It’s Groundhog Day — Again!

What’s the groundhog fable? If on Groundhog Day the groundhog emerges from his den and he immediately sees his shadow, he will retreat, and Winter will continue for six more weeks. I don’t know how many days have been American voters’ Groundhog Day. Each day we emerge to see the shadow of Washington on the ground in front of us. So we go back into our lives, and the crud in Washington continues. The only difference is the D.C. crud will undoubtedly last longer than six more weeks.

While the House with a multitude of new scheduled hearings is scratching for anything to fuel Trump impeachment, the Grand Groundhog — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — keeps coming out to a microphone saying, “There’s no requirement that we have a vote. We’re not here to call bluffs. We’re here to find the truth to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Doing so is not a game for us. This is deadly serious.” The House Speaker then retreats to wherever it is she stays while nothing gets done for another day, another week, but hopefully NOT another year, in Congress.

Americans know full well what members of the Democrat side of the aisle in the House ARE doing: “Impeachment Inquiry.” But what are House members NOT doing?

“They’re Not Doing Any of This”
  1. The House is NOT taking up legislation to reform immigration law.
  2. The House is NOT a taking up legislation to take care of the Dreamers that are not citizens but are young Americans who were brought to the U.S. by their illegal parents and have lived here — many of them — for years.
  3. The House is NOT taking up legislation to honestly examine and debate options with the intent to complete a border barrier on our Southern border to curb illegal crossings.
  4. The House is NOT taking actions to repair the Healthcare debacle that they with Democrats in the Senate created with Obamacare — a health finance program that without serious editing and revisions will bankrupt America.
  5. The House is NOT taking up legislation to curb the opioid crisis that is killing thousands of Americans each month.
  6. The House is NOT taking up legislation to address the nation’s homeless problem that is concentrated in the largest U.S. cities.
  7. The House is NOT taking up real budget issues with long term projections and agreement on government spending tackling waste with honesty to balance the budget.
  8. The House is NOT taking up legislation to support efforts of the Trump Administration that have proven successful in attracting significant corporations that previously abandoned the U.S. for other countries with more favorable economics. President Trump has shown the restructuring of Obama-era corporate taxing and regulation assists in attracting new business with existing U.S. companies while attracting foreign-based companies to relocate to the U.S.
  9. The House is NOT taking up legislation to tackle the deadly graft and corruption among elected officials and unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  10. The House is NOT taking up legislation to assure federal and state elections are operated honestly and without foreign interference.
  11. The House is NOT taking up legislation to eliminate election fraud in all 50 states in spite of assurances by former President Obama that there have been NO frauds committed in previous elections.
  12. The House is NOT taking up legislation to rein-in the unfairness of federal election campaign finance.
  13. The House is NOT taking up legislation to regulate or to altogether eliminate federal lobbying, which would remove much of the financial corruption running rampant among members of Congress and members of special interests.
  14. The House is NOT taking up legislation regarding federal and private partnerships for critical infrastructure programs across the country.
  15. The House is NOT taking up legislation regarding the restructuring of the federal tax system to make it fairer and simpler so that every American contributes at some level with personal and corporate investment in its government operations.
  16. The House is NOT taking up legislation to assist our allies in the Middle East in the development of policies to stem terrorist attacks by ISIS and other organizations.
  17. The House is NOT taking up legislation to assure all international agreements between the U.S. and other governments are treaties that require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
  18. The House is NOT taking up legislation to correct issues that resulted from the federal takeover of the management of college student loans.
  19. The House is NOT taking up legislation to eliminate some House recesses and shorten others to process more legislation that is passed-over because of session time restrictions.

Here’s the big reason the House is not doing more: their work schedule. (click on the hyperlink to go to the 2019 Full House Legislative Calendar)

If you look through the calendar as compared to yours, here’s how many days in each month the House was in session as of October 15, 2019, and how many workdays they have not worked (“workdays are M-F minus federal holidays):

  • January they were in session 19 of 24 workdays
  • February they were in session 16 of 20 workdays
  • March they were in session 16 of 21 workdays
  • April they were in session 14 of 22 workdays
  • May they were in session 17 of 22 workdays
  • June they were in session 17 of 20 workdays
  • July they were in session 17 of 23 workdays
  • August they were in session 9 of 22 workdays
  • September they were in session 16 of 20 workdays
  • October 1 thru October 15 they were in session 5 of 12 workdays

That means in 2019, of 206 possible workdays (Monday through Friday of each week minus Federal Holidays), the House has been in session so far just 146. That means they worked only 71% of the time they could have worked conducting legislative tasks.

In fairness, these Representatives will maintain that they took time to meet with their constituents in their districts during the year and took time with their families for vacations. No one loves family vacations more than I. But taking one week for a family vacation during each of the two years of their two-year-term seems fair. Allowing two weeks per year to campaign in their home districts while meeting with constituents still means they would have worked 156 days of the possible 206 they could have been in session or just 76% of their time while taking a week for vacation and two weeks for meeting with and campaigning among their constituents in their respective districts.

I agree with the premise that the Congressional job is tough. I agree that being away from home while living in a pressure-packed political environment with weighty expectations for job performance is robust. But they each knew all of this when they chose to campaign for the job.

In my professional career, I have had hundreds, if not thousands of employees. Each of those during their job interview received in writing what their job expectations were, work schedule, and a full list of benefits. Each of those hired was expected to abide by the requirements of their job that were revealed and agreed to when they accepted employment. Why should it be different for members of Congress? How can we expect less and allow less than we do from any non-political employee of our own?

Americans have during the last decade lived in a nonstop news environment. That 24/7 news cycle is the “new” norm. Subsequently, Americans are learning more details of government operations. Americans are now as never before understanding the specifics of accomplishments by our elected officials in passing legislation. Therefore Americans know better than ever how the bureaucracy of Washington D.C. was created and has been perpetuated to facilitate working conditions, compensation, and benefits for members themselves that are not as were intended. Americans are angry.


D.C. is not working. Congressional operations must be changed. Members of Congress must work smarter, harder, and longer in their present jobs. If their Congressional job is too harsh, they should resign.

One might consider that an unrealistic expectation. But we all know to live and work in Washington is harder and more demanding than in Hometown America. That is why just a few can do so successfully. Based on the Congressional favorability ratings of Americans, members of Congress are felt to be less than expected and accomplishing far less than expected by Americans. And Americans who see all that is left unfinished are more than ever demanding changes to be made. Congress must complete those essential tasks that are pushed to the back of the line in each Congressional session and never finished.

If you’ve wondered why the Democrat-controlled House has essentially one agenda only — Impeachment — wonder no more. It is because the Democrat Party has only one plank in their party platform for the 2020 election. If Donald Trump is re-elected, it will obliterate their historical operating methods, shine the light of truth in the Swamp, and expose the waste and lack of fulfillment of necessary tasks by each Congress. They cannot allow that to happen.

Expect the angst, bitterness and vocal haranguing to only worsen the closer we get to November of 2020. Don’t expect much legislative progress either. Democrats refuse to allow Mr. Trump any new legislative triumphs until they hopefully vote him out of office.

In the meantime, expect another Ground Hog Day or two often in the next year or so.


The Seed of a Miracle

Scott and Kori were happily married. Both had careers after earning three college degrees between them and were ambitious and hard-working young adults. They wanted children but decided to wait a few years to get their careers on track. They then decided to take the plunge into parenthood. The day was joyous beyond words as they gave the news to their family, “We’re pregnant!” Both came from large and close-knit families that united as one big, happy family when they married. The pair launched into preparations as all young Moms and Dads “in waiting” do. And they were having so much fun!

One day Kori felt something different about the baby. To make certain, their doctor had them see a specialist. They where shocked to hear the news that their baby had a chromosomal disorder — “Turners Syndrome.” And babies with that seldom survive. Imagine the horror of having your baby with a certain death sentence living — at least for now — in your body. Still, they prayed, hoping for a miracle. But the inevitable happened: one day the baby quit moving. The fear for their baby in an instant became their reality.

Kori gave birth to Emerson who was stillborn. Those years of waiting, planning, and creating the perfect scenario for their first baby just melted into their tears, anguish, and unspeakable pain. It seemed the pair were living in a fog while preparations were made for Emerson’s funeral. It was a graveside close-family funeral. Driving up to that gravesite and seeing that tiny white coffin and knowing it held the first daughter and the first grandchild is unexplainable. But it happened. That single moment galvanized the most devastating loss a mother and father can ever feel: the loss of a child.

In the days that followed, Scott and Kori took a trip to Scottsdale, Arizona just to refresh and reset their hearts and minds. They in the past year of their lives had lived through the joy of a first pregnancy, the excitement of knowing they’re having a daughter only to have death steal all of it away. They needed to recoup. And they did. Little did they know that trip would initiate a newness in their lives they had never imagined. As fate would have it, a trip to the Fashion Mall in Scottsdale started the pair on a trek down life’s road that changed them forever.

A close pastor friend and his wife happened to be in Scottsdale at the same time. And at the very moment that pastor and his wife were at the Mall, Kori and Scott ran into them while shopping.

The pastor had just completed a sermon-series at his church titled “The Providence of God.” He pulled Scott to the side and said, “We can’t always find answers for bad things that happen to us. Sometimes bad things just happen to good people.” He then told Scott this: “If you and Kori will resist the temptation to shake your fists in God’s face in anger, He will pay you back. God promised that.”

Those words rocked the pair. They were doing their best to find a way to walk through the darkness of their devastation and to move-on with their lives. Those words rang true to them — they’re both hard workers and positive believers. They decided to not just “give it a whirl,” but to “give it their best.” And so they did, looking for that God “payback.”

It wasn’t but several months of believing God’s promise to “repay evil with good” while resisting the natural blame folks most often put on God, they found out they were once again pregnant! A second baby was on its way. But it was even better: THEY  WERE PREGNANT WITH TWINS!

August 29, 2005 — the day Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans — in a Louisiana town 300 miles from the Big Easy, Earth saw Grace and Emmaline Shurley arrive. You can imagine the glee for the entire extended family when the pair of beautiful babies moved into the Shurley home with Mom and Dad. Scott and Kori were more than excited…and thankful.

In this picture are Grace and Emmaline fourteen years later. They are amazing young women, wonderful students, friends, cousins, granddaughters and Christians who have already set their worlds on fire.

           Grace and Emmaline Shurley

Kori is the best Mom one could imagine. She has a very successful career in architectural design, owns her own company and is continuously in great demand. Scott owns his own company as well — a medical services company that has clients all over America.

But all of this goodness sprang from one little thing: a seed. For a moment, let’s go back a bit. Do you remember the story of Noah and his ark in the Bible? God became so upset with men because he could find only Noah and his family that were God-fearing. He told Noah to build an ark, to get two of every kind of animal, and get on that ark. God then sent rain that lasted for forty days and destroyed every human except Noah and his family members.

When that flood was over, God promised Noah that as long as the Earth existed there would never again be such a flood. Further, God said (In Genesis 8) “As long as Earth exists, men will always have Winter and Summer, Hot and Cold, Nightime and Daytime, and there will always be “reap and sow.”

We can all understand those first promises, but that last one: Hmmm… What does “reap and sow” mean? That means that everything people throughout time have and will plant in the ground, those people will always see results directly from their planted seed. In other words, when one plants peach seeds, peaches grow.

To that end, Scott and Kori purposely did just that. They planted their just anger and rage for losing their baby in such a horrible way in God’s promise. They decided to just trust God and test what He promised. The reaping they were allowed to receive provided not one, but two healthy baby girls! Though as heart-wrenching as it was to see their firstborn not live, Emmaline and Grace have taken the sting of death away and shown their parents every day that living in expectation instead of living in grief and despair is much more valuable and provides much more good for them and their family than any anger could have.

I miss Emerson. I was there that day when we buried their little girl and our granddaughter. I cannot imagine the pain and heartache this cost our baby girl and her husband. But we too knew what they learned in that mall in Scottsdale: “The Best is Yet to Come.”

Oh, and as a P.S. to this story, Kori a few years later discovered breast cancer. Rather than panic, she and Scott pulled together to tackle one more major life problem — their second. Even though the odds of a second such devastation happening were minuscule, they had no choice but to accept the challenge and go to war again. And in war one more time, they triumphed.

July 17, 2017, I told their story here at TruthNewsNetwork. Some of you may remember that. But today is even more special. Last Friday, Kori celebrated being 10 years cancer-free!



Kori Shurley


How Do You REALLY Feel?

I’m not certain who actually authored this. It may not represent the way you feel about current U.S. events. But I’m fairly certain it DOES represent the feelings of at least 150-175 million Americans. Something gotta give!

How Do You REALLY feel?

Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words — they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.

Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.

No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait… there’s more.

Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.

And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.

President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America.

We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.

They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.

60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.

Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!

Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.

A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint … Yet!

How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.

Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America.

The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.

“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher

Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.

Trump — They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way.

How Liberals Do ”It”

I have many Democrat friends. Honestly, seldom do I enter political discussions with any because seldom do those discussions result in any meaningful discourse. More often than not when current events make such conversations appropriate they usually end in anger — not on my part but on theirs.

To be honest, I must admit I usually fuel their fire of anger. How? I always want to know when in those discussions they make “factual” points, what are the facts on which they base their conclusion and if those points really are “factual.” That’s when they erupt. Want an example?

Take “Climate Change.” Here’s a sample of how each of the conversations I’ve had with Democrat friends regarding seem to always sound:

(Friend): “Dan, why don’t you believe in climate change?”

(Me): “I believe that climate conditions change from year to year but not in any major way that impacts the Earth permanently or because of one or several human actions.”

(Friend): “Oh, you don’t believe the Science that proves climate change is real?”

(Me): “I know there are some scientists that claim they have proof. But the proof they present is immediately refuted by data from other scientists that proves the exact opposite and disproves climate change.”

(Friend): “But don’t you see how drastic the weather is around us? Multiple hurricanes in the southeast U.S., fires all over the word, massive changes in temperatures, flooding and famine? That’s proof!”

(Me): “I know those things happen. They always have and they always will. Those only prove one thing: weather changes in patterns that even science cannot define or prove they happen because specific to man made causes. But those do not prove the inevitability of what climate zealots are preaching like ‘The world as we know it will end in 12 years!’”

(Friend): “You simply refuse to accept facts! How can you be so ignorant? There’s no talking to you, you won’t listen to anyone. You’re just like every other Republican!”

(Me): “I’m not a Republican.”

(Friend): “Oh, and you’re not a racist either!”

When emotions takeover, very little can be accomplished by continuing those conversations. But you know what? Liberals think like that! It’s virtually impossible for them with facts to prove most of their positions. So in such conversations, they can escape by simply doing something we all learned as kids: when you are losing a schoolyard verbal back-and-forth, you simply call the other kid a bad name and walk away.

Somewhere in the recent past, liberal leaders felt like their tag of “Liberal” was being thought of as a brand of an illegitimate group, especially politically. So they decided to regain what credibility they owned in the past — they needed to change their name. (note: what they don’t know is they never had any significant credibility!) So someone came up with the idea they decided to morph their political party and its adherents into: Progressives.

They didn’t make a name-change announcement. They didn’t throw a “name reveal” party in which they put balloons in a big box and made a grand announcement releasing the balloons that all had their new name on them. They just quietly switched names thinking no one would catch on. But we did. And when it happened the inquisitive person that I am, I asked a simple question:

Why did liberals change their name from “Liberals” to “Progressives?”

Let’s puzzle through the answer together.


They never were very liberal. And the policies of today’s Democrat Party are anything but progressive. I guess what they determined was to “Confuse people as to they you are by naming themselves something they’re really not might work. People will not catch on. They’ll just think you’re who you say you are.” There’s really no other explanation. Does that make any sense?

Let’s take a look.

Definition of liberal: “of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.”

Definition of progressive: “making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.”

  • Is the promotion of a policy of taking away guns from private citizens or abridging what types of guns may be privately owned express support for “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
  • Does government confiscation of Americans’ wealth through 50% to 75% income taxes for the consumption and use by our government express support of “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
  • Does allowing any groups like ANTIFA to run wild, attacking individuals and destroying private and public property at legal and permitted “Free Speech Rallies” OK? ANTIFA is there to stop people from speaking out in support of the First Amendment. Is that an act to express support of “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
  • Are the non-stop attacks on the Rule of Law in America at local, state, and federal levels “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”
  • Is the demeaning of the President, members of his Cabinet, leaders of ICE and the Border Patrol for their insistence of the enforcement of our borders “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”
  • And what about the liberal/progressive federal judges who make rulings from the bench that stop the Administration’s actions to insure the enforcement of all of our borders and insist on anyone and everyone who comes into this country legally and Constitutionally “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”

There are many more examples of our government — federal AND states — taking steps to ignore the laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law to prevent law enforcement officials from doing their jobs. None of these actions are by their definition “liberal” or “progressive.” These actions could more correctly be called “regressive” and even “totalitarian.”

To be honest, many if those who promote these policies do so militantly are promoting actions of true Facsism!


We’re seeing more and more former liberals and progressive walkway from their previous political positions. That in itself is not unusual. But what is unusual is that instead of applauding those who do so standing up for their First Amendment rights, those on the Left demean them as traitors and as intellectually deficient. Hollywood is a prime example of that.

Rather than continue down this road here, let’s wrap this up by listening to one such Hollywood elite give us his perspective on the matter. Take a listen to Piers Morgan — a very vocal and demonstrative liberal/progressive — give us his perspective:

I could’t say it better myself!


Wrong Message: Wrong Messaging

I must be honest: there’s so much negativity, so many misrepresentations, outright lies and two-sided information coming out of Washington, I’m finding it pretty hard to “shut-down” mentally at the end of each day and get a good night’s sleep. I find myself late at night lying awake and thinking about all the political anguish being dumped on us all non-stop. Every day it seems like there’s a new scandal. What makes all this extra difficult is that as a journalist, I’m charged with ferreting out the truth hidden within every allegation, news story, interview, and press conference. Not getting much sleep has become an everyday event. Take last Tuesday for example.

It was 1:00 AM and I was wide awake. I couldn’t sleep. I had back surgery a couple of weeks ago. I don’t sleep a lot anyway, but in the aftermath of the Doc fishing around in my spine for an hour or so makes sleep a little tougher. What do I do when I can’t sleep? Write or watch a little television. That night I fired-up Netflix. I saw the series of The Andy Griffith Show and thought I’d check out a show or two. I did just that. It was the best decision I’ve made in a long time.

We all remember Andy, Aunt Bea, Opie, Deputy Barney Fife, Otis the drunk, and Miss Ellie. That first season (1967) gave America one of the few television series in memory in which every episode captured an everyday life dilemma for most Americans complete with a simple answer for each of those. It did all that without profanity, sexual innuendo, (certainly no sex on-set) and no blood and guts. It followed an actual small-town sheriff from North Carolina who taught his deputy, his son, all his neighbors in Mayberry and sometimes himself how to successfully puzzle through the common dilemmas they all faced.

I learned a lot. I learned a lot about interfacing with other people in my life: family members, friends, employers, neighbors, members of government, law enforcement members, fellow church associates, and pretty much anyone else I come in contact with. What I learned dealt primarily with creating a method with those groups and individuals with which I desire to communicate to concentrate on the messaging being communicated and not so much on anything to do with my emotions and/or feelings nor theirs. Communication should always concentrate on the content of what message is being handed off. If you don’t believe me, ask Opie Taylor!

“Messaging:” Communicating

Tuesday, September 17, 2019, marked a day that the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee showed all of the U.S. and many other parts of the world that they disagree with my communication assessment detailed above and they certainly feel Opie had no clue about dealing with people in public forums. Of course, House Democrats claim they “own” the knowledge of how and right to do so unilaterally. That hearing was set to question former Trump Campaign Director Corey Lewandowski under oath about his position in any matters after the 2016 election in which he interfaced with President Trump. You may remember, Lewandowski was fired from the campaign months before the 2016 election and never held any position in the Trump Administration or in any capacity at all after leaving the campaign.

I seldom watch Congressional committee hearings. But sometimes they are of significant importance because of the purposes. House Democrats assured us all that this hearing was going to be mighty in content and would prove President Trump obstructed justice after his election. There are even some who — in spite of the Mueller Investigation findings — maintain Trump colluded in the 2016 election with Russia. In fact, in the hearing when Lewandowski in an answer to an asked question by a Republican member responded in part how egregious it is that Democrats though no Russian collusion by any member of the Trump Organization was found by Robert Mueller, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) interrupted to say he still feels today that Trump “was an agent of the Russian government” and that “Trump colluded with Russia to affect the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton and in his personal favor.”

Swalwell and the badgering of Lewandowski by other Democrat members made it clear to the world if anyone still had questions as to Democrats’ direction moving forward: “Get rid of Donald Trump at all costs. Nothing that can aid in that effort is off the table.”

Remember this: Lewandowski was never a White House employee or advisor. He was, however, and still is, a good friend of Mr. Trump. Lewandowski is not a lawyer, and it was clear very early in the questions with which Democrats used they had and have no positive regard for him and their reason for bringing him in was to try and trip him up to provide evidence that would support their last-chance effort to create some real narrative to justify Trump’s impeachment.

We today are discussing the communication that is so important for us to use when speaking to each other. Andy Griffth’s boy Opie received a wonderful lesson from his Dad for doing so. But apparently House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jarold Nadler (D-NY) either didn’t watch those Netflix reruns that I watched or when he did watch, he disagreed with Opie’s methods learned. To give you an example of how NOT to do it when talking with others, here’s Nadler who, as Chairman, asks the first 5 minutes of questions to any witness and did so in that hearing with Lewandowski. It’s a tad over five minutes but will give you the picture of what Democrats were and are really up to:

To illustrate the hypocrisy in this hearing was Democrats revelation of their misunderstanding of effective communication. Surely they did not want for Americans to see their hatred and spite for this President. Yet they showed it all afternoon.

A new rule Democrats passed just for this and other Judiciary hearings let the second round of questioning be handled by Congressional aids or others. For Democrats, Barry Burke — titled as a “staff Democrat attorney” — questioned Lewandowski for 30 minutes. Though Burke is an attorney, he was also a very large Democrat contributor in 2016 and 2018. When Republicans took their turn to ask questions by an  appointed Republican who serves on the committee, Chairman Nadler shot it down and would not allow it saying “Members have already asked their questions.”

In my honest opinion, almost without fail, members of Congress in most of these types of hearings are really terrible communicators. As was proven in the Lewandowski hearing, they all use scripted questions formatted in a way to make the person testifying look bad and inevitably all are attempts to put the President in a bad light. They made it effectively and abundantly clear that they are all set on the task. That task is to impeach President Trump. And they will.

Don’t be shocked: for two years we at TruthNewsNetwork have assured you again and again that impeachment was their ultimate objective for Mr. Trump. It didn’t and doesn’t matter to Democrats that he has achieved amazing results in his first three years as president. They certainly have given him little or no support in his dramatic and nonstop quest to fix so many of the issues that still exist in our nation.


On one of those episodes of The Andy Griffith Show, Opie Taylor showed up one day at the courthouse to see his dad at work. Opie told Andy he was going to pick up his skates. Opie didn’t have any skates and his dad asked how he was going to skate. Opie replied, “I’m gonna have skates because I’m trading my licorice seeds to Jeremy for his pair of skates.” And immediately told Opie “Licorice doesn’t come from seeds!” Opie replied, “I know Dad, but Jeremy doesn’t.”

The moral of the show was the importance of honesty with others and always telling the truth when dealing with others.

“Always telling the truth when dealing with others.” This is so applicable to Congress today. In politics, using a line, a narrative, a policy, or even an opinion, declaring whichever of those you use as a founding reason to justify what you think are certain results is exactly the lesson Opie was about to learn from Andy.

You see, Barney and Andy had committed to sell an old rundown cannon for the town of Mayberry. The cannon was literally a piece of junk. Andy “kinda,” told a potential buyer that the cannon “might” have been pulled by President Teddy Roosevelt when he stormed San Juan Hill. Of course, that was a lie. But Andy felt like it was OK for him to say so because it was for a good cause: to help Mayberry sell that old cannon.

Good causes or not, telling a lie is really a poor way to obtain acceptance in a deal or agreement in a political argument or any argument, for that matter. Certainly, Andy’s cause was a good one. But misrepresentation is never the right way to go.

House Democrats were exposed in that hearing.  That was made clear because various Democrat Representatives pontificated about their desire to “hold the President accountable for his actions” because “no one is above the law — even the president of the United States.”

Even that lie has been exposed. Americans have watched as the single desire of this and other hearings and that of the 2.5 year-long Mueller Investigation: find dirt sufficient to justify the House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment against President Trump.

Andy tried to pull the wool over Opie’s eyes. But, in the end, “the truth will out.” In Mayberry, it certainly did. Andy did sell the cannon, but not for the ridiculous price that was willing to be paid by the collector wanting it because it was pulled up San Juan Hill by Teddy Roosevelt.

As is usual on the Andy Griffith show, it all worked out. The town sold the cannon and Opie told his friend the truth about those licorice seeds. The skates? Opie’s still looking for something to trade with Jeremy for the skates.

Will this impeachment cloud go away? Remember: for three years we have been promising the House will impeach President Trump. We still feel that way. Of course, that could change at any moment. But unless that happens, you can bet they’ll impeach Mr. Trump. I doubt the Senate will confirm whatever measure comes over from the House.  They’ll give it a shot, not for Trump wrongdoing, but for the purpose of fulfilling their promises made to their constituents.


A “New America” is Here

I remained quiet on 9/11: I didn’t do a blog post, didn’t do a podcast, I just watched. I wanted to see if anybody and who would begin a process to alter history. It didn’t take long.

The first time I saw Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) reference the 9/11 attack on New York as “…we know somebody did something…..” was the first time I understood what the word “globalization” meant. It meant that there really are millions of people in this nation who feel like (and prefer others to feel too) that in this modern United States we are no longer citizens of a country, but are citizens of the World. And to that end, our government should not create and implement any policies whatsoever that consider the needs of American citizens over those of other countries — especially for illegal immigrants that want entry into the United States “to be safe.”

Think about it: news headlines on the 18th anniversary of the attack on New York actually stated that the airplanes initiated those attacks: not hijackers after storming plane cockpits — not terrorists, not Islamists, but planes! I a couple of days ago as did millions of others recalled that morning when in 2001 I sat in my office and was informed of the attack of the first plane. I quickly turned on my television and watched in horror as the second plane flew into Tower Two. I remained riveted for hours trying to understand what was happening. That day, I never thought “how could those planes be so evil?” Planes didn’t kill anyone. Terrorists did. No one gave this year’s news headlines a thought on that day in 2001.

Television news coverage in 2001 seemed unified. Flipping from channel to channel and watching reports hoping to hear some “good” news, there was one thing and one thing only that came through on every news report: America was under attack. That day there was no partisanship, no political agendas, no sparring about political policies. The only thing that mattered to every American was our country was under attack.

Facts Remained: News Reporting Did Not

On that day it didn’t matter if you were anchorman Tom Brokaw of NBC News or a rookie reporter at a small-town newspaper, you were faced with a crisis you never before experienced or could have imagined. The decisions that were made in newsrooms across the country have left a lasting change in how the news media covers stories to this day.

Looking back on reporting that and subsequent days, however, something in news reporting began to change: slowly and methodically. And it has continued and has heightened in intensity since. The attacks needed no creative writing to make them appear worse than they already were. However, in the days after the attacks, David Westin, the president of ABC News, ordered that video of the jets hitting the World Trade Center in New York City not be repeated over and over so as not “to disturb viewers, especially children.” That was a landmark decision, considering how many times Americans had been exposed to a video of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion and the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy. Before then, if you had a good video, you usually exploited it. Today, news organizations are re-examining coverage of violent stories, such as mass shootings. Some are deciding that even when a video is available, it is too graphic to put on TV.

In all fairness, many dramatic stories that are important and should make the news, are accompanied by a pretty graphic video. And, in all fairness, many probably are forever sketched into the minds of all those who see them. But should members of the media –especially television — be the sole arbiters of what audiences see and hear? Are Americans so numb in their lives that they all feel life-changing mental anguish when there is a mass shooting, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes when television video shows actual happenings? After all, bad stuff happens almost daily in every city in America.

It began shortly after 9/11 that news editors got more hands-on on news stories reported. Slowly but steadily news reporters and columnists and their political perspectives began to influence the news — not just what was reported but how it was.

It is true that the internet, smartphones and amazingly user-friendly video cameras are in every woman’s purse and man’s pocket that can and do capture almost immediately each such incident. It is true that the ability to transfer through the internet these videos to various news sources gives editors many more story choices with the added video attractions. But is it true that now an overseeing newsgroup takes unilateral control over programming content? I think no one can argue that news editors and publishers pretty much choose what we see and hear based on THEIR needs and desires and not ours. But should it be that way?


Here’s another consideration: Remember the U.S. flag pins that politicians and newscasters began wearing shortly after the attacks? At first, they were seen as a sign that America would stand strong. Before long, critics said they were being used to show political support for the policies of President Bush. Reporters with news organizations that would never take a political stance were faced with a dilemma—keeping the pins on may make it appear that the journalist was supporting a political agenda. Taking them off could look un-American. ABC was one organization with a policy that specifically stated the pins and other symbols could not be worn.

The pin flap has faded, but the patriotism battle continues over a cable TV channel. Al Jazeera English (AJE) presents reports from a Middle East perspective, offering Americans a look at how people in another part of the world views us. Even ten years after 9/11, cable TV companies reportedly worried about a backlash if they offered the channel.

Cultural Perspective

Once the nation saw the faces and read the names of the 9/11 suspects, it became easy to target people of Middle Eastern ancestry or Islamic belief as possible terrorists. News organizations chose to actively fight that stereotyping or saw an opportunity to pander to it. Fox News Channel has been accused of playing to Americans’ fears of Muslims. Others in media are criticized for assuming that all terrorist acts since 9/11 are committed by Muslim extremists. People who do bad things come from many different cultures, religions, ethnicities, and political affiliations. Evil seems to be pretty open to everyone and anyone who wants to join in can take that opportunity.

All of this plays into the changes we’ve seen in a sector of U.S. life that dramatically impacts the lives of every American 24/7. News organizations have major input into not just political, but cultural, economic, and social issues every day. What we see and hear from them impact many decisions we make, which we often did not even consider before.
And the media figures greatly into changes in America. I don’t think anyone can argue that the United States in 2019 is a vastly different country than when that first jet hit Tower One in 2001. In fact, our changes have been, are, and apparently will be more dramatic moving forward. Most notable in these changes is the way our political process is being handled from the top down. It’s new.

“New” Country

There’s a new country under construction. The “old” United States of America has been dismantled piece by piece. No, it didn’t come apart at the hands of a conquering foreign military or of Islamist terrorists hijackers. It did not result from ravaging economic devastation. It came at the hands of a political system that progressively fractured the U.S. piece by piece from within — and at the hands of its own people.

Sadly, that force that split the nation in half resulted from an internal political battle between a large part of a populace who wanted a national government that snatched control of every part of the nation’s existence. Their belief is that a strong and small nucleus of people which control every piece of the government can more effectively and more fairly take care of its citizens than could the previous government that was elected by the people as a whole.

There’s a new culture in America that is steering the country further left than I ever suspected I would see in my lifetime. I don’t think I need to spend much time proving to you that it’s happening. But few (including me) can believe it has happened so quickly and so demonstrably as it has. As this story is prepared, Democrat presidential candidates are on stage in Texas verbally destroying the fundamental constitutional operations of the U.S., the current president, and each other — all on radical, heretofore “other” countries’ political structural ideas. These 10 candidates plus the handful not on-stage are pretty much in lock step on one thing: the “old” version of America is no longer good enough. Instead of constitutionally steadily and thoughtfully proposing and making any changes they want, they demand immediate and drastic changes not done constitutionally.

The U.S. of my childhood apparently went the way of corduroy pants, penny loafers, and overalls. None of them are “applicable” and “appropriate” anymore.


The time left until the 2020 election will determine how America is going to move forward. But, maybe “moving forward” is an oxymoron in this case. Those 20+ want the U.S. to walk away from most of the structure that enabled us to get to where we are. Who can realistically argue that our country looks anything like it did shortly after the surrender of Japan aboard the USS Missouri in the Pacific. America has changed. They and many other Americans expect more and more drastic changes to quickly follow.

In closing let’s remember this: our founding fathers gave us several ways to alter/edit the template used to establish how the United States is governed: the U.S. Constitution. Many of us are wondering why none of these presidential candidates has even floated amending the Constitution as an option. They want radical and immediate change.

Something that none of them and few others of that mindset realize: anything used other than the Constitution cannot happen in the political structure of the United States. The Rule of Law cannot exist in any environment in which a ruling class rejects even part of a set of laws. Without laws and without adherence to the laws agreed to by a majority to rule a country, no such country can exist.

Is that what today’s Democrat Party wants? If so, what specific alternative type of government do they propose? Wouldn’t it be better for Americans to know where we’d be headed with a new president AND a new form of government in 2020?

Don’t be so crass as to answer these questions with, “That could never happen in the United States!” There’s no way two hijacked airlines could take down both of the World Trade Center towers in a space of a couple of hours either.

If enough Americans want a government overhaul, it can possibly happen. But don’t be naive: not a one of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates if elected has even a one percent shot at making changes like it would take for that “overhaul objective” to be even marginally successful.

If something like that happens we will all be a part of the generation that lost the greatest political structure in the greatest nation in World history. Sadly, if that happens, it will happen primarily because a fawning, angry, obstructive, and Democrat-controlled political party (including their media henchmen) will have been successful in the achievement of their one and only objective: to destroy Donald Trump. And it they are successful, all of the U.S. and the World will be forced to acknowledge those to blame for the fall did not attack from other countries. They will have attacked and destroyed a Representative Republic that purportedly is controlled democratically through a 535 member governing body and that Congress allowed it to happen.

God help us.

Let Me Build It

A few years ago it seemed like every half-hour a television commercial appeared that told us how unsafe and messed up the foundations were on our houses. This company was THE expert on taking care of all foundation problems, making them good as new.

I never understood why so many foundations were obviously inadequate or inferior. It wasn’t for several years that I learned in the region in which I lived, pretty much all the soil was fairly shallow. Directly beneath the topsoil was clay — plain old red and slippery clay. And that clay was ten to fifteen feet deep. And clay is NOT supportive of anything — especially concrete. Therefore, concrete foundations — which are the staple of most homes in Louisiana — were susceptible to failing structurally because of the poor sub-foundation of clay.

But what’s the big deal of a few cracks from a shifting or settling foundation? The house is built on top of it so no one will ever see those cracks. Unfortunately, when a foundation cracks and settles, so do walls, and ceilings, and floors. Poor foundations directly impact the entirety of the house — even those parts that never directly touch the foundation. 

It doesn’t matter what we build, for it to be strong and last, it’s got to have as its start a good foundation — one that is firm, stable, and adequate to support what is built on top of it, and free of breaches and cracks. 

Foundations are really important: for everything on which we plan to build — even countries.

The United States of America

It’s a pretty safe bet that the U.S. needed (and received) pretty substantial foundation when its construction was initiated. How else could it still be the greatest and strongest nation on Earth 250 years after it was built? That speaks well for the foundation that has held this “building” intact for so long. But let’s not kid ourselves: the foundation of the U.S. has developed a few cracks. I doubt the cracks are products of foundation settling — the foundation was anchored not by clay, but by impenetrable rock. The cracks that are showing up are coming from above — from things that are weakening the foundation from the top. Let’s think through together what are some of those things cracking the foundation of the nation.

  • Creation and Perpetuation of Class. People always have been different. And the U.S. has been known for two centuries as the “Melting Pot” —  the country where people of all races, ethnicities, religions, and political perspectives are not just allowed but are welcome. Early Americans certainly recognized the differences in people. No, there never has been any legal requirement for one group of Americans to treat others a certain way. But our forefathers purposely made equality and fairness a critical and key element of our foundation. They ran from inequality and class that permeated Europe from which they fled. Today, however political elitists have picked up that class establishment mantra of the Europeans. And those elitists have grabbed the exclusive right to determine which classes of people there are, who are included in each class, and the rules and permissions for all those within each class. Elitists — primarily Democrats — have long prided themselves in having the corner on diversity and acceptance of all. They have made a 180-degree turn on that policy. This abrupt about-face in their policy created the first crack in the U.S. foundation and is one that will be difficult from which to recover.
  • The Rule of Law. Forget about it. One key reason for early settlers rush to leave Europe was to establish somewhere a new country in which government could and would be required to provide equal justice for all. They had for generations been victimized by a top-down legal system that was established and maintained by and for elitists on the backs of everyday citizens. Often those who enforced those laws arbitrarily chose to enforce or ignore enforcement, enforce them in ways contrary to what those laws stated, and often simply ignored some at will. In each case, enforcement or lack of enforcement were arbitrarily determined by elites. The European practice of authorities ignoring existing laws has found its way into American life. Both civil and criminal justice systems in the U.S. definitely favor those Americans who are politically connected at the expense of those who are poor and middle-class citizens. It’s sad to say this, but in my state of Louisiana, it is reasonable to say that if one has good political connections, it is possible to escape prosecution for murder! It may cost a significant amount of money, but it is VERY possible. The drastic changes in the rule of law have resulted in dramatic cracks in the nation’s foundation.
  • Truth and Journalistic Integrity. There’s no better way to describe this than to simply say: Journalistic integrity in the U.S. is GONE. The lines between news and gossip have been virtually obliterated. When American read, watch or listen to the “news,” they must step back from what they are seeing and hearing to make a determination of which of it if any is true. It is unfathomable to think this could ever happen in the U.S. For any country to be free, fair, with a government controlled by the people, communication between all members of that society MUST be honest at all times. However, today’s media have for the most part gone all-in on political perspective in reporting. Seldom are news stories anything other than editorial perspective. Editorial perspective IS important, but just to present alternate ideas about issues. Presenting those perspectives as realities that all should automatically believe are factual is dangerous. And the media doing so is severely cracking the nation’s foundation. News is so important as truth for citizens, our forefathers included in the Constitution a guarantee by the government that there will always be the ability for all to present facts AND opinions freely in the press. The difference today? Media are negligent in differentiating for Americans what is truthful and what is an opinion. Blurring what is presented in the media is an all-out attack against the tenets of truth in Journalism that are critical elements of our foundation.
  • Representative Republic. Yes, that’s what our government in D.C. is supposed to be and how we are supposed to be governed. That IS the way it was established. But through 200 years, it has morphed into being a group of lawmakers who do far more than just make laws — they “govern” us, picking and choosing how to govern often outside the principles and processes set by our forefathers. And they have the authority to do so. Where did that authority come from? They are our lawmakers; they make and change laws, rules, and regulations controlled by our government. We choose who they are going to be. What they do is regulated somewhat by the Constitution and existing laws. But they in Congress have unilateral power to change them if they don’t agree with them or to simply ignore them — which is most often what they do. Don’t get me wrong: members of Congress are certainly on the most part operating constitutionally in their legislative actions. But functioning 100% in the direct fulfillment of the wishes of their constituents simply does not exist. They have the legal ability to legislate however they choose once they take office. So they do! Often their doing so has little or nothing to do with their campaign promises. And if legal, there’s nothing constituents can do about it until the next election. So they have unfettered power in legislation for at least two years for members of the House of Representatives, six years for Senators. Personal enhancement in place of enhancement for the districts and states they represent is fairly common. How do I know that? Very few members of both Congressional chambers leave office not significantly more well-off than they were when they first took office. It’s a fact! That ability and the fact that they so readily take personal advantage of their political power has severely impacted the strength and voracity of the nation’s foundation.


We could tire you by continuing to illustrate the deficiencies in America’s foundation. Every day its weaknesses grow from these attacks and others. How long we can continue without a major overhaul is unknown. It’s true that historically most countries have disappeared because of weak foundations. Two hundred years has been the benchmark for successful countries to hit before imploding. We’re fifty years beyond that mark. Can we somehow right this ship before it’s too late? Fortunately, we as voters have the ability to take action — with our votes.

Louisiana’s current governor one year before being elected visited me with his wife at my office. We talked for over an hour. John Bel Edwards is a Democrat Party rising star: he gave the nomination speech for Barack Obama at the Democrat Party convention before the 2012 election. He is a dynamic speaker as is Obama. But in that speech and in my office he stated things and made promises that he has ignored. His doing so apparently is not a problem for him. Why? That’s what politics are about! “Saying what you mean and meaning what you say” apparently no longer have life in our political system. But they ARE effective at destroying the foundation of our country.

It matters not if Democrat or Republican, Americans need to hold our elected officials accountable — especially for those specific issues detailed above. But I challenge you to find some others for yourself. To repair our foundation and stop future attacks on it, educating ourselves on truth is critical. It’ll be a hard task, but we’re up to that task. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. But we owe it to each other and we need to pay that price TODAY.

A Democrat 2020 Win = Armageddon

This is NOT a “scare-everybody story.” This is a “wake-up” story. There are many American fundamentals on the line in the upcoming 2020 election. I’m sad to say very few Americans know what’s at stake. What IS at stake? The very structure of the United States of America! First, let’s look at those structural elements of the U.S. that are already under fire. Then we’ll discuss what those changes if implemented will do to usher in Armageddon.

“Armageddon” is defined as the site or time of a final and conclusive battle between the forces of good and evil. Mine is a pretty dire prediction. While I believe there will really be a spiritual Armageddon initiated by God against Satan to end life as we know it, I believe the U.S. is facing one today — yes, life as we know it in the United States. How soon we could see it is yet to be determined. Who will initiate it? Political zealots who are bent on the destruction of the historical America that has brought us to where we are today. Who are these zealots? Political far leftists that comprise in part today’s Democrat Party.

I know: it “takes two to Tango.” No doubt the war in which we’re living is full of participants, many of whom do not pledge allegiance to the Democrat Party donkey OR the Republican elephant. There are many options and many different participants. But there are very specific indicators who point to crazed Democrat zealots who are incensed that they do not have leadership in America. And, yes, that stems primarily from the circumstances in 2016 that put Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton in the White House.

When John McCain lost his bid for president in 2008, there certainly were tens of millions of American voters who thought he was a certain winner. The same held true in 2012 when Mitt Romney could not eliminate a second Obama four years in the White House. But in neither election aftermath did Obama opponents take to the streets in anger and actual hatred for the election winner. With the Trump victory, left-leaning zealots immediately began demonstrations that included physical threats for the president and his family. Singer Madonna even at a rally cried she was even thinking about blowing up the White House. Actor Johnny Depp even commented in a public gathering that it had been a long time since a presidential assassination. He quipped that it may be time for that today.

Those may seem quite benign, just blowing off steam and sadness for seeing their favorite candidate handed a surprising election loss. But that’s just the tip of an iceberg. Beneath those antagonistic rallies across the nation lies extreme disdain not just for Donald Trump, but even for those who voted for him. Frequently we hear politicians damning Trump supporters. And it’s not just that he was elected, but the demonization of 100% of the support for any of the policies he supports. Mr. Trump picked up the cause of Pro-Life, Second Amendment Rights, stopping illegal immigration, and canceling hundreds of federal government regulations. He pulled the U.S. out of the Iran Agreement and the Paris Climate Accords which drove the Left crazy. And they’re not upset or angry about any of this, they’re crazed for his doing so. I must say in my 66 years I have not seen the vitriol, hatred, and threatening atmosphere in the nation but one other time: the Vietnam War. But on many fronts, today’s potential war landscape is closer to complete — much closer than we ever were during Vietnam.

Let’s face facts: in most areas of life in America, things are better today than they were in 2016. Specifically, the American economy in every sector has zoomed to previously unanticipated levels. And all of those speak directly to the lives of Americans.

No, the economy is not the only important thing in the lives of Americans. But those finding jobs they couldn’t in 2016, pay increases, profits soaring that turn into new jobs, bonuses, expansion, which all lead to a critically important element for us all: happiness and hope.

Illegal immigration: Fuel for this War

Somewhere, the immigration debate has gotten far off course.  After the last Democrat’s presidential debates, every Democratic candidate appears ready to admit illegal entrants without historic restrictions; harbor them in sanctuary cities; pay their health care with tax dollars (federal and state); permit displacement of lower-income Americans from affordable housing, and tolerate growing homelessness created by unmitigated mass economic migration.  None of this fits American history, rule of law or sovereignty. And a large segment of Americans feels this is a definite affront to the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law while other Americans seem to not even care. Remember: many historical wars are initiated by controversial laws with which a country’s populace differ on their enforcement: like our immigration laws.

First, candidates and mainstream media consciously omit, diminish or ignore a basic distinction in US law – between legal immigration, which is permitted at different levels, based on country of origin and individual, and patently illegal immigration.   The distinction is important, yet purposely blurred.

This fundamental distinction – about which no one wants to speak – is key to resolving the larger debate. From enforcement of U.S. visa laws to naturalization and citizenship, if the distinction between legal and illegal is not acknowledged and enforced as written, then for all intents and purposes – U.S. immigration laws do not exist.

Actually then, the Democratic presidential candidates, beyond pushing mass government control, higher taxes, socialized medicine, federally defined and paid higher education, and shutting down fossil fuel production, are promoting lawlessness in the area of immigration.

Let’s be specific.  Today, in the United States, we have laws permitting presence in the United States under differing circumstances.  We have laws that distinguish between legal and illegal presence, between employer-sponsored visas (H1B), independent work visas (EB-1), investor visas (EB-5), PhD visas (EB-2), presence by birth to foreign parents, presence by green-card lottery, and upon legal residence for five years, application for citizenship.  These are laws, meant to be enforced.

By opening the flood gates at our southern border to lawless entry, Democrats not only render meaningless our asylum laws — requiring proof of a specific, objective “well-founded fear of persecution” to the individual by the country of origin’s government — and mock refugee laws, but we ignore the entire legal framework for visas, residency, legal employment, and potential citizenship.

Here is the rub:  Democrats are effectively saying –  “Laws do not matter, just come and we will hide you, house you, pay for your health care, shield you from federal law enforcement, permit your crimes to go unreported, and not deport you.”  Under such circumstances, exactly where is respect for the rule of law?  Nowhere, as these Democratic candidates are effectively throwing out US law.

Second, think for a moment about what a “nation” is.  Without borders, a plot of land and people have no claim to nationhood.  As early Americans knew, immigration would eventually grow and require restriction – and the restrictions would require enforcement, to preserve our sovereignty.

We forget that our founders left Europe to escape an environment of elite lawlessness by governments. Equality for all citizens and protection for all citizens was their objective: “A Nation of Laws,” and “Equal Justice under the law.” That has always included Immigration laws. As New York statesman Governor Morris argued at the Constitutional Convention, “every society from a great nation down to a club has the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”  Incidentally, he wrote the Preamble to the Constitution, was a signatory to the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution.

His point is plain – then, and now.  While our Constitution grants the power to Congress “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” restrictions on immigration are required for nationhood. As one constitutional scholar noted: “The people have delegated to Congress the power to fix the terms under which America will consent to an immigrant become a member of the American political community,” who, when and how.  This implies legal limits, and it guarantees no right of entry.

American citizens elect leaders to make and enforce laws, pursuant to the Constitution.  These laws only matter – and civil society only truly exists – if they are enforced.  The federal government determines who will be admitted, when and under what conditions.  Immigrants cannot – under any circumstances – legally impose themselves on our political community, particularly in the ignoring of express laws.

Yet here come these promise-anything, give-away-the-nation candidates, indifferent to history, law and logic, apparently untroubled by rising social, political, economic and moral costs imposed by their de facto “open borders” policy, an invitation to illegals to violate U.S. law.  To a one, these Democratic candidates are complicit in advancing lawlessness, knowingly or recklessly upending rule of law.

How can any of them seriously desire to take an oath of office to be President of the United States, solemnly swearing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and federal laws, while knowingly advocating lawlessness?  Who would trust any of them to protect us?

One can debate motives – whether the aim is to empower a growing mass of illegal aliens to vote for Democrats who buy votes with public money, or another hard-to-discern motive – but the bigger question is how any candidate can advocate lawlessness while seeking the presidency.


To put a point on it:  Someone – and in 17 months it will be the voters – need to hold these bold advocates of lawless immigration accountable.  Laws, borders, sovereignty, and enforcement either matter, or they do not.  Most Americans believe they do, and that this is what civil society is about.

It is actually reasonable to believe that this lawlessness being promoted by these Democrat presidential candidates could if implemented formally and continued “could” lead to some type of internal war — maybe not with tanks and fighter jets, but with National Guard units and Marshall Law. And if that should develop, who could rule out an Armageddon?

There are plenty of other strange legal, political, and economic theories being advocated, but if we cannot agree that laws matter, that rule of law counts, that enforcing federal immigration laws is central to our existence as a nation, who are we?

More precisely, who are these people who fight to lead – if they do not believe in our laws, liberties, limits and protecting lives of American citizens?  Simple questions often produce sobering answers.

Will we see an Armageddon if a Democrat wins the White House? Who can say? One thing I’m certain of: Americans do NOT want a nation without laws.


Hi, Andrew

Does it seem to you that there’s no real conversation anymore? People stick with like people or just go straight to social media or just ignore others all the time. It’s rare to see a big table of friends in the evening eating, drinking, laughing, and sharing their life’s experiences with each other. But you see everyday people sitting alone in Starbucks or Panera with a laptop and smartphone that they’re glued to.

It bugs me that people prefer to send texts more than to making a phone call. Just in practicality, making a phone call would be much better: you can “say” the same thing you’re going to text so much faster. Why not just call? After all, it’s hard for the person on the other end to understand your state-of-mind in a text. That’s pretty easy to do on a call.

Our social discourse has just changed. It’s changed in every way. It may have started at Starbucks, but it’s found its way into our homes. And it’s changing the way we treat each other: husband with a wife and vice versa, parents to kids and kids to their parents, and all in discourse with their friends, fellow workers, and even extended family members. And it’s not a good change.

I think what is happening in social media and satellite television and the internet have become the replacements in our lives for personal interactions — especially between parents and children. Diversions multiply in number almost daily.

When we were kids, we played in the dirt, grabbed a beat-up baseball and bat and marked off bases and home plate in the dirt and played a pickup game of baseball every day! We put clothespins on playing cards on our bicycle spokes to make it sound like a motor scooter and were inseparable from our “buds.” When the sun went away and we had to go home, Mom had dinner prepared to die for already set at the dinner table. We as a family sat around that table, recounted the day’s dramas, and talked about whatever was on the television on those only three channels: NBC, CBS, and ABC. And our parents’ politics were our politics. Why? We didn’t know any other.

Who would ever think we’d get cross with our parents after we left home, got educated, and found out how little our parents knew about the “real” world that we lived in. It’s funny how the older kids get how much smarter their parents get.

But kids today get their social interactions, social skills, and politics from social media. Forget about Mom and Dad — they know nothing! And for this generation, Cuomo, Cooper, Colbert, and JayZ have all the political perspective kids need to know everything about politics. Mom and Dad are really stupid on that topic.

Pause for a second and read the following letter written by one of those “kids” about his father to a social columnist. the short letter will certainly resonate with you. The response may turn on a lightbulb in your head.


I’m writing because I just can’t deal with my father anymore. He’s a 65-year-old super right-wing conservative who has basically turned into a total asshole intent on ruining our relationship and our planet with his politics. I’m more or less a liberal democrat with very progressive values and I know that people like my dad are going to destroy us all. I don’t have any good times with him anymore. All we do is argue. When I try to spend time with him without talking politics or discussing any current events, there’s still an underlying tension that makes it really uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong, I love him no matter what, but how do I explain to him that his politics are turning him into a monster, destroying the environment, and pushing away the people who care about him?

Thanks for your help,
Son of A Right-Winger

Dear Son of A Right-Winger,

Go back and read the opening sentences of your letter. Read them again. Then read the rest of your letter. Then read it again. Try to find a single instance where you referred to your dad as a human being, a person, or a man. There isn’t one. You’ve reduced your father — the person who created you — to a set of beliefs and political views and how it relates to you. And you don’t consider your dad a person of his own standing — he’s just “your dad.” You’ve also reduced yourself to a set of opposing views and reduced your relationship with him to a fight between the two. The humanity has been reduced to nothingness and all that’s left in its place is an argument that can never really be won. And even if one side did win, it probably wouldn’t satisfy the deeper desire to be in a state of inflamed passionate conflict.

The world isn’t being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist — the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they’re truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love. We must not let this happen.

At its best, politics is able to organize extremely complex world views into manageable and communicable systems so they can be grappled with and studied abstractly. But even the noblest efforts to organize the world are essentially futile. The best we can usually achieve is a crude and messy map of life from one particular vantage point, featuring a few grids, bullet points, and sketches of its various aspects and landmarks. Anything as infinitely complex as life, reality, and the human experience can never be summed up or organized in a definitive system, especially one based on “left or right,” “A or B,” “us or them.” This is the fatal flaw of binary thinking in general. However, this flaw isn’t just ignored, it’s also embraced, amplified, and deliberately used as a weapon on the very people who think it’s benefiting their way of thinking.

Human beings crave order and simplicity. We cling to the hope that someday if we really refine our world view and beliefs, we can actually find the fully correct way to think — the absolute truth and final side to stand on. People and systems craving power take advantage of this desire and pit us against each other using a “this or that” mentality. The point is to create unrest, disagreement, resentment, and anger — a population constantly at war with itself, each side deeply believing that the other is not just wrong, but also a sincere threat to their very way of life and survival. This creates constant anxiety and distraction — the perfect conditions for oppression. The goal of this sort of politics is to keep people held down and mesmerized by a persistent parade of seemingly life-or-death debates, each one worth all of our emotional energy and primal passion.

But the truth is, the world has always been and always will be on the brink of destruction. And what keeps it from actually imploding is our love for life and our deep-seated desire not to die. Our love for our own life is inextricably connected to our love of all life and the miracle of this phenomenon we call “the world.” We must give all of ourselves credit every day for keeping things going. It’s an incredible achievement to exist at all.

So we must protect and respect each other, no matter how hard it feels. No matter how wrong someone else may seem to us, they are still human. No matter how bad someone may appear, they are truly no worse than us. Our beliefs and behavior don’t make us fundamentally better than others, no matter how satisfying it is to believe otherwise. We must be tireless in our efforts to see things from the point of view we most disagree with. We must make endless efforts to try and understand the people we least relate to. And we must at all times force ourselves to love the people we dislike the most. Not because it’s nice or because they deserve it, but because our own sanity and survival depends on it. And if we do find ourselves pushed into a corner where we must kill others in order to survive, we must fully accept that we are killing people just as fully human as ourselves, and not some evil abstract creatures.

Love your dad because he’s your father, because he made you, because he thinks for himself, and most of all because he is a person. Have the strength to doubt and question what you believe as easily as you’re so quick to doubt his beliefs. Live with a truly open mind — the kind of open mind that even questions the idea of an open mind. Don’t feel the need to always pick a side. And if you do pick a side, pick the side of love. It remains our only real hope for survival and has more power to save us than any other belief we could ever cling to.


In closing, I need to say this: “Naaay…he said it all.”