The Credibility Gap in D.C. is Wide — and Getting Wider

“What we are witnessing in D.C. is a likely bloodbath at the polls in 2020.”

Let’s just step back, all take a deep breath, and for a moment reflect on where the United States really is politically. And we may be in a place that you don’t even realize we are. While we are reflecting, let’s forget about the great obvious and very visually good things that have occurred in the first 2 years of the Trump presidency: unemployment all-time records (on the low side), federal revenue all-time records, more jobs available than people to fill them, corporate expansion and new hiring exploding, tax cuts for corporations and the middle class, etc. Instead of going into the details of those accomplishments, let’s dig deeper and examine those things that have led to the path on which we find ourselves — the “foundation” that has been prepared on which those “good things” could be and have been based. Then we will look ahead to 2020 and look closely at how the current political climate will directly impact the election results in 2020. In doing this analysis, let’s look at these categories that are critical in the lives of all Americans:

  • Healthcare
  • Jobs and employment
  • Taxes
  • Immigration
  • The American Political Atmosphere

Healthcare

In 1992, I started a Medical Reimbursement Management Company in the spare bedroom of my home. It was just me, a card file, and a telephone getting started. Without bragging, let me say it’s been a really good ride. I have transitioned ownership to a son-in-law who came aboard as IT Director about 15 years ago. I’m telling you this to say, we know Healthcare from the bottom up — from the perspective of what drives every successful business in America: the $$$.

The U.S. — in spite of what you hear every day — does NOT have a Healthcare problem. The U.S. has a Healthcare “Finance” problem.

American Healthcare is among the best healthcare systems in the World. The current political climate finds politicians clamoring for “Healthcare Overhaul.” That is a dangerous path for the nation to walk down. Medical Services provided under the current healthcare system are amazing. Costs and Healthcare Services are two vastly different things. And politicians are crying for the wrong things to happen — and in many cases, I think purposely so. We need to LEAVE healthcare itself alone, but fight for “healthcare finance reform.”

This administration has initiated a so-far successful plan to fight for an across-the-board reduction in the costs of prescription drugs. The same drugs we buy in the U.S. are bought in other countries. Yet we pay monumentally more for most of those prescription drugs than do those in other countries. Why is that? Legislative lobbying. Lobbyists give perks to members of Congress who then pass drug price legislation that favor American pharmaceutical companies and their American retail sales prices. Their reasoning: drug companies contend they MUST cover their costs for research, testing, and creation of bringing new drugs to the market by keeping drug prices high in the U.S. While that is happening, they contend they can sell the same products overseas for a “more reasonable price.” That certainly sounds good to folks in Canada! And there are Detroit residents who take advantage of that and drive across the border bridge to Windsor, Canada — just a couple of miles away — to buy American pharmaceuticals at MUCH lower prices! Fixing Healthcare starts there, and we’ve already made a good start.

Secondly, medical procedures and product charges need to be based totally on a fee schedule: the price allowed for every medical procedure and product available and used by healthcare professionals. There’s already such a schedule in place that has been used successfully in the U.S. for decades. It’s a “Medicare Part B” fee schedule. Retail prices are not considered in that schedule. It includes only “allowables:” the prices that providers will be paid by Medicare and secondary insurance companies. That schedule is adjusted based on zip codes for providers.

Obviously, a heart bypass operation costs a surgeon more to perform in Manhattan than in Arcadia, Louisiana. A Manhattan surgeon, therefore, will get paid more for the same bypass than does a surgeon rural in Louisiana. And they’re fair prices.

There are many on the provider side in healthcare who scream “Medicare fee schedule rates are too low. We can’t operate at those prices!” Here’s what I KNOW from managing this for so long: if EVERY provider (physician and/or hospital) knows that for EVERY service they provide they will receive whatever the exact amount allowed on that fee schedule within a certain amount of time — like 45 days — they’ll jump at that opportunity ONCE THE FACTS ARE PUT IN FRONT OF THEM. I am certain of that fact.

Why are medical prices so high now? Because so many medical bills NEVER get paid at all. Medical providers are forced to jack-up all their prices, hoping that insurance companies will pay those too-high prices that will offset their losses for the services they provide that go unpaid!

A fee schedule WILL work IF we try it.

Jobs and Employment

The facts speak for themselves: unemployment in various segments are at all-time lows; there are more jobs available than there are people to fill them; corporate expansions are sky-rocketing; wages have begun to rise steadily; there are more people employed than ever before in U.S. history; domestic companies are repatriating profits being held overseas back to the United States and putting that money into capital markets for corporate growth and expansion. It’s the capital market system of free market ideas. And it works! “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And it ain’t broke.

Taxes

Much of the good economic news in America is a direct result of the tax reductions under the Trump Administration, both for corporations and Americans personally. It is important to note that federal tax revenues have increased dramatically in the past two years, even with these tax cuts. How could that possibly be?

That’s the way a free market system works. Liberals wrongly think that reducing taxes automatically reduces federal income. But the exact opposite is true. Here’s how the process works:

  • In error, liberals think if taxes on corporations are lowered, those corporations will take that extra money and keep it as “profits.” That’s incorrect;
  • Corporations typically take that extra income and expand their operations, buy new equipment, add new buildings, market more aggressively to get new business, give existing employees raises, and add new employees as they attract new clients;
  • The same concept holds true for personal tax cuts. People who keep more of their own money buy new things, renovate their homes, buy NEW homes, buy NEW cars, travel more, etc. They seldom just stick that money in the bank;
  • When corporations and individuals have more money, they put more money into the free market. That in itself impacts the atmosphere of business and stimulates positive feelings derived from positive things happening. Growth happens in part just because consumer confidence levels rise.

Immigration

The U.S. is a nation of immigrants. But the U.S. is also a nation of laws. That fact seems to be lost to America’s lawmakers today. But it has served the immigration process well for 200+ years — until today.

Each year the U.S. Rewards 1 million foreigners legal status — mostly full citizenship — in the United States. In comparison, that 1 million number equals the total number of legal immigrants accepted into every other country on Earth — COMBINED!

No one knows for certain how many illegals there are today in the U.S. nor how many are sneaking into the U.S. every week. What we DO know is that number is in the millions.

What else Americans do not know is why we have ANY illegals here for ANY reasons. There is NO good answer to that question. But there are answers — just no GOOD ones.

  • There have been (and always will be) a number of illegals who find their way into the U.S. That though a criminal act occurs in every other country as well. But nowhere else has there been near the number of illegal entries as there are in the U.S. Many foreigners want to come here. But the current environment of there being so many here illegally is unsustainable. Yet politicians — mostly on the Left — continue to (as they have for decades) resist correcting the legal process to stop illegal immigration.
  • There are immediate financial benefits for having illegals. Illegals primarily find manual labor, which often is handled outside the normal U.S. employment process. Illegals generally do not have social security status and therefore in large get paid without payroll deductions — social security, federal, state, and local taxes — which allows employers to Illegally skip reporting those as employees. Employers therefore can pay lower gross wages to illegals. That — no payroll deductions — in effect means illegals for the same jobs receive higher take-home pay than do their legal counterparts. And employers because of not paying the legal deductions save money with illegal workers.
  • Illegals will often work in menial tasks that many Americans refuse.
  • The primary reason for the continuation of massive illegal entries into the country is for political purposes. Those on the Left identify illegals as certain future Democrat voters. There are many who feel strongly that even right now, illegals in some states find ways to vote illegally in federal elections. Democrats feel certain that when they regain a strong majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House simultaneously, they will be successful at passing legislation to change voting laws to allow ALL illegals to vote in federal elections.
  • Dems are certain the current class of illegals will certainly vote for Democrats, thus assuring the continuation of their party and its liberal policies.

It is important to note that the Democrat Party depends for its very existence on the perpetuation of a “Dependent Class” of Americans. Democrats must have in their control those who maintain government financial assistance to survive. Those peoples’ reliance on Democrats obligates their support of the Democrat Party and their candidates. Otherwise, Democrats have no policy offerings at all to counter the current good economic climate in the U.S. that was initiated under Trump.

The American Political Atmosphere

Here’s where the nation is in real trouble. Not in my lifetime has there existed a political atmosphere so negative, so vitriolic, so full of hate and so divided. Those on the Left blame this president and his followers. Those on the Right blame the Left for their quest to move voters in the nation so far away from conservative ideals.

There is little respect for diversity of thought and opinion anymore. I remember in the early to mid-70s when at my university in the South, there was a modicum of respect for the opinions of those who would stand and speak in the Quadrangle at noon expressing their political opinions. Yes, there were those with differing opinions. And, yes, there was sometimes arguing that escalated between some of those. But I never saw hatred and total disdain.

In American politics, we have devolved from “differing opinions” to outright “hatred” for those with opposing political views. When else in American history has any organized group that purports to protest against those who speak at a Free Speech rally show up at that rally to NOT support Free Speech speakers, but to attack them? That is exactly what ANTIFA has been doing for 2 years. And at those rallies, members of ANTIFA are seen physically attacking conservatives. “ANTIFA” stands for “anti-fascists.” Yet ANTIFA’s goal at these rallies is to demonize Free Speech and those who support it.

Do you know what’s odd about their doing so? Most Americans think ANTIFA really represents their namesake! Most Americans think those conservatives against who ANTIFA demonstrate are the bad guys in this whole thing.

It’s not much better elsewhere in politics. Congress — where conservative and liberal ideals are supposed to be turned into laws to govern every aspect of American life — has simply discovered the comfort in doing very little as part of the legislative process so as to not cause any heartburn regarding legislation — that instead of the process that should result in lawmaking. Instead, they are content to either investigate, hold press conferences in which their only agenda seems to be to demonize all those with differing opinions and to be careful in what and how they do the little they do to make only as few waves as possible.

Meanwhile, the electorate is steaming with partisanship they parrot from their Congressional counterparts. The rule of the day in politics instead of mandating peaceful discourse and discussion of ideas is to attack all ideas and all those who espouse such ideas that differ from your own. Even in the ’60s with the Vietnam War the anger and hatred for those with opposing ideas were not nearly as caustic as those today. Political opponents are not necessarily Democrats and Republicans. Those just represent opposing political parties. The hatred and animus run much deeper: Female against Male, Heterosexual against Homosexual, Black against White, American against non-American, Pro-Life against Pro-Choice, etc. And the vitriol between all of these is the type that can and does often turn into violence.

To complicate matters, the Left hates this president. Because of their hatred, everything they do in legislation or other parts of the federal government is colored by that disdain for him. Their angst for Donald Trump is primarily driven by the election trouncing of their certain 2016 White House victor: Hillary Clinton. None gave any chance to the New York billionaire. But enough Americans with differing opinions gave him a huge electoral college whipping over Ms. Clinton. And the Left have not forgiven Trump and will not do so.

That’s why we find ourselves where we are today: in pure political pandemonium. Don’t get me wrong: governing continues. Good things are happening, and the void between the two versions of political thinking get wider and wider with each passing day. And every Trump victory morphs immediately into another pointed finger in the eyes of the Left.

So what’s going to happen?

  • The Trump victories that are heretofore numerous in as well are unexpected will continue. Americans love the fact that a candidate made promises which when elected keeps those promises.
  • “It’s the economy, Stupid!” as first uttered by James Carville just before the Bill Clinton victory in re-election in 1996 is still the major contributing factor in Americans’ approval of President Trump. Based on what we know today and expect for the next 2 years, that will continue.
  • “Take No Prisoners.” Donald Trump is bombastic. He always keeps his opponents wondering what he’s thinking and what is his next political step. One thing that is certain for all: when he takes action, it’s always decisive, quick, and widely seen. Those on the Left hate it, but there’s no way they can stop it short of impeachment or a 2020 victory in unseating this sitting President.

Summary

Prediction: Trump will NOT be impeached before the 2020 election. He will continue to fight hard against the Left in the same manner in which he has the first 2 years of his presidency. It will get uglier. More outlandish allegations will surface and be thrown against him. But in each, he will be vindicated.

Why is all of this so vile? There must be something to hide. The attackers must have things to hide.

Democrats really wanted President Trump to do something horrific during the Mueller investigation — so horrific that it would prove he is unfit to serve as President. Why else would Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) continuously claim they had actual evidence proving that Donald Trump actually colluded with Russians who helped him win in 2016 and that he obstructed justice in doing so? That was the pair’s sharp stick. They expected the verbose billionaire from Queens to take their bait and do something — anything — to shut down the Mueller probe. Because they know Washington D.C. and the Swamp so well, they felt for certain that Mr. Trump had broken the law (like many who serve in Congress) and would be exposed for doing so during the probe. It didn’t happen. Why? THERE’S NO THERE THERE!

Play

Pelosi-Schumer are “In the Box”

For the purpose of total transparency, please know I am NOT a Democrat. I am NOT a Republican. I am registered as “Other.” My state is one in which “Independent” is not a political category that is available for voter registration.

Honestly, in some ways, I am somewhat Libertarian, in some ways Republican, and though not inclined to support any current Democrat Party policies, on certain social issues I am antipathetic: not leaning Left and not leaning Right.

Whew! Now that we got that cleared up, let me make a statement to open today’s offering: The Democrat Party is in DEEP trouble! Its two leaders have gone totally off the reservation on which Reason resides. Nancy and Chuck are oblivious to YouTube’s capability to capture actual conversations in real time that often come up years later to haunt those who said those things. 

Besides that, both Pelosi and Schumer still act and talk like Americans are oblivious to all the things they say and do, and promises they break. (There has to be a reason for Congress’ approval numbers hovering in the teens) They’ve both been really good at showing the world their foolishness. But this time it is REALLY over the top.

“Nancy and Chuck Sitting in a Tree….”

By now everyone is familiar with the notification to Mexico by President Trump that unless Mexico stepped up to help take care of the flood of illegals through the U.S. border he would impose massive tariffs on Mexican goods. In all fairness, members of Congress — and not all are Democrats — balked at the possibility of Mexican tariffs. Concerns were primarily those for the negative impact tariffs would make on the U.S. economy.

They all looked for cameras so they could pontificate about the lunacy of such tariffs and how bad implementing those would be on U.S. foreign policy. Still, Trump restated, again and again, he was serious and would indeed assess tariffs, and that the first level — 5% — would become effective Monday, June 10, 2019.

Here was Nancy about the Trump lunacy regarding tariffs and Trump’s explanation:

Not to be outdone, the Senate Minority Leader stepped to the microphone to give the world his sarcastic analysis. Here’s what he said:

“This is an historic night!” Schumer said sarcastically in a Twitter post Friday night.
The president “has announced that he has cut a deal ‘to greatly reduce, or eliminate, illegal immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States,’ Schumer added, quoting the president. “Now that that problem is solved, I’m sure we won’t be hearing any more about it in the future.”

Even Beto added his thoughts:

“I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some case, months ago,” the former congressman from Texas said on ABC’s “This Week.” “They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has.”

A Mexican government contingent rushed to D.C. to negotiate a resolution with the U.S. State Department. The furor from the Left crescendoed as the tariff implementation date got closer. Friday, June 7th, Mexico capitulated and the President announced a resolution had been reached.

Expectations were that everyone in Washington would breath easier knowing that there would be no tariffs and that Mexico would take-on illegal immigration on their side of the border. But Nancy and Chuck brought any glee back to ground level. They are NOT happy.

Seriously?

Here’s where my head explodes. Pelosi and Schumer are the most powerful people in the Democrat Party. They supposedly represent “The People.” If they do, then please answer these:

How do you refuse to respond to the non-stop illegal alien entries into the U.S., the massive drug cartel floods of opioids across our border, and human trafficking that is mind boggling?

Why do you — the Democrats — not take ANY emergency actions to stop the travesty down South? In fact, when the President when responding to Dems inaction has taken executive action to help ICE and Customs Border Patrol stem the tide of illegal crossings, Democrats have run to the most liberal federal court judge they can find to file grievances against the President. Why is that?

Why did you flatly refuse the President’s offer in early 2018 to protect those DACA recipients and to provide a massive number of interim visas so illegals could remain and take steps for permanent legal status?

Here’s what the President offered them in that proposal:

It offered up to 1.8 million DACA recipients and other “in limbo” immigrants legal status in exchange for doing away with “chain migration” and the immigration lottery used in foreign countries to determine those that would come to the U.S. for legal immigration. As part of the deal, Congress would fund the building of the southern wall/barrier.

Pelosi and Schumer didn’t even bother to make the President a counter offer. They just flatly said, “No!” Meanwhile, those DACA recipients that the Democrat Party had claimed as their own are still left out in the cold — still with tentative immigration status, and are here in the U.S. without citizenship or any way to get it, all thanks to Nancy and Chuck.

The results of their “No”

January 2018 through May 2019, 1,354,202 illegals were “apprehended” at the southern border — more than any previous corresponding period in U.S. history.

At least $200 Billion has been spent by the U.S. government to process and take care of those illegals. And that does NOT include the money spent by state and local governments and for healthcare!

Hundreds of thousands of pounds of opioids and other drugs continue to find their way into the U.S. craftily transferred into the U.S. between ports of entries to escape the notice of border agents. Thousands of children have been trafficked by the Mexican cartels.

Most horrible of all is that there is no way to know for certain how many Americans have paid for the Dems callousness in allowing this to continue. But it is certain that many paid with their health, their safety and security, and many paid with their lives. Crimes committed by these illegals have cost border states, counties tens of millions of dollars.

And why? Why do Democrats following the lead of Pelosi and Schumer continue to turn their backs on legal Americans, legal immigrants, and the rule of law? Why do they allow the continuation of lawlessness and senseless deaths of Americans at the hands of illegals or as a direct result of the opioids they bring into the U.S.?

I would never respond by saying that Democrats don’t care about the carnage and dollars poured down the drain of Illegal Immigration. Certainly, if they really do care, they don’t show it.

What is their objective, then? What can possibly be the desired end result that would cost Americans so much and still be worthy to continue this madness? Why would they not just turn their backs on the success by this President’s putting definite tariffs on Mexico if they continue to ignore international immigration laws, but then laugh at his doing so while denigrating his intentions in taking such action and maintaining he did so for “personal reasons.”

And last but certainly not least, why do they think so little of everyday Americans, acting like all Americans are too dumb to understand exactly what Democrats are doing?

The answer is simple: Nancy, Chuck, Hillary, Barack, Uncle Joe, Mayor Pete, Kamala, Beto, Kirsten, and every other Democrat of prominence today doesn’t’ care about the opinions of Americans; don’t care about what is best for at-large Americans and their specific needs; don’t care that Americans in a huge majority have labeled Illegal Immigration as the great problem in America today. 

How desperately do they despise Americans? Think about it: Hillary (when she thought no one was listening) called Trump supporters — which are comprised of Middle Americans — “deplorables.” And most Democrats feel that Trump supporters are uneducated, of low income households, and, more importantly, unsophisticated and are therefore incapable of understanding what’s best for them, their families, and the U.S.

And, of course, Democrats DO know what’s best for Trump supporters and everyone else on Earth.

Meanwhile, Democrats are consumed with two things: Indictments of pretty much everyone in the Trump Administration and the impeachment of the President. Nothing else matters — especially not you or me. Their all-consuming agenda: control every American, every corporation, every social organization, and every dollar. After all, they certainly know best how to handle all of those, don’t they?

I forgot: what box are Nancy and Chuck in together? Their box is not made of cardboard or wood. Their box is made of mirrors. As far as they can see, they’re the only ones in their box. When they look up, who do they see? Chuck and Nancy. When they look to either side, front or back, who do they see? Chuck and Nancy. No one else is viewable from their box, AND THEY DON’T CARE! You are insignificant, anyway.

We haven’t forgotten about you at TNN. You’re on our radar. This week we’re closely watching what goes on in D.C. And we’ll bring the truth of all that happens to you.

Stay close!

Play

Political “Switch-A-Rooskies”

Isn’t it laughable as we American voters look-in during the campaign period and see the rush by political candidates to in that “moment of reflection” get an epiphany that prompts their “Switch-A-Rooskies” on very controversial topics? The latest is Joe Biden.

Former VP Joe Biden

Throughout his political career, Biden has been very clear: he’s Catholic by faith and therefore has struggled with abortion. His faith’s doctrine has always been pro-life. Politically, his party has always been pro-choice. However, even though “technically” he has been pro-choice, he’s been emphatic that he is against the Hyde Amendment — the legislative amendment which allows funding of abortions with federal tax dollars. That was a principled stance he steadfastly embraced — until just days ago.

Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond defending Biden’s view on Hyde Wednesday night (June 5, 2019) with CNN’s Chris Cuomo:

“He is a deeply religious man. … He is guided by his faith, his position on the Hyde Amendment has been consistent.”

But then, just one day later, here’s the Democrat Presidential candidate Biden himself:

“If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s ZIP code,” Biden told a cheering crowd at a Democratic National Committee event in Atlanta.

Why the sudden Biden “Switch-A-Rooskie?” He’s been attacked all week by Leftist pro-choice advocates for his political hypocrisy for stating that abortion is OK but that funding it with tax dollars was wrong. Why is that wrong? Those Leftists state that doing so would negatively impact the poor and therefore is wrong. And they said HE could not be elected if he was against tax dollar funding of abortion. 

So, he switched — just like that.

California’s Kamala Harris

** Before she was serving the people of California as a senator, Harris served as the state’s attorney general. As attorney general, Harris had to enforce California’s laws as written, but she also used her position to advocate for policies she felt would keep her constituents safe.

Formerly as California’s Attorney General she supported immigration laws that though controversial had to be enforced — even that which required the reporting of illegal juveniles to ICE, which flies in the face of sanctuary cities.

As a presidential candidate, her story has changed. She encourages all federal, state, and law enforcement members to NOT cooperate with ICE on anything that goes against the concept of sanctuary cities and supports deportation of illegals — a “Switch-A-Rooskie.”

** Then during a radio interview with “The Breakfast Club,” Harris claimed that she smoked pot when she was younger and that any claim that she opposes full marijuana legalization is “not true.” But, in her 2014 campaign, her Republican opponent for attorney general, Ron Gold, was very public about his support for full legalization of pot. Harris was not on the same page. When she was asked about legalization by KCRA in 2014, she laughed at Gold’s stance and said he was entitled to his opinion. Her presidential campaign may be pro-pot, but her time as attorney general certainly wasn’t.

**During an interview with CNN shortly after her presidential announcement, Harris told host Jake Tapper that America should “eliminate” the private system. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said of the private health insurance industry. “Let’s move on.”

BUT, according to CNN, “as the furor grew” toward her plan to ban private healthcare, her team announced that she is open to keeping a market system.

Harris has also done the old “Switch-A-Rooskie” on a required investigation of cops involved in killings and on mass incarceration.

Barack Obama

He had a bunch: he believed in the evolution of his positions on political issues, like gay marriage. Before he was a U.S. senator, Obama liked gay marriage. Then, when he ran for the Senate, he said gay marriage was wrong. As president, he claimed his views were “evolving” on it — and finally, Obama said he liked it again.

Mitt Romney

Democrats have not had exclusives on the “Switch-A-Rooskie’s.” During his run for the White House in 2012, Mitt Romney — who had long been pro-choice — announced he was pro-life. Romney during that campaign also made a 180 on gay rights.

George H.W. Bush

Remember his famous speech at the Republican National Convention in which he promised: “Read my lips — NO NEW TAXES!” Of course, that changed and NEW taxes were passed in Congress and signed into law by Bush 41. He was rewarded by voters who chose Bill Clinton over him in 1992 for the White House.

Presidential Candidate John Hickenlooper

Former Colorado governor and Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper does a good job with his “Switch-A-Rooskie.” He strongly opposed a 2012 ballot initiative that made his state the first to legalize recreational cannabis. But by 2019, he had long warmed to the idea, telling a CNN town hall that Colorado’s approach was “so much better than the old system where we sent millions of kids to prison, most of them kids of color.”

Beto

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke supported a government-run system embodied in the “Medicare for All” bill during his Senate run in Texas in 2018 that would effectively eliminate private insurance. But in March, after just setting out on the presidential campaign trail, he said he changed his mind and now favors legislation that would add a Medicare-like option to compete with private insurance, not abolish it. O’Rourke acknowledged that many people like their employer-provided health care insurance.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., in a “60 Minutes” Interview last year, said she was “embarrassed” by her opposition to gun safety bills and “ashamed” of her past support for proposals to scale up immigration enforcement and deny driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The NRA has since gone from giving her an “A” grade to an “F,” and she also has come out for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and transferring its responsibilities elsewhere.

Previously, Gillibrand had been a voracious supporter of the NRA. In fact, a letter from the Senator to the NRA just surfaced in which she praised the NRA for its support of the 2nd Amendment and gun rights for Americans. She also was a huge supporter of ICE and its efforts to protect New Yorkers in areas where illegals in MS-13 gangs have murdered many on Long Island.

Hillary Clinton in 2016

Hillary Clinton has a propensity to change her mind on big issues. She has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration, and the Iraq War, and on the Keystone XL pipeline.

When CNN moderator Anderson Cooper called Clinton on her flip-floppery in a 2016 presidential debate (“Will you say anything to get elected?” he asked), she defended her policy “Switch-A-Rooskie” as “expressions of political thoughtfulness rather than weakness.”

“Well, actually, I have been very consistent,” Clinton said, arguing her unyielding commitment to “the same values and principles” over her entire life. “But like most human beings—including those of us who run for office—I do absorb new information. I do look at what’s happening in the world.”

What’s This All About?

Sadly, all of these above and other “Switch-A-Rooskies” are definitely about something specific. Certainly instances like these are not new and are not unique. But they certainly ARE sad examples of what has happened in America.

I remember the stories of the fathers of our Nation when they were establishing our Nation in the first place. They met, they discussed, and they argued. Sure, during those discussions and sometimes in those arguments tempers flared, arguments turned into pushing and shoving, voices were raised and even fists came out from time to time. And there was that famous duel to settle a dispute.

But what this gang of politicos are doing today and have been for several decades is NOT what our forefathers did. There are today NO serious discussions between candidates or those already in office about issues. There is NO debate, NO logical examination of facts of any controversial matter. Such discussions are immaterial today. All that matters is specific political perspectives on EVERY issue.

Example: I listened today as television hosts grilled a political “expert” regarding the “Switch-A-Rooskie” by former VP Joe Biden regarding the Hyde Amendment. Biden was an ardent supporter of the Amendment for a couple of decades. (It prevents federal funds being used to fund abortions) This “expert” — a Democrat Party pundit — defended Biden’s sudden change.

His “Switch-A-Rooskie” was because his “position on federally funded abortions has “evolved” through the years — according to that Democrat pundit. He’s now making sure ALL applicable circumstances of a matter factor into all decisions he makes regarding all issues that are important to Americans.

But it’s NOT about “issues evolving;” it’s not about “new information” or the understanding of “scientific breakthroughs;” (like Climate Change); it’s about one thing and one thing only: whatever it takes to get enough votes to win.

That was not what drove the Washington’s, Franklin’s, Jefferson’s, the Henry’s, and the Burrs of the 1700s.

What’s changed? A whole bunch! But ALL these changes that happen every day among America’s politicians are tied directly to one thing and one thing only: “Moral Compass.”

Moral Compass

What’s that?

Simply stated, Moral Compass is the thing inside of us that tells us which direction we should go when we have to make decisions involving right and wrong.  This is how we judge a person’s character and whether they will make a moral and good decision.

Many claim to have a simple formula on how to evaluate a person’s character. When you hear their opinions on it, it is clear that they form the basis of their opinion on only a single issue.

This is wrong because the sum of a person is not whether they make no mistakes in judgment. Instead, it is the quantity and quality of those mistakes. A person could otherwise live an upstanding life, be very moral and very good in so many ways, and yet be guilty of a personal failing on a single issue.

When we evaluate a person’s character, the only fair way to evaluate them is to look at how they conduct themselves in many areas.  How do they treat strangers? How do they treat their enemies? Are they honest? Are they loyal?  Do they help others in need? There are many other criteria in which we can judge. None of this suggests that we weight all moral failings equally. Judging a person is based on the impact their moral failings have on other people.

To this Cajun who emigrated to North Louisiana, honesty is the chief arbiter of a person’s character. Honesty is something that I consider crucially important. What I consider lying (dishonesty) is the case where a person willfully and knowingly misleads others simply to get their own way.  It is a huge moral failing to be able to and be comfortable with bending the truth easily. People with a stable moral compass will feel uncomfortable with it, and may even be reluctant to do so. Unfortunately, sometimes people believe their own lies. That’s a sign of complete dishonesty and demonstrates a lack of conviction. It is being a hypocrite to oneself and to others.

How a person treats those they disagree with and those who are less fortunate in any way says a lot about one’s character. Many religions tell us to turn the other cheek when we are attacked. Living up to these standards can sometimes be very hard, maybe impossible. Many people have a difficult time of it. However, the true test of character or lack thereof is when a person is willing to treat their enemy with deliberate and sometimes calculated cruelty and abuse. It becomes clear that he or she has no moral compass and no compassion for other people. When we lack a conscience, then we lack humanity. Humanity is what differentiates us from others in the animal kingdom.

Summary

So what reasoning can we to accurately determine the reason(s) for all the “Switch-A-Rooskies” related by America’s politicians above? I must be honest when I take an objective view of these examples. And, honestly, I have serious doubts with the reasoning used for all of them. It’s NOT about the issues, although I have particularly strong feelings about each of them. And it’s not so much about which side of each issue on which any of these come down on. My issue is with the Moral Compass of each of those who made the “Switch-A-Rooskies.” How else can you explain the drastic changes, sometimes literally overnight? Biden held his views on federally funding abortions since Roe v. Wade in the early 1970s. And literally in one night last week, he abandoned that 40-year-old opinion he said previously was “embedded in his conscience.”

Our nation is letting our collective and individual Moral Compass slide and slide. We are making it easy for the generations who follow us to waffle on EVERYTHING they face in life — holding NO absolutes on any issues in their lives. We are slowly embracing the life philosophy of “fly by the seat of your pants.”

It seems to be the easy path on which to walk that teaches us anything goes at any time — just “do what feels good.” But with that goes all of the social skills that humans must use to interface with others.

Want an example of this slide?

We have no longer any political discourse in America. Opposing parties refuse to discuss, negotiate, and find a compromise on ALL issues they face. It’s “our way or the highway” on EVERY issue. And it’s not just Republicans and not just Democrats — it’s ALL OF THEM.

So very little or nothing gets done.

Is that the World you want for your children, your grandchildren, and their children? If so, you’re certainly very happy today. If we don’t want that world, we all must step up and say “Enough is enough!”

If we don’t do that, the only unanswered question will be, “Who’s gonna get all this stuff done?”

Nobody will answer this way, “I’ll do it!” No one will be there to make things happen — especially not with the determination of right and wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Play

How Dysfunctional is Congress?

Short Answer: VERY!

Not in my lifetime has the U.S. Congress been so slow, so inconsistent, and so unwilling to go about the People’s business. There is no doubt part of their job is to oversee the operations of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. But that is NOT their primary responsibility.

The Constitution of the United States outlines the responsibilities and duties of Congress. Article I offers an overview of Congressional power, while Section 8 provides details about each duty. Section 8 includes a total of 14 paragraphs of information about all the duties, including:

  • Borrowing money on behalf of the country
  • Regulating commerce
  • Developing a uniform system of laws
  • Establishing the Post Office
  • Declaring war

Wow! That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Though those 5 tasks for the Congress set by The Constitution seem to be simple tasks, we all know there’s a lot to it. But, in all fairness, there are 535 elected people who are tasked to work together to complete those 5 things every year. And those 535 elected folks each have a staff comprised of dozens of workers to make certain everything necessary for the completion of those tasks is taken care of.

So why does Congress get so little done?

Congressional Actions in 2017 (2nd Half of 115th Congress)

In that most Americans doubt Congress does much of anything, Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) argues that the U.S. House of Representatives is getting things done. The Congressman on his website published a list of the greatest accomplishments of Congress in 2017. Let’s look at them:

(If you want details of any of these bills, click on the hyperlink to be transferred to see the actual bill)

These ten Congressional accomplishments — according to Congressman Shimkus — are the MOST important Congressional accomplishments of 2017! Obviously, his list includes specific bills that originated in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed some bills, too. But it takes both Houses to pass bills that find their way to the President’s desk to be signed into law. Of those ten bills listed by Congressman Shimkus as THE significant legislative 2017 accomplishments, only two were actually signed into law! None of the others — including any that the U.S. Senate passed — even made it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for presidential signature.

Laws Passed thru 5/31/2019 in this the 116th Congress

Public Law Number Bill Number and Title Date
PL 116-19 S.1693 – National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2019 05/31/2019
PL 116-18 H.R.2379 – To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. 05/23/2019
PL 116-17 H.R.1222 – Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 05/10/2019
PL 116-16 H.R.1839 – Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019 04/18/2019
PL 116-15 S.725 – A bill to change the address of the postal facility designated in honor of Captain Humayun Khan. 04/16/2019
PL 116-14 H.R.2030 – Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act 04/16/2019
PL 116-13 H.R.276 – Recognizing Achievement in Classified School Employees Act 04/12/2019
PL 116-12 S.863 – A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the grade and pay of podiatrists of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 04/08/2019
PL 116-11 S.252 – A bill to authorize the honorary appointment of Robert J. Dole to the grade of colonel in the regular Army. 04/06/2019
PL 116-10 S.49 – A bill to designate the outstation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation. 03/21/2019
PL 116-9 S.47 – John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act 03/12/2019
PL 116-8 S.483 – Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 03/08/2019
PL 116-7 H.R.439 – National FFA Organization’s Federal Charter Amendments Act 02/21/2019
PL 116-6 H.J.Res.31 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 02/15/2019
PL 116-5 H.J.Res.28 – Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 01/25/2019
PL 116-4 H.R.430 – TANF Extension Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-3 H.R.259 – Medicaid Extenders Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-2 H.R.251 – Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act 01/18/2019
PL 116-1 S.24 – Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 01/16/2019

Are you counting? 19 laws in 2019.

Estimates are that American taxpayers’ costs for funding Congressional operations were $4.4 Billion in 2009 — a decade ago! Current numbers simply “are not available.” But using realistic assumptions, it is credible to believe that number approaches $10 Billion annually. Look at what taxpayers received in Congressional services in legislative actions for the entirety of 2017 and the first half of 2019: 29 pieces of legislation plus the one big meaningful one: tax cuts. Do you feel like we’re getting our money worth?

So What is Congress Doing?

Great question. The #1 concern among Americans is dramatically and emphatically Illegal Immigration. Last week, more than 1,000 immigrants surged through the U.S. southern border near El Paso, Texas — the largest number ever encountered by U.S. Border Control and Protection, with the previous record being set in the month of April, which was 424. This unprecedented invasion spurred President Donald J. Trump to slap a 5 percent tariff on goods from Mexico in an effort to get the Mexican government to take seriously the problem of undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

The mainstream media, predictably, started lamenting on how the price of avocados for American consumers may potentially increase a few cents and completely ignored the $200 billion American taxpayers pay each year in illegal immigration costs. Not to mention the cost of illegal drugs on our youth, and the cost to education and health care on American taxpayers. So, let’s take a look at these dollars and cents.

According to a recent analysis done by Chris Conover, an American Enterprise Institute adjunct scholar, “all told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year.”

Although current federal policy prohibits federal tax funding of health care to unauthorized immigrants through Medicaid or Obamacare, “rough estimates suggest that the nation’s 3.9 million uninsured immigrants who are unauthorized likely receive about $4.6 billion in health services paid for by federal taxes, $2.8 billion in health services financed by state and local taxpayers and another $3 billion bankrolled through ‘cost-shifting,’ i.e. higher payments by insured patients to cover hospital uncompensated care losses, and roughly $1.5 billion in physician charity care,” Mr. Conover wrote in Forbes.

Public education of illegal immigrants’ children is also hemorrhaging the American taxpayer, as, under federal law, all students are eligible to receive schooling regardless of their immigration status.

“Public education is where the real big cost comes in,” Randy Capps, the director for research for U.S. programs at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute told NBC News this year. “The amount of taxes that the parents pay on their earnings, that they pay through property taxes — passed through on their rent — it’s not going to be as much as is spent on public education for their kids and food stamps for their kids.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated it cost public schools $59.8 billion to educate the children of illegal immigrants, and almost the entirety of this cost, 98.9 percent, is borne by taxpayers at the local and state level, through property taxes, according to a 2016 study. At the time, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were driving increased funding programs for students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) — causing a major drain on school budgets. That was when 118,929 unaccompanied minors were crossing the border during the fiscal year. Already this year, 44,779 unaccompanied alien minors have crossed the border and 248,197 family units, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

More people have been apprehended illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border this fiscal year than in any year since 2009, according to the CBP.

Then there’s the human cost of the drug crisis. In fiscal 2018, the U.S. border patrol seized 480,000 pounds of drugs, including fentanyl, marijuana, and meth, on the U.S.-Mexico border. In January, the CBP saw the largest seizure of fentanyl in the agency’s history — seizing nearly $4.6 million, or 650 pounds, of fentanyl and meth from a Mexican national when he attempted to cross the border.

Drug overdoses, fueled by opioids killed more than 70,000 people in the U.S. in 2017, with fentanyl overdose deaths doubling each and every year.

And today we learned that ISIS has been sending English-speaking terrorists to sneak through Mexico to get to the U.S. And we have no idea how long that has been happening and how many have entered the U.S.!

Can Mexico do more? Absolutely. Mexico needs to do a better job securing its own southern border — which runs only 150 miles across. It also can do a better job cracking down on its domestic terror organizations — both the coyotes smuggling young children across the border and the drug kingpins. Lastly, Mexico could grant asylum to migrants within its own homeland. According to international law, if you leave a country seeking asylum, you are to seek asylum in the first safe country you arrive. Mexico is safe, and the Mexican government can address this.

Who has the legal requirement to take care of the flow of immigrants into the U.S.? Are there laws that regulate all types of immigration? Why are they not being enforced? If they are bad laws, shouldn’t they be changed?

The answers to all those questions are singular: the United States Congress.

Why Doesn’t Congress Act on Illegal Immigration?

The simple answer: They don’t want to.

For Democrats, illegal immigration assures them of millions of “potential” voters that are present in the U.S. Democrats feel certain that whenever they take back the power of the House, Senate, and the White House, they can pass legislation to legalize all those illegals. That gives them instant VOTERS! And they are certain they will be able to lump those in the same Democrat basket in which they have already relegated African Americans and Hispanics.

For Republicans, those in the House and Senate simply don’t want to rock the boat. On the most part, their driving purpose is to maintain the balance between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans know it’s just a matter of time for the Democrats to take control of the Senate and probably the White House. Republicans want to “not make waves” now so that when Dems are back in power, the “revenge factor” will not lead Democrat leadership to strip GOP members of the prestigious committee spots they currently now have.

Remember: Congressional membership is no longer about money like it was decades ago — it’s all about “Power.” With power, you not only control money — billions of discretionary dollars — but everything  else. Balance is the key.

Regarding the border crisis: now that Democrats have come around and dropped their talking point “there is no crisis at the border,” why don’t they just pass legislation to take care of the problem, fund the necessary items to underwrite the current issues, stop illegal crossings, and fund the border wall?

They can no longer blame President Trump. Remember his offer last year? All Democrats had to do in the deal Trump offered Congress was fund the $5.7 billion for partial construction of the southern border wall. In exchange, his offer included hundreds of millions of dollars in new humanitarian money for safety and health of illegal immigrants, it would allow Central American children to apply for USA asylum from their home countries, and it would create a three-year legal status for about 700,000 people now here under the Obama-era DACA program, and some 300,000 people here under humanitarian protections, who might otherwise become illegal immigrants soon.

Of course Dems rejected the offer. So Trump has watched as the crisis down South has reached epidemic proportions and is taking Mexico on in an effort to force them to stop the Central America flood of immigrants through Mexico to get to the U.S. His plan is to use tariffs on Mexican products that come to the U.S. It sounds reasonable to most. But not to Pelosi and Company.

Her patent refusal is sad but not unexpected.

But then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky weighed in on HIS thoughts of the tariff proposal:

President Trump cannot win for losing!

Summary

Here’s the rub: President Trump cannot do it alone. Congress can! They could in a 30-minute session in the House and a 30-minute session in the Senate pass the necessary legislation to stop illegal immigration — if not completely then to a crawl — and give DACA recipients the peace of mind that though their parents brought them here illegally, they have stayed and can stay with government protection while they follow a path to citizenship. But they don’t!

The ball is in the court of the U.S. Congress. President Trump’s options are extremely limited. Many don’t like increased tariffs on China and other countries that are already in place. But they’re having positive results. Those on Mexico would hurt a bit, but their results would mean fair trade, which the U.S. has not had with most countries for decades. And if Mexico would simply honor their own immigration walls for their southern border and turn Central Americans away if not emigrating legally, our southern border crisis would subside!

Each American has only one thing to put into this battle: a vote — one vote. It would be a good thing (if you haven’t already) find out how your House member and your U.S. Senator feels, has voted, and will vote on any illegal immigration legislation issue if and when one comes to the floor for a vote. Let them know where YOU stand. And make some noise.

After all, they are allowing and even encouraging illegal immigrants to keep on coming! And they are making Americans who want the flood of illegals to stop feel guilty for wanting the government to simply abide by the law and enforce it.

After all of this, do you think there’s a possibility that many in Congress are just stupid?!?

 

Play

Who is “Below the Law?”

“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the president is not above the law.”

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 3, 2019

The Law

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

  1. concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
  2. concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
  3. concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
  4. obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
That’s the law — 18 U.S. Code § 798 — regarding the handling of classified information: the Law. By any understanding of that law and the penalty for breaking the law, when someone does so, their doing so is a heinous act against the U.S. Government that in doing so allows someone — anyone — to access potentially serious national information that could be damaging to the United States in any number of ways.

“Anyone:” Then there’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

(Follow along very carefully these next sentences:)

  • According to documents, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured a senior FBI official into de-classifying emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s illegal private server. The FBI official notes that Kennedy contacted the organization to ask for the change in classification in “exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ More specifically, “State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” according to a conversation relayed by The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen Hayes. The FBI did not take Kennedy up on his offer.
  • Despite initial denials from the State Department, this exchange is entirely plausible. For one, State had plenty of expertise in the deployment of quid pro quo during Hillary’s years of enriching her family foundation by trading government access. Moreover, a senior FBI official has a lot less reason to fabricate a conversation about favor trading than a Clinton functionary has to pressure a senior FBI official into saving Hillary from criminal prosecution.
  • “Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views,” a State Department spokesperson said. No doubt this is true. So why did Kennedy wait until a criminal investigation was well underway to ask law enforcement to scrutinize that particular document at that particular time? Is it customary for undersecretaries of State to ask the FBI to alter the classifications of documents that just happen to protect political candidates at the center of a politically explosive investigation? Did Kennedy — a man who owes his high position to the Clintons — engage in this conversation on his own? Was he asked to do it? For months, law enforcement had attempted to contact him, and he ignored their inquiries. Why, according to FBI documents, did Kennedy only reach out to make this request?
  • What’s even more curious is that FBI Director James Comey didn’t consider this event — or, for that matter, the litany of other actions Clinton’s lackeys took to protect her — as a sign that there was, at the very least, an intent to influence the investigation. This is, of course, was just one revelation in the Hillary email scandal. It’s worth remembering that the illegal email setup was only inadvertently discovered through a congressional investigation into Benghazi. The server itself existed to evade transparency.
  • When caught, Hillary alleged that she “never sent any classified material nor received any marked classified.” This turned out to be a lie. Hillary claimed before becoming secretary she had merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This turned out to be a lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices,” not to mention servers. Clinton — the most competent person to ever run for president, according to Barack Obama — claimed she didn’t understand how classified markings work. This was also a lie.
  • According to the FBI, Hillary sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of these emails contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey said at his press conference in July of 2016. He acknowledged this could have happened because Hillary and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He also admitted that no competent foreign power would have left behind evidence of this hack.

Yet, for some reason, Comey would not admit that this is why U.S. Code makes mishandling information — not the intent of those mishandling it — illegal.

Those who ran Clinton’s server attempted to destroy evidence — government documents — after The New York Times reported on her wrongdoing. Probably another coincidence. Not that intent mattered to Comey, either. Before the FBI even cracked open their laptops, the Justice Department proactively gave immunity to the five people who could have testified that Hillary was lying. (One of these people, Cheryl Mills, later acted as Hillary’s lawyer.) The two Clinton aides with the most intimate knowledge about her email conniving were also given side deals.

Does anyone besides me see any conflict in the happenings detailed above and what Ms. Clinton said in her speech on Monday of this week and in her tweet: “…the president is not above the law?”

Then There’s Congress

Everyone knows that it takes an impeachment proceeding initiated from the House Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, then with that committee’s referral to the floor of the House followed by a successful House vote to impeach to start that process. If and when that occurs, the matter is turned over to the Senate for an actual trial on the merits. Obviously, much debate ensues during an actual trial. At the conclusion, the Senate votes on the charges. If two-thirds of the Senators vote to confirm the House resolution for impeachment, the President is convicted and removed from office.

We want to note here: there’s a process — a Constitutional process. That process requires charges, evidence of violation by the President of U.S. Constitutional mandate that states in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There’s a Constitutional process for impeaching the President, Vice President, and other “civil officers of the United States.” Certainly, Americans support everything within the Constitution, right? But let’s see what longtime Democrat and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has to say about what is being threatened by House Democrats right now:

“The mantra invoked by those Democrats who are seeking to impeach President Trump is that ‘no one is above the law.’ That, of course, is true, but it is as applicable to Congress as it is to the president. Those members of Congress who are seeking to impeach the president, even though he has not committed any of the specified impeachable offenses set out in the Constitution, are themselves seeking to go above the law.

All branches of government are bound by the law. Members of Congress, presidents, justices and judges must all operate within the law. All take an oath to support the Constitution, not to rewrite it for partisan advantage.

It is the law that exempts presidents from being prosecuted or impeached for carrying out their constitutional authority under Article 2. The same Constitution precludes members of Congress from being prosecuted for most actions taken while on the floor of the House and Senate or on the way to performing their functions. The Constitution, which is the governing law, precludes Congress from impeaching a president for mere “dereliction” of duty or even alleged ‘corruption.’ Under the text of the Constitution, a president’s actions to be impeachable must consist of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Consider Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA), who has said the following:

Congressman Waters said this the other day: “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment.”

It is she, and other like-minded members of Congress, who are claiming the right to be above the law. That is a dangerous claim whether made by a president or by a member of Congress.

So Hillary, members of Congress, and most in the Mainstream Media are claiming they are above the Law, who then would be considered to be below the law?

The answer to that is simple: anyone who disagrees with anything any member of the Democrat ruling “Elitist-ocracy” is certainly below the Law and obviously unworthy of the consideration of “Equal justice under the Law.” Who throughout history are some of those “folks?”

  • All those who fled the repression of European elitist members of the Ruling Class who considered anyone not deemed to be eligible for membership in their groups to be less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • African-American men, women, and children who were taken by slave traders in Northern Africa and sold in America had no rights and were certainly less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • Today’s working-class Americans who don’t live and work in Coastal American states or those several interior states comprised of like-minded elites who have garnered favor from the political elite “Overclass” are less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • According to Hillary and other Dems, everyone who did NOT vote for Hillary in 2016 but chose Mr. Trump instead is not only ineligible for “Equal Justice under the Law,” but are reprehensible human beings and deserve no consideration of the benefits of simply being Americans.

Summary

I know this may seem harsh today. But it is time for Americans to wake up and realize liberty and justice for all is about to be “liberty and justice for only an elite few.” And regardless of what the pundits on the Left want all to believe, those elites are NOT the current inhabitants of the White House. They are led by the defeated 2016 presidential candidate and all those who had surreptitiously created, implemented, and maintained her path to the White House so as to cover-up all the wrongdoing committed by her team and others comprised by a large number of very important government officials.

Even in the aftermath of two years of an exhaustive investigation into ridiculous allegations against this president, his staff, family, and many friends, those Elitists still shout in anger threats against all of those who are “below the Law” that support the duly elected president and the Rule of Law.

I never in my wildest dream we would ever see a day like this today. But it’s true: for at least the eight years of the Obama Administration, evil and deviousness ran rampant through the Capital and the Department of Justice in D.C. And the U.S. government was nothing more than a piggy bank for Elitists to tap for their evildoing. Taxpayers paid every dime for what they did. And our children will continue to pay that bill.

Play

Slippery Slope Target: The Constitution

Why the rush to remove monuments, change names of Universities and sports teams all the while denigrating their historical meanings?

Actually, what we are seeing is the fulfillment of Barack Obama’s major campaign promise when running in 2008: “To fundamentally change America.” Think about it: how could one change a nation fundamentally without altering its history? He did not say he wanted to alter the course of America or to change the processes in the U.S. Government. No, he wanted to fundamentally change America.

“Fundamentally” America was structured to operate as the most unique country on Earth. Our forefathers took the best of the political frameworks of European countries and added to it “liberty and justice for all.” They then memorialized that new type of government in the roadmap of roadmaps — the U.S. Constitution. That document and its contents are the fundamental backbones of the United States of America. Sure, people fight over whether or not the framers intended for it to be used in perpetuity as literally written or that it be a “living, breathing,” the process of laws that morph in interpretation to fit the inevitable changes in American life as they happen. But the argument today by some is to alter not the interpretations of the intent of the framers but to actually add, delete, and/or change phrasing and wording of the document.

That seems to be the justification used for the efforts to destroy offending monuments and statues and the removal of slogans and stone markers from places highly visible to the public. Which specific offensive historical reminders should be removed and which should stay? That remains to be seen. Of course, there are many that vigorously object to ANY removal, strictly for historical purposes.

To me, removing, hiding, or changing locations of these pieces of history is not the danger I am writing about. What petrifies me is the slippery slope America is now at the brink of sliding down into an abyss of societal culture never before experienced in America. So far the only thing that has prevented that slide is the strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the greatest judicial system on Earth. However, that too is under attack.

The “Intent”

What did the Framers envision the Constitution to be? I think the best way to answer that question is to list the items in Article 1 Section 8 (powers of Congress) and Article 2 Section 2 (powers of the President) of the Constitution. Here is the link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Upon reading these sections of the Constitution, most people will be shocked to see just how little power the Constitution gave to the new federal government. The federal government is mainly responsible for dealings with foreign countries such as treaties, commerce, wars., and little else (immigration, coining money, etc.). Yet today, Constitutional “detractors” on the Left want to tear up the Constitution and start from scratch!

We’ve all heard about the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Those are the first ten Amendments that are simply called the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and others involved in creating the U.S. Constitution had just after living under a European national government with top-down repressive and totalitarian operations for generations chose to move to a New World and establish a country that worked instead of top-down as a bottom-up governed nation.

The First Ten Amendments were the MOST important parts of the Constitution for those who had memories of awakening every day under that governmental oppression. Those ten amendments were written to make as easy as possible the understanding by all that the American people were creating a federal government that would operate using ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC RIGHTS AS GIVEN TO THAT GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. No other federal government rights were ever to be used unless and until they were expressly given to the government by the People!

An all-powerful central government had destroyed Western Europe. Those American settlers wanted nothing to do with that lifestyle then and certainly not moving forward in the new nation.

What Did the Framers Actually Think?

Let’s look at their OWN words:

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.  —Thomas Jefferson

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.  —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so? — James Madison

The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison

Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution. — Thomas Jefferson

To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power. — Thomas Jefferson

How does all this compare to what some contemporaries in politics had to say about the Constitution?

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.  All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine. — Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, A Call For The Emancipation Of The Generous Energies Of A People

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” — Franklin Roosevelt, President

It is the genius of our Constitution that under its shelter of enduring institutions and rooted principles there is ample room for the rich fertility of American political invention. —Lyndon B. Johnson, President

The words of the Constitution … are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life. —Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice

This understanding, underlying constitutional interpretation since the New Deal, reflects the Constitution’s demands for structural flexibility sufficient to adapt substantive laws and institutions to rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. — Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority

I cannot accept this invitation [to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution], for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention … To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start. —Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice

It can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our profound belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases. —Harry Truman, President

If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless. —Antonin Gregory Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

Just talk to me as a father—not what the Constitution says. What do you feel? — Joe Biden, Vice President

The Thread of Commonality

Wow! All of those quoted above — those from the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s as well as this century — represent different perspectives and different understandings of the intent of the framers and the actual meaning of the Constitution. But, thankfully, they acknowledge the significance of our nation actually having a roadmap to American governing that is recognized as the greatest in the World.

But there’s on more commonality that runs very obviously through each: Opinion. Yep. Each of those who weighed in with thoughts did so based on opinion — THEIR opinion.

And who among us is any different?

Several things about the framer’s offerings are very obvious:

  • they recognized that they could not foretell the future and therefore could not imagine what legalities their great, great, great, great grandchildren would face but would still need the Constitution for guidance;
  • they acknowledged that events in the future would dictate the necessity of flexibility in interpretations demanded by contemporary and unimagined occurrences in American life at the time of its creation;
  • they knew there would, therefore, be demands for actual editing of their original constitution.

To anticipate exactly how to adjudicate these future certainties they knew was a possibility in the 18th century. They therefore brilliantly included the ability and the process to alter the Constitution. That process is called “Amending.” But because of the importance of the strictest adherence to the blueprint of governing they created, they purposely made the amendment process extremely difficult. Why?

They hated the political process and knew that if allowed, that process would destroy true freedom created by the Constitution. They knew that political partisanship would initiate continuous amending of the Constitution not to better serve the basis of the Laws of the People, but to only satisfy the hunger for political power for the elite. They had lived through that and knew it could NOT be allowed to devour this new nation.

Democracy or Republic?

The cries from partisan political parties for either a Democracy or a Republic for a description of the form of government established by the Constitution have gone back and forth for the life of the United States. The winds of the political party in power have determined which form is desired at the time.

Jefferson and Company knew this would happen. They made clear how the U.S. government would work. And they guaranteed Americans would live in a Representative Republic with the establishment of the Electoral College that governs the process of electing the U.S. “Executive in Chief,” the President and Vice President. Also, states are to determine U.S. Senators: 2 from each state originally appointed by each state’s governor but changed via Amendment to be elected by each state’s electorate, Members that serve in the “People’s House,” Congress, are still elected by voters from each House district in each state.

Today, the political Left doesn’t accept the structure of the Republic, rejecting it for instead a Democratic government. Why? In a pure Democracy, there ARE no federal representatives of the People. Each person gets one vote. That sounds reasonable, right? Consider this:

”IF” the U.S. was a true Democracy, every federal election outcome would simply be what those from the states of California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas voted to be. Election results would be determined solely by the most heavily populated states and their voters’ desires. “Fly-over” Americans would have no say so at all in their government.

Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would be President instead of Donald Trump. That was the choice of the U.S. popular vote when the Electoral College elected Trump in something of a landslide. The same happened in the Bush 43 presidential elections.

Summary

So what’s fair?

That answer is simple: NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote.

True democracy is the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is mob rule. Thankfully we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government….”

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule, and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win.

The will of the People means ALL the People.

Play

Mueller Probe Was Bad — Really Bad

Now that the dust has settled after the two-plus years of the Mueller probe into Trump Campaign collusion with Russians and Obstruction of Justice, common sense dictates an objective look back to examine the probe’s function, its purpose, and objectively examine its findings.

Donald Trump early on named it a “Witch Hunt.” That term angered many and many of his followers adopted it. The Mueller findings in many ways confirmed that name was in some ways appropriate. But in the aftermath of its release and upon close examination a “Witch Hunt” may be too nice a term for it. One more appropriate may be a “Hit Job.” What am I talking about? Let’s dig in.

“In The Beginning….”

What was Mueller appointed to do? Investigate the alleged collusion between the Russians and members of the Trump Campaign during and for the purpose of impacting the 2016 presidential election for the benefit of Donald Trump. Remember this: Mueller signed on to the task AFTER the FBI had been on the case for quite a while. They had investigated the Trump Campaign for the same reasons. The FBI had already accumulated a plethora of evidence to which Mueller had unfettered access.

In that pile of evidence from the considerable FBI interrogations and documents already compiled was the infamous Steele Dossier. FBI and DOJ investigators had already been to the FISA Court and had obtained surveillance authorization to surveil electronically Carter Page and those with whom he communicated. The dossier was prepared by Christopher Steele, who we now know was an FBI paid informant. All of his interview materials, documents prepared by Steele for his “employer,” (FBI) were there for Mueller.

Why is this important?

Mueller knew from the very beginning there was NO collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians! 

If he didn’t know that on Day One, he knew it very shortly afterwards. Think about it: a good investigator — Mueller was a god of investigators according to Democrats and career FBI officials — would upon initiation of such an investigation first peruse all the evidence available so as to intelligently initiate whatever actions were deemed necessary to achieve the goal of the investigation. Again, Mueller knew quickly there was no Russian collusion.

From that, here’s the obvious question: Why did Mueller NOT inform the Department of Justice, the President, the FBI, or members of Congress?

Some will say that Mueller didn’t know early on for certain there was no Russian collusion. But even if he didn’t know early, in no more than a few days he knew. Remember the process of the DOJ that was used with Senator Dianne Feinstein? The instant the FBI knew that an employee that had been in her employment for years was actually a spy for China, they immediately informed Feinstein and that employee was terminated. 

But Mueller didn’t know who or what was happening illegally, right? And the FISA warrant was for surveillance of Carter Page. Still, the DOJ protocol was when an individual was being investigated, if there is evidence that individual is involved in any way with a government entity, the leader of that department or entity is immediately notified of that investigation and the evidence against that individual.

Why wasn’t Donald Trump notified by the FBI or the Mueller team about the suspicions of Carter Page and the FISA authorized wiretap? Could it be the purpose of the Mueller Witch Hunt was to look further for dirt on the Trump Campaign, or to maybe just keep the cloud of “suspicion of wrongdoing” over the heads of all people and all things Trump?

The Rest of the Story

Remember this: the FBI had just gone through the Hillary Clinton email investigation and simultaneously the investigation of the hacking of the Democrat National Committee’s servers. Strangely enough, NO expert at the FBI was given access to the DNC servers. Also, strangely enough, the FBI took for granted the Russians must have been the guilty party who hacked the DNC.

So how did Mueller get started with all of this stuff up in the air? Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” that hacked the DNC, and he deliberately excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view. Remember this: he was hired to investigate the Russians and their role in the 2016 election. He put 2 and 2 together and “assumed” the DNC attack and Russian collusion with Trump were connected. The key word in that sentence is “assumed.”

To that end, Mueller, as a matter of policy in his investigation, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did NOT commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did NOT interview the DOJ and National Defense IT expert for hacking: Bill Binney. He did NOT interview Julian Assange. Why Assange? Remember: part of the cloud of allegations against the Trump gang was that they got all the Hillary bad news and emails from Wikileaks and Assange. Mueller’s failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless in the minds of many experts domestically. And foreign intelligence IT officials are laughing at the Mueller Investigation ineptness!

Just one important note: It’s May, 2.5 years after the Trump Collusion investigation began. There has never been, by any U.S. law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.

That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:

“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”

Two Facts underline how incompetent the Mueller Report and his investigation are:

The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organization. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is far more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: therefore the information must have been downloaded to a local device, like a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.

Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy it’s actually laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the IT packets containing the information would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA. Explanation? It never happened!

Bill Binney is not a “deplorable.” He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report.

Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.

The second vital piece of evidence we have is from the Wikileaks “Vault 7” release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of key foreign material. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claims to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.

So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately not taking any steps to get evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had plenty of  time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.

Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales when compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on NO conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most importantly, he did NOT give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice AND a pre-determination of the results. That’s horrible police work!

Unbelievably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself. Mueller if honest should have certainly gone to London to interview Assange. Not doing so exposed Mueller’s investigation ”pre-judgment.”

It is also cowardly as Julian was held in silence with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.

Summary

How could such an experienced, well-respected career investigator take two years, 20 professional federal prosecutors, millions of pieces of evidence and spend $30 million doing so and not find wrongdoing by those investigated if there was wrongdoing going on in the first place? If there really was Russian hacking of the Clinton email server and the DNC, how could this reputable investigator NOT examine either server, nor have any IT expert examine them instead taking for granted what he was told about Russian hacking was true?

It makes NO logical sense.

But what really smells is the fact that after all this work, all this investigating, spending all this money, Mueller did NOT find evidence of collusion and did NOT find evidence to justify charges of Obstruction of Justice either. ”BUT”……..he DID feel compelled to give 248 pages of doubts of his own conclusions (or non-conclusions)!

Why would any prosecutor do so? After all, prosecutors are not charged under any federal laws to investigate the accused in an effort to prove they are NOT guilty of a crime. They begin investigations starting from “A Crime Was Committed.”   The investigation is to find evidence that proves who committed the crime.

THAT’S NOT WHAT MUELLER DID!

His perspective apparently was that a crime was “alleged,” and even with NO evidence that a crime WAS committed, he launched a 2-year fiasco that began with NO crime and NO evidence of a crime.

But he had an ALLEGED criminal offender: Donald Trump.

The only logical conclusion one can draw for those 248 pages of the Mueller report that followed the Mueller conclusion that there WAS no collusion and WAS no Obstruction of Justice is this: either Mueller was on a mission to take whatever actions were necessary to discredit the presidency of Donald Trump, OR Mueller was paying Mr. Trump back for NOT hiring him as FBI Director to replace James Comey, OR Mueller was using this sham investigation to avenge the firing of his close friend and buddy: James Comey.

One or all those three MUST be the explanation for the findings (or lack of findings) detailed in the Mueller Report.

One final thought: If the process of the Mueller investigation really was an honest effort, using honest and thorough investigative procedures, real evidence, and methods, and if the crew of attorneys Mueller collected for his team were really the best of the U.S. federal prosecutors, the United States Department of Justice and the entire Intelligence group of agencies are in really sad shape!

Bless Their Hearts!

 

Play

Executive Privilege

This was released Monday (May 19, 2019) from The Hill:

A district judge on Monday upheld a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Reform Committee for President Trump’s financial records, dealing a blow to White House efforts to resist the Democrats’ investigations. In a 41-page opinion, Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, found that the panel, under the leadership of Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), had valid reasons for requesting the president’s financial records from the accounting firm Mazars, even though they predated his entering office.

“These are factually valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations,” Mehta wrote.

The judge was skeptical of the arguments brought forward by the president’s attorneys both in court last week and in his opinion issued Monday. Trump’s attorneys had argued that the subpoena, issued by Cummings earlier this year, was unconstitutional because it wasn’t tied to legislation. But attorneys for the House said that the records will help strengthen ethics and disclosure laws and see if Trump is in compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Let’s get this straight: the basis for this judge’s ruling was reasonable because the committee’s request for Trump’s financial records was “to see if Trump is in compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.”

Americans should be horrified!

Judge Mehta in his ruling forgot one thing — a very fundamental thing — that is a thread of the very fiber of the Constitution: “Probable Cause.” In his 41-page opinion, Federal District Judge Mehta asserted that Congress has the right to investigate potential illegal behavior by a president, including actions both before and after the president assumed office. Seriously?!? Americans are to accept this amazing finding by a federal judge as a “legal and Constitutionally based opinion?” I think not!

Most Americans when discovering Congressman Elijah Cumming’s subpoena for the President’s financial records for a period before he became President and for the period of time he has been office will shake their heads in disbelief. This committee’s action further fans the flames of those who look own in amazement at what Congress is doing to “get” Donald Trump in the wake of the Mueller Report. (In our Summary below we’ll unpack what Congress is really up to)

President Trump’s team is fighting this action based on Executive Privilege. What is it?

Executive Privilege

In the landmark case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that it had authority to resolve the conflict between President Richard Nixon and Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had been appointed to investigate the Watergate affair, over the issue of executive privilege. Cox had obtained a grand jury subpoena requiring Nixon to deliver to the district court tape recordings of various meetings with assistants. The Supreme Court acknowledged, for the first time, that an executive privilege exists under the Constitution, but it qualified the scope of the privilege by subjecting it to a balancing of the opposing interests and legitimate needs of the executive and judicial branches. Courts have applied this general approach in the context of enforcement of congressional subpoenas as well, but there haven’t been very many such decisions—and the ones that do exist are drawn to the particular facts of the cases at hand. In addition, as articulated in United States v. AT&T, courts will only decide such a case if the executive and legislative branches have tried, in good faith, but failed to reach an accommodation. (“in good faith” is the principle in this argument that, in my opinion, is NOT occurring)

So while it is settled that the federal courts have jurisdiction to resolve a conflict over a claim of executive privilege in the context of enforcement of a congressional subpoena, there isn’t much actual case law to suggest exactly how assertions of executive privilege by the president may ultimately be decided by a court. In addition, the good-faith accommodation requirement typically has the effect of lengthening the amount of time it takes for civil enforcement action by Congress to confirm its subpoena power, and in many instances may prevent the practical usefulness of a court decision in a given controversy.

Dealing with White House executive privilege has always created issues: and always have been political in nature.

The most recent example is President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege regarding “Operation Fast and Furious”—a federal gun-running investigation and operation gone wrong. On March 31, 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, then chaired by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The Justice Department responded in writing to the committee a few months later. After more back-and-forth, on Oct. 12, the committee issued a second subpoena to the department for communications from several top officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, relating to the operation. The subpoena covered communications from Holder’s chief of staff and the head of the department’s criminal division. It also requested information regarding relevant departmental communications with the White House and details about the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent that spurred investigation of the operation.

In June of 2012, President Obama invoked executive privilege to deny the committee access to certain documents responsive to the subpoena on the basis that complying “would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship” between Congress and the White House. The House voted on June 28, 2012, to hold Holder in contempt—the first such action against a sitting Cabinet official. The committee then brought a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force disclosure of the documents at issue. The court case was repeatedly delayed by procedural issues and unsuccessful efforts to broker a settlement.

It wasn’t until January of 2016—a full three and a half years later—that a federal judge rejected Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to the records on the grounds that “under the unique and limited circumstances of this case, … the qualified privilege must yield, given the executive’s acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the investigation, and the fact that the Department itself has already publicly revealed the sum and substance of the very material it is now seeking to withhold.” The court also found that “records reflecting the agency’s internal deliberations over how to respond to Congressional and media inquiries fall under the protection of the deliberative process privilege.” Finally, the court “encourage[d] the parties to start with a fresh slate and resolve the few remaining issues with flexibility and respect.”

Knowing what we know now and this exhaustive confrontational relationship between the White House and the Democrat-controlled House, peaceful resolution of this conflict does not seem inevitable. What will happen?

The criminal contempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation against the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of whoever is the principal of the subpoena. But Congress will have a practical problem using this approach if the president does not agree with the action. Administrations of both political parties have decided that U.S. attorneys are NOT required to refer congressional contempt charges to a grand jury or prosecute an executive branch official who carries out the president’s instruction to invoke the president’s claim of executive privilege before a committee.

That leaves Congress’s inherent contempt power, which means relying on the legislature’s own constitutional authority to detain and jail a person in contempt until the individual complies with congressional demands. What does that actually look like? It’s not very pretty—which is why the contempt process has not been used by either body since 1935 when a Herbert Hoover administration official was held briefly in the Willard Hotel. While there is no “Capitol Jail,” the Capitol Police do maintain a holding cell a few blocks away at the Capitol Police Department. At the current moment, the prospect of the House sending the sergeant-at-arms of the Capitol to arrest an administration official would likely not sit well with a public that does not favor physical confrontation in U.S. politics.

Summary

Let’s see: unemployment overall is at record lows; black, Hispanic, and female unemployment is at record lows; millions of taxpayers received a federal income tax reduction in 2018 that averaged just over $2000; federal government revenue last year far exceeded any previous year, in spite of those massive tax cuts; there are far more people at work today than ever before. And what is our government doing in the wake of these successes?

  • Congress refuses to pass comprehensive immigration reforms;
  • Congress refuses to finance measures to close our borders to illegal aliens;
  • Congress refuses to support and/or demand federal law enforcement agencies enforce laws that Congress passed;
  • Pushes for the legalization of 3rd-trimester abortions;
  • Pushes for two legislative measures that have NEVER worked anywhere on Earth but if made law will cost Americans MORE THAN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ANNUAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCOME over the next 10 years;
  • Demanded that all stay away from Special Counsel Mueller to guarantee completion of his findings on Russia collusion with the Trump Campaign;
  • Demand now the rejection of the Mueller findings because they are “incomplete;”
  • Are burying members and agencies of this Administration with subpoenas, testimony, and records that are already in the treasure-trove of evidence voluntarily given to Mueller;
  • What else is our government doing? NOTHING!

What’s Really Going On?

What we are watching in D.C. in the House of Representatives is the equivalent of that North Carolina Tar Heel 4-corner stall in which the sole purpose is to bring the game to a screeching whoa: kill time to “run out the clock.” The clock that concerns them is the calendar until 2020’s elections. They are desperate with these parlor tricks masking the REAL reasons for these silly measures: praying that something will mysteriously pop up they can use to legitimately go after Mr. Trump.

Congressman Jerald Nadler (D-NY) is totally committed to destroying Donald Trump. And his commitment is running far ahead of all reason, legality, and any concerns for the citizens of the United States. On his watch the committee he chairs — the House Judiciary Committee — is instead of doing the business of the People, sending out demand after demand, subpoena after subpoena, daily threatening members of the Trump Administration with obstruction charges if they do not comply with his committee’s requests. This is all after exhaustive compliance with subpoenas for records and testimony by the Administration to Robert Mueller over 2 years and $30 million of taxpayer funds: a “Witch Hunt” in the President’s words. I suggest that Mr. Nadler and Democrat House members get after doing the work for which they were elected: Legislation. Find some ways to make America better. What they’re doing now is pure insanity: doing the same things over and over but expecting different results.

Democrats’ only hope is for some mysterious piece of evidence is uncovered that is so egregious that the U.S. cannot in any way reconcile a sitting U.S. president committing such a travesty that they can immediately impeach.

Wait: they can file articles of impeachment right now, can’t they? Absolutely! Nadler’s committee is the ONLY committee that can draft, approve, and then send to the floor of the House for consideration. If the President’s actions are so egregious and if there is real evidence that confirms any illegal actions as Congressmen Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell still maintain they have, why don’t they just go ahead and file the impeachment articles? Honestly, as a law-abiding American, I think THEY are obstructing justice by NOT taking legal action because of the President’s wrongdoing of which they say they have evidence. Why don’t they take action? THERE’S NO THERE THERE!

So what is Congress doing that really matters? Congress is REALLY good at doing two things and only two: 1) assuring their spot in Congress through massive campaign contributions to give them an extreme inside track to re-election, and 2) Spending taxpayer money!

Play

Demagoguery

It’s a horrible word that defines a horrible situation: Demagoguery. It is today alive in America: and it ain’t because of Donald Trump!

Let’s just consider Webster’s definition of the word, and YOU decide how applicable it is for insertion into the U.S. political system:

“Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people. Demagoguery isn’t based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing; it’s based on stirring up fear and hatred to control people.”

In 2019, Demagoguery is rampant throughout the political landscape. Honestly, it’s been alive in D.C. for decades or more. But politicians have been effective at keeping its identity hidden with political platitudes and verbiage to which Americans have become accustomed. We were pretty much lulled to sleep. But then came Donald Trump.

It is certainly true that the President is verbose, often crude, and self confident that borders on narcissism, but NO ONE who knows Donald Trump on a personal level can truthfully claim he is a Demagogue — thought Democrats try.

The Making of A Demagogue

Demagogues in politics are abundant. We’ll talk in a few minutes about the ones making headlines right now. But if a person wants a career in politics, creating just the right public perception is mandatory. And that perception is often created by leaders of whichever party he or she embraces. And that perception/persona is created and perpetuated for a specific political identity — one that will smoothe the path for campaign contributions and harvest votes for those candidates and other members of their party.

The authenticity of identity gets tossed into the Potomac to be replaced by the “Identity of the Day, Month, or Year” the party agenda ala carte dictates.

And if any politician wishes to win the White House, the best way is to make the most noise, be the loudest, and convince Americans they need that politician in charge. In most cases, however, the Demagoguery comes LATER — after a political leader has amassed enormous power, has passed out political favor and the perks that go with it, and learns that he or she who knows where all the skeletons are buried has virtually uncontrollable power. And they act that way. They become Demagogues.

Some would say that Donald Trump is a Demagogue. And they would be wrong. By its definition, Trump is anything but that. He is too pro-American, too into the American people, and too uninterested in assuming any control over people. He shows that over and over again. In the Mueller probe, he ordered everyone in his Administration to testify when asked, turnover every document when subpoenaed, and to fully cooperate with the Special Counsel. Certainly, his predecessor would have interrupted if not interfered with the process as he did in other investigations to thwart those conducting them. Not Trump.

But there are Demagogues in D.C. Nancy Pelosi’s name comes to power along with that of Chuck Schumer. Pelosi made a mad tour to Europe to meet with European leaders not long ago. In those meetings, she told those with whom she met that she as Speaker of the House had equal power with the President. In fact, she told them that the House now under Democrat control– her control — means she and the House are MORE powerful than this president. Chuck Schumer runs the minority in the Senate with a whip and his demeaning conversations. It is obvious he hates everyone in D.C. that doesn’t answer to him and is a government control freak. And he deplores the President.

And then there’s “The Media.” Let’s face it: today’s mainstream media no longer present actual news — political policy partisanship is what we see and hear in every news story. Truth is immaterial, facts no longer matter, and who’s in charge of what to report and what to keep hidden is no longer even kept secret. And there are Demagogues in the media. Bill O’Reilly was shot down at FOX News in spite of his massive audience and revenue generation for FOX. His Achilles heel apparently were the ladies. And Bill apparently felt he was too important, too famous, and too good at netting his boss big advertising dollars to be replaced. FOX proved him wrong. Bill had become a Demagogue in conservative television talk.

Across the aisle in media, there are plenty of examples of Demagoguery. Rachel Maddow has become the goddess of MSNBC. Commentators on the View act on-air like none of their guests have a clue about anything and work diligently on every show to prove that fact to those who dare show up. The two divas there are Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar who no one messes with. No one on television is more controlling and manipulative than those two.

Demagogues Under attack

The benign permission for Demagoguery that has existed in D.C. that no one there even tries to hide anymore is under an onslaught today. That onslaught is led actually by Mr. Trump. His primary tool is this: confrontation using the truth. And his doing so has rocked Washington. And they simply don’t know how to respond. Trump attacks all the ridiculousness in governing head-on. He understands the elitism that actually fuels Demagoguery there and he laughs at it — and the Demagogues that he faces. He lives as Achilles lived — at least the way Brad Pitt did in that role in the movie Troy — taking his enemies down one at a time, never bowing and never giving up. Achilles fought face-to-face with his foes, never shying or looking away, always keeping his eye on his enemy. So does Trump.

There’s a new group of Demagogues in D.C. that Trump is taking on right now. He’s appointed an Attorney General who is a no-nonsense lawman who ignores the verbal abuse from the Demagogues in D.C. and from their minions and is steadily just pushing forward with his job of being the chief law enforcer in the nation. The Demagogues have started whining, shouting, and frankly, are crying because their Demagoguery suddenly has been exposed. And they don’t know how to handle. it.

The Mueller Probe was a ruse — a “witchhunt” as the President calls it. It should have never happened, was politically motivated, initiated by a political power push from Demagogues, and its roots have been exposed and are being pulled up one at a time. When AG Barr announced the appointment of John Durham, it was the first spear in the sides of the Demagogues. And they are howling about it. Why? Because they are scared to death.

From our research, we have a list of those — most of which are political Demagogues — who were key “bad” players in the coup attempt to overthrow a president. The net of exposure of involvement has been cast wide by Barr. And it’s covering a bunch of them.

Before we give you the names of those on the list, here’s how this investigation will go: Durham and Barr will start low with those lower in the political pecking order. Durham will determine who were directly involved, exactly how, what they actually did, and who they answered to. Then they will try to parlay that information to obtain information from those people regarding the involvement of those a level higher than they in the government. The Barr/Durham task process is really no different that a local district attorney busting a drug user, then squeezing the drug user to get his supplier, his supplier to get his distributor, and the distributor to get his international drug trafficker.

So let’s look at those involved starting from those low who will likely “give-up” those above them:

Department of Justice (Non-FBI):

  • John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division – announced resignation on September 27, 2016, after filing the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on September 26, 2016. The filing does not disclose known FISA Abuses. Carlin is aware NSA Rogers is conducting a compliance review which will uncover the FISA Abuse. Trump surveillance originated under Carlin’s tenure.
  • Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General (replacing Loretta Lynch – 10 days) – fired January 30, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Mary McCord, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division (replacing John Carlin) – announced resignation on April 17, 2017 – Left on May 11, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Bruce Ohr – Associate Deputy Attorney General – demoted twice. Stripped of Associate Deputy Attorney General title on December 6, 2017. Removed as head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force January 8, 2018. Unofficial liaison between Fusion GPS and FBI/DOJ. Wife worked at Fusion. Long-standing ties to both Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.
  • David Laufman, DOJ National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence – resigned on February 7, 2018. Laufman “played a leading role in the Clinton email server and Russian hacking investigations.”
  • Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General – number three official behind Deputy AG Rosenstein – resigned February 9, 2018. Takes top legal position at Walmart. Brand “played a critical role in Congress’ re-authorization” of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  • Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned)
  • Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  • Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
  • Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. attorneys)
  • Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  • Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

FBI:

  • James Comey, FBI Director – fired May 9, 2017. Oversaw all FBI operations – including exoneration of Clinton and Trump-Russia Investigation. Reported to AG Lynch.
  • Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of FBI’s Counterintelligence – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to FBI’s Human Resources. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Strzok involved in all facets of Clinton exoneration. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Strozk was fired August 13, 2018.
  • Lisa Page, FBI/DOJ Lawyer – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to parts unknown. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Baker, FBI General Counsel – demoted and reassigned on December 20, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Senior-most legal counsel at FBI. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Rybicki, Chief of Staff to FBI Director James Comey & successor Chris Wray – resigned/forced out January 23, 2018. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group.
  • Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI Director – on December 23, 2017, announced retirement effective March 22, 2018. Forced to resign on January 29, 2018. Involved in all aspects. Reported to Comey.
  • Josh Campbell – Special Assistant to James Comey – resigned on February 2, 2018. Writes an op-ed in New York Times on why he is leaving but does not disclose in the op-ed that he was Special Assistant to Comey – or that he had been offered lucrative CNN job. Takes a job with CNN on February 5, 2018.
  • Michael Kortan, FBI Asst. Director of Public Affairs – resigned on February 8, 2018 – effective February 15, 2018. Kortan served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access.
  • Bill Priestap, Assistant Director – Head of FBI Counterintelligence – Holds the same position. Strzok’s former boss – reported directly to McCabe.
  • Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  • Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)

CIA: John Brennan

Several Obama holdovers in Intelligence very loudly began attacking those in the Trump Campaign shortly after the 2016 election. Those comments by people with access to intelligence were shameful. But the most sinister of all is John Brennan, who used his authority as former CIA director to suggest that Trump was a traitor and a compromised Russian asset. After Trump’s Helsinki summit, Brennan declared “he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.” When challenged by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Brennan stood by his assessment. “I called [Trump’s] behavior treasonous, which is to betray one’s trust and aid and abet the enemy, and I stand very much by that claim.” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell told Brennan this investigation was “developing while you were still on the job” and asked, “Did you see enough at that stage to believe . . . that would result in indictments?” Brennan replied, “I thought at the time there was going to be individuals who were going to have issues with the Department of Justice. Yes.” In a New York Times op-ed, he wrote that “Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.” Now, Brennan feigns contrition. “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” he said, adding, “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”

DNI: James Clapper

Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said from the very beginning of the “discussions” in the press about Russian collusion ties to the Trump Campaign “there is a there-there.” To CNN’s Erin Burnett, Clapper said, “My understanding is back in the summer of ’16, this all started with questions about financial dealings of trump associates,” Clapper told Burnett. “That’s how this all began.

“It appears to have come, again, with what’s been out in the media – sort of come full circle now. But I don’t see how you exclude or insulate financial dealings here from the investigation.”

The Breakup

James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now feeling the heat and are desperately into attack mode, pointing fingers at each other. This is an example of just how this Demagoguery has already begun to unwind. Listen or watch what Catherine Herridge of FOX News presented earlier this week:

Summary

These are just a few of the Demagogues in this whole matter. We didn’t mention Hillary Clinton, those in the Obama White House like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, UN Ambassador Samantha Power, Bill Clinton, and the person who is most likely to either give federal attorney Durham information regarding Obama or face jail. This person’s  involvement was almost certainly criminal. Rather than be prosecuted for at least Obstruction of Justice: this person will surely turn — former National Security Advisor Susan Rice. And we are fairly certain that Ms. Rice is already prepared to sing to save her own skin. Who knows just how far up in the White House implication will go before this matter is done. The uncovering up the coverup which is certainly many layers deep and many players wide has just begun.

The rats are scurrying about, as the ship of deep state appears to be scuttled. This will be a lot of fun to watch. The tables appear to be turning.

 

Play

The Evil Among Us

Evil is everywhere, in everything, and spreading.

Let’s be clear: in this conversation, we are NOT speaking of “Evil” in the “axe murderer” connotation. We are speaking of evil that not only is a principle in lawbreaking but the evil that people make part of their minds and hearts which result in their acting-out on that evil — actually committing evil acts.

Example: in the Mueller Report, it is stated that President Trump reportedly called his White House Attorney Don McGhan and told him to call then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and tell Sessions that Mueller has serious conflicts of interest. Because those conflicts disqualified Mueller to serve as Special Counsel in the Russian Collusion investigation, Sessions should fire Mueller. Evil was NOT in that phone call. The evil was in the REPORTING of details of that phone call. Let me explain:

The President was angry because of the mistreatment he was receiving in what has proven to be a devious investigation based on totally false information disguised as “factual evidence.” (But that’s another story) In anger, he did NOT tell McGhan his attorney to fire Mueller as Democrats and the Leftist Media stated over and over, he told McGhan to tell Sessions to do so. The President followed protocol: Sessions as the Attorney General was who should take such action if necessary. But MUELLER WAS NEVER FIRED! And even if he had been fired by the President or his Attorney General, President Trump has the Constitutional power to do just that.

So where’s the evil? That evil lies specifically in the hearts of those Democrats and members of the Media who hold such hatred for Mr. Trump they would parse their reporting to make the President appear evil and that he obstructed justice in that incident. No crime was committed; there was no evil act on the part of the President. Yet many in America believe there was simply because of lies given in the Media. That’s evil.

By the way: there is NO federal statute that states if someone in anger tells another to tell someone else to fire someone, in doing that alone is NOT obstruction of justice.

Evil Itself

Evil is not just present in mass shootings, racial crimes, sexual assaults, barbarism, or financial crimes. Evil lives among all of us. Every human being deals with evil, often without recognizing it or understanding it. But it’s there. For Christians, evil’s product is sin. What is sin? There are 10 basic “Thou Shalt/Thou Shalt Not” sins in the Bible: the Ten Commandments. But the evil in sin far surpasses those ten. The determination of the ten from the Bible is pretty easy. Figuring out all the others can be a job. But make no mistake: by the time little boys learn what little girls are, they know the difference between right and wrong. The same holds true for those little girls.

For this conversation, let’s exclude the discussion of the really evil things most can agree are sins: murder, rape, theft, etc. Most will accept those as sin. Let’s talk about those other evil acts, like “little white lies.” You know: those whispers when the phone rings and your kid answers it and you whisper, “tell them I’m not here” because you don’t want to talk to whoever called. Maybe stealing a candy bar from a convenience store, or faking a business deduction on your tax return to get that extra couple of hundred dollars in your refund. The problem is, telling those “little white lies” is lying. Lies are a product of evil, and therefore sin.

In America today because of the internet and satellite television, Americans are inundated with lies all day every day. We hear lies from politicians. We see lies in television ads. “Lose 15 pounds in 5 days, guaranteed,” and “Buy this watch and get the look of a Rolex, not for $25,000, but for only $200!” We hear so many lies we have become de-sensitized to lies of all kinds — except to those with which we object. And that is where the evil lies.

We are accustomed to hearing, repeating, or originating lies that fit our narrative, no matter the subject. And for those subjects that do not directly impact us or our narrative, we simply ignore them. That dismissing of those lies, in essence, legitimizes the lies themselves, but more importantly legitimizes our doing so again and again which numbs us to lying and says “Lying is not evil — especially when it fits MY narrative or that of those who I determine to be allowed to lie.” Examples?

Barack Obama when “selling” Obamacare: “If you like your doctor, under this plan you can keep your doctor.” “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.” “Premiums for the average family will decrease by $2500 per year.” “It will not add to the nation’s deficit.”

Congressman Anthony Weiner when confronting with sexting: “This was a hoax. It was committed on me, it was a prank, it was a relatively easy one to do, making fun of my name.”

President Bill Clinton: “I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.”

Today’s political news is overrun with lies — far too many to chronicle here. But we don’t need to: everyone sees and hears them over and over again. And that’s part of the problem! Lies are so common we have become desensitized to them. They’ve become part of life and are acceptable to most people — just like those “little white lies.” They may be little and seem inconsequential, but all lies are evil and erode at the fabric of truth and the established principles in the U.S. and in our homes.

Although evil has been alive and thriving since recorded history began, we are witnessing a gush of evil in this century and this decade never-before-seen in the U.S. Evil deeds seem to be steadily climbing in number, increasing in their perverseness, and are certainly being reported breathlessly by a press that (for the purposes of advertising dollars) cannot find a single evil act too nasty to blast across the nation. Evil among us is degrading even the most precious and historically sacred pieces of our life. What has caused this to happen and dramatically increase in number and severity?

  • What possesses a young man to viciously open fire on defenseless movie-goers in Aurora, Colorado? Why did James Holmes intentionally create a bloodbath of horror, killing twelve people and injuring scores of others? Would anyone in his right mind do that?
  • What possesses an old football coach at Penn State University to sexually molest grade school boys? Why did Jerry Sandusky recruit fatherless children through a foundation promising to help them and then abuse them?

We are perplexed about motivation. We’d like some kind of explanation. Is it insanity? Demon possession? Drug addiction? Is it brainwashing from watching violent video games or graphic pornography? What’s prompts people to perform such horrendous deeds?

What’s Going On?

Our society is dying. Infected by a plague that is making our once proud and God-fearing nation a soulless pit; the slow decay of our collective sense of evil and good is affecting every one of us. Many speak of how our country is divided between liberals and conservatives. The truth is that this division represents those that are awake and aware of what is occurring and those that for whatever reason have allowed the temptation of the easy path to blind them to the evils of going down that road. Whether an individual is clueless in his defense of evil or simply chooses to remain silent is irrelevant, failure to speak out against it is aiding in its advancement.

There are also those that believe that attaching a physical object to evil is a way to rid the world of it, as if removing a gun from an honest person’s hand will change the heart of those who are intent on committing murder because their heart has been infected by this sickness; this inability to be able to discern right from wrong — not because there is something wrong with an individual who can no longer make this distinction, but because right and wrong have become nothing but concepts with no absolute values assigned to their definitions. Right and wrong have been erased from the consciousness of millions as the very idea of something being right and something being wrong has come to be considered offensive, and an obstacle to the quest for total equality. In short; moral relativity has destroyed us.

In early August of 2013, in Oklahoma, a man was gunned down by three attackers whose only reason for committing such a heinous crime was because they were bored and thought killing a man would be fun. This story was being reported on all local media outlets, and because it was in a rural part of the state it was just assumed that the three teenagers were white kids. Honestly, no one even cares about the race of these kids. It was just a cold and heartless act driven by the fact that society had failed to instill the value of human life in them. These kids are just as much victims as is the man they killed; victims of a race-baiting machine that places no value on human life but rather hustles race issues for money while teaching it is okay to hate a certain kind of person, to blame a certain kind of person for all of your problems. That’s right, these kids were black, and they murdered a white man because they thought it would be fun.

Recently in Georgia, a public school in Newton County allowed one of its students to hang a poster they had made declaring that God is dead. We all know full well that if it was a poster praising Christianity, it would have been banned. When are we going to make the necessary connections and see that the further our nation strays from the God our founders referenced and called on repeatedly in prayer, the darker our days become? How on earth can we value life if we no longer value the reason we are living? This is what happens when the philosophies of Marx and Darwin infect society’s conscious. How could anyone hold any value for life when life itself has no meaning because we are just an accident of evolution needing to be controlled by an all-powerful state for own good? This is the sickness that is consuming our society, and it is being done on purpose by those craving power and control.

Oh, don’t forget about Washington D.C. If we tried to list all the evil committed in U.S. politics daily and who the perpetrators are, we’d never stop writing. It happens so frequently that all those who are part of the political process in Washington have become so numb to it those acts are just accepted as a regular part of operating the political process.

Remember all the prayers, all the references to God in documents, “In God We Trust” on all our currency, the Ten Commandments blazoned across walls in halls of government, and “One Nation Under God…?”

Remember the swearing-in of witnesses who are testifying before trial judges and juries? “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God?”

Even that phrase is being pushed out of our government.

Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), just days ago swore-in several witnesses prior to a U.S. House Subcommittee meeting. He “forgot” to include the last line of the oath that has been used for several hundred years, “So help me God.” Watch and listen as our good friend Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) questions Cohen and suggested repeating the swearing-in but using “So help me God” in doing so. Notice that Cohen and Jerald Nadler (D-NY) poo-pah Johnson’s idea. I wonder why?

In truth I have no authority to claim that Cohen and/or Nadler are evil. But what CAN be said is it becomes more and more obvious that evil is stealthily finding its way into every crevice of the government process in Washington D.C. And it finds a home more and more often in the U.S. Congress. These are the people we elect, empower, and pay dearly to operate “Government OF the People, FOR the People, and BY the People.” If members of Congress were committed to adherence to their oaths of office and not so committed to propping up their party’s political narrative at all costs, they would be leading in honesty rather than in an evil atmosphere driven soley by what’s best for US and not THEM.

Do you know what else is happening and about to get crazier? Our sources have confirmed that  a few current and many former government officials are about to receive subpoenas and even some arrested through indictments already issued. Those should occur before June 15, 2019.

But that’s really NOT news. What IS news is what is about to happen RIGHT NOW. Listen closely:

  • We know the Left have gone all-in to get rid of Donald Trump, and nothing else matters;
  • We know that even with the completion of the Mueller Report and that its findings show no direct or even indirect illegalities on the part of the President or members of his campaign staff, those Leftists have amped up THEIR investigation. And in doing so, they’re gasping for air. What is their purpose?

Here’s today’s SUMMARY in answer to that question:

The Left is throwing absolutely as much as they can up in the air. They’re calling in all their cards and obligations from the Media lapdogs to help establish and build the furor in the Media against President Trump. They KNOW that truth and justice for them are both on the horizon. They know they will NO LONGER be able to hide the evil that has permeated their actions in D.C. since the beginning of the 2016 campaign season. That evil includes all types of lies, committing of felonies, violations of classified materials laws, and even possibly treason! In short, they are facing the death of the Democrat Party. And its death is coming at the hands of the confrontation between the forces of good and the forces of evil. And we’re not talking about Superman, Wonder Woman, or the Justice League!

Their rhetoric, as loud and consistent as it has been, will become deafening. It will ALL be aimed at Donald Trump with continuous cries about all those previously claimed illegal acts allegedly committed by the Trump Campaign, but will be joined by new and more outrageous attacks that will become increasingly more vile and more in number.

Why are they going to do all this, especially when no one can even now believe how ridiculous their screams against this president are? One and only one reason: Their only hope is to make so much noise and so many allegations against Donald Trump et al, their screaming will deafen American voters so as for those voters to ignore those scurulous charges against them! And the American Media will come willingly to the fray, joining their now very public partners in Wasington: the Democrat Party.

“Evil will be revealed and Truth will out.”

In fact, they’ve all been given opportunities to come clean, but all have declined. In fact, many believe their own lives and ignore their own evil!

But, “Be sure your sins will find you out.” The bright light of Truth will take care of that for all Americans.

It’s about time somebody kicked Evil’s butt in Washington!

 

 

Play