Category: Elections

It’s Groundhog Day — Again!

October 17, 2019

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) https://truthnewsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-House-Schedule.pdf

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.

Summary

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.

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Democrat Hatred For “Trump 77”

October 4, 2019

Remember the famous chants by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) in public meetings that started immediately after Donald Trump’s inauguration? It started in something of a benign fashion, but it took off. Now you’ll see small rallies of her supporters screaming at the top of their lungs, “Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Impeach 45!” 

Obviously, Trump is the 45th President of the United States. But Ms. Waters’ chants “Impeach 45” are not really what Democrats are angry about. Certainly, they want him gone. But the “Impeach 45” chant had nothing to do with Donald Trump as president. It solely relates to the number “77.”

What’s the significance of the number “77?”

77: The Perfect Number

Let’s eliminate what is NOT the number 77:

  • 77 is not the number of people in the House of Representatives — 435
  • 77 is not the number of people in the U.S. Senate — 100
  • 77 is not the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices — 9
  • 77 is not Donald Trump’s age when he was elected — 70 (pretty close!)
  • 77 is not the number of voters in the electoral college — 538
  • 77 is not the U.S. interstate highway through Washington (I-95) or Manhattan — I-78 (pretty close!)
  • 77 is not the number of Democrat Party 2020 Candidates — a couple of dozen or so
  • 77 is not the number of golf courses Donald Trump’s company owns — 16
  • 77 is not the number of hotels Donald Trump’s company owns — 11

We could go on and on with this. There are many things that are NOT related to number 77 and Donald Trump. To our knowledge, there is only one number 77 that pertains to Candidate Trump/President Trump.

What is it?

77 was the margin of victory in the electoral college by which Donald J. Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential election over Hillary Clinton: 304 to 227. (Note: Not all members of the electoral college voted for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton: 3 were cast for Colin Powell, 1 for “Faith Spotted Owl,” and 3 for Bernie Sanders)

What’s the big deal?

The answer to that is quite simple: though there are 44 previously elected presidents who won their elections by a larger electoral college tally than did Donald Trump, there is no more historically surprising presidential election electoral college result than that of Mr. Trump. And it set the world on fire — at least all those who voted the other way. But it’s the votes of those 77 that launched a hate-demonstration that began immediately after the election and continues to this day some 2 1/2 years later. Those 77 voters (in the minds of Democrats) attacked the very fiber of the Nation by voting against Hillary Clinton. Those 77 obviously did not understand the historical purpose of the 2016 election. What part of the Nation’s fabric was attacked by those 77? In the minds of Democrats is the automatic right for Ms. Clinton to carry-on with the processes, some that were public, some that were secret — of President Barack Obama during his eight years at the top of the U.S. Government. Apparently, those 77 plus their counterparts who voted the same way felt differently than did Democrats.

But isn’t that what democratic elections are supposed to be about? The angst of Democrats for the choice of those 77 should be levied against all 304 who voted against Hillary Clinton (and for Bernie Sanders, Colin Powell, and “Faith Spotted Owl”) if you support that line of reason. But the will of the people has no necessarily direct relation to any political party — unless the majority of those people feel that party’s specific way. And their preference constitutionally always carries the day. That is as it should be.

If we somehow change that process, so will the process put in place by our forefathers that they carefully and meticulously crafted to lash out against the exact  mob-rule control held in Europe that today’s Democrats support: “the majority rules.” To embrace that is to denigrate, de-humanize, and deprive voters in the minority of even having any constitutional election rights. To embrace that negates the substance of our foundation pillar — that of a Constitutional Representative Republic.

Americans chose the latter and overwhelmingly still do.

I remember watching with my parents on a black and white television the results of the Nixon-J.F.K. election. I remember that the election went the way my parents did not feel was the right way. But instead of adopting today’s presidential candidate’s followers reactions, my parents, their friends that felt the same way along with millions of other Americans gave not a single thought to lashing out at the winner, the process, the Constitution, or the Rule of Law. More than the results of any presidential election, they were committed to our country, its laws, its political processes, its Congress, and its president regardless of party affiliation. My parents both wept as we watched John John Kennedy stand stoically in a stiff salute to the flag-draped coffin holding his father as it rolled by on its way to Arlington Cemetery. That day, that year, that decade, the only thing that mattered about John F. Kennedy to Americans was that he was assassinated. That was wrong — everyone, regardless of party, thought that assassination was wrong. Differ from his policies, many did. But he was still our President. And to all those millions of American patriots who chose another candidate, that’s all that mattered to them, too.

So what’s happened? Compared to all the elements surrounding JFK’s 1960 election victory over Republican Richard Nixon, today’s elections and all the hoopla associated with them are equal to the bombing and aftermath of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There’s no civility. There’s no reasoning. In debates, the overriding objective of every candidate is to destroy their opponents in front of cameras beaming into 200+ million American homes. It’s seldom about policy positions and applicable facts surrounding those positions. Personal attacks and even non-stop attempts to with “political narrative” that is seldom truthful but always demonstrative and loud, denigrate each opponent in ways that scare to death half of all Americans looking-in. Politicians have either lost the ability to make themselves look and sound a better choice for voters based on policies and instead just make sure every voter knows for certain their opponents are the scum of the Earth.

Summary

What did our founding fathers feel about the vitriolic demeanor they felt would sneak into the politics of America? Why did they feel it would do that? It’s because they fought it then and felt we should now:

“If we do not learn to sacrifice small differences of opinion, we can never act together. Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his own opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals but not a society.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, 23 July 1801

“The spirit of party opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.“
     ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, 19 September 1796.

  • “We must indeed hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately.” Ben Franklin, 4 July 1996
  • ”Clean your finger before pointing it at others.” Ben Franklin
  • “Love your enemies, for they tell you your fault.” Ben Franklin

I know, I know: I’m holding out hope for impossibilities in this regard. But what I am absolutely certain of is if Congress does not find ways to bridge differences and work together for the specific needs of all Americans, our nation is doomed to the eventual fate predicted by Thomas Jefferson. And that is that democracies typically fall apart after about 200 years. His was a prediction based on history. Based on that history, the U.S. is about 55 years into borrowed time.

Could this be the beginning of the end? It could be, but it certainly does not have to be. If it is to be Armageddon for America, it will be because of the choice of the American majority to allow it.

Some who are partners of TruthNewsNetwork remember when I predicted before Donald Trump formally declared his bid for president that if he ran, he would win. I did not say that because I’m a partisan Republican hack or that I despised Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or, for that matter, anyone. First, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m a registered voter not tied to either party. For those of you in Rush Limbaugh’s fairytale city of Rio Linda, California, that means I’m a registered Independent. My prediction was not politically based nor was it politically motivated. I’m an entrepreneur, a longtime company owner of a company I founded in 1992, an employer of many people serving many clients, some large, some small. I have 27 years of working with people — fellow Americans — who come from every walk of life. I’m a lifelong Christian who believes in honesty, integrity, communicating peacefully whenever possible, and caring for the needs of others even when those needs do not align with my perspectives on life and may believe others’ needs may be largely because of their own poor decisions. I honestly felt at the time that Donald Trump was and is that kind of person — well maybe minus several of the above traits I wish he had. But, you know what? When I made that prediction, I did not think that I needed (or even could) vote for Jesus Christ: He wasn’t in the race! Donald Trump was the next best choice for me because I felt and still feel he puts the needs and welfare of his fellow Americans above the two most important things all American politicians need to copy: their personal selves and their personal political ideologies.

In living life every day, politics is really just a small piece of the puzzle that they have to align in their lives each day. And only politicians and political hacks have the luxury of being able to think politics is more than that.

A quick note in closing: Tomorrow — Saturday — you will see our Bullet Points for this week so those of you who are interested in the behind-the-scenes of the most important stories of the week that you may have missed, you can get them in short-form. Sunday, we’ll be right back in the saddle with Ukraine-Gate, Impeachment Gate, and Pelosi-Schiff Gate. Don’t miss any of it!

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

I’m Sick and Tired!

October 3, 2019

Ten years ago I created a website titled “SickAndTired.com.” Its sole purpose was to allow me to vent regarding craziness in government and in life in general that had very little if any plausible explanations for existing. After six months or so I discontinued it. Why? Certainly not because instances of craziness stopped or lessened in number. It was because documenting the craziness I saw around me did nothing but give me more heartburn and fury when I recalled and wrote about them! But as much as I’d like, it’s impossible to ignore craziness in the governance of our country. It is never more obvious than in tracking Congressional actions on a day-to-day basis. And this “impeachment inquiry” as House Speaker Pelosi and friends have termed it falls into the category of the same craziness that prompted me to start that website.

There is no doubt that impeachment plays a large and vital role in the U.S. government. It was devised by a group of guys who had just fled a European government in which the ultimate authority was always a King and his cohorts. Honesty, fairness, truthfulness, and integrity were necessary for everyone under that government and its laws — except the King and others of his posse. The average guy on the street who worked hard to just feed a family had to abide by different rules. Our forefathers righted that with the finest and longest-lasting nation’s constitution: ours.

The Constitution sets the framework for 100% of the operations of our government — PERIOD! There are guidelines for every part of government operation. In the case where items pop-up that were not anticipated in the late 1700s when it was written, the Constitution includes provisions for altering the original existing rules. Just as important as are the rules themselves are the rules that govern the process to change those rules. That is called “amending” the Constitution.

My angst today centers around the current House of Representative’s actions initiated regarding impeachment. But it’s not for impeachment itself. It is a result of the process for doing so that has consumed the Nation. We saw it first with the Mueller Investigation. We saw the process of an elite class of people who wrestled control of governing away from the core process from the Constitution that was non-existent in those European governments but necessary for the success of America. Let’s dig in.

The Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is the complete structure of the process of creating laws by and for the people of a nation, implementing those laws evenly across the entire body of its citizens, holding every person in the country governed by those laws equally according to the law, and a process for each time there are disputes by either the government or its constituents to address those disputes fairly and impartially. That’s how our founders came up with the three co-equal branches of government: The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, each with specific tasks.

So what’s the problem today? Primarily, one segment of the Legislative branch has seized control of the process for enforcing laws fairly and equally among all Americans. And they are without authority, re-writing the “Rule of Law” as it is set forth in the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it: there have been and always will be disputes among lawmakers and those who live by laws and those who are legally obligated to enforce laws. But it has never been more obvious than it is now. This “impeachment inquiry” initiated in the House by Speaker Pelosi and a close circle of her fellow Democrats is the most egregious example of the abuse of the Rule of Law I have ever witnessed. It is best described in this manner:

  • Ordinarily, when a crime is committed, law enforcement is empowered to and then responsible to find any wrongdoers, then to bring those people to the Judicial branch to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. Of course, the wrongdoer who is guaranteed “equal treatment under the law” is entitled to a legal defense to present evidence and witness testimony that disputes the claim or claims of wrongdoing. The Constitution guarantees that every person is “innocent until proven guilty,” called the presumption of innocence.” 
  • Then members of the Judicial branch — attorneys and/or juries comprised of ordinary citizens randomly selected — examine all the evidence, ask questions and obtain answers, and then reach a conclusion, or a verdict.
  • In the case of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” punishment, as defined in applicable laws for that wrongdoing, is meted out and the wrongdoer receives the legal sentence. Sometimes sentences are fines, sometimes jail, sometimes both, and sometime exoneration.

It sounds simple, doesn’t it? The framers of the Constitution purposely made it that way so as to protect citizens against the type of top-down unfairness they had lived under in Europe. The premise is that in a fair society, no government or representative of the government should hold a right that supersedes the rights of citizens over which they govern. That is what has been turned inside out by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and other Democrats in leadership in the House of Representatives. What we are witnessing is a copycat — albeit updated historically — of the Salem Witch Trials. What were they?

The infamous Salem witch trials began during the spring of 1692, after a group of young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts, claimed to be possessed by the devil and accused several local women of witchcraft. As a wave of hysteria spread throughout colonial Massachusetts, a special court convened in Salem to hear the cases; the first convicted witch, Bridget Bishop, was hanged that June. Eighteen others followed Bishop to Salem’s Gallows Hill, while some 150 more men, women and children were accused over the next several months. By September 1692, the hysteria had begun to abate and public opinion turned against the trials. Though the Massachusetts General Court later annulled guilty verdicts against accused witches and granted indemnities to their families, bitterness lingered in the community, and the painful legacy of the Salem witch trials would endure for centuries.

Don’t get me wrong: no one is demanding the burning at the stake of anyone — yet. But the hatred and animus for President Trump has deteriorated daily since the day of the 2016 election. The question that must be asked and then answered is simple: Why the hatred from Democrats for Donald Trump?

The Crime

A crime committed is required to initiate any legal investigation regarding finding a perpetrator or perpetrators who commited that crime, their motives, and the crime’s details. In this case, let’s list the crimes that have been committed that have implicated President Trump that could instigate an impeachment process. Here they are:

  1. He’s not “presidential!
  2. He’s a narcissist!
  3. Democrats don’t like him!
  4. He’s arrogant!

There never was a crime by Mr. Trump or any member of his campaign that had anything to do with him that was discovered by the exhaustive investigative team compiled by Robert Mueller in a 3-year, $30-$40 million investigation!

Democrats in locked-step have sniffed for 2+ years to find some dirt sufficient in content to justify impeachment. The more they investigate, the angrier they get. They cannot find Donald Trump wrongdoing.

The latest ploy on their part is a telephone call between the President and Ukriaine’s President Zelensky. Dems were shocked when President Trump released the full call transcript to the public immediately. We all saw and read it. There was absolutely no wrongdoing by Mr. Trump in any part of that call — period. But that only prompted radical Democrats to turn up the heat. In the aftermath of the transcript release, they have gone wild.

I personally believe they planned on using the whistleblower claim from someone who appears to not be a whistleblower at all based on the statute defining it, but is apparently a plant to implicate the President in the interactions with the president of Ukraine. When they drew a blank on that, they not only didn’t stop with their rhetoric and claims, but they increased the lies about the call’s content and the veiled obstruction actions by our President.

Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff— the two impeachment sycophants —held a press conference on Wednesday in which they laid out a case to justify their actions in their unrealistic impeachment “inquiry.” It was easy to see that in Pelosi’s case, she was rattled in the presser because she struggled in her attempts to chide media members to ask her questions that would show she is intent on other legislative matters besides impeachment. She finally achieved getting one such question asked. All the media wanted to discuss was impeachment.

Not long after that press conference, FOX News reported this:

A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff’s panel before filing a complaint — prompting President Trump, in an extraordinary afternoon press conference at the White House, to directly accuse Schiff of helping write the document.

It shows that Schiff is a fraud. … I think it’s a scandal that he knew before,” Trump said, as the president of Finland stood at an adjacent podium. “I’d go a step further. I’d say he probably helped write it. … That’s a big story. He knew long before, and he helped write it too. It’s a scam.”

Summary

Before I summarize today’s story, let me say this: until further notice, TruthNewsNetwork will present on a specific schedule. There is NO doubt that Democrats are hell-bent on impeachment and will dominate national news each day until the impeachment threats die away just as did their Russian collusion and Trump Obstruction of Justice contrived stories have. Therefore, each weekday until further notice, we will concentrate on all daily news items you may have missed surrounding this impeachment process. Our Saturday headline bulletpoints will continue each week. Sundays we will either post a story and podcast about some other important to you topics OR — if current news demands it — we’ll do another impeachment update. I hope that will asist you in managing your time, knowing how our reporting schedule will go.

To quote President Trump, this impeachment inquiry is nothing but another chapter in the “Do-nothing Democrat Party Witch Hunt.” It’s amazing that the Media still thumb their noses at real news that includes the great progress that has been made in the U.S. in just three years of the Trump presidency opting to cover “dirt” on Mr. Trump that is “dirt” that does not even exist. It makes me ask this question: “Who watches, listens, and absorbs their non-stop fact-vacant news reports? Based on CNN’s ratings, they have fewer than a million evening viewers. That’s one million or less from a country of 350 million people. That’s not a wide reach by anyone’s definition.

Where will this all go? The facts are being revealed hour by hour. Even as you read or listen to this, new information has been revealed that is all relevant to the facts regarding the sham investigation the Democrats keep alive.

Yes, I think (barring some unforeseen upsetting horror about Mr. Trump being released) the House will push through with his impeachment. No, the Senate will absolutely not in an impeachment trial find President Trump guilty of any wrong-doing. But they’ll certainly keep it ramped-up.

As a side note, I have a thought as to why they have pushed this so hard to be initiated and completed in such a short period of time. Aparently the Inspector General’s report on his findings of all of the unlawful and/or unscrupulous spying on the Trump Campaign during the 2016 election is to be released any day. Further, it is rumored to be full of damning evidence on many from the Obama Administration, including former Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice, several Democrat members of Congress, former CIA Director John Brennan, DNI Director James Clapper, a gaggle of high level FBI and DOJ people, Hillary and Bill Clinton and staff at the Clinton Foundation, and various others. Democrats want the angst against Trump to be at a fever pitch when that IG report is released to distract from the information contained in that upcoming report.

Buckle in: It is already and will only increase in intensity and drama in Washington. It’s going to be a wild ride!

 

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

When Truth Isn’t “The” Truth

October 2, 2019

It comes as no surprise to Americans when a politician is implicated in telling lies. That in itself is troubling. It also may be the reason that polls of Americans continuously show favorability ratings of members of Congress hover close to single digits. Why would that fact not prompt Congress to ask questions to find out why this has happened and then take corrective steps to change it? So why don’t they? As a whole, they don’t care!

Why Don’t They Care?

That alone should shock politicians and cause them to act. But because they don’t care there’s no reason for them to act. One would think that their bosses would kick them out of office at the polling booth. But they don’t because they make the rules and operate as members of Congress in total disregard of how their actions impact Americans. They control their own pay, their benefits, their work schedules, vacations, etc. When an employee (and they are employees “of the People”) controls their own compensation and can vote themselves pay raises and benefits, why should they even care what their bosses think?

Don’t get me wrong, there are many who DO care. But it seems when members of Congress are invited to take a spot in leadership, their concern for their bosses diminishes greatly. They can then virtually ignore what they choose to ignore. Their bosses become the Congressional leadership above them and no one else.

We’re seeing this culture of dumbing-down the truth and ignoring responsibility as it plays out at the next level. Former Vice President Joe Biden who served a long time in the U.S. Senate and was in leadership then is now front-and-center in a scandal of presidential candidate proportions. He has simply been outed for his untruths. It’s not the first time. Mr. Biden has been a presidential candidate before. He previously left the campaign trail when he was caught in lies.

During the 1988 Presidential election, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden was accused of mimicking a speech that British Labour Party Neil Kinnock delivered just four months prior.

Kinnock’s speech included the following lines:

Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Pointing to his wife in the audience:] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?

While Biden said:

I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? [Pointing to his wife in the audience:] Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I’m the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?

The vice president was forced to withdraw from the presidential race after Maureen Dowd of the New York Times exposed his plagiarized speech. Allegations followed that Biden lifted parts of other speeches from Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, and JFK.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a White House summit on climate change October 19, 2015 in Washington, DC. Biden remains at the center of rumors regarding a potential campaign for the U.S. presidency. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Many said then and say today, “What he did was not tell lies. He simply embellished the truth.” This is where many today in Washington are living regarding what they say and do. They have found ways to reconcile telling lies as being “their” Truth and not necessarily “the” Truth.

Let’s be transparent there: there is no such thing as “my” Truth and “your” Truth. Truth is absolute with no footnotes necessary for explanations.

The very latest in Washington is “Ukraine-Gate.” We’ve reported on it extensively. It’s worth mentioning today simply because the Democrats have chosen to use “Ukraine-Gate” as the final straw in the determination of whether or not it is appropriate and timely to impeach President Trump. “Ukraine-Gate” is simply another chapter in the Collusion Illusion created by Democrats. First, it was collusion with Russia. Now it’s collusion with Ukraine.

The fact that Ukraine is part of Democrats’ impeachment arsenal forced Joe Biden back into the discussion. So is his credibility and truthfulness — or lack of. Biden was Instrumental as a player in a major deal involving a Ukrainian oligarch, the former Ukraine President, and Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. And there’s a bunch of money involved. Implications are presidential candidate Biden forced Ukraine to discontinue an investigation of the Ukrainian company that Hunter Biden was involved with as a board member. This happened during the Obama Administration.

When the allegations of the V.P.’s wrongdoing appeared, he was questioned extensively by reporters about his involvement. Biden has insisted he is innocent. But, in Iowa campaigning recently, Biden was asked what part he took in the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating corruption in the company Hunter Biden was a member of the Board. The former V.P. responded:

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said. “Here’s what I know. Trump should be investigated.”

“You should be looking at Trump,” Biden told reporters in Des Moines shortly after arriving at the Polk County Steak Fry, an annual Democratic fundraiser. “He’s doing this because he knows I’ll beat him like a drum. And he’s using an abuse of power and every element of the presidency to try to smear me … Ask the right questions.”

Where’s the beef with that?  The problem is that yesterday, a picture was discovered that counters Joe Biden’s comments on the campaign trail while in Iowa:

In this 2014 photo, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, are seen golfing with Ukraine gas company executive, Devon Archer, in the Hamptons. At the time, Archer and Hunter served on the board of Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings. The photo emerged just a week after it was revealed that President Donald Trump prodded Ukraine’s president to help him investigate Biden.

Who can honestly claim that Joe Biden — a masterful communicator and negotiator for many years in Congress — would NOT in this setting discuss business dealings with Devon Archer, Burisma Holdings partner, and Hunter Biden while together for four or five hours for a friendly round of golf? President Trump has proven since the beginning of his presidency that playing golf for political purposes with political people is a great place to negotiate! In fact, Mr. Trump has been scorched in the media for playing too much golf.

Summary

Is that picture proof that Joe Biden lied on the campaign trail? Honestly, the only people that can possibly truthfully answer that question were the members of the foursome pictured together. That could prompt a really difficult conundrum that politicians use again and again to justify wrongdoing: “Yes, I was with them. But all we discussed was Tiger Wood’s come back for four hours.” No one can actually counter that factually but those four. But isn’t that the same as seeing a rattlesnake on the ground next to a friend that was bitten by a snake a few moments ago and when the friend says, “That rattlesnake just bit me!” your saying, “I don’t know about that. I didn’t see him bite you!”

Saying that is preposterous. And Joe Biden’s wailing away in the media about there being no wrongdoing on his part and for the press to go after Donald Trump is shocking. Why? Because Joe Biden is sharper than that! He’s a 30-year member of Congress. He knows how to manipulate the Press. And, he has every day in Congress and as Vice President has simply followed the Washington D.C. Democrat process of handling the dissemination of the press: put out en masse the positions of the Party on all applicable matters for them to distribute. Biden’s too smart to think that Americans are buying the golf thing for just golf. And Americans certainly are sharp enough to laugh at his statement that he has never spoken to Hunter about his overseas work ventures.

Let’s cut to the chase: What topic was most likely at this golf outing? The things that are beneficial to all. And if a board member of a Ukraine gas company which Biden saved from a corruption investigation is “What’s in it for me?” Don’t shake your head! It’s Washington D.C. — that’s normal.

What we say in Louisiana — as unsophisticated as we are down here — is “When it quacks and waddles it’s almost always a duck!” In this case, Mr. Biden, for reasonable people it is safe to say, ya’ll are waddling and quacking in that picture.

The only question: “Who bought lunch?”

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“Medicare for All:” Where Are the Details?

August 26, 2019

Why haven’t any of the nearly two-dozen Democrat presidential candidates who are daily screaming on the campaign trail about the absolute necessity of “Medicare for All” given us a PowerPoint presentation showing exactly what we will get with their single-payer program? More importantly, why haven’t they used that same PowerPoint presentation to show us exactly what it will cost and how we will pay for it? The answers are simple: “The Government will pay!” Sure…

We found out a long time ago when a person already in office (and especially one already in office who wishes to remain in office) promises one of the myriads of government goodies we’ll all receive if they remain-in or get voted-into office never gives us any of the details because they don’t want us to know the details! That certainly is the case with Medicare for All. But guess what: we have the proof of what Medicare for All as proposed already in Congress will include. Wanna see? Straight from the horse’s mouth:

Single-Payer/Medicare for All Details

First, and probably most important is that it would wipe the healthcare payer slate clean and create an entirely new program of funding healthcare.

If it became law, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill would move 325 million Americans into a new health insurance program. Gone would be Medicaid, Medicare (as we know it), private coverage like Blue Cross and employer-sponsored insurance.

Currently about 74 million people on Medicaid (23 percent of people covered in the U.S.) are using healthcare, and the doctors and hospitals caring for them are losing lots of money. It’s not unusual for a medical provider to lose between 22 and 40 cents on each dollar’s worth of care they deliver to the 74 million people on Medicaid. If we moved the entire country to Medicaid payment levels, we would expect a lot of medical capacity to disappear, virtually overnight. And you can imagine the effect that would have on safety, quality and accessibility.

A Medicaid for all plan would be impossible because of cost for services to implement. Why? With reimbursement levels so low, even decent healthcare providers would run from that profession. We’d have to find another plan that might be more palatable to the industry.

Replacing these payers would require a single government entity that we would all be enrolled into (no choice about it) and is designed to replace our current healthcare experience with a risk-free, premium-free, deductible-free, copayment free, co-insurance free, out-of-pocket cost-free experience. In this proposed system referred to as “Medicare For All” you could access healthcare whenever you want without paying a dime.

So it we really wipe the healthcare cost slate clean as well except for those paid in total or in part by the government. It would mean the federal healthcare entity that would be charged with operating Medicare for All would have to find $3 trillion dollars for year one of the program and that amount would increase slightly each year going forward. Where would that $3 trillion come from? From government revenue paid to the government in taxes. So how are the current dollars spent on healthcare costs distributed between government, private insurance, and self-pay?

  • Private insurance premiums paid by individuals, families, and employers pay all the medical costs for those insured plus 31%. That 31% goes to partially fund Medicare and Medicaid costs.
  • Medicare employee and employer payroll deductions pay for 89% of providers costs.
  • Medicaid provider costs are 100% paid by federal and state governments.

It is important to note that only 9% of uninsured patient bills ever get paid, which means providers are required to underwrite 91% of those costs. These number seem pretty bleak and comprise a mighty hill that must be climbed in this healthcare finance debate. Maybe that’s why none of the candidates are talking about these details!

How Do We Pay For Medicare for All?

Know this for certain: there’s a reason none of the candidates have in any way broached on this subject during campaigning. No matter what solution is offered, its reality is horrible for American taxpayers.

If private insurance were removed, then all that money you are paying in premiums, deductibles, co- pays, coinsurance and max out-of-pocket costs would have to be converted into taxes so the federal government can keep healthcare going for all 325 million of us. All the money will become a tax — on you, on your boss and on every transaction you ever make. You could end up buying healthcare every time you buy anything else. And you can forget about the massive pre-tax benefits everyone who gets healthcare from their job enjoys today. That’s $250 billion a year that you and your employer save in taxes now that would also be converted into taxes and collected.

Who reading this today relishes the thought of us paying the federal government to not only fund but to manage our entire healthcare system? I shudder to think that would ever happen. I don’t know of a single entity on Earth more inept and more corrupt in handling tax dollars AND managing any operational processes than the federal government! As you contemplate the federal government running all of healthcare, factor into your thinking these quotes from a report by the Government Accountability Office on our existing government-funded healthcare, just so you can see how their OWN scorekeepers think they are doing today:

On Medicaid:

“With estimated improper payments totaling more than $36 billion (9% leakage) in federal dollars in fiscal year 2016, CMS needs to improve the effectiveness of its program integrity efforts to help identify and prevent improper payments, such as payments for non-covered services or services that were billed for but never provided.”

On Medicare:

“…it is clear that fraud contributes to Medicare’s fiscal problems. More broadly, in fiscal year 2013, CMS estimated that improper payments… were almost $50 billion (9% leakage).”

Summary

Here’s what NO one is talking about: we do NOT need to replace or even repair our “healthcare.” What needs to be tweaked is our “healthcare funding system,” leaving actual healthcare alone. By messing with the structure of the entire system will almost immediately destroy the amazing healthcare in the U.S.

So what can we do? What should we do?

We published a detailed plan in two parts titled “The ONLY Fix for Healthcare that will Work” in two parts on July 19 and July 20, 2017. I encourage you to take a few minutes and go back and read these.

In short, it’s certainly time now for these Democrat candidates to explain details of this concept as well as the concepts floated for the “Green New Deal” and free college tuition as well as government paying for all outstanding college debt. The candidates should never e too busy to explain details on anything and everything they promise.

There are some that will cringe when I say this: Donald Trump from his campaign promises has delivered more in his first two years in office than has any other president in U.S. history. That still gives no pass to him or any other 2020 candidate from giving Americans details of their proposals.

One thing we are slammed with by these single payer proponents is “It works in Scandinavia, so why can’t it work here?” Denmark is their “poster” system for single payer healthcare and overall socialism to which they point. While you’re considering all this, consider this about Denmark:

A school teacher in Denmark makes about $61,000 a year.  In Denmark all education is free.  Doctors and hospitals are free to use and students get paid to learn.  

Denmark’s minimum income tax rate is 40%.  National sales tax there is 25% plus there are government assessed duties and fees.  Gasoline is $10 a gallon.  The purchase of a car is taxed by the government at 180% of the selling price.  A car that sells for $20,000 in the U.S. costs $40,000 in Denmark.

Denmark is the highest taxed nation in the World — taxed an average of 80% of every dollar earned.  Danes have the highest personal debt in the World.  Few own cars or homes.  Anyone who makes over $80,000 a year pays a personal tax of 68%.  Most Danes with higher earning have either found ways to evade the tax or have left the Country, taking companies they own with them.

Denmark’s suicide rate for the past 5 decades has averaged 20.8 per 100,000 people, with a highest rate of 32.  The American suicide rate has averaged 11.1 during the same 5 decades and has never exceeded 12.7.  More than 11% of adult Danes — supposedly the happiest people in the World — are on antidepressants.  Everyone wants the American dream.  In Denmark’s Neo-communist economy, no one will ever own or accomplish anything.

”’Medicare for all’ is not Socialism. We’re just talking about healthcare now,” they respond. Honestly, one requires the other to even have a glimmer of a chance to work.

In their world, $100,000 in income from a job means you get to keep $10,000: that $800 a month.

I’m not ready for that. Are you?

A Democrat 2020 Win = Armageddon

August 21, 2019

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.

Summary

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.

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Is Some Democrat Waiting For The Right Moment?

August 5, 2019
There just doesn’t seem to be “THE” right one — the right Democrat running for President. Two dozen-plus seemed like a good number to begin with. After all, look at the 2016 Republican field of eighteen. The weeding-out process worked pretty well. But it just seems that there is not a “surprise” candidate among these Democrats that has the character and mental constitution to put distance between him or her and the field. They all pretty much seem alike. And they all have fallen in line with the “company line:” promise Americans everything for free.
This go-round, there certainly is no Barack Obama among the group. Don’t forget that Obama picked up and carried the Democrat banner for eight years. Say what you will about the former Illinois Senator, but he knew how to bring people together around common causes. And he brought the Democrat Party together in what seemed to be really easy for him. He was magnetic, a really good speaker, and had a smile that made most feel comfortable. Even though Obama’s two-term vice president Joe Biden is currently the favorite, Joe Biden is NO Barack Obama — no matter how hard Biden tries to make that comparison. Rank-and-file Democrats are desperate for an answer: someone who will — for the lack of a better term — provide Democrats “Obama Part II.”
Who could that possibly be?

The Democrat Party “Savior”

Rush Limbaugh thinks Team Obama may be strategizing a Michelle Obama run for president in 2020.  The radio host said Barack and Michelle are so ticked off that Trump won that they “want back in.”  Limbaugh cited Michelle’s extensive, never-ending book tour as a sign that the Obamas’ lust for power could result in the ever vicious and vengeful former first lady announcing her candidacy.

During a Spring 2019 promotional interview for her book at London’s O2 arena, Mrs. Obama sounded an awful lot like what she sounded like in 2008.  Who can forget Mrs. Obama’s inflated and anti-America rhetoric while campaigning for her husband? Eleven years later, she’s still fixated on Barack’s breaking the color barrier at 1600 Pennsylvania.  Michelle even suggested to the packed house in London that if presidents could run for a third term, Barack would have won in 2016.  No matter, she says, what “happened before” should sustain us for the time being.  Not surprisingly, Michelle didn’t mention the Democratic Party’s Spring flavor of the month, Pete Buttigieg, the candidate Joy Behar is calling the “second coming of Obama.”

Here’s what Michelle speaking in London was quoted as saying, according to Breitbart:

“I have to remind people that Barack Obama was elected twice in the United States. That really did happen[.] … That wasn’t make-believe.  The country actually did accomplish it and half the people who voted in the last election, if they could have, they would have voted for him for a third term. We have to remember that what is happening today is true, but what happened before was also true … that should give us some solace at some level.”

“Besides,” she continued, “for anyone who had any problems with Barack Obama, let’s just think about what we were troubled by — there were never any indictments.”

After reminding her British audience of the eight years Barack Obama was able to avoid being indicted (she failed to add because of a fawning press and the color of his skin), Michelle struck at President Trump via a swipe at “divorced dads.”  Recent Census Bureau child custody statistics indicate that nearly 40 percent of all non-custodial fathers have no access to or visitation rights with their children.  If Michelle Obama has her way, that number will be much higher.  When she was in the White House, the ex-mom-in-chief used to insult her husband and  lecture men “to be better fathers.”  Now she’s trashing millions of divorced American men in order to attack President Trump.  “America, under President Trump, is a ‘broken family,'” she said.

“We are a little unsettled.  Sometimes you spend the weekend with divorced dad.  That feels like fun but then you get sick. That’s what America is going through right now.  We are living with divorced dad.”

It doesn’t dawn on the Harvard law grad that if we are living with a “divorced dad,” President Trump, it is because “Mommy Dearest Barack” was an abusive and unfit parent.  The Great Divorce of 2016 was the best thing that happened to this country.  How many men does she disparage who lost their jobs and their families because of Obama’s economic policies?  How many despairing dads lost their businesses?

Michelle followed up this veiled contempt for dads who have endured the pain of divorce with praise for London’s diversity as compared to American cities.  It looks as though her “for the first time in my life I am proud of my country” anti-America campaign has begun anew:

“I was looking out over the city, London, a beautiful city, and the thing I love about it is truly representative of true international diversity in ways that you don’t see in cities mostly, in particularly even in the United States.”

Mrs. Obama thinks U.S. cities are not diverse enough. From her speeches and remarks about this “racist” country, we can conclude that Michelle thinks there are just too many white people in urban areas.

In recent weeks, many have wondered why Barack Obama has not come to the aid of his former vice president, Joe Biden. On his own speaking tour in Europe, Obama told a town hall group in Germany he’s worried Democratic presidential contenders are becoming too “rigid” and creating “a circular firing squad.”

What Could Trigger a Michelle Run?

Rush Limbaugh is not the only one who feels there’s a good shot that Michelle Obama will ultimately throw her hat into the ring. But Rush thinks certain things will have to happen before she jumps in:

“They will not pull the trigger and get in if they don’t think it is a lock that she would win,” Limbaugh said. “The last thing the Obamas can afford is for Michelle to get in there and not win.”

“One thing to keep in mind that if Michelle does pull the trigger, whatever she pulls to get in there, the money would immediately shift to her because everybody on that side would think that [Barack] Obama and [former Obama senior adviser] Valerie Jarrett are gonna be back in running things and she’s gonna be a figurehead stand-in. That’s what they want anyway.”

“There are days I think it’s automatic that she’s going to and other days, I can’t explain why, that I don’t. I think that they’re gonna be happy becoming hundred million dollar net worth plus people and living the life which is what leftists actually want to do,” Limbaugh explained. “It’s too soon to say.”

“I am convinced that The One (Barack Obama) wants back in. I think The One is sitting there seething over the dismantling of his agenda and the Trump verbal assault on it every day. But he can’t run again.”

Will Michelle Obama get in the 2020 presidential race? No one but Michelle can truthfully answer that question — and she DID, to Oprah Winfrey:

As the mainstream media go all-in for a different Democrat candidate every other day, the Obamas have stepped up their appearances here and overseas.  In general, neither has shown support for any particular candidate.  With Michelle’s venomous attacks on the rise again, Rush might be right about her.

(Our Summary today is via podcast only: it is a P.S. on yesterday’s mass shooting report and story. It’s short — only about 4-5 minutes. Please take a listen.)

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

A “Realist” That is Mostly Conservative

July 26, 2019

Watching Victor Davis Hanson deliver his inspirational and intellectual analysis in a non-partisan way on television sometimes will put you to sleep because of his quiet, non-confrontational delivery. I’ve never seen him deliver anything he says with an “in-your-face” delivery. What’s really amazing is that he never berates anyone. That’s rare today. It seems that political pundits all seem tethered to some specific ideology and their career paths demand their exhibiting specific partisan messages when interviewed on radio or television. Those rules do NOT apply to Mr. Hanson.

Who is he?

Victor Davis Hanson is an American classicist, military historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for National Review, The Washington Times and other media outlets. He is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and was a presidential appointee in 2007–2008 on the American Battle Monuments Commission.

But that’s not all.

Since 2004, Hanson has written a weekly column syndicated by Tribune Content Agency, as well as a weekly column for National Review Online since 2001, and has not missed a weekly column for either venue since he began. He has been published in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, The Daily Telegraph, American Heritage, and The New Criterion, among other publications. He received the  Eric Breindel Prize for opinion journalism (2002), and the William F. Buckley Prize (2015). Hanson was awarded the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award at its annual Churchill Dinner, and the Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in 2008.

We listed his credits so that everyone looking in will not summarily dismiss what he has to say. Part of our purpose in establishing his professional credibility is that he sometimes does special stories on CNN. Although that’s scary, apparently CNN feels obligated to sporadically present to their viewers  somewhat non-confrontational ideas about most of the political issues of the day.

I don’t think he is a Republican. I don’t think he’s a Democrat either. But I KNOW he’s a deep thinker and great reasoner. And his explanations of his opinions in his interviews are never confrontational and always informative.

You get one of those today. Here’s a list for you given to us by Victor Davis Hanson.

“Top 10”

Progressives wonder how in the world could anyone still support President Donald Trump. So here are ten reasons why more than 40% of the electorate probably does — and will.

1. Voters appreciate that the economy is currently experiencing near record-low peacetime unemployment, record-low minority unemployment, and virtual 3% annualized GDP growth. Interest and inflation rates remain low. Workers’ wages increased after years of stagnation. The US is now the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. And gasoline prices remain affordable. The President continues to redress asymmetrical trade with China, as well as with former NAFTA partners and Europe. He jawbones companies to curb offshoring and outsourcing. The current economic recovery and low consumer prices have uplifted millions of middle-class Americans who appreciate the upswing.

2. Trump does not exist in a vacuum. Many supporters turned off by some of his antics are still far more appalled by an emerging radical neo-socialist Democratic agenda. If the alternative to Trump is a disturbing tolerance among some Democrats for anti-Semitism, the Green New Deal, reparations, a permissive approach to abortion even very late in pregnancy, a wealth tax, a 70-90% top income tax rate, the abolition of ICE, open borders, and Medicare for all, Trump’s record between 2017-20 will seem moderate and preferable. Progressives do not fully appreciate how the hysterics and media coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings, the Covington teenagers and the Jussie Smollett psychodrama turned off half the country. Such incidents and their reportage confirmed suspicions of cultural bias, media distortions, and an absence of fair play and reciprocity.

3.Trump can be uncouth and crass. But he has shown an empathy for the hollowed-out interior, lacking from prior Republican and Democratic candidates. His populist agenda explains why millions of once traditional Democratic voters defected in 2016 to him — and may well again in 2020. Some polls counterintuitively suggest that Trump may well win more minority voters than prior Republican presidential candidates.

4. Trump may come across as callous to some, but to others at least genuine. He does not modulate his accent to fit regional crowds, as did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He does not adopt particular outfits at state fairs or visit bowling allies to seek authenticity. Like him or not, his Queens accent, formal attire, odd tan, and wild hair remain the same wherever he goes and speaks. Voters respect that he is at least unadulterated in a way untrue of most politicians. Big Macs convey earthiness in a way arugula does not.

5. Even when Trump has hit an impasse, his supporters mostly continue to believe that he at least keeps trying to meet his promises on taxes, the economy, energy, foreign policy, strict-constructionist judges, and the border. So far his supporters feel Trump has not suffered a “Read my lips” or “You can keep your doctor” moment.

6. Voters are angry over the sustained effort to remove or delegitimize a sitting president. Many of the controversies over Trump result from the inability of Hillary Clinton supporters to accept his shocking victory. Instead they try any means possible to abort his presidency in a way not seen in recent history. Trump voters cringe at such serial but so far unsuccessful efforts to delegitimize the President: the immediate law suits challenging voting machines, the effort to warp the Electoral College voting, initial impeachment efforts, appeals to the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, and the calcified Logan Act, the Mueller investigation that far exceeded and yet may have not met its original mandate to find Russian “collusion,” and the strange Andrew McCabe-Ron Rosenstein failed palace coup. All this comes in addition to a disturbing assassination “chic,” as Madonna, Johnny Depp, Kathy Griffin, Robert DeNiro and dozens of others express openly thoughts of killing, blowing up, or beating up an elected president. The Shorenstein Center at Harvard University has found that mainstream media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in office ranged from 70-90% negative of Trump, depending on the week, an asymmetry never quite seen before seen but one that erodes confidence in the media. Voters are developing a grudging respect for the 72-year-old, less-than-fit Trump who each day weathers unprecedented vitriol and yet does not give up, in the Nietzschean sense of whatever does not kill him, seems to make him stronger.

7. Progressives seemingly do not appreciate historical contexts. By past presidential standards, Trump’s behavior while in the White House has not been characterized by the personal indiscretions of a John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. His language has been blunt, but then so was Harry Truman’s. He can be gross, but perhaps not so much as was Lyndon Johnson. The point is not to use such comparisons to excuse Trump’s rough speech and tweets, but to remind that the present media climate and the electronic age of the Internet and social media, along with general historical ignorance about prior presidencies, have warped objective analysis of Trump, the first president without either prior political office or military service.

8. Globalization enriched the two coasts, while America’s interior was hollowed out. Anywhere abroad muscular labor could be duplicated at cheaper rates, it often was — especially in heavy industry and manufacturing. Trump alone sensed that and appealed to constituencies that heretofore had been libeled by presidents and presidential candidates as “crazies,” “clingers,” “deplorables” and “irredeemables.” Fairly or not, half the country feels that elites, a deep state, or just “they” (call them whatever you will) are both condemnatory and yet ignorant of so-called fly-over country. Trump is seen as their payback.

9. For a thrice-married former raconteur, the Trump first family appears remarkably stable, and loyal. The first lady is winsome and gracious. Despite the negative publicity, daughter Ivanka remains poised and conciliatory. The appearance of stability suggests that if Trump may have often been a poor husband, he was nonetheless a good father.

10. Trump is a masterful impromptu speaker. Increasingly he can be self-deprecatory, and his performances are improving. Even his marathon rallies stay entertaining to about half the country. He handles crowds in the fashion of JFK, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama rather than of a flat Bob Dole, Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.”

The Mueller Debacle: Parts 1 and 2

July 25, 2019

Before the House Judiciary Committee and then before the House Intelligence Committee, Robert Mueller testified (if one can call it that) in Democrat’s pathetic attempt to with their last gasp try to garner support for filing Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. By all accounts, they came away empty-handed.

Sure, there are Democrats that are gloating once again, intimating that Robert Mueller laid out strong evidence from his Report proving that Mr. Trump was/is guilty of obstruction of justice. Honestly, even with a long-arm and a far-reach, I cannot come up with anything at all to support any excitement for the Media. In fact, the few in the Media who have even a shred of credibility remaining sighed sadly to see their already fleeting hope to “get Trump” fade into the sunset as their beacon of justice — Robert Mueller — fumbled to answer most of the questions. Actually, Mr. Mueller proved to many what had been suspected anyway: that he personally performed only minimal investigatory work over the last 2.5 years, relying on those 18 anti-Trump lawyers he made part of his team to do the heavy lifting. That was glaringly apparent as he in both House hearings often looked surprised at several of the questions and simply did not have answers.

I’ll make my prediction right here rather than wait as is normal to release in our summary. Then I’ll get to the point of this writing tonight:

Donald Trump WILL be re-elected in 2020. The only question at this point is how wide will his be margin of victory.

Now that we’ve put that mystery behind us, let’s get to the meat of today’s conversation.

Democrat Party Dysfunction

According to a Gallup poll released in May 2019, here are the top three concerns that will impact registered voters in the 2020 election:

  • Immigration
  • Government Leadership
  • The Economy

Those may change in the next year, but they certainly will play a key factor in the levers voters pull.

Democrats promised voters ahead of the 2018 midterm elections if given control of the House, Democrats would immediately attack EVERY issue important to voters. It is safe to assume their promise included taking care of these three key voter issues.

That has NOT happened.

So what have Democrats done? Rather than simply list their accomplishments, let’s examine first what they have NOT done.

House of Representatives Democrat Control

When a party wins control of either the House or Senate or both, management and control switches to the new party. That applied to the midterm elections: Nancy Pelosi regained her spot as Speaker of the House. Doing so is a REALLY big deal. The Speaker of the House is one of the most powerful individuals in the U.S. government’s legislative branch. The leader of the national House of Representatives and second in the line of succession to the presidency, the speaker sets political agendas and advocates both on Capitol Hill and to the public.

The Speaker of the House’s official role is to lead and represent Congress’s House of Representatives, calling sessions to order and moderating debates on the House floor. However, the speaker spends the majority of her time in meetings and negotiations, planning the chamber’s legislative agenda. The speaker also has the power to appoint the committee and subcommittee chairs. Along with the vice president, the House Speaker is also responsible for signing bills to be presented to the president for signing. For this reason, the speaker often negotiates with the executive branch and can be a powerful force for or against the executive branch’s own political agenda.

Adam Schiff & Jerrold Nadler

In this current Congress amid the current U.S. political issues, the two most powerful House committees are the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was appointed by Speaker Pelosi as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Adam Schiff (D-CA) to chair the House Intelligence Committee. Each chairman schedules committee hearings and sets the agenda for hearings.

Both of these committees have held a large number of 2019 hearings about many different topics. Their hearings have been dominated by Russian interference in the 2016 election and Immigration problems at our Southern border. Of late, their hearing agendas have been dominated by preparations for the Mueller hearings held July 24th.

It is uncontroverted that Russians did, in fact, make concerted efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. It is therefore critical that measures be taken by the U.S. government to stop any existing Russian interference processes and put measures in place to prevent any future Russian election interference from being successful.

Do something for yourself: conduct an internet search for the number of House Judiciary Committee 2019 hearings held specifically to address Russian election hacking and methods for the U.S. government to institute to stop those. Do the same search for the House Intelligence Committee. It probably comes as no surprise to you that NONE of their many hearings was to examine methods to use to stop any future Russian election attempts.

Then conduct the same internet search regarding House Intelligence Committee hearing agendas for 2019. You will see that though there were many hearings in which Russian interference was discussed in detail, NONE of those hearings included interviews with or testimony from experts regarding processes available to use to protect the American election system from future Russian election hacking attempts.

What’s Missing?

House leadership is what’s missing. When it comes to House agendas at every level, Speaker Pelosi and her various committee chairpersons have simply left Americans and their concerns behind. What are the top three concerns of American voters? Immigration, Government Leadership, and the Economy. Those concerns of voters are LOST on these Democrats.

The number one American concern — Immigration — HAD been discussed in House committee hearings, but only for the purpose of demeaning and blaming the entire illegal immigration travesty at the U.S. southern border on the Trump Administration. NO serious legislation has been put forth for House committee hearings and certainly not for House floor debate. In fact, for months House and Senate Democrat Party leadership laughed at President Trump’s constant expressions of horror at the immigration crisis. On numerous occasions, they called the President a liar for making such claims. All the while, they lambasted the President and rushed to liberal courts to file motions against every action the President took to try to get anything positive accomplished at the border. He attempted such actions because Democrats did NOTHING.

Democrats’ mouthpiece — the Leftist media headed by CNN — led in the laughter at the Trump stupidity for claiming a “fake” crisis. And when they FINALLY acknowledged action needed to be taken there to assist illegals that were living in horrible conditions, they never admitted they had been wrong in rebuffing the President’s crisis claims that were echoed by virtually everyone in border security from the Department of Homeland Security — both current employees and serving during the Obama presidency.

After four months of crying “foul” daily about Trump’s crisis claims and his begging for House financial assistance to meet those immigrants’ needs the House conceded and joined the Senate to authorize those funds. To my knowledge, they NEVER admitted being wrong.

Americans’ second stated concern for their 202o votes has been entirely ignored by House Democrats: Leadership in Government. Their ignoring voters’ concerns comes directly from their hearts. They are certain THEY are the only voices in Washington that matter, that THEY are the only ones who know and understand American voters and what all Americans need, and THEY are the only ones with any answers for any existing and future problems Americans face today and will face tomorrow. Further, THEY look at Donald Trump as the epitome of evil.

While Democrats KNOW Donald Trump has done nothing good and cannot do anything good for the U.S. during balance of his presidency, they do so with NO regard for the significant progress in his presidency.  What progress?

  • massive increases in private sector jobs resulting in the lowest unemployment in U.S. history in multiple sectors of American employment;
  • the U.S. for the first time becoming energy independent;
  • pharmacy drug prices for the first time began dropping due to Trump pressure on American drug companies;
  • foreign policy credibility returned that quickly resulted in massive increases in U.S. exports;
  • employee pay is on the rise;
  • Several trillion dollars held overseas for years by American companies were brought back into the U.S. that has spurred U.S. growth;
  • U.S. gross domestic product has steadily grown under Trump and has far exceeded what Obama told Americans could ever happen.

All of these positives that occurred under President Trump resulted with little or NO Democrat Party assistance or support.

Summary

Plain and simple, it was made abundantly clear that Democrats in the House have little or NO concern for what’s best for Americans. Their 2020 presidential candidates — virtually ALL of them — continue to in unison tout economic and political programs that would be impossible for the U.S. to sustain economically even if the American people would ALL want to be put in place. The Green New Deal, free college, the forgiveness of college student debt, Medicare for All, and Reparations along with free healthcare even for illegal immigrants are each being heavily promoted by 2020 Democrat presidential candidates.

Why would they even consider such impossible to implement programs?  For votes!

If everyone was honest, every American would agree that getting something important without any personal cost would be wonderful. That’s what Democrats are doing: telling Americans “The Government is going to pay all the costs for all these ideas and promises detailed above — FREE!”

If they were being honest with Americans, they would NEVER promise ANY of these things. Why? America cannot afford them! In fact, implementing just The Green New Deal would require the government to spend an amount of money each year for the next ten years equal to the total amount of federal revenue currently being received! And where would that money come from? Only one place: taxpayers.

That cannot and will not happen.

Plain and simple, Democrats have lost all sense of reality. House Democrats are consumed by one thing: hatred for Donald Trump. Why is their hatred so intense? Because the cards were all stacked for Hillary Clinton to be living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and to now be ushering in the “new” Socialist concept of governing for the U.S.

Why are Democrats so “in the tank” for Socialism? Socialism always sounds good to the people, but in every case in World history, Socialism works well for only one group of citizens: political elites. And in every example of Socialism in history, they always fall apart when the general populace of those countries are awakened to the erosion of their social and economic infrastructure at the hands of those political elites who pilfer the economic benefits from everyday citizens.

Democrats want a shot at that system. And they are so self-absorbed and consumed by their greed and narcissism, they are convinced THEY could be the first to make it work.

Donald Trump and his absolute belief in everyday Americans and the American ideal have become the only obstacle to their achievement of creating their own Nirvana.

They gnash their teeth when they hear the cries from Americans: “Keep America Great!”

 

“Obstruction of Justice”

June 14, 2019

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

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

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

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

That was just the beginning.

The Nadler Circus

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

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

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

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

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

John Dean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download