A Twitter post quoted in the Conservatives article reported that homeless people are defecating in grocery stores. For this reason, pro-Trump supporters decided to organize a cleanup activity in the city.

According to The Gateway Pundit, Donald Trump posted a tweet for Nancy Pelosi about the complicated situation on Thursday, Dec. 26, “California leads the nation, by far, in both the number of homeless people and the percentage increase in the homeless population—two terrible stats. Crazy Nancy should focus on that in her very own district, and helping her incompetent governor with the big homeless problem!” he wrote.

Conservative pro-Trump activist Scott Presler announced on Dec. 26 that he would head to San Francisco for a day of organized cleanup. Presler has previously done this community work in the cities of Baltimore, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

“I’m coming to San Francisco for a cleanup. I hear that SF has a “Poop Patrol,” so we’re going to wear hazmat suits as we did in LA. My goal is to go into America’s dirtiest cities, register voters, & do the job that no one else will do,” he said on his Twitter account.

One would think that San Francisco — especially as the home of the most powerful member of Congress — would be the first in the U.S. that would receive any and all resources necessary to take care of homelessness and other problems. Remember: homelessness comes with more than just a housing problem: there’s drug abuse, mental health issues, and criminal  activities that have paralyzed the once beautiful “City by the Bay.”

But it gets worse:

Consequences of progressive policies in San Francisco: Oracle cancels conference moves to Las Vegas

Technology giant Oracle announced that starting next year, it will move its renowned annual conference from San Francisco to Las Vegas. Previous visitors to OpenWorld had complained about “poor street conditions” and high hotel rates in the Californian city.

The decision by the major Silicon Valley company raises “concerns” about whether the Democrat-governed city can host significant business events that have long been a pillar of its tourism, according to a San Francisco Chronicle report.

High hotel costs, homelessness, open drug use, and incidents of street violence that alarm visitors are among the challenges the city faces.

OpenWorld is a technology conference that has been held in San Francisco for the past two decades, attracting some 60,000 visitors each year.

The San Francisco Travel Association estimates the move will cost San Francisco $64 million a year, according to an email to its members.

We did not even include similar problems like these in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Local leaders in all these cities plus every member of California’s Washington D.C. Congressional contingency refuse personal, local, or state accountability for these and other issues crippling their state. Yet they in unison point to the White House and place blame directly on the Trump Administration.

By the way: the homelessness and criminality problems in California began its precipitous escalation during the first Obama term, long before Trump’s election.

The “Other” Coast

The “Big Apple.” No, New York City is NOT the whole of the state of New York. But it dominates the state in every way. Many don’t even realize New York’s capital is upstate: Albany. But Manhattan sucks up most of the oxygen anywhere in New York.

The two most powerful men in NY state and local government are Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. Both carry the exact same feelings for the President as do California’s governor and Congressional members. Both Cuomo and de Blasio struggle with homelessness, massive drug abuse, and rampant criminal issues that are all escalating rapidly. They have no fixes. So, how do they handle it? They blame the Trump Administration.

New York’s mayor — in spite of the massive federal dollars that pour into his city to help with homelessness — wants and expects more from President Trump. He wants the feds to issue more housing vouchers to let people staying in shelters move into rental homes. He’s aiming to eliminate long-term homelessness in the city over the next five years.

“The problem ultimately is Donald Trump has not shown any willingness to give us the tools we need, most especially Section 8 vouchers, which allow people to live in rental housing, de Blasio said. “That’s the single-strongest piece we need from Washington that we are not getting right now.”

In addition to these problems is a rash of hate crimes that of late have been targeted at members of the Jewish Community in Manhattan and elsewhere. Anti-Semitic hate speech is flooding the nation but is especially vicious in New York because of the vast Jewish populace. It’s not just a vitriolic speech. It has spread to violence — even murder.

The New York Police Department is increasing its presence in several Brooklyn neighborhoods as it investigates at least nine possible anti-Semitic attacks that took place in recent days. All of the suspected hate crimes took place in Brooklyn, known for being home to a large number of Jewish residents. “Anyone who terrorizes our Jewish community WILL face justice,” Mayor de Blasio wrote on Twitter. “Anti-Semitism is an attack on the values of our city — and we will confront it head-on.”

The mayor continued: “An atmosphere of hate has been developing in this country over the last few years. A lot of it is emanating from Washington, and it’s having an effect on all of us,” he said.

When asked if he was blaming Trump, he said, “not just the president,” but said “we need a different tone, starting in Washington … that encourage this country to actually find some unity and some common ground” that he does not think the country has had in recent years.

Accountability

Folks, in big cities all across American and most of our largest cities, there is no accountability shared among their leaders!

They refuse to be accountable to those who they are supposed to answer to voters. It’s not just in L.A., San Francisco, other California cities, and New York City and State and other cities — it’s in almost every large city in the U.S. and their respective states. These leaders, along with many of their Congressional representatives in D.C., shirk the accountability that goes with the responsibilities they accepted when they each took an oath of office. How do they handle it? They all point at the White House and loudly cry, “It’s Donald Trump’s Fault!”

There is a common denominator in most of these circumstances: the states are controlled by Democrat governors and state legislatures, and their Congressional members are almost all members of the Democrat Party.

I am not saying Democrats are the problem. What I AM saying is that there is an adopted attitude of political elitism that permeates the leadership of the Democrat Party that says, “I am responsible for everything. When things go well, they do so because I am in charge. When things go poorly, they do so because Republicans obstruct my leftist wishes and destroy what was to be a long list of accomplishments!”

The wheel always stops at “Donald Trump” on their “Wheel of Blame!”

Summary

It’s become nothing but a comedic taking point when these leaders always blame the GOP and the President. GOP leadership in D.C. has known the spiel perfected by Dems. What’s different today is that under this President’s direction, Conservatives are no longer content to ignore it and just let Democrats spin their stories. GOP leaders are now encouraged to stand up and shout the truth in each circumstance.

Dems are not used to having real leaders in the federal government. Trump is a leader. Trump is a problem solver. He identifies issues, determines how it repairs those issues, puts the resources and leadership in place to right the issues, and then holds those in leadership over each area accountable! 

Democrats are always quick to find problems, blame each problem on their political opponents, cry that more money needs to be spent to fix the problems, allocates the money, the problems are never fixed, and no one is held accountable for the break-downs!

The list of Trump accomplishments in his presidency is exhaustive. We have published them each year and will do so for 2019 in a few weeks. That list will once again prove that Donald Trump became President because voters wanted problems solved, and there were no problem solvers in D.C.

There have been some things he’s tried that when implemented, did not (or have not yet) accomplished their expected objectives. Some call those “failures.” Mr. Trump calls them “obstacles.” Most often, when those things happen, those who request them failures quit and walk away. Mr. Trump operates this way: “There were good reasons to go after this. We just hit a snag. Let’s find ways to learn what part of the process did not work and find a better way.”

His way is NOT traditional in Washington, D.C. But his way most often DOES work.

I laugh until I cry when Democrats continually refuse to acknowledge his many positive results for ALL Americans. Instead, they throw everything they can muster to make him look bad — even in the midst of something working perfectly! 

Once again, the Left thinks Americans are stupid. I’ll finish by quoting that great American Historian, Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as Stupid does.”

The First Amendment is Dead

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Most Americans consider this, the first of the ten Bill of Rights, the most important guarantee to Americans of the Constitution. Many think the Bill of Rights dictated to the People what authority, rights, and power we have given to us by our government. However, the exact opposite is true: Each of those ten amendments informed the government what powers the People expressly released TO the government. Any others not detailed in those ten amendments belong to the People — not the government. This fact is mentioned often in discussions about the Second Amendment, but seldom in conversations about the First Amendment. It should be the other way around.

Everybody knows the right to free speech is universal and everyone understands and respects it, right? Not so much anymore, unfortunately. There are people in the United States who gleefully parse speech contents of thousands of Americans and are quick to “pull them down.” What does “pull them down” mean and who does it? “Pull them down” means to block or delete spoken or printed words from some source seen or heard by the public. And those who sit at the desk of “Speech Think Police” are the sole arbiters of Free Speech in America. And those folks live and work in many different places parts of the American information landscape: Newspaper, radio, and television editors, Social Media editors, even publishing company editors, and, certainly, political elites.

How so?

We could launch into the specifics of hundreds of examples of today’s abridgment of Free Speech. We won’t do that. We will, however, give you examples from the “10,000-foot” level. You’ll understand our thought process after thinking through THAT process.

“Thought Police”

How many college campus Free Speech rallies have you heard that were canceled either before or stopped during because of demonstrations that often devolved into riots? Dozens and dozens of such cancellations have happened in the last several years. In fact, it is now more common than not for speakers with a certain political ilk to be banned from appearing at such rallies, especially on liberal university campuses.

Before we move forward, consider the previous sentence: “speakers are banned from appearing at rallies on college campuses.” College campuses were formerly the incubators for new ideas. During the ’60s and ’70s, campuses were the hot spot for the introduction of new political and social ideas. Those campuses were the “Moms” that gave birth to numerous currently embraced concepts. And they each were birthed through the First Amendment: NO government control of speech which meant ANY idea was allowed to be expressed.

Within that context, do you think there’s something sinister going on in our nation today regarding Free Speech? Our examination begins with “Hate Speech.”

Hate Speech

Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is “usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.”

There has been much debate about freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.

A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site.

Those conclusions about Hate Speech certainly force us to consider the First Amendment. Are Americans no longer accepting that Amendment as a necessary part of our lives? If so, how do they justify their opposition?

First, I doubt any American if asked would say “I want to abolish the First Amendment.” Generally, that feeling is almost universal. But when drilling down to determine what that means, some may change their tunes a bit. Let’s use Hate Speech to make this easy to understand.

There certainly are horrible things that are said from time to time that many wish would not be said. Some things are just unacceptable and certainly distasteful. As an example, few think it’s OK to demean someone’s personal appearance. During the 2016 presidential campaign, millions jumped on then Candidate Donald Trump for what  they felt were disturbing words to denigrate a Washington Post reporter, Serge Kovaleski, who has a physical disability. That incident raised immediate uproar against Mr. Trump for his alleged “Hate Speech.”

So why don’t we just stop such examples from ever happening?

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish “hate speech.” Instead, the Court has come to identify within the First Amendment a guarantee of “freedom for the thought that we hate,” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described the concept in a 1929 dissent. In a 2011 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts described our national commitment to protecting “hate speech” in order to preserve a robust democratic dialogue:

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

In other words, the First Amendment recognizes that the government cannot regulate “hate speech” without inevitably silencing the dissent and dialogue that democracy requires. Instead, we as citizens possess the power to most effectively answer hateful speech—whether through debate, protest, questioning, laughter, silence, or simply walking away. 

As Justice Louis Brandeis put it, the framers of the Bill of Rights “believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”

Justice Brandeis argued that our nation’s founders believed that prohibiting “evil counsels”—what today we might call “hate speech”—would backfire:

They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope, and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by the law – the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Banning “hate speech” without restricting political speech is tremendously difficult because of subjectivity. Each American certainly has a different understanding of exactly what expression should lose First Amendment protection as “hate speech.” One citizen’s hateful speech is another’s religious text; one citizen’s slur is another’s term of endearment; or, as the Court put it, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” As a result, creating a generally applicable definition of “hate speech” is all but impossible without silencing someone’s “legitimate” speech.

“Hate speech” is also a moving target, making a real definition still impossible to find. Conceptions of what constitutes “hate” do not remain stable over time. As ideas gain or lose acceptance, political movements advance or recede, and social commitments strengthen or erode, notions of what is unacceptably “hateful” change, too. Today’s majority viewpoint should not be allowed to foreclose that of tomorrow.

For example, thirty years ago, the Board of Regents of Texas A & M University sought to deny recognition to a gay student organization because it believed that  “so-called ‘gay’ activities run diabolically counter to the traditions and standards of Texas A & M.” At the time, the Board may have voiced the majority view, which found the gay students’ speech to be beyond the pale. Today, the opposite characterization might be true.

In some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected. In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. But one thing is certain: our founders came to America from living under a government that dominated in determination of what could be and not be used in speech by their citizens and retained the unilateral authority to arbitrarily determine what was and what was not OK to use and who could use it.

What happens when governments regulate speech?

Unlike the United States, there are a variety of countries that cannot practice freedom of speech, including Burma, North Korea, Turkmenistan and Libya. Other countries that abide by a strict censorship include Cuba, Syria, Eritrea and Uzbekistan.

A strict censorship basically isolates the citizens of these countries because the government prevents the media from providing any information on the rest of the world. Typically, these governments will impose violence on any journalists who come in to report news or to seek information on the well being of citizens living in these countries. There are also laws in place that restrict the use of the Internet and prevent citizens from speaking out negatively against the government.

Are we headed for our government taking away our rights to Free Speech?

Under the guise of advancing what anti-free speech groups refer to as “human rights,” the dictator-dominated global body is waging a full-blown assault on free-speech rights by pressuring governments to criminalize so-called “hate speech.” Indeed, working alongside radical government-funded activist groups and anti-liberty politicians around the world, the UN and other totalitarian-minded forces have now reached the point where they openly claim that what they call “international law” actually requires governments to ban speech and organizations they disapprove of. Critics are fighting back in an effort to protect freedom of speech. Think about it: the United Nations — a supposed peaceful, rights-thinking world organization headquartered in southeast New York City is pushing for the abolition of free speech!

UN “human rights” bureaucrats are currently terrorizing and bullying people of Japan — among others — in an effort to drastically curtail speech rights. Pointing to a tiny group of anti-Korean activists holding demonstrations in Japan, politicians and self-styled promoters of “human rights” have also joined the UN in its Soviet-inspired crusade to ban free expression. The Japanese Constitution, however, like the American one, includes strong protections for freedom of speech. Still, that has not stopped the UN from seeking to impose its radical speech restrictions on Japan anyway.

Meanwhile, right here in the United States, groups like ANTIFA (which stands for “Anti-Fascist”) are attacking conservatives left and right at Free Speech rallies around the country, stating that in doing so, they are stopping those who denigrate certain groups or individuals. Those groups and individuals that are the supposed “protection ones” one ANTIFA don’t exist! ANTIFA is nothing more than a 100-year-old political activist European organization that is a remnant of Nazi Germany! Don’t believe it? Check your history book.

Summary

There is no doubt Americans need to tamp-down our hateful, denigrating, and caustic rhetoric — both in writing and speaking. We need to embrace the universal belief that we are all created equal in the eyes of our Creator and therefore each have “unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our Constitution while re-stating those tenets of basic Humanity is the roadmap of freedom for all people. And that means that there are people who are hateful, who choose to demean others personally for all manner of things they view as are wrong with those others. As evil as that may be for them to do, Free Speech from the First Amendment gives all that basic right.

Here’s what is at the end of the road of American governments — local, state, and federal — stepping in and putting Big Brother’s foot down on derogatory things spoken or written by others: Where does their doing so stop? Who decides what is wrong to say or write, what can or cannot be said, spoken, written, or sung in a song? Who decides who makes the rules?

Americans — if enough feel doing so is justified — have a legal method to change it all: Amend the Constitution. Our framers, knowing that American life would change in many ways, made sure to create a clear path for altering our founding structure.

So here’s what we do: Follow the Process! I’m not going to teach a Civics class here. For those who want to abolish the Second Amendment, read the Constitution and set the Amendment process in motion.

Our structure of government is a Representative Republic. It was founded and exists as such for reasons just like this. Reasonable people can disagree. But those same reasonable people must choose legal methods to resolve disagreements. It would be foolish to try to do otherwise. Without taking the path of Constitutional guidance, all that will be accomplished is Anarchy and all that comes with it.

ANTIFA has already opened that door to Pandora’s Box. Do Leftist Anti-Free Speech proponents really want to try that road?

My prediction is if tried, what is at the end of the road will not be attractive for them. And when done, the Second Amendment will still be intact.

Oh: so will the First Amendment!

 

 

 

Merry Christmas

For many, this Christmas is a day of reflection — a reflection of a year that may have not been so good. For others, their reflection is of a year full of joy and wonderful life circumstances. For each of you in each of these categories, know this one thing: here we all are on this Christmas Day alive, reading, and experiencing another Christmas. If we have no more than that, we are blessed.

I certainly don’t wish to diminish any problems that are real and devastating in the lives of our partners. In fact, the opposite is true. My heart goes out to all those who find themselves today in a tough spot of any kind. It breaks me to know that for those who find themselves there, I cannot do anything but pray. Let me pray for you right now:

“Lord, I am so sad that many friends find themselves today in a less than desirable place in which many things have gone wrong. I hurt for them. And I know you do too. I pray that you today would reach into their hearts and ease the pain that always bookends the bad things in our lives. Many of these things are direct results of poor choices. But many more are just bad things that happened to good people. In either case, please intervene in their pain.”

“I would be remiss if I did not say to you, Lord, ‘Thank you’ for your sacrifice as a Man after leaving Heaven to come to Earth as a baby just so you could allow yourself to be sacrificed for the wrongs committed by people like me so that we can have an eternity with You. Please, today let those who are hurting so terribly understand You ARE with them in the middle of their conflicts. You DO care about every pain and heartache they experience today. Please cover them in Your warmth and let them feel that love that led you here. And last, thank You for all you have done for me.”

Merry Christmas to you all!

Dan

 

It’s Christmas Eve!

(I recommend you listen to today’s Podcast: the end is a very special Christmas Eve audio presentation you won’t want to miss!)

 

Record snow and even blizzard conditions threaten to blanket the northern half of the United States. But it’s supposed to snow! Today is Christmas Eve. So for all of our TruthNewsNetwork friends and partners who live up north in the U.S. are in snow country in other nations across the World, let me say this: in Louisiana, it’ll hit 65 degrees today, and I’ll ride my bike this evening in shorts and a t-shirt. Go ahead and be jealous!

Welcome to Christmas Eve 2019 with Truth News Network! We are excited about the holiday, its importance to all of us, and especially its significance in our lives. Tomorrow we celebrate the birth of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Before we get rolling today, let’s chat about what’s coming January  7th to TNN. YOU’RE COMING! That’s right: TNN listeners and partners will have the opportunity to be a part of our podcasts. You’ve been reading and listening for several years. We get comments and emails all the time with your opinions. But we want not just to read your thoughts; we want to hear your thoughts and discuss those live with you on the broadcast. Just think: when you join us, you’ll be talking to people sharing your opinions with people from all over the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Central and even South America; with TNN partners in Switzerland, England, France, Italy, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, and even folks in Russia! We can’t wait to get started on January 7th as we kick 2020 into high gear.

How do you join us on the air? It’s simple: every TNN member early in the morning when new podcasts and stories go live on our site receive an email with a link to that day’s podcast and the story that have just gone live. In the first line of that email, it will tell you the topic of the next day’s podcast and story.

Here’s what you do if you want to chat on air during the next day’s podcast:

  1.  Send an email to partner@TruthNewsNet.org.
  2. in the email, make certain you put your name (first and last), what city/state/country in which you live, and the phone number at which we can reach you either the afternoon of the email you send us or early the next morning.
  3. We are in Central U.S. time (Chicago). We will call you to discuss in brief how our recorded phone call will go. If you are fine and ready, we may just talk then and record the call or set a firm time later to do so.
  4. We prepare every story and podcast the afternoon/evening before they are published. Stories and podcasts are always edited — but NOT for content, for time and mistakes. (Yep, I make some!)
  5. We encourage all with different perspectives to get involved. I will not argue with you, but will share perspectives and “discuss.”
  6. Critical: to participate, you must receive those email links from us with the type of story we’ll be discussing with you on the next day’s podcast. To get those emails, (if you haven’t already) on the front page of the website, enroll your email address at the bottom right-hand side. You will not receive anything from us other than links to new stories and podcasts. WE DON’T SELL ANYTHING!

Note: the first such link will go out early the morning of January 6th with the topic for January 7th’s show. Reply with your brief thoughts on the topic and your phone number. We’ll call you back to coordinate a 5-10 minute conversation with you that will be part of the next day’s podcast.

By the way, if you have any questions about this, feel free to reach out to me at dan@TruthNewsNet.org as soon as you have them. We’ll get you comfortable with the process.

You can be on the show with me beginning on January 7th! I cannot wait.

It’s Christmas Eve!

We always do something special — still a tribute — for our men and women who each Christmas are unable to be at home with their family members. Let’s face it: Christmas is a family time. Millions of people in the U.S. will be with their loved ones tomorrow, having great times celebrating the season, each other’s lives, and all the history they have shared. For those who cannot do that, we certainly want to honor their sacrifices of being away.

If you’ve never been alone on Christmas Eve away from your family, you won’t know how lonely one feels. Christmas loneliness is the worst kind of loneliness. We honor those folks who tonight will be going to sleep somewhere other than their bed either alone or with other soldiers doing the same thing for people they will probably never know. They’re protecting all of us.

It just hit me: there are men and women in uniform that are TNN partners that will hear this tribute to them today! To you, we say a heartfelt “Thank You for caring enough for all of us to miss all of your family members voluntarily protecting us from evils that we will never face. We love and thank you for caring. God bless you each this Christmas Eve!”

Play

One Phone Call Is All It Takes

Something tremendous and new is coming to Truth News Network in January! Before we start today, click on this link for a 30-second audio with details:

Today’s “Story”

December 22, 1969, may have been just another day for many, but my life changed forever that day.

I was a sixteen-year-old boy living in Franklin, a sleepy little Cajun town on the Teche Bayou in south Louisiana. My Dad pastored a small church with 45 in church on a “good” Sunday. Our church was only the third different denomination in town. Franklin had a Catholic and Baptist church. Ours was “Full Gospel.” It was pretty tough explaining to classmates the differences between the first two and ours’!

I loved living in a small town. I loved the French culture. I loved hunting and fishing and spent as much spare time as I could in the woods and the bayous that were all around us. Before I had a car of my own, I saved up and bought a small boat and motor. My boat was a “bateau,” which is a small, flat-bottomed boat that was perfect for shallow water. I spent as much time on it as I could.

In January of that year, my Dad hurt himself and was out of work for months. I needed a part-time job to help out. Little towns are often not accessible places for teenagers to find part-time work, and Franklin was no different.  My high school Speech teacher knew everything and everybody in St. Mary Parish. I asked him to be on the lookout for a chance for me to make some dough.

That teacher, Rodger Robinson, was the news director of the local low-power AM radio station: KFRA. He told me one day they may need somebody to help out at the station. I went to an interview expecting to get a janitorial job. At the end of the meeting, after reading and recording a sample newscast, I was the newest disc jockey in town!

As you can imagine, I became something of a rock star among my friends: a sophomore on-air DJ. I was already a musician, loved Top 40 music, and got to play all my favorites on the radio and was paid to do so. Early ‘69 was a blast. But it changed dramatically and quickly later that year.

I learned many years later that infidelity — as wrong as it is — is seldom the primary factor in divorce. It most often is money. There wasn’t much money in our house before Dad’s accident. And with him out of work, it worsened quickly. Things between my parents were not beautiful before his work injury. But when the money dried up things really got tough.

Arguments that had been rare but were all quiet and confined to their room became frequent, louder, and happened everywhere. Tensions rose as did tempers, and insults were ugly. My brother was in the Navy and living in California. I got to experience all this as the only kid in the house.

The hurt, anger, insults, and desperation boiled-over that Christmas week. Mom couldn’t take it, Dad couldn’t make it, and I had no choice but take whatever they decided. “They” didn’t choose it. Dad did when he left: December 22nd.

Things quickly worsened.

Mom had a nervous breakdown. My brother was gone, Dad had moved fifty miles away, we had no money, and I was sixteen.

So, I left home.

No, I didn’t abandon my Mother. Some close family friends approached me to let Mom go with them to get some help to get through this horrible time. They lived in Lafayette, about 50 miles from Franklin. We had lived in Lafayette before moving to Franklin, so it seemed a good idea. Mom went with them, and I moved into a small garage apartment in Lafayette owned by some friends, went to a new high school, and got a part-time radio job there. The first day for me at Lafayette High School was three weeks to the day after Dad left. And I started to work at KSMB-FM in Lafayette two days later.

The Spring of ‘70 was tight: there was the trauma of divorce, a different town, financial hardships, loneliness, and all the “new” stuff: house, school, work, friends, church, and no parents at home with me. As tempted as I was to get despondent and worry and to get into the “poor me’s,” something inside of me drove me to keep my head up and to move forward. I was hopeful: for what I had no idea. I felt something good was in the offing. Thank God I was not wrong!

Late one May afternoon, I was on the air when a longtime Lafayette friend of mine called me on the Request-Line. A mutual acquaintance of ours from Shreveport was in town. They were driving around, listening to me on the radio, and asked to come by the studio. When my air shift was over, we all went to eat dinner.

That mutual friend was a high school quarterback who was getting into the ministry and headed to college to play football. He was putting a Christian band together that was going to travel that Summer around the South, visiting small churches holding revival services. He knew I was a keyboardist and asked me to join the group: “The Vessels.“ I said I’d give it some thought. I did — for ten minutes. I told him, “I’m in!” Two weeks later I packed my clothes in a friend’s car who gave me a ride to Shreveport. And 50 years later I’m still here!

Better — Much Better

The Summer went by in a blur. We traveled all over the South, singing and ministering in small churches. There were nine of us in a Chevy van, pulling a trailer with our clothes and sound equipment. We slept in churches, peoples’ homes, and loved every minute of it. Not only did we see miracles in the lives of hundreds of young people, we saw terrific miracles in our own lives.

At the end of that 1970 Summer tour, I planned to go back to Lafayette, go to Lafayette High School my senior year, and go back to radio. Mom was doing good. Dad was about to remarry, and my Brother was still in the Navy. God had something different for me — something “New.”

That quarterback — Denny Duron — and his Mom and Dad pulled me aside in early August of 1970 and asked if I would move to Shreveport into their home, and finish high school as their son and little brother. Denny is a year older and was headed to Louisiana Tech. His room was open.

I was shocked. I had never heard of anything like that happening and certainly had not given any such thing a thought that it could work for me. But, once again, I said, “Yes.”

Mom and Dad Duron immediately made me their second son. Denny made me his little brother. And even though Dad Duron passed away several years ago, Mom, Dad, and Denny treated me as their son and brother for the last fifty years.

What about the phone call that changed everything?

I’m sure you’ve guessed what call it was — that call from my Lafayette friend when he and Denny invited me to eat dinner when I got off the air. That call and subsequent circumstances drastically altered the history of not just my life, but the lives of everyone in my life — then and now.

I after high school graduation went to Louisiana Tech. There I met a Pom Pom Girl from Minden, Louisiana, who became my wife. We have three amazing children plus six grandchildren.

I’ve had three professional careers in fifty years: broadcasting and journalism, automobile management, and business ownership.

  • Broadcasting was my first professional love and still is. Some of you are listening to this podcast, along with thousands of others. And today, people from more than 60 countries are reading or hearing this story!
  • I continued in broadcasting in college: it paid the bills.
  • After college, I got into the car business, where I learned sales, sales management, and managing people.
  • I went back to journalism as the Managing Editor of Winners’ Circle Magazine. 
  • I later returned to radio and was a morning show host on KVKI in Shreveport, Louisiana, and afternoons at WTPI-FM in Indianapolis, Indiana. Two years after Indy, we returned to Shreveport to broadcasting.
  • In 1992 I founded a medial accounts receivable management company that has run the course of my business life. In the middle of that, I owned and operated two different professional arena football teams.

You can see, my life has not been boring. It has been one thrilling moment after another. Of course, there have been lows and lots of bad moments. But, thankfully, there have been far more great moments than bad. But in the middle of getting down and discouraged, I always think back to that 1970 phone call in Lafayette when my friend asked, “Do you want to have dinner?” That called changed everything. How?

  • I’d never have gone to Shreveport and anchored into the Duron’s family.
  • I’d never have gone to Louisiana Tech.
  • I’d never have met Mary Ann, that Pom Pom girl.
  • I’d not have two daughters, a son, two sons-in-law, a daughter-in-law, four grandsons, and twin granddaughters.
  • I’d have never known the sales business, never known goods and bads of management. I’d not have started a company that has impacted the lives of hundreds of employees, dozens, and dozens of clients for which we have billed and collected millions of claim dollars for those clients.

But, there’s more: I’d never have touched the lives of all those people in those churches, on the beaches, and in the schools in where we ministered across the South that Summer in ‘70 and the additional six years we did the same across the nation.

I wouldn’t be giving you this blog post story and podcast.

In summary, consider these things: during your Christmas season, you may experience some terrible things. You may lose family members through divorce and death. You may lose a job. You may be fighting illness. You may be struggling with personal friendships, just trying to fit in. You may feel extreme loneliness and desperation. You may feel there’s just no way out of any of the circumstances in which you find yourself. But, to quote Jim Valvano when he was dying of cancer, said this, “Don’t give up. Don’t you EVER give up!”

I certainly didn’t have a perfect beginning. Who of us did? I certainly go handed a pretty bleak couple of years. Many of us have that happen.

Don’t get me wrong: my life today is far from perfect. I have problems; I have roadblocks. My family faces challenges all the time. I don’t have “everything” and haven’t had “everything.” But what I have is exactly what I need!

When I got that phone call, I was committed to looking for and finding “the next” step for me in my life. That call came in the middle of much noise and many distractions. It would have been easy to say, “No, Guys. I’m busy. I don’t have time to go to dinner.”

Be open to YOUR call. Be expecting YOUR call. And when the phone rings, ANSWER THAT CALL!

Wanna know something: I’m 66 years old, and I’m excited sitting by the phone as I write this. I’m waiting for the phone to ring for my “next” life chapter! ONE PHONE CALL IS ALL IT TAKES!

Play

What Makes Something Right or Wrong?

In this impeachment process, much of everything else of important in our government has been pushed to the rear. Unfortunately, some things that should have been dealt with much earlier join those “gonna have to wait” matters on the back shelf.

Sadly, if one specific of those things that have been in the cue for consideration had been dealt with by Congress, we probably would not be planning on a House impeachment vote next week. So why don’t we today take it off the shelf ourselves and discuss it.

When’s It Right and When’s It Wrong?

For years I have posted frequently here at TruthNewsNetwork, “Just because you think something’s wrong doesn’t mean it’s wrong.” But I don’t stop there: “Just because you think something’s right doesn’t mean it’s right.”

We all have examples of that from our own lives. That happens with our kids, our employees, our spouses, and even with friends and co-workers. But seldom do any of us take that as the “end” of our conversations.

It’s almost comical how we respond to things that we see and hear by automatically assuming as our default position the exact opposite of what we see and hear. I guess that’s human nature. I’m not a philosopher or a mental health professional, but I see it in my life over and over again. It’s not always me doing so, but it is sometimes. It’s pretty much an occasional occurrence in every person’s life, I am sure.

Yep, it’s human nature.

You have probably never heard of William Kingdon Clifford. He is not in the Rolodex of great philosophers – perhaps because his life was cut short at the age of 33 – but I cannot think of anyone whose ideas are more relevant for our “connected” digital age. It might seem strange that we are talking about a Victorian Brit whose most famous work is an essay from nearly 150 years ago. However, reality has caught up with Clifford. His claim that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” is no longer just a philosophical thought:  it’s now a technical reality.

InThe Ethics of Belief (1877), Clifford gave three arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to believe responsibly only what we have evidence for, and what we have thoroughly investigated.

His first argument starts with the simple thought that our beliefs influence our actions. (Makes sense) Everyone should agree that our behavior is shaped by what we take to be true about the world – by what we believe. Remember my philosophy shared just a few days ago: “Perception IS Reality?“ If I believe that it is raining outside, I’ll bring an umbrella. If I believe taxis don’t take credit cards, I make sure I have some cash before jumping into one. And if I believe that stealing is wrong, then I will pay for my goods before leaving the store. The fact that we believe what we believe makes what we believe REALLY important — especially to us. If/when we act on false beliefs in our lives usually puts us in bad places. In some cases, they can threaten our lives. If the singer R. Kelly really believed the words of his song “I Believe I Can Fly,” I guarantee you he would not be around by now. In his case, his perception would certainly NOT be a reality! But it is not only our taking care of ourselves that is at stake here. Our beliefs and actions impact everyone around us, and false and unrealistic beliefs can put our fellow humans at risk. We’ve all seen and heard of groups of people who follow cult leaders and end up dead. James Town is one example of that. “Thinking” you’re right certainly can kill others who act on what we think is right.

The most natural objection to this first argument is that while it might be true that some of our beliefs can cause some people to do things that may be devastating for them, most of what we believe probably doesn’t amount to a hill of beans to most folks. Claiming that it is wrong in all cases to believe with only insufficient evidence seems like a stretch. I think critics had a point – had – but that is no longer so. In this world in which we find ourselves, just about everyone’s beliefs are instantly seen and processed by everyone in our immediate world. And because of instant electronic worldwide access, for just pennies a day what things we do are available to a global audience, every single belief has the capacity to be monumental in the way Clifford imagined.

If you still believe this is an exaggeration, think about how beliefs fashioned in a cave in Afghanistan lead to acts that ended lives in New York, Paris and London. Or consider how influential the blather pouring through your social media feeds have become in your very own daily behavior. In the digital global village in which we now live, false beliefs cast a wider social net. Clifford’s argument might have been nothing more than opinion when he first made it but is no longer so today.

The second argument Clifford provides in support of his claim that it is always wrong to believe based on insufficient evidence is that when we lazily or with little forethought create our beliefs we open true door to making doing so in that way normal for us. That begins to permeate every area of our lives. And that, of course, spills over into the lives of though with whom we live, work, and socialize. Clifford puts it nicely: “No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character.”

Translating Clifford’s warning to our digital “everyone-is-connected” age, what he said is that careless believing turns us into easy prey for fake-news purveyors and conspiracy theorists. Letting ourselves take ownership of these false beliefs is morally wrong because the cost of OUR mistake becomes also a cost for a society that can be devastating. Yes, it’s tough to stay focused with so much 24/7 information and data all around us. REAL awareness is a much more precious virtue today than it ever was since the need to sift through conflicting information has skyrocketed.

Clifford’s third and final argument as to why believing without evidence is morally wrong is that because we are communicating OUR beliefs, we have the responsibility not to damage any already proven knowledge. In Clifford’s time, the way in which our beliefs became common knowledge was through speech and writing. Because of this method to communicate, ”our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought’ become ‘common property.’” Subverting this ”heirloom,” as he called it, by adding false beliefs is wrong because everyone’s lives ultimately rely on this vital, shared resource — OUR opinions (information).

While Clifford’s final argument sounds true, it again seems a little far-fetched to claim that every little false belief we hold is a moral attack on common knowledge. Yet reality, once more, is comparing favorably with Clifford, and his words seem prophetic. Today, we truly have a large barrel of beliefs into which all of our commitments are being added: it’s called Big Data. You don’t even need to be active in posting on Twitter or ranting on Facebook: more and more of what we do in the real world is being recorded and digitized, and from there software algorithms can easily interpret what we believe before we even express a view. In turn, this enormous pool of stored belief is used to make decisions for and about us. And it’s the same trove of data that search engines use that WE use to seek answers to our questions of which turn into new beliefs. Add the wrong ingredients into the Big Data recipe, and what you’ll get is a not-so desirous outcome. If there was ever a time when critical thinking was so important, it is certainly now.

Every one of us needs to be really careful not only about expressing our ideas, but to make certain our ideas are based on facts. And that is not easy, but certainly is critical. 

Summary

There’s not a lot to summarize: the story speaks for itself. Let it suffice to say that if members of the House of Representatives had dealt with today’s content here before getting into impeachment, we might not even be here. Maybe I’m wrong. After all, to make certain one is right or accept one is wrong would mean someone is required to objectively consider facts and evidence before taking any objective action. But the Majority in the House has NO inclination for honesty in consideration. There’s so much corruption in this process it makes my skin crawl. It’s plain evil.

From a Biblical perspective: “We war not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers of the air.” 

Hmm…that “powers of the air” sounds a little like data and the internet to me. I know they have the internet in Congress. I watched as one Judiciary Committee Democrat during yesterday’s impeachment hearing tuned in the “President’s Cup Golf Tournament” during the Committee hearing. Seems like someone might have had a mixup in timing of choices!