Context or Soundbites?

The most shocking thing about the current House Democrat closed-door hearings is that by locking-down those hearings, Dems are locking-out Congressional Republicans who are responsible for Congressional actions to the citizens they represent. In Monday’s 9-hour House Joint Committee hearing with Fiona Hill— a former State Department employee — reams of testimony from Ms. Hill are out there somewhere in the “blogosphere,” but in a place which is taboo to Republicans.

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz attempted to enter the hearing but was told he could not. A Congressional parliamentarian who controls hearing access stated that because Rep. Gaetz is not a member of any of the three committees that joined together for this hearing, House rules precluded him from being in the room.

The House Intelligence Committee, chaired by California Democrat Adam Schiff, is running the meetings, but the investigation also includes the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Gaetz IS a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has the sole power to instigate impeachment proceedings against a president. Here’s what Gaetz said about that: “Judiciary Chairman [Nadler] claimed to have begun the impeachment inquiry weeks ago,” he wrote. “Now, his own Judiciary members aren’t even allowed to participate in it.”

So why all the secrecy? After all, these interviews and testimony are expressly for one purpose: to find evidence to use in the impeachment of the president of the United States. It is safe to say the Democrat game plan is to control all the information released about these hearings — including “their” version of testimony given. Why? They must control the context.


“Context” defined by Merriam-Webster: “the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning.”

Words on their own cannot be allowed outside the committee hearing walls. Democrats must filter all testimony and edit it down to just a few sentences — a few sentences that supposedly encompass all of the nine-ten hours of testimony.

That isn’t possible. Context — especially that in such a lengthy meeting replete with Q & A of members of Congress and a key witness — is necessary to capture the meanings of events and people investigated along with their testimony.

But Democrats cannot afford for the light of truth to be seen and heard by Americans outside of Washington. Democrats are afraid of the truth! In the case of President Trump, the truth is that there was no wrongdoing on his part — indeed, not anything impeachable. And what has been “leaked” to the media from these hearings is certainly benign at its worst and supportive of the President at its best. Neither of those narratives is what Democrats want to discuss in Breitbart, in the Wall Street Journal, or on FOX News. So what do they do? Simply delete any context.

Context in these hearings is required. Here’s a sample news story that illustrates the necessity of context:

”A six-year-old Salt Lake City child died in a horrible car crash on Nevada’s I-15 yesterday afternoon. The mother was the driver of the car. She lost control of her vehicle at mile marker 456, leaving the road running head-on into a bridge abutment. Blood tests are inconclusive as to the possible role  of alcohol in the wreck.”

Here’s the same story in context:

”A young girl riding in a car with her mother died in a car crash north of Las Vegas. The woman, who police say was driving below the speed limit, was driving north on Interstate 15 late yesterday afternoon. She along with her daughter who was in her booster chair were the only ones in their car. At mile marker 456, the driver of a late model Chevrolet pickup southbound on I-15 lost control, crossed the median striking the car occupied by the Salt Lake City mother and daughter. The young girl was pronounced dead at the scene while her mother is reported to be in serious condition at Valley Hospital in Las Vegas. She is expected to make a full recovery. Tests for possible alcohol influence of the truck driver is being investigated.”

You see, context can dramatically change the narrative given to those who have no firsthand knowledge of an event. The presentation is everything.

In all of these hearings conducted by Congressional Democrats behind closed doors are supposed to be either classified or purposely kept secret to “protect the witnesses from outside threats and harassment.” We all know now that it is nothing but nonsense. Their purpose is singular: to trap Americans with out-of-context narrative to paint a picture of facts that are NOT factual but are to make Democrats and their agenda appear palatable, accurate and truthful — even when they are anything but that.

Without Context What Do We Get?

Here’s the problem with the “Adam Schiff Hearing Plan:”

  • It is impossible to know what questions were asked in the hearing. Who asked what? What were the witness’ answers?
  • What exactly did the witness say in their answers to the questions?
  • What was the demeanor of the witness? Did he/she get rattled? If so, as a result of which question? What exactly was their response?
  • Who from the committee asked what questions?

Without the answers to these specific questions, it is impossible to put anything we are told from that hearing in context to give the full story, just like in the car wreck story given above. But in a natural setting, it is far less likely and much more secretive.

Do you remember the cries from Democrats when President Trump had the transcript of his conversation with Ukraine’s President Zelensky released to the media? The call transcript was ripped to shreds because “it was partisan, opinionated, and in snippets rather than being the actual phone call to allow House members to hear conversations to ascertain what was being asked and answered.”

So what is different from the Zelensky call transcript and the actions of the Democrats running these closed-door hearings? From the average American’s perspective, there is NO difference.

Details from House Committee Hearings

They held a nine-hour hearing with former State Department employee Fiona Hill. What have you heard about the content of that hearing? After all, it was a confidential hearing of which NO ONE had the authority to leak hearing contents. Are you surprised details were leaked — to CNN?

Washington (CNN) Some of the White House’s most senior foreign policy officials were trying to raise the alarm about the administration’s potentially illegal activity in Ukraine well before President Donald Trump’s now notorious call with his counterpart in Kiev, according to stunning new testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia adviser, said in a startling deposition Monday that then-national security adviser John Bolton told her to tip off White House lawyers about the activities of Giuliani and others, according to sources familiar with her testimony. Bolton’s advice followed a meeting two weeks before the call between the two presidents on July 25, one source said.
Is it any surprise that the private, secret, confidential testimony at a hearing in which no Republican members participated and that CNN immediately released a story about? No confirmation, no interviews with Hill allowed, and no way for any American to factually counter details released.
Does that sound like part of the legal process in the Nation that guarantees  access to question one’s accuser and the protection of human rights in such matters? What is going on? Answer: Democrat response in made-for-media edited and faceless soundbites that cannot be verified for accuracy. The fingerprints of Adam Schiff are all over this hearing.
Why were Democrats so hell-bent on keeping Ms. Hill’s testimony away from Republican scrutiny? That answer is in this story:
House Democrats’ interest in Hill’s testimony goes beyond the Ukraine whistleblower issues. She’s an associate of Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who produced the 2016 dossier on then-presidential candidate Trump, which included salacious allegations about his past activities in Moscow as a businessman. House Democrats hope that with Hill’s front row seat to Russia-related events, she can provide details about Trump’s conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the May 2017 Oval Office meeting between Trump and two top Russian officials.

Summary: Soundbites

Here’s what is happening: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), with the approval of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are presenting an orchestrated fiasco in which secret hearings conducted in which they attack current and former Trump associates in desperate attempts to induce one or several to turn on Mr. Trump and provide dirt on the President. Even if there continues to be no dirt exposed about the President, you can bet Democrats have offered some deals if they’ll flip and even if they’ll say something negative even if not authentic!

Their primary interest in Fiona Hill is that she was an associate of Christopher Steele, who was the author of the Steele Dossier, used as THE evidence that prompted the electronic surveillance of Carter Page and the justification for the investigation of the Trump Campaign. They still feel they can tie the President to Russians, which will give them leverage in the 2020 election. To that end, they are using anything they can to confuse Americans.

Who had Russian dealings in the 2016 election? Not Donald Trump; it was Hillary Clinton! Her campaign funded the Steele Dossier. They depend on young Americans and their naïveté to overcome the tired and ineffective policies of the  “old folks” from the Great Old Party. That’s why Republicans are not allowed to attend these hearings. They’d see everything and would know the truth firsthand.

Democrats want to with soundbites only not present facts or quotes or even snippets of witness testimonies. They want Americans to “just trust us” and believe what they claim to be a factual hook, line, and sinker. And, sadly, there is a large number of Americans who will believe all that. After all, these are members of Congress. Surely they would not mislead the American public, right?

It all boils down to this: Securing and maintaining the viability of the Deep State is all that matters to Democrats and their publicity department — CNN and MSNBC. The question is: “Will it be a successful exercise, or will it destroy the small amounts of American trust and belief in Congress.”

Let’s hope that President Trump and his staff can keep themselves above the fray. If so, there will be a resounding beat-down in 2020 that will flood the streets of Washington with conservatives and also in cities across America.


House Oversight Committee: What are They Hiding From Americans?

According to Bill Shakespeare, “The eyes are the windows to the soul.” Looking at Adam Schiff, (picture to the left) one would think his soul is full of some pretty nasty stuff!

An almost universal feeling for political savvy Americans is distrust of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who chairs the powerful House Oversight Committee. That Committee is charged with looking into operations of every department of every government entity in operation including financial and actual operating procedures.

As the makeup of Congress changes, so does the constitution of every committee. The majority party has a very attractive chore that House leadership gets to use to give their party legislative power over those in the minority party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as do all Speakers carefully chose those to chair the most important  committees. For the House Judiciary Committee — where “real” impeachment must be initiated according to the U.S. Constitution — Pelosi appointed as chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). The arguably second most powerful committee — the House Oversight Committee — is led by the Democrat Party “Witchhunt Bulldog” Rep. Adam Schiff of California. Both committees since Democrats won House control have concentrated almost solely on getting rid of President Trump. (Forget about legislation: “Let’s Get Trump!) Both Schiff and Nadler have walked through the fields of harvested evidence ignoring the “real” crop of facts to daisy-pick any piece of evidence they think they can use to use against President Trump. Their problem has been that there are not very many pieces showing Trump wrongdoing. Never mind: they’re really good at manufacturing “evidence” to say what they need it to say.

Having no factual evidence against President Trump should end their nonstop committee hearings, one would think. Not so. They both continue to dominate the focus of the House with some new piece of “evidence” that requires virtually every minute of their committees’ time to investigate rather than to conduct the normal business of the House of Representatives.

Schiff is without question the most partisan, the angriest, and most vile member of House leadership. He’s so vile, he makes fellow Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) look like a kindergarten school teacher. We will not chronicle all the lies he has told through the last few years — we’ve done that before. But what we will do is ask some questions in an attempt to discover if he is hiding and what he is hiding from Americans. Why would we think he is hiding something? Just follow this line of reasoning:

  • The House is contemplating pursuing the most impactful act to our nation’s political institution and its structure: the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
  • The House of Representatives is known as the “Peoples’ House” — they are supposedly chosen to serve a short term of two years and while doing so representing those like-minded other citizens from their communities. They are to speak “our” minds not their own.
  • Following that line of reasoning, one’s expectation should be they are to reflect the people of one’s own district in writing bills and passing bills into law, strictly for the betterment of their districts first but put into the context of what’s best for the Nation.
  • Impeachment is not a legal issue. The House is constitutionally required to investigate a president when applicable for the commitment of “High crimes and Misdemeanors.”  The House does not conduct a trial for impeachment. The House investigates, gathers evidence, and determines if the evidence is sufficient to pass Articles of Impeachment that then go to the Senate which holds the sole Constitutional authority to try those impeached.

So why does this House of Representatives (led by Schiff rather than House Speaker Pelosi) insist on privately conducting what are called “classified” hearings with witnesses rather than conduct these hearings with full television and radio coverage so that Americans can see and hear the testimony of witnesses? Both Schiff and Nadler have continually maintained they have “sufficient evidence to justify the impeachment of President Trump.” That’s the question we are working to answer for you — hopefully today.

What Does it Take to Justify Impeachment?

“Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” According to Article II Section IV of the Constitution, these elements must in whole or even in part be evident and verifiable to successfully impeach a President. So what does that phrase actually mean?

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, or tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. The word “High” refers to the offense and not the office. Any elected government official may be impeached. There are some who posit that “High” refers to the level of office. But that interpretation is false, and lowers a standard of similarity, whereby the US Constitution refers to Treason and Bribery, and other crimes that are “High”—of equivalence to Treason and Bribery. Some also akin “Misdemeanors” as current lower crimes in many jurisdictions. At the founding there was no reference to a misdemeanor in criminal law. High Crimes and Misdemeanors provides for other malfeasance at a level similar to Treason and Bribery. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. (See Harvard Law Review) The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds” that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.”

Just to be totally transparent, President Trump to be impeached does not have to have broken any laws of any kind. That means, of course, no American president should break any laws. That is troubling to millions of Americans, as it should be. The conclusion for all of us should be that President Trump can be impeached for committing an act or acts that do not reveal any criminal wrongdoing.

Members of Democrat Party leadership in the House have exhibited not a single choke or filter on their stated and obvious plans to impeach President Trump. We previously showed you a live report from a sitting member of the House who two days before Donald Trump had even taken the oath of office stated he would vote for articles of impeachment of Donald Trump as President.

But back to Adam Schiff. So far, the Oversight Committee hearings, for the most part, have been held behind closed doors. The reasoning provided by Schiff for the secrecy is to both protect the identities of those who testify, and to make certain that those who would “literally attack these witnesses will not have possible ammunition for any attacks. We know they are out there,” said Schiff.

Any reasonable person who has watched Schiff’s actions since 2o16 know he and his cohorts have one purpose for their anti-Trump rhetoric and now with House power are fulfilling: Stop Donald Trump!

Rep. Adam Schiff: “Full Speed Ahead!”

Schiff did not just get started with impeachment. Schiff impeachment calls began in earnest shortly after Mr. Trump moved into the White House. Republicans pointed to a March 2017 appearance on MSNBC in which Schiff said “there is more than circumstantial evidence now” of a relationship between Russia and Trump’s associates. In December of that year, Schiff said on CNN: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the president made full use of that help. That is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not.”

And in May of 2018, Schiff said on ABC that the Russian trolling of Democratic National Committee emails is “like Watergate in the sense that you had a break-in at the Democratic headquarters, in this case, a virtual one, not a physical break-in, and you had a president as part of a cover-up,” he said. Schiff said later that the Russia investigation is “size and scope probably beyond Watergate.”

On numerous occasions, Schiff said publicly that he had plenty of evidence of Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing that was sufficient to impeach him and successfully try and convict him in the Senate. So why has that not happened until these latest attempts? There’s a simple answer: Schiff lied; there’s no “irrefutable evidence” that supports impeachment; he’s pushing forward in hopes of finding someone from the White House to turn on President Trump and provide damning evidence against him. That did not happen in 2018 or so far in 2019. But Adam Schiff has made it abundantly clear: he will not quit until he drives Donald Trump from office.

What’s Hidden?

One must first believe there really is something hidden that Schiff and Company are desperately keeping from Americans.  The “and Company” (of “Schiff and Company) would be the likes of James Clapper, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, and many officials in the former Administration. It appears that much of the investigatory findings of such wrongdoing that occurred before and during the Russia Collusion investigation are about to be dumped on the American public — in fact as early as Friday, October 18th. Like most Americans who are waiting for that information certain to be included in the Inspector General’s report, one would think members of the House of Representatives would be psyched— psyched that the truth will finally be released. It should include details of the matters surrounding 2016 election tampering and the alleged wrongdoing by government employees accused of illegal investigations against Mr. Trump. It is safe to say that Rep. Adam Schiff is not one of those Americans hoping to get to the truth. In fact, Mr. Schiff is trying to hide the truth. Let me explain.

  • There’s MUCH at stake for MANY people. John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, and others who were operatives whose communications have shown extreme animus for Mr. Trump will certainly be fingered in this report. Any of those who have been exposed for committing illegal activities should and probably will be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution. Those could very well be the list of those included in the previous sentence and even others. And there probably will be trials and prison sentences for some of those exposed and referred for prosecution.
  • How could the 2.5 year Mueller investigation with 30 fulltime investigators and staff who spent $30 million dollars investigating these claims against the President be so inept as to miss any Trump wrongdoing? Obviously, there was none. But that’s not good enough for Mr. Schiff.
  • Remember the “Ukraine-Gate” Schiff initiated investigation? Remember that first whistleblower who certainly had dirt on the President regarding that phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky? “The American people need to hear from that Whistleblower who has evidence of pressure put on President Zelensky to investigate President Trump’s leading opponent in 2020’s election,” said Rep. Schiff. Guess what — Schiff said this on CBS October 13th: “Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected,” Schiff stated. “Indeed, now there is more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower, who wasn’t on the call, to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that.” Schiff could not care less about the whistleblower. He, some from his staff, and probably other committee members met with the first whistleblower long before the claim was made. There is actually evidence that Schiff and Company assisted in the preparation of the whistleblower filing. We already know that the whistleblower is a former CIA operative who was loyal to former CIA Director John Brennan who is alleged to have taken part in this whistleblower action. Schiff is just concerned about being implicated in his own actions.


Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is treading water as hard and fast as possible. What are he and other members of his committee hiding? The answer to that is apparently their personal involvement in cover-ups and lies for which they are personally responsible. They are petrified that the Friday October 18 release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on wrongdoing in the 2016 Trump election investigation will implicate them in multiple ways.

Their evidence of wrongdoing must be significant. Why? D.C. politicians have historically been able to hide most of their wrongdoing — especially political corruption. With this President and his commitment to “draining the Swamp,” they are really nervous — and they should be. Mr. Trump has pulled the plug on the tub these swamp creatures have called their own for decades. And when the water that they have used for cover is drained away, the critters in the swamp are fighting for survival.

But what is the purpose — the single purpose — of Democrats closing of the hearings to the public? They must control the narrative of what comes to the public from these hearings. What we’ve seen so far in their endeavors is only couched stories that are incomplete replete with cherry-picked tidbits when taken out of context of the full hearings can make the President look bad. They do not want the American to see and hear any of this testimony in context. They MUST control the narrative to have any hope of getting Mr. Trump.

Their attacks on their “foe” of three years have apparently been unsuccessful. Why? Because Mr. Trump has apparently kept his nose clean. Their actions since 2016, however, have been exactly opposite of President Trump’s.

They should be nervous — maybe even more than just nervous. With the information that has oozed out of the IG report, some of them should be concerned about who will be their cell mates!


Weaponization of Everything

Fiery words are pretty much all we are being given in the “War for the White House 2020” playing out on the national stage every day. It seems to have become commonplace to attack the other side while at the same time to attack those on the same side. Further, those attacks increase in rage and furor daily as presidential candidates play the “one-upmanship” game to get more coverage, more headlines, more mentions in the press and social media. To do that, they must find ways to demand such attention. How to do that? Weaponize each attack.

“Weaponization” is defined as the act of preparing some “thing” or some “process” to be used as a weapon. Live television interviews, radio talk shows, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have been found to be perfect forums for communication to tens of millions of potential voters for 2020’s elections. Today’s political parties, candidates, and political support groups have created and refined the perfect process and weapon to use for this election cycle: Weaponization of the entire American political process.

Putting people who are different from us in classification or “bucket” with others of the same ilk is not unusual. It’s been done for centuries. Just about everything that makes people different qualifies as an appropriate classification: race, ethnic origin, country of origin, language, skin color, religion, sex, political beliefs, and even hair color are qualifiers. Race and racism have been the catch-words in America for at least the last 50 years. But today religion — “Islamophobia” — and sexual preference and conservative/liberal political views have taken the lead roles in the identity battle.

But in the 1940s and 1950s, there was another classification that I haven’t heard in decades: “McCarthyism.” McCarthyism is the forefather of forefathers regarding group classification of people.

Very few Americans younger than age 60 even know what “McCarthyism” was. But they are getting a really good look. As a backstop for today’s story, let’s first take a quick “McCarthyism” history tour.


McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term refers to U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s. It was characterized by heightened political repression and a campaign spreading fear of Communist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.

Before anyone today dismisses the importance of this McCarthy comparison, please don’t make that mistake. Most of you were not alive when this tore the nation apart shortly after the end of World War II. But it is eerily similar to what we are seeing flood the nation today, in the exact same way.

During the McCarthy era, hundreds of Americans were accused of being “communists” or “communist sympathizers;” they became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees, and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, academicians, and labor-union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person’s real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs were sometimes exaggerated. Many people suffered the loss of employment or destruction of their careers; some were imprisoned. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts that were later overturned, laws that were later declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures, such as informal blacklists, that would come into general disrepute.

Estimating the number of victims of McCarthy is difficult. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs. In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired. Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs, or were questioned by committees did, in fact, have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party.

Even thinking about such travesties happening in the United States is incomprehensible. After all, this is the “Land of the Free” and the “Home of the Brave.” There’s that little First Amendment that should have protected those Americans. After all, the protection of political ideologies is included in the First Amendment. Maybe that was lost or simply overlooked back then.

Nothing like that could ever happen today, could it?

Yes, it can, and it does.

The “New” McCarthyism

Only one thing we see today in America best fits the mold of McCarthyism: “Political Weaponization.“ And the buzz word that seems to play perfectly into the hands of those who are adept at weaponizing politics is “Racism.” Whoa! Racism is something that is real, tangible and presents all around us. McCarthyism though real was just a dream of a radical right-winger in the 40s and 50s to put those who espoused a specific and different ideology down: Communism. Racism is certainly a really important personal attitude that lives in the hearts of millions that forces others to deal with every day. And it diminishes the significance and importance of diversity, forcing all to struggle to be no different than their next-door neighbor or suffer becoming an outcast — or in Hillary Clinton’s world, a “deplorable.”

Actual racism tears nations, states, towns and cities, and even families apart. Throw politics into the mix, and “Political Racism“ is a scourge that needs to be identified and expunged as quickly as possible.

Just as happened with McCarthyism, political racism in America has been weaponized. And it’s used most often to create the superiority of some by pointing to others of a different political class as being less valuable, less qualified and less worthy than the pointer.

It’s no longer just pointing; political racism is as useful as any weapon ever devised. And today’s model of political racism has been crafted with one thought in mind: denigrate others who — when grouped together with racial AND political perspective — makes denigration easier to dole out and harder for the accused to overcome. Just like the Nazis in the 30s and 40s and Communists in the 50s and 60s, using political philosophy in conjunction with the horrors created using race gives groups of powerful politicians more deadly and damaging tools to use against their foes. The worst part of political racism? There are no clear-cut tools on which one can rely for vindication when accused. That fact in itself proves why political groups today have pounced on its use to destroy those with whom they disagree.

Weaponized Racism

How does one weaponize racism in politics?

Have you noticed the 2019 tactic of the “new” Leftists in Washington? For example: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) continuously when being confronted for her seriously flawed statements about every current political issue as they arise, simply responds using NO facts to counter any assertions. Why is that? Because the Left has perfected the weaponization of a phrase that stops all abruptly when used: “You’re a racist!” When that weapon is used politically, there is no simple way to counter. Being called a racist today is actually worse than being called a pedophile. Politically, no one can afford to be called a racist. It’s a label that sticks permanently regardless of its truthfulness when used.

And it gets worse.

Beginning with the campaign cycle in 2016, the Left recognized there was a new way to counter political attacks for policy disagreements. If an opponent backs one into a corner regarding any political issue, one can fight to get out of the corner by just making the allegation of “political racism.” Guess who was the first to find that out: Donald Trump.

There are dozens and dozens of examples where his political opponents could not explain their positions that were and are counter to his: the Rule of Law, Illegal Immigration, border security, sanctuary cities, the border wall, terrorism, political expectations of U.S. foreign “partners” supposedly aligned on every international issue with the U.S. in true partnership. In fact, they are one thing publicly and another when the meeting room door closes. This list could go on and on.

What are the big political issues today?

  • Immigration
  • Healthcare
  • Tax relief for the Middle Class
  • Fair Wages
  • Sexuality
  • Taxes on the Wealthy
  • College Debt
  • Trade Policies

This list too could be (and should be) exhaustive. Certainly, we can list plenty of others. But that’s not the objective today. It’s to identify and call-out the inequities and untruths being pandered by Democrats and others left of Dems to all Americans in an effort to legitimize them.

What’s the easiest way to quieten those who although using reason still continually give examples that support their positions while they give examples that destroy the counter(s) to their position? Racism.

Political Racism That’s Not Racism at All

Islamist Terrorism.  Don’t dare to try to convince a Democrat there is anything wrong with Islam. And there might not be! But don’t use any truths to explain any of the problems — not so much with the religion of Islam, but with many of those who use it politically to weaponize their causes.

Have you heard this anytime recently? “Islam and Muslims are people and a religion of peace.” We’ve heard it again and again. Why not reply this way when they get in your face “If Islam is so peaceful, why is there such violence and terrorism all over the Middle East — the home of Islam?

Ask them that and you and the only response you will get is, “You’re just a Racist!”or “You’re just an Islamaphobe!”

Lawbreaking.  This one boggles the brain. The one thing that differentiates our country from every other country is our strict historical adherence to the Rule of Law. For centuries we have operated in a way that makes laws duly created by those elected, activated in local, state, entities, empowered those in law enforcement to make certain everyone adheres to all those laws, and holds those accountable who don’t.

What do we see happening 24/7 in the U.S. today? Constant ignoring of multiple laws by multiple people. Illegals pouring over our southern border; rampant use of marijuana — which violates federal laws — and other drug laws across all jurisdictions; and even laws pertaining to political corruption.

So what happens? Someone in some position makes an arbitrary decision or two to ignore this law, turn your back on another while jamming one down the throats of offenders.

How does political racism fit into this scenario? Every opponent of open borders and sanctuary cities, holding illegals responsible for all their lawbreaking which starts by their being in the U.S. illegally can not be explained in any other way than just outright lawlessness. 

But if you do that, the response has nothing at all to do with the Rule of Law or even changing laws legally with which they disagree. Their answer is simply this: “You oppose what’s happening because you are a Racist!”

Election Violations. The absolute worst regarding our elections is voter fraud. Thirty-seven states have identified from the 2016 election massive voter fraud — several of which had more votes cast in various jurisdictions than those registered to vote in those districts! Ever hear anything about that from the Mainstream Media? Nope. Why not? If you say anything about it, Leftists will attack with their favorite label: “You oppose it because you’re Racist!”

Another is voter ID laws. They still scream at those who want to protect the validity of the most sacred American right of all: voting. “African Americans are unduly penalized if a voter ID is required to vote. Many are uneducated, poor, transportation-less, and cannot pay the fees for voter ID’s.”

It’s sad to hear such from government authorities. But it’s sadder to know those who make these claims actually believe Americans believe that to be the case. Logic has no place in that argument. Political Ideology is the only thing that matters to them. In reality, having identification in America today is mandatory just to get through a day!

What can you NOT get without a government ID?

  • Driver’s License
  • Insurance Card
  • Welfare Benefits
  • Medicare Card
  • Treatment at a hospital or clinic
  • Auto insurance
  • Rent a car
  • Fly commercially
  • Enter any federal government building
  • Entry into numerous public events

But the two that ice the cake for me are these:

You cannot enter any official event of the Democrat Party or even attend their Convention!

You cannot go to any one of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) campaign rallies, meetings or other official events!

Disagree with anyone on the Left about this insane premise and they have one defense and one only: “You’re a Racist!”


I’m done. I long for the days when in Franklin, Louisiana, I stood in my debate class after learning how to debate other students about a random topic given to us by our teacher. We all were required to use facts — evidence — that supported either side of each of these controversial subjects. We used quotations from reputable experts, statistics, and data collected from various sources.

I won most of the debates in which I participated in high school. But every one of those that I won, I won because of facts, statistics, evidence, quotes, the precedence of previous confrontations in each applicable field, but I never won a single one by calling my opponent a Racist!

You know what? I never had to. They either presented facts that proved their positions more effectively than did I, or I won with better and more accurate supporting facts.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez (D-NY) could never survive in a world in which she was taken to task by authority figures in her life that would test every premise she has made since 2018 requiring facts. She has quite a posse that operate the same way, too. Their answer to those who confront them with facts is almost always “You’re a Racist!”

Facts Matter — Truth WILL Prevail

New Collusion Exposed: It’s NOT Trump

We’ve spent the last three years looking for the “Boogie Man” that Donald Trump used to unethically and illegally win Mr. Trump the 2016 presidency. After all, his election victory certainly is not because Americans chose him to be their president.

Immediately after the Trump inauguration, the Russia Collusion story was initiated. We know much now that many suspected but could not be proven at the time: that the Collusion story and subsequent investigation was a sham — a diversion pitched to Americans by a posse of unethical politicians and top-level Intelligence officials who for not-yet verified reasons desperately needed Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The Mueller Investigation from the day Mueller was named Special Counsel for the Russian probe was thought to be simply a diversion instigated by those in that “posse.” They were desperate to find that Donald Trump had some way and somehow reached out to Russia for election help and that they could uncover and expose it. They needed Donald Trump out of the picture.

Mueller exonerated Mr. Trump with his final report. That is factual in spite of the cries from the Media that the Mueller findings did not do so. Subsequently, there was a “Muller Probe-Lite” that lasted a minute or so as the Left ramped up charges of Trump’s obstruction of justice. It quickly faded away.

Here came Ukraine! President Trump was stated to have in a telephone conversation with the newly elected Ukrainian President asked President Zelensky to open a corruption investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. Those allegations were made and immediately became headlines in every newspaper, online news outlet, television and radio talk show: “President Trump Seeks Ukraine Help for 2020 Assistance.” Of course, those headlines were lies.

You now know the truth: Pelosi and Co. had already announced an “impeachment inquiry.” They were in a panic to find justification to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President. When this fake-news was released, that was their proverbial “straw” needed for “more formal” impeachment proceedings. And it’s on!

Trump blew their minds when he immediately released the transcript of the phone call. They were shocked that he did so without any formal subpoena for the mud they could use against him. The call transcript vindicated the President for his alleged attempt to receive election help from Ukraine to find dirt on a Trump 2020 election opponent: former VP Joe Biden.

There was NO collusion between Donald Trump and Ukraine.

But it has been revealed there MAY be some collusion with Ukraine by a very important U.S. politician that does not live in the White House but works on Capitol Hill: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Schiff hates Donald Trump. He’s spent every waking minute since the 2016 election saying and doing anything and everything he can do to possibly assist him to get Trump out of office. We don’t need to list those for you — they’ve been all over the news. The leftist media fawn at his every word, most of which are false as they pertain to the President. But now, Mr. Schiff has been exposed as being in the tank for a very wealthy and very politically connected billionaire oligarch from Ukraine!

Mr. Schiff May Really Be “Shifty Schiff”

Have you before heard the name, Igor Pasternak? Before we’re done today, you’ll know quite a bit about this Ukrainian gun dealer, business mogul and a major contributor to politicians in the U.S. As long ago as 2014, we have been able to find links between Pasternak and multiple U.S. politicians.

Pasternak, who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased ties between the two countries and has been especially active in building awareness of Ukraine’s strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the importance of Ukraine to European and US security.

That’s the good stuff.

Igor is an arms dealer who sells arms that include fully automatic M4, M16 rifles as well as much more sophisticated and “serious” military arms. He’s armed the armies and militia of many countries in the Middle East, Europe, and Southeast Asia. And, more importantly, he is very connected to those on the “dark side” of politics in Ukraine.

He’s been in the U.S. for some time. And while here, he quickly learned the importance of obtaining and nurturing relationships with heavyweight U.S. politicians. He quickly found a willing candidate to fill such a role: Adam Schiff.

Hmm… This is Rep. Adam Schiff — the California Democrat who is in front of television cameras and radio microphones daily in his quest to kick Donald Trump out of the White House. His latest ploy is to attempt to connect President Trump with Ukraine’s president Zelensky alleging the President has attempted to pressure Zelensky to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden for apparent corruption with other Ukrainians using Congressional approved foreign aid for Ukraine as a tool. But it seems Schiff may be leveraging Ukraine from another direction for some other purpose.

How are Schiff and Pasternak Connected?

It started this way: Pasternak emigrated to the U.S. in 1994 where he started a company: Aeroscraft. Pasternak then reached into the U.S. political atmosphere to find some friendly politicians who could help him assist the Ukrainian government on a really big project: transitioning their military firearms away from those previously used and relied on from Russia. Pasternak suggested the M16 American rifle. Introducing Adam Schiff.

Newsweek followed the Ukraine small-arms problem as a Ukrainian arms company — Ukroboronservis — sought to partner with an American company for the project: Aeroscraft.

Aeroscraft, the American firm owned by Pasternak partnered with Ukroboronservis to produce M16s, is a California-based aviation company specializing in lighter-than-air aircraft—including airships intended for U.S. military use.

As most Americans know, there have been for decades amazing foreign business opportunities for foreign companies through partnerships and joint-ventures with American companies to reach world markets. Aeroscraft sought those opportunities using Pasternak’s Ukraine connections and with political assistance in the U.S. As a Californian, the obvious place to start was with California politicians. He met Adam Schiff and the two clicked. One thing led to another and Pasternak became a major fundraiser for Schiff.

I’m not sure you can read the picture on the left, but it’s an invitation to a “Taste of Ukraine Reception” held by Pasternak at his home for a $2500 contribution per person. The recipient of the proceeds was “Adam Schiff for Congress.” That was in 2013.

There have been other fundraisers held by Pasternak for politicians other than Schiff. But Schiff has been the most involved. Even this year (2019) Schiff during one Congressional recess made a trip to Ukraine. Under the current circumstances, that’s really not surprising. He was part of a group that was sponsored by Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. See Schiff’s name underlined in red on the flight manifest shown on the right side of the story. The trip for that group happened from August 24 to August 31, 2019.

Who is The Atlantic Council? The Atlantic Council is an American Atlanticist think tank in the field of international affairs. Founded in 1961, it provides a forum for international political, business, and intellectual leaders. It manages ten regional centers and functional programs related to international security and global economic prosperity. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a member of the Atlantic Treaty Association.


So what does this association between Congressman Schiff and Igor Pasternak mean? Is it on its face somehow evil? Does it portend unethical or evil behavior on the part of either Schiff or Pasternak? Not necessarily. But, in the words of those on the left at the release of the Mueller Report, while this association does not implicate either gentleman for any wrongdoing, it does NOT exonerate either.

It’s humorous that if we are to use the definitions, thought processes and practices that the Left have sold-out to, Schiff, in this case, would not only be evil, but in cahoots with a Ukranian billionaire oligarch who’s in the tank with an element of the Ukraine government that is corrupt and they’ve found a way to manufacture American-made M16’s and sell them to the Ukranian government. What’s that old saying I’ve shared with you many times: “If it quacks and waddles it’s probably a duck.”

In all sincerity, I have no factual information about this relationship. We did reach out to Rep. Schiff’s office for comment. I expect someone will call me back to comment when Hell freezes over! Nevertheless, we have and will stick with the legitimate, righteous, and Constitutional way to approach the possible relationship of Mr. Schiff and Mr. Pasternak being to somehow be for criminal purposes — you know: “Innocent until proven guilty.” It just seems in the environment created by Schiff in the witchhunt of Donald Trump that Mr. Schiff may be able to at least shed light on how one conducts such activities, even if he is not personally part of any illegalities. By his measure, however, we would be guilty if you or I was in such a relationship.

By the way: in the picture below, that’s Igor Pasternak…with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi1








“She’s Back!”

Who would have thought it? Hillary Clinton appears to be ready to throw her hat in the presidential ring…again.

Apparently, she can’t get the bad taste of 2008 and 2016 out of her mouth. What is that bad taste? Being told by Americans, “We don’t want you as President.” Of course, in 2016 she and many of her supporters felt like she had earned the right to own the keys to the White House for a while. But American voters — especially those in the fly-over country — disagreed. And her glass ceiling remains intact.

It appears that her hunger for power has been heightened by her need to get even with her 2016 nemesis who now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is sending out signals — demonstrative ones now — that she may throw her hat in the ring when Joe Biden pulls out of his 2020 presidential bid. And to most, his departure is imminent. Joe looks to be the fall guy who will take the Ukraine-Gate hit that certainly appears to be disqualifying him. (Monmouth Polling on Thursday when asking Americans if they believe President Trump’s telephone call with Ukraine President Zelensky was NOT about going after Joe Biden but purely suggesting Ukraine continue their previous corruption investigation. 43% believe the President while 37% do not.) Regarding Hillary, her recent statements pummeling President Trump is signaling that she may enter the Democrats’ presidential contest. Ex-Vice President Joe Biden looks to be the obvious fall guy for alleged Ukraine’s collusion with her 2016 presidential campaign.  Hillary’s not stupid: she’s always been capable of reading the tea leaves and acting accordingly — that is until her taking a few states for granted in the runup to the 2016 election. She realizes that the Democrat consuming thirst to unseat President Trump will kill the ambition of Biden to assume the right to the inhabitation of the White House that rightfully belongs to her.

Let’s be very clear: Hillary has not committed to the race. But she’s often made it clear when asked that she has kept that possibility open. It appears that all of her recent appearances have been carefully planned and orchestrated. She has narrowed her attacks on Trump as angst from the Left has heightened. She still feels that she can go negative and stay negative regarding the President if she decides to enter the fray and faces him in 2020.

But Americans tired of Hillary! After 2016 and her loss, her continued excuses and ridiculous excuses for her loss, many in the U.S. wrote her off as simply being done and yesterday’s news. Here we are three years after her defeat, she still complains and calls President Trump an “illegitimate president” and now a “corrupt human tornado.”

It’s not clear who pushed Joe Biden into the middle of all this. But each day it seems that the allegations against Biden’s intervention in Ukraine on behalf of his son Hunter might really be true. And now it appears that the $1.5 Billion Hunter’s company received in investment from China could be for similar reasons. President Trump actually suggested China look into Biden corruption! (And when the President said that the reaction of the media is epic.) It is close to being abundantly clear that the compensation the younger Biden has been received from the investment company being investigated by Ukraine — $600,000 per year — that began while his father was formally tagged by former President Obama as the U.S. watchdog over Ukrainian corruption is probably going to be the nail in the Joe Biden Campaign coffin. In fact, it is likely to see the former VP stop the fighting and drift away into the political sunset in the next week or so.

So what will happen with the Democrat Party presidential race then?

First, it is highly likely that if Hillary throws her hat into the ring, she will immediately snatch 25% of the Democrat party members’ support. That will certainly happen based on her name recognition and that large segment of the voting populace who were Clinton supporters in the 1990s. It will also split the balance of Democrat support between the 10 or so candidates that might still be in the race. What then will determine who is left in the two months before the Democrat Party Convention. And who remains will be based on several important issues: campaign contributions and where they go, and how Democrat voters go in the wake of the Trump impeachment proceedings and how that plays out in the next six months or so. Believe it or not, Democrat support for their 2020 candidate is now and will continue to be skewed toward a candidate that holds the line against Trump and for his impeachment. How so? Believe it or not, the American voter populace is aging: there is a rapidly increasing Democrat base that is younger, more liberal, more anti-Capitalist and more pro-Socialist. This younger group has totally bought-into the Medicare for All, Climate Change, Free College, College Debt elimination, the repeal of the Second Amendment and the “Dump Trump” movement. Hillary’s possible opponents have pretty much all demonstrated their support of these ideas. With Biden gone, (if he leaves) his moderate, middle-of-the-road spot will be vacated. Hillary will have to decide if she wants to fill it and if her getting back in the race and assuming that moderate spot can get her elected.

What further clouds the picture is how the reorganization of Democrat candidates will impact campaign contributions. Folks, like never before in American election history has dollars and cents been so important. It will cost the President and his Democrat opponent and their parties at least $1 Billion each! So who among the party candidates has the ability to tap that Wall Street fountain of dollars for this presidential race? Remember, Hillary has already proven she has an open door at almost all of the investment banks, hedge funds, and stock-trading companies. She was well-financed by Wall Street in 2016. Campaign dollars were of no concern. After all, the White House was owed to her. But things change.

Big financial bankers have some serious considerations regarding financial support: Hillary lost in 2016. Why did she lose? If you have listened to her gripes and multiple explanations her loss was no fault of her own but that of everyone from Donald Trump, his campaign, Russia, inept polling operations, sexism, lies and misrepresentations of her in the press, James Comey, the FBI fake investigation of her server, and election vote tampering. There is certainly a multitude of other excuses she used. Won’t Americans remember all that? Certainly, some will. But political memories in the U.S. seem to evaporate shortly after each election. That is probably due to the drenching of Americans by non-stop campaign ads for months before every national election.

That’s a bunch of “if’s.” But it’s American politics, after all. In American politics — and especially with Donald Trump in the middle of it all — there are no sure deals, just ask Hillary. Decisions must be made every day and often on the fly. Making a bad one or two can be deadly — can even cost you an election. Few Americans that were alive that day will forget the shock and awe experienced by 300+million Americans with the election of Donald Trump and the repudiation by voters of Hillary Clinton thought to be a certain winner.

I think this was Hillary’s first interview after losing to Donald Trump. While we’re contemplating her contemplating another run against Donald Trump, I thought you might want to take a trip down Memory Lane with Hillary and Me:

I cannot for the life of me believe that Hillary Clinton thinks she has even a minuscule chance to win the presidency in her third time trying. Conventional election wisdom is that in a bid for president, garnering support for even a second attempt is normally iffy when it comes to attracting campaign dollars. That would be an extremely tough task for Hillary on her third such attempt.

Several other thoughts run through my mind about her possibly declaring a run. First, what would Americans think? Obviously, a bunch of Americans — about 63 million — voted for Donald Trump instead of her in 2016. What could she think has possibly happened to change their minds? Second, many of her 2016 supporters while they still despise Mr. Trump feels betrayed by her in that loss. It is factual that she herself was responsible for the loss. She gave up on several midwestern states and didn’t campaign there much if at all. She “assumed” she had their votes. But, as usual, she felt that those voters felt the obligation as Democrats to pull the Democrat candidate’s lever in the polling booth just “because.”

But then there’s this: why would she even want to face the possibility of a similar fate? I don’t know the answer and I don’t want to know HER answer. It’s scary to think that she and Bill might move back into the White House for four more years. A bunch of bad things happened in there previous eight years there. I don’t want to go back to that school of learning again.

I trust everyday Americans more than she. That ‘s good enough for me. And when I hear “Four More Years!” chanted over and over again at campaign rallies, I don’t want to think the cheers may be for Bill Clinton along with Hillary!



The Incivility of 2019

I have been shocked at the communication coming from inside and from outside of Washington D.C. I’m not certain what was the starting point or when it began, but someone flipped a switch on the “Messaging Rules” that everyone in the nation’s capital is supposed to follow. If there ever was a chapter titled “Civility” in those rules, it was ripped out and replaced with a new chapter titled “Incivility and How to Maximize its Use.”

Incivility is certainly not an exclusive of politicians. But they often seem to be driving the boat. It crosses a broad spectrum of the country now emanating from the epicenter of our government. It from its inception has spread through America like the flu. No one is exempt. But the doctors for “Incivility flu” are certainly seeing many patients. It has reached epidemic proportions.

Do you think it might be driven by our electronic information gluttony? Do you remember how things were before we each had a smartphone, a laptop, a desktop computer, and an iWatch? We literally talked to each other!

I remember actually having dinner at a dinner table. In fact, Mom prepared and served us three meals a day. We all sat down at the same time, prayed, started with the salad and then potatoes, and passed them around the table. Guess what we did while the food passing was happening: we talked to each other!

As a kid I discovered early what books were and that besides having books that taught me, there was a world I had never seen or heard of contained within the covers of far more books than I could ever read. So I dove in. I became a speed reader before it became a “cool” thing. Our bookmobile would hit our neighborhood every Tuesday right after lunch. I was allowed to checkout only three books at a time. Mom would holler and tell me not to read mine so fast. But every week I had read all three by Thursday — Friday at the latest. I devoured everything I read.

I didn’t have to put one of those books down to check my email, answer a constant barrage of texts or respond to dozens of tweets every day. The only way I could reach out to friends was a phone call or hopping on my bicycle to go to their house. Nope: I didn’t have a Facebook page or even a CB handle!

Those times were from an ancient age that’s long been in my rear view mirror. They’re way back behind me along with those dinosaurs.

We didn’t get our first television until 1960. Of course it was black and white, but it was truly cool to watch Gunsmoke on Saturday evenings. My favorite was Seahunt with Lloyd Bridges. Saturday mornings Mom gave my brother and me two hours to watch cartoons. The Road Runner, Mickey Mouse and I became great friends.

During Summer, we played outside until Mom hollered that lunch was ready. After lunch we hit it again. That lasted until the street lights came on at which time we were required to go home.

Schools had no classroom rules for the uses of electronic devices. No one ever got caught texting a girlfriend during class. The worst that ever happened was getting busted for passing notes. There were plenty of conversations on the playground during lunch.

You know what? In those days I knew everything about my neighbors, fellow classmates, some of whom I didn’t care for, about 90% of folks I saw in church on Sundays, and even neighbors’ out-of-town relatives that came for a week’s vacation once a year. Why did I know all that? We talked to each other!

Then with the advent of satellite communication, the internet, smartphones and bytes and gigabytes, Apple and Microsoft, things began to change. Those in charge of media content quickly found a way to maximize the use of Incivility and its reach: Attack others of an opposing political perspective.

Things changed. At some point, media moguls decided “straight” news without the inclusion of personal opinions by those writing and broadcasting had become boring. Consumers of News grew tired of the same old thing. Ratings and readership saw a precipitous slide. Of course, that led to the loss of advertising and subscriptions — the media’s “kiss of death.” So began the addition of a little “flair” to their stories. Soon political perspective became the norm and real news slipped away.

Rush Limbaugh in 1988 shocked the world with the first national conservative radio talk show. Soon because of Limbaugh’s huge success, copycats showed up. His ratings skyrocketed. Before long tens of millions were each day making his show a staple of their media news consumption. That was not lost on those media moguls. They tried to copy Rush’s philosophy and on-air persona but failed miserably. Why? Because it seems that media folks on the Left seem angry. Their anger bled through all of their messaging. Their methodology was to denigrate the lies of Limbaugh eschewing his conservatism and all conservatives. Americans saw right through that and did not like it.

So satellite TV became their vehicle to battle conservatism. MSNBC, CNN, plus large metro newspapers led by the New York Times and the Washington Post became their propaganda outlets. Liberals and other Leftists dreamed of appearing there knowing they would reach a larger audience. It wasn’t too successful either.

Enter Donald J. Trump

What is puzzling to me is that when Donald Trump was “Donald Trump the reality show star,” everyone on the left thought he was cool. They all hungered to meet him, be around him,and were awestruck if they had a chance for one-on-one interaction. But that honor and respect the left had for him evaporated in an instant: when he announced he was launching a bid for the White House as a Republican.

People laughed, hurled insults at him, quit associating with him. And the rest is history. POLITICS immediately changed. Say what you will, Donald Trump is a great communicator. You may not like some of the thing he says, some of the ways he says them, or the demeanor he uses when he says them. But no one can say he does not get his points across, that he is not astute at making his points, or that he is always politically “in line” or using Republican talking points.

Today’s Communication

As I said above, it’s not just politicians. Hollywood is just as bad or worse. For example, Oscar winning actor Robert DeNiro is known for his nastiness in talking to others. Graham Chase Robinson, his longtime aide, filed a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging he made “abusive and sexist comments” toward her and engaged in “inappropriate contact,” including “gratuitous unwanted physical contact.”

In one example, the actor lambasted Robinson, who worked for his company from 2008 to 2018, calling her a “spoiled brat” when she did not immediately answer his phone call. She is seeking $12 million in damages.

“How dare you f—— disrespect me?,” he said in the voicemail, in which he also told her: “You’re f—— history.”

He’s famously known for such. And he’s not the only one. And it’s not just in Hollywood. Our kids today don’t even know how to talk to each other. Speech class and debate class are not even taught at most schools. Journalism in high school and college are just a joke.

Best known American musicians even take pride in proving how vile, nasty, and demeaning so they can be quoted in the media to get some more “street cred.” And their fawning teeny-bob fans go all-in on crazy for it. Generation Z-ers have even developed their own communication “code” language. If you don’t think so, get your kid to give you a tour of his/her Facebook page. You won’t be able to read and understand half of it. And to think: all we had was Pig Latin.


President Trump is a pain in the derrière to many Americans. Let’s face it: his verbiage is at best crude, and worst is incorrigible. But you know what: he gets his message across without having to have media members to interpret. They hate his message, not for their content, but because they don’t get to give us their version interpretation. They’re not accustomed to that and have immediately resorted in the most vile and vitriolic responses to the things he say. Today alone I heard an NBC reporter and a CNN reporter call him a liar and a couple of things he said were lies. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said this: “Donald Trump is the Word’s biggest jackass.”

When in your memory did you see any member of the media call Presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama a liar? Any memories of them pass out any “jackass” name tags? That would have set the world on fire!

This President is a lightning rod.

In closing, there’s something important to point out: the Inspector General’s report detailing his findings of his investigation into how the Trump Collusion/Mueller Investigation was started — specifically the FISA applications that initiated surveillance by the CIA and NSA into the Trump campaign. It is already known those applications for those warrants were based on false sworn information included in those applications by several different FBI and DOJ officers. Doing so is a felony.

Why mention that talking about communication Incivility? The last two weeks members of the Obama Administration (who were the ones involved in that FISA process) have gone public with their anger, hatred, and self righteous in viciously attacking President Trump. Why do you think former NSA Advisor Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan, Former DOJ Eric Holder who has NEVER been in the spotlight since the 2016 election, and former FBI Director John Brennan become so adamant in their Donald Trump attacks?

In my opinion, it’s because they are expecting their personal implication in the IG report. Their coming out now is an attempt to get out in front of the IG report so that when it comes out, they’ll be able to say “None of it’s true. It’s just Trump’s DOJ acting on his part to impact the 2020 election.”

It’s all about messaging: Communication.

If you’re a conservative and you appreciate the job President Trump has been doing, don’t get nervous: I still think there are enough caring and honest Americans to thwart any such coup to unseat President Trump. I said “coup,” and it IS a coup.

We are witnessing a sad time in American history — a time when we are watching a mob of Leftist lawmakers ignore the law, ignore the Constitution, and take the law into their own hands to force Americans to accept their removing a legally elected president.

It won’t happen! Furthermore, I fully expect the factual evidence to exonerate Mr. Trump while supporting the Rule of Law. That’s what these bogus Democrat Party investigations are supposed to be about. But they’re only about Democrat Party agenda: get Donald Trump out of Washington.

It will not happen. They’ll try…but they’ll fail! President Trump is to good a communicator for that. Americans will not let that happen.

I’m Sick and Tired!

Ten years ago I created a website titled “” 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.”


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!



When Truth Isn’t “The” Truth

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.


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?”


Executive Branch Corruption

Something very strange happened to me several days ago. We regularly receive unsolicited stories, leads, political information and just plain opinion. We don’t take any of these for granted and read them all. But the latest is very troubling. We received an email from an unrecognized email address that strangely ended with a “.gov” address. We all know that is a federal government email.

That was puzzling and a bit scary. We all occasionally receive incoming information from the government, but I’ve never seen any that I knew came from the federal government but could NOT tell from whom.

So I dug in.

Here’s the scary part: It contained a massive amount of information that explained much of the reasoning behind details included in the recent Ukraine president’s phone call with President Trump. It gave reasons for Joe Biden’s conversation with the OLD Ukraine president in which he threatened to withhold a billion dollars in U.S. foreign aid for Ukraine.

In the uproar of pending impeachment of President Trump, many are left with numerous unanswered questions. I am one. And this email answered some of my questions. Here’s my dilemma: we at TruthNewsNetwork have no way to validate its contents — no way to verify its source. (Believe me, we’ve tried) Heretofore we have always complied with our commitment to not publish information we could NOT verify. But we take it one step further: when we give you information, we don’t tell you what to conclude from it, even its truth or falsehood. We trust you to make educated decisions for yourself.

​ I feel obligated to publish this. There’s so much included in the email that explains most of if not all of the reasoning for what transpired in the Ukraine, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and President Trump’s Ukraine interfacing. 

Is the email truthful? Is it part of a right-wing conspiracy? I’ve spent hours reading and thinking it through over and over. I’ve struggled with a need or desire to let you see it. So here goes:

You can read it below. It has been edited, but not to change content. We placed it in bullet format to make it easier to read. Additionally, there were multiple references included as a “bibliography” in the email that sourced much of what is included. Because of names and even some contact information included in it, we did NOT include that bibliography.

I’ve been told by several not to release it. I’ve been advised by others that I have an obligation to do so. But what is really troubling is that it has become abundantly clear that there are those in the proverbial “deep state” who have committed a number of atrocities to protect themselves. I know that publishing this could raise some of those people’s ire. I hope not. 

My final disclaimer:

TruthNewsNetwork does NOT maintain the voracity of factual basis of the contents of this email. Additionally, TruthNewsNetwork does not by its publication urge any action from anyone who chooses to read it. We publish it with a sense of obligation to put as much information on the table for our viewers to use in their own fashion for their own personal purposes. 

That includes any and all who choose to write it off as bunk. Honestly, we cannot say it is or is not bunk!

”The” Email

  • The oligarch who owns the company Hunter Biden worked for was involved in a ponzi scheme through his bank. He loaned money to non-existent “companies” which then laundered the money throughout the world, including in the U.S. through New Hampshire-based entities. 
  • Then the bank filed suit when they didn’t get repaid for the loan. AND THE U.S. TAXPAYER PAYS THE BANK. That’s what these billions of dollars in loan insurance were that Biden was pledged with dispensing and threatened to withhold if the investigator looking into the ponzi scheme was not fired.
  • This was a U.S.-funded ponzi scheme to create a slush fund for political allies outside the U.S. who then OWED political favors, like donating to the Clinton Foundation, leaking claims of Paul Manafort being paid by Russia, and hiding Clinton’s server on Crowdstrike’s Ukrainian servers.
  • All those favors were asked of Ukraine by the DNC. The whole Russian collusion hoax was the baby of Ukrainian allies of the DNC — allies who were bought through U.S. tax dollars in the form of loan insurance for these crooked Ukrainian oligarchs’ banks.
  • Hunter Biden was the beneficiary of nepotism, but in getting rid of the prosecutor, Joe Biden was covering for HIMSELF. The former VP covered the entire group of involved deep state operators because this whole story would expose the deep state techniques to use their positions and taxpayer dollars to get slush money and worldwide political favors.
  • One of those “favors” was a coup against Donald Trump.
  • John Solomon of The Hill on Sean Hannity Thursday night (Sept. 26, 2019) reported that he has a plethora of evidence from official sources, saying that the Ukraine prosecutor Biden demanded to be fired was fired because of Biden’s threat, not because the prosecutor was corrupt. Biden wanted him gone because he was NOT corrupt and would NOT support this ponzi scheme. Once the honest prosecutor was gone, a Biden-appointed prosecutor dropped the investigation of Hunter Biden’s et al ponzi scheme.
  • The new prosecutor (who was appointed when the new president was elected) told Solomon that he was immediately approached by Yovanovitch (the Obama-appointed, Biden-nominated U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) with a list of people the new prosecutor was forbidden to prosecute. He instead gathered evidence of not only the ponzi scheme using U.S. tax dollars, but also of the DNC’s cash-in on political favors to oust Trump.
  • The U.S. State Dept cutoff funding and withheld passports that were necessary to transfer Ukraine’s evidence of U.S. crimes to U.S prosecutors. (This is who Trump referred to in his July call with the Ukraine president as “Bad News.”) Trump’s focus was on the bad people from both Ukraine and the U.S.
  • What we have is evidence of the Deep State’s collusion to bilk U.S. taxpayers for political slush funds while obstructing justice for the perpetrators. The DNC’s collusion with these bought-and-paid-for allies was to commit the treason of asking for foreign interference in the election staging a coup against Trump.
  • The CIA is most likely implicated also because within a month of Trump’s inauguration, the CIA operative who was Mitt Romney’s advisor was appointed to replace Hunter Biden on the board of directors of the Cyprus-based Ukrainian natural gas company owned by Kolomoiski. (The Cyprus companies were where the laundering from these ponzi “loans” was processed.)
  • Discovered also was that the “whistleblower” who offered up hearsay to Adam Schiff was a CIA operative.
  • Kolomoisky hired his own “rightwing” (Nazi) military, which helped him (and still does to this day) to acquire assets. They allegedly storm the asset that he wants and takes it over.
  • The Ukrainian oligarch billionaire arms dealer who supplies that military (Igor Pasternak) is a sugar-daddy for Adam Schiff, holding $2500/plate dinners for Schiff’s campaign funds.

It’s one great big slush fund, funded ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer and enabled by the CIA giving cover to get rid of genuine investigations. And all that was caught just in that one instance of Biden bragging to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Trump stated Biden must have thought that was a “friendly audience” (complicit in the scheme). A large number of Democrats sit on the CFR.


I’m not trying to steal a tag line from any news organization by saying this:

We provide information — You Decide!

House Intel Adam Schiff Zoo

If you see the Audio Player button here, do NOT listen to this file until the end of today’s story. On some viewer’s browser the Play button is at the end of the story. This short audio file should be listened to last.

That’s exactly what it was. It became apparent in Schiff’s opening statement that reeked of political bias, to fuel Democrat’s Trump impeachment process, but, most importantly, extreme hatred for President Trump. We’ll visit Mr. Schiff’s exposed hatred for the President in an audio file later in this story.

Today’s offering, will not be lengthy, will not (as normal) be an opinion piece. As promised we have released it in bullet point format. I felt going into a weekend, you deserved to receive the truth of this important story but with as little negative perspective as possible.

It was meaningless to listen to any of the Democrat committee members as they questioned the DNI Acting Director Admiral Joseph Maguire who is the former Counter-Terrorism Chief. They all stayed on script, all parroted Schiff’s narcissistic demeanor, and accused Director Maguire continuously of failure to comply with statutes that purportedly require the referral to Congress all Intelligence Agency Whistleblower complaints when the Inspector General finds the allegations credible and “urgent.” Schiff, however, disregarded the details of that statute that require any such referral to Congress to be exclusively for the wrongdoing of someone within the Intelligence agencies. This claim is not about an Intelligence Agency individual. Additionally, Maguire received an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that the complaint does NOT allege wrongdoing on the part of an Intelligence Agency employee and therefore does not fall under the requirement to forward this claim to Congress.

  • Here’s the problem with this: Congress writes ALL federal laws. Congress created the applicable federal statute, including its restrictions. Congress determined the DNI Director had no authority to give Congress that complaint! Maguire basically was “damned if he did-damned if he didn’t” turn it over to Congress. Yet Schiff and his Democrat Intel Committee lapdogs treated Admiral Maguire like a criminal, yet every step of his actions was taken with the complete knowledge and direction of the Department of Justice. The big problem? No such whistleblower in these circumstances had ever in U.S. history happened previously. And Congress did NOT anticipate this type of whistleblower claim.
  • It was obvious throughout the hearing that Democrats had no interest in the facts of the process used by Admiral Maguire, the Inspector General, the counsel of the Department of Justice, the process required to ascertain any conflict regarding Executive Privilege according to the White House Counsel. Intel Committee Democrats continually pushed Acting Director Maguire for his opinions on various issues, many of which did not apply to this particular complaint at all. Adam Schiff continuously twisted the wording of his questions of Maguire to obviously try to elicit a specific response from Maguire.
  • Schiff and others in numerous questions demeaned Maguire, stating that the actions of President Trump in that phone call with Ukraine’s president should have immediately upon Maguire’s decision to not refer the matter to Congress referred it to the FBI for investigation. None would ever allow Director Maguire to answer the question! The Admiral tried to answer to that question asked by at least three Democrats but was shut down. What he tried to tell them is the Justice Department received a criminal referral from the DNI Inspector General regarding the possibility of the Presidents actions in that phone call being a campaign finance violation. the DOJ declined to take action after a review. It was simultaneously referred to the FBI. That referral was determined to not contain valid reasons for any criminal prosecution.
  • The universal thread contained in every question asked by Intel Committee Democrats was the assumption that President Trump was guilty of tampering with another presidential election colluding with a foreign government. That was not a new allegation against Mr. Trump by Democrats. We just completed a three-year, $40 million Mueller investigation of President Trump for alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 election by Mr. Trump and members of his campaign: Deja Vu.

In just a moment I want you to listen to the audio of a phone call between Congressman Schiff and two persons he was told (and he believed) were Russian intelligence agents who had evidence of significant and illegal wrongdoing by Candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign. The specifics of that “evidence” in the call comported with details included in the infamous Steele dossier. At that point — early in the Mueller investigation — Schiff had on numerous occasions on numerous television news shows gleefully proclaimed he possessed factual evidence of collusion with Russia by Mr. Trump to assist his victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The conversation with these two Russians was viewed by Schiff as a way for him to grasp the proof of Trump wrongdoing sufficient to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Little did Mr. Schiff know that the two on that phone call with him were radio announcers that told Schiff’s assistants about the Trump dirt. The call was not just recorded for later dissemination, it was aired live on their radio program. Before you listen to it, know this: this action taken by Schiff was a REAL attempt on his part to illegally use to obtain evidence against Donald Trump. According to his insistent admonition to Admiral Maguire, Schiff himself should have immediately contacted the FBI and referred the matter to investigators. Rather than doing the legal and right thing with an FBI referral, Schiff chose to get the news himself. He envisioned it as his chance to give the world the proof of Trump collusion that he and others (including his fellow California cohort Rep. Eric Swalwell) untruthfully had reported again and again they already possessed!

Late-Breaking News:

Reliable yet anonymous sources have identified who the whistleblower “probably” is. A very reliable source has stated to TruthNewsNetwork the secret Washington whispers heard and fingers point to Edward “Ned” Price as the whistleblower who came forward with the accusation that President Trump “abused his office” during a phone conversation with the Ukrainian president. Edward “Ned” Price (born 1982) is a Fellow at the New America Foundation and a political analyst for NBC News. Price is also a former American intelligence officer who worked at the United States Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 until February 2017. On February 20, 2017, Price published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, outlining his decision to retire from the CIA rather than work in a Donald Trump administration.

Price certainly fits the profile of what has been rumored about the whistleblower: former intelligence officer, supportive of a Trump political rival, etc. But that’s not the half of it, though. Sources also report that Price was not only a CIA deep state agent but was also one of the spies that John Brennan used in the 2016 election to spy on the Trump campaign.

I’ll leave this breaking news segment with this: if the President’s conduct was so egregious, then why on Earth didn’t State Department officials who were privy to the conversation first-hand register a complaint? Price only learned about the incident second- or third-hand!

The Wrap-Up

You know my feelings about Adam Schiff, his role in House leadership and the way he handles himself, and his vitriolic animus for Donald Trump. He in that hearing accused Admiral Maguire of being incompetent, unpatriotic, and incapable of carrying out his role as Acting DNI Director.

Schiff has on many occasions assured American that President Trump was/is a Russian operative with deep ties directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and that Trump’s 2016 actions were actively soliciting and participating with Russian operatives to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Schiff constantly in interviews denigrated Mr. Trump for being so un-American.

We’ll close with this audio of Mr. Schiff in a phone call with whom he thinks are two Russian government operatives who have dirt of various kinds that implicate President Trump directly with illicit and illegal activities in Russia. Schiff did not know they two guys were radio disc jockeys tricking Schiff live on-air to attempt to do exactly what Schiff has continuously accused the president of doing in 2016!

Listen to this phone call by clicking this link. It’s exactly like listening to one of our podcasts. On your browser, it may be located at the top of this page. Click on the audio player in either location you see it to play: