The AOC Report

The Lightning Rod in American politics is at it again. Let’s face it: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) never STOPS being “at it again.” Since she in the New York primary upset Congressman Joe Crowley — the 3rd most powerful “former” member of the U.S. House of Representatives — she gives the world at least one good laugh every day: especially conservative reporters and talk show hosts.

The battle between AOC and Speaker Pelosi is over, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won the title of “All-Time Favorite Dem of the GOP in Congress.” By dethroning Pelosi, AOC has put herself in the Republican crosshairs of the entire GOP population in the U.S. A political news report can rarely escape without some new raucous statement by the former bartender-turned-rookie Congresswoman.

We don’t want you to miss a single one. So here’s the plan:

When we started, we had a weekly feature in which we collected and presented to you a few jokes and/or funny stories that we collected during the week. We found out very quickly you all love good humor. And, boy, we received a ton of jokes! But because of all that was happening in the runup to the 2016 elections, copy space dictated we put that comedy feature to the side. It’s time we bring it back!

Every week we will collect and compile as complete a list as possible of all of AOC’s “funny” statements and conversation elements we can find from her that are out in the public forum. We may miss some, so feel free if we do to let us know. A good laugh does us all a lot of good.

Let’s Get Started: AOC at her best

  • “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.”
  • “Unemployment is low because people are working 80 hours a week.”
  • “Any 17-year-old can walk into a gun store and purchase an assault weapon.”
  • “If you think the GOP is terrified of my politics now, just wait until they find out about public libraries.”
  • “Bernie Sanders is old news in the communist Democrat party now. He’s considered too ‘right-wing’ for some because he hasn’t publicly stated he wants to abolish ICE.”
  • “Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it okay to still have children?”
  • “I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II.” 
  • ”What we really need is that, should we, and if we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress, uh rather all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House in 2020.”
  • “I’d feel safer in a bathroom with a trans woman than a powerful male executive any day of the week.”

As you dance through your day today, why not turn the volume up on your laptop, desktop, or earbuds while you dance along with AOC and fellow college classmates in the video below.

Just think: she’s one of the 435 people out of 330 million Americans to make every federal law by which we must abide. Don’t forget that those 435 — including AOC — decide together how $3.4 Trillion of our tax dollars are spent.

That thought gives me a warm and fuzzy!


American Government: Who’s In Control?

When we watch, listen, or read the national news, there’s really NO way to tell who is actually running the U.S. Government. Traditionally it has always been the President in conjunction with the other two branches of government: Legislative and Judiciary. But to most Americans, who is the “Boss” is unclear.

The uncertainty of who is in charge has created certain chaos in the U.S. This generation has only the tragedy of 9/11 to point to as a traumatic national event around which those in government rallied all Americans. And that was almost two decades ago. Those memories are growing dim. Replacing that spirit of unity has so far proven to be unachievable. But, that failure is not a product of lack of effort.

There are many who have stepped to the “Boss” podium who each have claimed power and control of U.S. Government. Each has been met with one common thing, and that is NOT compliance or acceptance. It has been chaos. Division among Americans has reached a fever pitch. And try as they might, failure to gain the support of the American masses sufficient to quell the waves of chaos has swamped each.

Ronald Reagan was the last U.S. President to rally Americans to the drumbeat of unity. Reagan’s government was certainly divided, but the Gipper had the ability to cross the “difference” lines sufficient to draw enough people together to create visible progress in most areas of American life. How could he do that? Maybe it was his successful acting career. Maybe it was that after acting he segued into politics as California’s governor. In that role, he certainly had sufficient communication experience from acting that better prepared him to relate to different groups of people.

Reagan’s VP briefly replaced him in the White House. Bush ’41 was a classic politician. That persona branded him and virtually banished him to just one term. Clinton brought charisma back to D.C. He too as was Reagan was a great communicator with the ability to cross ethnic and social barriers among Americans that resulted in two terms as president. Though his tenure was marred with controversy, he left the White House as (and remains) one of the most popular U.S. presidents.

Bush ’43’s election marked the beginning of the “New” era of American politics. This new era was birthed from the innovation of satellite television, widespread cell phone and internet access for most Americans, and the creation of a new environment which adopted (in large part) the “title” of news organizations that were really just entertainment sources disguised as news. And it has taken almost two decades for Americans to fully realize that.

Obama was the first U.S. president to lead the nation from this new 24/7 information environment. It perfectly complemented his personality and extensive communication skills. No one can reasonably argue that he was NOT a master of messaging in public. Regardless of the accuracy of many things he said when he spoke he easily related to many in his audience. He amassed a strong following in spite of some of his divisive political policies.

And then there’s Donald Trump. His entire political career at age two can be illustrated best — even with his significant governing accomplishments — as “chaotic.” We will not delve into the Trump “detail” in governing that result in egregious responses from his opponents. Those are very obvious and well known. But it is important to point out that in these two short years of his administration, a new syndrome among Americans has been created: the “Chaos Syndrome.”

The “Chaos Syndrome”

Trump didn’t cause the chaos. The chaos caused Trump. What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Chaos Syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s fundamentals. That weakening began when presidential leadership in the U.S. slowly began a slide in its structure. Simultaneously, the U.S. Congress apparently took note and joined in that slide into the abyss called Chaos Syndrome.

It began with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

The Founders knew all too well about chaos. It was the condition that brought them together in 1787 under the Articles of Confederation. The central government had too few powers and powers of the wrong kinds, so they gave it more powers, and also multiple power centers. The core idea of the Constitution was to restrain ambition and excess by forcing competing powers and factions to bargain and compromise.

The Framers worried about demagogic excess and populist constant changes, so they created buffers and gatekeepers between voters and the government. Only one chamber, the House of Representatives, would be directly elected. A radical who wanted to get into the Senate would need to get past the state legislature, which selected senators; a power-junkie who wanted to seize the presidency would need to get past the Electoral College, a convocation of elders who chose the president; and so on.

So the chaos in government that daily plays out on a national stage is NOT the fault of the U.S. founders. Whose fault is it?

American voters. We elect them. They make and execute every law and policy. And it’s not just whoever serves as President. It’s Congress, too.

The “Terrible Twosome”

Paul Ryan didn’t have a chance. He didn’t want the House Speaker’s job: he was pushed unwillingly into it. And it showed.

But Nancy Pelosi sure did relish reclaiming the Speaker’s gavel after the 2018 midterm election in which Democrats won back the House. Everyone knew what to expect. She had a lot of experience in wielding the power of that position.

Across the hall, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was set to join Nancy in the starting blocks. No, he wasn’t in control of the Senate. But the pair of Pelosi/Schumer knew from experience the havoc that could give to Republicans with their political might and leverage. And they have not disappointed their base in the short time the twosome has been back in those positions. And they’ve only had a few months! They could hardly wait for some time to elapse so they could find devious ways to obstruct the Trump agenda and thwart Republican legislation at every turn. There have been NO two better at that job in Congressional history. They have been the Democrats long sought-after “Terrible Twosome” and the power they masterfully use on behalf of the Democrat Party’s agenda. “They’re Baaack………..!”

Not So Fast

There are some new kids in town! Nancy and Chuck have seemingly met their matches. The 2018 Freshman Class in the House of Representatives has thrown a monkey-wrench into the Pelosi/Schumer plan — especially three of those rookies: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). They are dynamite — they’re explosive — and they have already become the darlings of the “Millennial-Left!” And Nancy and Chuck are beside themselves.

FOX News published a story describing what the three have already done to hijack the power couple and wrest control of the Democrat Party platform from Pelosi and Schumer.

Freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Twitter bio declares her the “Unbossed Congresswoman” for Michigan’s 13th District. While the moniker has roots in Shirley Chisholm’s successful campaign to become the first black congresswoman, nowadays it also could be seen as a blunt message to Democratic leadership: Nobody is bossing around the class of 2019.

And that’s a problem for party bosses.

On everything from the Green New Deal to impeachment to criticism of Israel, a squad of first-year congresswomen are flexing their muscle and posing an implicit challenge to Democratic honchos like Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Their stridently liberal agenda – and power to steer the national conversation via social media and press attention – has fueled tensions inside the party tent that in turn are testing leadership’s control while stirring political concerns going into 2020.

“All of our problems are caused by three people,” one senior House Democrat lamented.

That would be New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Tlaib – all freshmen, and all uniquely unencumbered by things like decorum or deference to party elders.

Ocasio-Cortez recently made waves by appearing to warn Democrats who vote with Republicans that they’re “putting themselves on a list” of possible primary targets (though she later denied she intended such a threat).

Tlaib famously made headlines upon taking office by vowing they’d “impeach the motherf—er,” in reference to President Trump. Pelosi this week tried to rein in the impeachment chatter, taking a firm public stance against that route. Yet in the immediate aftermath of Tlaib’s vow, Pelosi downplayed the hubbub, saying she wouldn’t use that language but it’s nothing worse than Trump has said.

Fast-forward to this month, and Pelosi faced another discipline problem – concerning Omar.

Fresh off a dispute that saw Pelosi and fellow Democratic leaders condemn the Minnesota congresswoman for suggesting American allies of Israel were financially motivated, Omar riled party leaders again after suggesting Israel supporters expect or seek “allegiance” to the Jewish state. The statement was widely condemned, including among senior Democrats, as echoing the age-old “dual loyalties” smear against Jewish politicians.

Leaders hastily prepared a resolution to push back on anti-Semitism. Yet after Pelosi faced a rebellion in the ranks amid concerns the measure would unfairly single out Omar, a Muslim, and increase security threats against her (she was recently the subject of an inflammatory poster at the West Virginia capitol falsely tying her to the 9/11 attacks), the resolution was overhauled.

The sequence of events only fed the narrative that party leaders are struggling to rein in freshman lawmakers who are pulling Democrats off message at a critical time, with the 2020 presidential campaign season getting underway.

Tlaib and Omar already have signed a pledge to impeach Trump. And, around the same time anti-Trump protesters were arrested outside Pelosi’s office last week, Tlaib assured them she’ll introduce a resolution this month urging the Judiciary Committee to proceed with impeachment.

Looking ahead, some Democrats stress that it’s critical for the party to maintain focus.

“There’s always going to be distractions. It’s 435 people who are really their own boss, and they’re able to say whatever they want,” freshman Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., told “Fox News Sunday,” with regard to recent controversies in the caucus. “So, I think what we have to figure out what to do is to say, okay, this isn’t the views of everybody in Congress … but how do we maintain focus on our agenda as a whole?”

And that’s the million dollar question. None of the Democrat Party leaders in Congress or at the party level have any idea of how to control these three rookies. And the “New Kids” have taken over the Party!

What does that mean?

  • Honor for longtime Congressional leaders in their party is gone;
  • Respect for their party platforms, carefully crafted political measures and the timing for their actions is gone;
  • Democrat tradition developed over decades is gone;
  • Willingness to work with the other party (if there ever WAS any willingness at all) is gone;
  • The ability and desire to reason with dissenters as part of the political process — and not just Republicans — is gone;
  • Basing proposed legislation and party positions on agreed-to thoughts and ideas is gone;
  • Civility in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is gone!

What are Democrats Going to Do?

If wasn’t so comical it’d be funny!

Seriously, it IS comical to watch Nancy Pelosi struggle to find reasonable answers to the obvious questions from the media about that very thing: “What are Democrats going to do?” You can bet Nancy and Chuck stay huddled up somewhere regularly to collude with each other scratching for answers. And just as quickly as they find one, the “New Kids” step up to the microphone and make another outlandish Democrat policy statement that sounds as if it originated from the backside of Mars!


  1. The “Green New Deal.” Along with that brainstorm came the prophecy that the World will end in 12 years if we don’t implement the plan — for the low, low price of $72 Trillion over 10 years;
  2. “Free College For All.” The “New Kids” all signed onto Bernie Sanders plan or something equivalent that is estimated to cost $95 Billion a year. But we all know that if it’s free, far more students would take advantage of it. What’s $115-125 extra each Billion a year?
  3. Forgive all College Debt. At the start of 2019, 58 million Americans owe a total of $1.56 Trillion in college tuition debt. To forgive that, the Federal Government would have to tax increase Americans tax bill 50% for one year to pay for it. And, by the way, the government would have to somehow raise (through increased taxes) that additional $115-$125 Billion each year to pay for that newly added cost of “Free College for All.”
  4. Raise Taxes: No big deal. The “New Kids” have that problem worked out. How? Simply change the marginal tax rate on America’s rich to 70%. By the way: she just floated a proposed 90% tax rate for American corporations!
  5. It will take every bit of that to pay for the “New Kids” ideas floated above. But we left one out: “Medicare for All.” It is not original with the three — Bernie Sanders floated it first. The “New Kids” love the idea, so it’s a done deal! The cost? $32 Trillion over 10 years.

By the way: economists have analyzed the 70% proposed tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans. You will be excited to know that with that new rate AND the “New Kids” programs listed above, the additional tax revenue would almost cover their costs. It would take care of all but 99% of them!


In one way it’s scary to believe that power in our government could possibly be controlled by any more wicked than House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer. But in this case, I am scared! We didn’t even mention the problems with those three other than their economic ideas. On social and political levels, they are each off the charts. They make Pelosi, Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and even David Duke look like Saints!

But you know what is really scary? Many young Americans love the trio. And they love their “progressive” ideas. Never mind the inability to pay for them. Never mind the dismantling of the free market and launching a Socialist nation in its place. Never mind the ridiculousness of trying to implement even one of the above ideas and watching the titans of industry immediately shutter dozens of major corporations putting millions of American workers on the street without work. That doesn’t matter: they’re such good ideas!

“Symbolism Over Substance” is the mantra of the “New Kids.” No, they’re not the ones using that. But Americans who ARErealists, who read and listen, who ask questions and get answers, and who expect reality from their elected representatives understand there is NO THERE THERE — NO SUBSTANCE!

You know what else is good? These three are members of the House of Representatives and not the Senate. That means they can be removed and replaced by voters in less than two years — IF THEIR VOTING CONSTITUENTS ARE PAYING ATTENTION!



Trump Investigation: Part II

House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed in 2017 he had “factual evidence” that proved collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. (That evidence has never appeared)

Then Sunday, March 10, 2019, on CBS Schiff claimed “There is ‘direct evidence’ of Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. He stated it this way:

“I think there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“They offer that dirt. There is an acceptance of that offer in writing from the president’s son, Don Jr., and there are overt acts and furtherance of that,” he added. “That to me is direct evidence,” Schiff said. “But there’s also abundant circumstantial evidence.”

And then there’s Senator Mark Warner from that same Committee:

Given “the litany of what we know,” Warner said, “the ongoing negotiations about Trump Tower, well into the campaign, I believe the fact that Mr. Trump knew about the dump of the Wikileaks material, the fact that clearly the meeting at Trump Tower which was not described appropriately, in terms of offering dirt are examples. To me, that’s all evidence,” he said. “There’s no one that could factually say there’s not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians.”

I’m a simple American. But even in my small, trite world, when someone feels that something is illegal, you go get facts. Democrats did that: They saw to the appointment of an Independent Special Counsel — Robert Mueller. Special Counsel Mueller is 2 years and a reported $25 million into extensive investigations based on exactly what Schiff and Warner “claim” is “evidence.”

Definition of evidence: an outward sign; indication; something that furnishes proof — testimony; specifically; something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.

Two years and $25 million — WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

The Mueller Probe has been going strong for two years. “Anonymous sources” (there they are again) say that probe is wrapping up and to expect the report from Mueller on his investigation of the Trump Gang any day now. With the “leaks environment” in Washington, conventional wisdom maintains that because there have been no reports of pending charges against the President or anyone in the Campaign regarding Russian collusion, there will be no smoking gun in the Mueller report. Finally: we’re getting through with investigations and now we can just get on with governing!

Of course, that’s not so. Congressman Schiff and fellow Democrats apparently are simply going to ditch Mueller’s findings, even though we don’t officially know they will even exonerate the President. But they simply cannot let sleeping dogs lie. That’s how we are now on the front-porch of Part II of the Trump Investigation. They’re never going to give up. Democrats are convinced there’s something in the Trump camp that is going to kick Donald Trump out of the White House.

And Adam Schiff shows up one more time with “news:”

“Within our committee, we certainly have a compelling interest in making sure that U.S. policy … is not driven by leverage that the Russians have over the president,” Schiff said. “There have been credible allegations that the Russians may have laundered money through the Trump organization, and if that’s the case, then we need to be able to look into it and be able to tell the country, ‘Yes, this is true,’ or ‘No, this is not.’ But I think it would be negligent not to find out.”

“It’s going to be important for Congress to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is being driven by U.S. national interests and not by Trump family finances,” Schiff said, in reference to the president’s business ties to Saudi Arabia and his pro-Saudi policies, such as backing the kingdom in its confrontation with neighboring Qatar. “The president has not truly divested his family’s interests or been the least bit transparent about it,” the congressman said, and lawmakers need to “make sure we’re protecting the country.”

Americans knew full well that with Democrats in the 2018 midterm taking control of the House of Representatives, investigations regardless of Mueller’s findings would definitely be the Democrat Party agenda for the next two years. And that certainly appears to be true. But there are a few things that may throw a wrench into Democrats’ plans.

Department of Justice Investigations

While the Democrat parade is ramping up, the Department of Justice continues its behind-the-scenes investigations of which very little is known. Many remember the comment former AG Jeff Sessions made to Congressman Goodlatte about the AG’s instructions to restart the investigation into the Uranium One transaction AND Hillary Clinton. Months later when asked about that investigation, a DOJ official stated there was NO such letter or authorization by Sessions to do so.

After it claimed no such document existed, the Justice Department just unearthed a letter Matt Whitaker (when Session’s chief of staff) delivered to the Utah U.S. attorney directing a review of how the department handled the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One issues.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote the letter on Nov. 22, 2017, for Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber. Matt Whitaker emailed the letter to Huber that day, writing, “As we discussed.” He also sent Huber a copy of a letter the Justice Department’s Congressional affairs chief sent to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 13 of that year.

The existence of a letter documenting Sessions’ directive that the DOJ revisit probes of Trump’s top political foe is a surprise because a department lawyer said in court last year that senior officials insisted it didn’t exist. The liberal nonprofit American Oversight obtained the letter through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request they filed on Nov. 22, 2017––the same day Whitaker emailed Sessions’ letter to Huber.

The request asked for documentation of the directions Sessions gave Huber about the review of the Clinton investigations. After DOJ failed to produce any written directions, American Oversight sued.

And on Nov. 16, 2018, Senior Counsel in the Office of Information Policy Vanessa Brinkmann, who handles FOIA Requests, said a lawyer in Sessions’ office told her no such letter existed. That lawyer spoke with Huber and Whitaker, she said in a declaration filed in federal court, and then told her that “when the Attorney General directed Mr. Huber to evaluate these matters, no written guidance or directives were issued to Mr. Huber in connection with this directive, either by the Attorney General, or by other senior leadership office staff.”

That wasn’t correct. On Wednesday of last week (March 6, 2019), a DOJ lawyer told American Oversight that they had found the document that kicked off Huber’s work.

The letter is consistent with what the DOJ’s chief of legislative affairs has told Congress: that Huber is scrutinizing the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company with interests in the United States to Rosatom, a Russian state-owned company. Republicans have long alleged that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to oppose the deal because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The DOJ hasn’t brought any charges related to the foundation or the transaction. Some Hill Republicans and conservative media commentators have long argued this is because the Department hasn’t sufficiently investigated it. They have called for the appointment of a special counsel to scrutinize the transaction. Sessions didn’t bite.

Some Republicans say Huber’s work is too little, too late. Democrats, to no one’s surprise, argue it’s evidence of the Trump administration weaponizing law enforcement to target its political rivals.

Is Something Besides Mueller’s Report Imminent?

Hardly any of the media are talking about the publicly available list of 82,000 sealed federal indictments that have all been issued since the week after the instructions to Utah Federal Attorney Huber to reopen Clinton and Uranium One investigations. Every federal district court in the United States has issued several of those sealed indictments. The feds AND the media are strangely quiet about even speculating on the nature of those indictments.

What’s staggering about that is their number. For the previous decade, the total average number of sealed federal indictments issued by all federal district courts combined is 1077 — that’s for each year. These have all been created since October of 2017 — about 16 months.

Speculations of novices and political pundits are that at least some of those indictments are for those involved in human and sex trafficking. Another speculation exists that some may be for some current and past elected and appointed federal officials caught-up in various kinds of wrongdoing. No matter who or what they are for, when the veil of secrecy is pulled back there certainly will be some surprises, especially if any have to do with members of the Trump Administration, Hillary Clinton or her former staff, and even of those from the Obama Administration.

Subpoenas of 81 Trump Associates

House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Jerold Nadler (D-NY) announcing the committee’s subpoena of 81 Trump associates was no surprise. His explanation for doing so simply plays into the Congressional Democrat plan to go after the President.

Nadler has made numerous claims that he “knows” Trump colluded with Russia and/or has obstructed justice:

”It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice,” Nadler told ABC News on Sunday, March 10, 2019.

“It’s very clear,” he explained, “1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt, he tried to have Mueller fired — he tried to protect Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired Comey in order to stop the Russian thing, as he told NBC News. He — he’s dangled pardons — he’s threat(end) — he’s intimidated, witnesses, in public.”

But Nadler, his committee, and other Democrats may face an obstacle they did not expect in their serving subpoenas wholesale to the host of Trump associates they plan to intimidate into relaying something incriminating about the President. Doing so may be illegal: The attempted harassment of President Trump (as it appears to be too many), especially after two years of the Mueller probe, may be unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a case that has direct implications for what Democrats are doing right now.

Watkins v. the United States

John Thomas Watkins, a labor union official from Rock Island, Illinois, was convicted of contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor under 2 U.S.C. § 192, for failing to answer questions posed by members of Congress during a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities on April 29, 1954. Watkins was asked to name people he knew to be members of the Communist Party. Watkins told the subcommittee that he did not wish to answer such questions and that they were outside the scope of the subjects on which he was summoned to testify and of the committee’s jurisdiction. He said:

“I am not going to plead the fifth amendment, but I refuse to answer certain questions that I believe are outside the proper scope of your committee’s activities. I will answer any questions which this committee puts to me about myself. I will also answer questions about those persons whom I knew to be members of the Communist Party and whom I believe still are. I will not, however, answer any questions with respect to others with whom I associated in the past. I do not believe that any law in this country requires me to testify about persons who may in the past have been Communist Party members or otherwise engaged in Communist Party activity but who to my best knowledge and belief have long since removed themselves from the Communist movement.

I do not believe that such questions are relevant to the work of this committee nor do I believe that this committee has the right to undertake the public exposure of persons because of their past activities. I may be wrong, and the committee may have this power, but until and unless a court of law so holds and directs me to answer, I most firmly refuse to discuss the political activities of my past associates.”

His conviction carried a fine of $100 and a one-year suspended prison sentence. Watkins first won a 3–2 decision on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but then lost, 6–2, when that court heard the case en banc. The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 7, 1957, and announced its decision on June 17, 1957.

The Supreme Court decided 6–1 to overturn Watkins’ conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority. Warren noted that it is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer any question “pertinent to the question under inquiry” in testifying before a Congressional committee, but he wrote that the Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision:

There are several sources that can outline the “question under inquiry” in such a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied. The authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might sometimes make the topic clear. This case demonstrates, however, that these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt.

The New York Times commented: “The Supreme Court has placed fundamental restrictions on a Congressional investigatory power that in recent years has been asserted as all but limitless.”

Senators James Eastland and William E. Jenner, who played principal roles in investigating left-wing activities, issued a statement accusing the Court of contributing to “the trend of the past year of undermining our existent barriers against Communist subversion.”

One can easily make a case that current House Democrats and their various committees that have started burying the White House with new investigations of these old allegations against the President are committing the same acts that resulted in the Watkins conviction being overturned by SCOTUS.

How would that Court finding apply to what’s underway now in D.C.? The exact same thing: “The Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision.”

The difference now is that (as many have maintained since the inception of the Mueller probe) in normal investigations, the investigation begins because of specific wrongdoing and is to find the evidence sufficient to prove who is guilty of wrongdoing. This Congressional witchhunt is based on wrongdoing that hasn’t been proven to even exist!


Congressional Democrats are afraid. The leadership of the Democrat Party is afraid. What can they possibly be afraid of?

  • Not only the contents of the 82,000 sealed federal indictments but the results of the prosecution of those federal indictments as they are unsealed and executed;
  • President Trump really may NOT be guilty of anything sufficient to run him out of office one way or the other;
  • Extreme wrongdoing — both criminal and simply reprehensible — on their part may be exposed;
  • All of the above may result in their loss of political might and standing and even expulsion from their positions and status;
  • The Democrat Party totally imploding;
  • President Trump’s agenda actually succeeding.

I know there’s a lot in this discussion for us to chew on. It has become extremely difficult to get a fix on what is truthful and what is not, what is applicable to the President, members of Congress, and those from the Department of Justice. But there’s a worn out adage that I believe is appropriate here: “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” I think it’s safe to say that so far in the exhaustive investigation of this president, his staff, family members, and even his friends, there may not even be smoke. To borrow a phrase from the President, this could all simply be more “Fake News.”

Whether you are a Democrat, a Socialist, a RINO, a Trump supporter, it is probably accurate to say you want this resolved. There may be an argument on the actual resolution you desire, getting this all done and getting the U.S. on the road to what’s ahead without further distractions is really all that matters. But it certainly is time to get this out of the way.


What’s Ahead?

You certainly will agree when I say, “It’s been quite an eventful week!” That’s a definite understatement. Actually, the last 2-3 weeks have been eventful. Heck: all of 2019 has been CRAZY!

In some respects, it’s been difficult to cherry-pick the most important issues of our day, bring the analysis of each to you here at TruthNewsNetwork, and do so in the timing and order based on their importance.

One of the difficulties is the “noise” in which you see, hear, and read in the analysis in Mainstream Media and presentation of that analysis. Let’s face it: none of us are exempt from the one-sided, anti-conservative and “Hate Trump” template of news that all of them use for news “reporting.” (That’s a joke. They DON’T report — they Editorialize)

So here’s what we are going to do the next few days: present you our specific (and researched) analysis on the hot-top issues in a specific order, starting Sunday, March 10. And we’re even going to give you a  schedule! Here is what you can expect:

Sunday, March 10, 2019: Jussie Smollett

This will NOT be the same old worn out news. It is an analysis of what and why this all happened and how it was exacerbated. You do NOT want to miss it.

Monday, March 11, 2019: “Medicare For All” Exposed 

Yep: AOC and company along with those “Old Folks” — Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — have sold out to sell Americans single-payer healthcare. You’ve heard all the noise. Wonder what it would actually look like: your healthcare? We’ve got REAL examples and REAL facts about ALL of the issues if the U.S. adopts it — and NOT just the dollars and cents. We will actually expose what it will do about medical care. We have FACTS!

Tuesday, March 12, 2019: Trump Investigation, Part II

Adam Schiff and Jerold Nadler have gone nuts from the smell of the power they now have with a Democrat-controlled House. The 81+ subpoenas Nadler’s committee sent to Trump et al demanding Trump current staffers and family members suspend their lives to provide those committees massive amounts of a bunch of bunk. It’s actually comical! But, guess what: it probably WILL NOT EVEN HAPPEN! You’ll definitely want to look-in Tuesday to see and hear what the courts have to say.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019: Who’s In Control?

Certainly, the Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate. Trump runs the White House. But who really controls the government? You will be surprised that the answer is “none of the above.” Details and proof on Wednesday.

Of course, during these next few days we’ll have another bombshell or two on the national and international stages we’ll be forced to get into. Don’t worry: we can walk and chew gum here! But one thing you can bet on: the upcoming week is going to be blockbuster after blockbuster.

Don’t miss a minute. And to make sure you don’t, if you haven’t already, enroll with your email address below to assure yourself you’ll get a link to every story as they are published in the upcoming week and every day after that. No advertising, no solicitation, and your email stays right here. We don’t want you to miss a thing.

See you Sunday morning!


Is It “Socialism” or “Democratic Socialism?”

In 2016, it was Bernie. But after the 2018 midterm election primaries, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) took over Bernie’s mantle of Socialism. And ramping up to 2020, the dozen or so declared Democrat Party presidential candidates are running over each other, each crying for the World to hear, “I’m the bigger Socialist…I’m the biggest Socialist!” 

It’s a bit spooky that the “next” generation of Americans are getting so chummy with Socialism. The reason for the far-too-common use of the term is simple: today’s educators have wrapped their classroom agendas in a cloak of Socialism. And Democrat presidential candidates have done so too with their campaigns. They talk about it like it has brought Nirvana to the countries who have embraced it, and they use that to demonize Capitalism. Educators nor politicians discuss the horrors of Socialism in Germany, China, Venezuela, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and nations who long ago disappeared because Socialism always implodes. All they share with our next generation is this: “Socialism is a political environment in which everyone is guaranteed by the government that all their fundamental needs are going to be met — no matter what.” I’ve not heard of any of these Socialists in their speeches espousing the grandeurs of Socialism even mention that it has never worked in any country on Earth. It seems that would be a pretty important fact to mention, don’t you?

Let’s be honest: who doesn’t like the idea of someone taking care of all our needs and wants? It’s a warm and fuzzy thought — at least initially. Remember when we were kids? We worried only about “important” things, like recess, and a new bicycle. “Where’s my catcher’s mitt?” was about the most serious thing we had to deal with. Fighting with a brother or sister over control of the tv remote finished a close second. We did all that while Dad worked, Mom cooked and cleaned and carpooled, and everyone and everything was peachy. The 60s and 70s families were the U.S. Socialism models that worked — at least that’s what pundits point to today.

What’s so spooky about it is that this utopian promise is based on totally false information. These Socialists and economic elitists are filling the heads and hearts of the next generation of Americans with untruths. And our kids and many adults are swallowing that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

When asked about the history of the universal failure of Socialist nations, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quick to correct that question: “What we need is not the old Socialism. What we need and must have in the U.S. is Democratic Socialism,” says AOC.

So let’s today compare Socialism with Democratic Socialism. We’ll then consider Capitalism and contrast and compare how each has succeeded or failed.


Exactly what is Socialism? Webster defines it these two ways:

1.  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. (It requires termination of Capitalism)

2.  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Socialism is almost totally a political system, which does claim to magically solve all problems even though a socialist concept is what creates the problems that result in its inevitable failure. The Soviet Union is a good example. The claim for establishing the socialist Soviet Union was to solve the disparity between rich and poor and assure that everyone will have at least a minimum good life. (“Hey Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: does that sound familiar?”) The reality is, Socialism Soviet-style resulted in making everyone extremely poor and destitute, including people who were not poor before it was instituted.

Democratic Socialism

As compared with “Normal” Socialism, Democratic Socialism means that this political reality—the abolition of capitalism—will be achieved and administered through democratic, as opposed to authoritarian, means.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website explains: “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”

AOC defines Democratic Socialism this way: “So when millennials talk about concepts like Democratic Socialism, we’re not talking about these kinds of ‘Red Scare’ boogeyman,” she said. “We’re talking about countries and systems that already exist that have already been proven to be successful in the modern world.”

Ocasio-Cortez has likened her view of Democratic Socialism to Scandinavian Social Democracy. The congresswoman’s progressive platform consists of a single-payer health care system that covers all forms of health care.

“We’re talking about single-payer health care that has already been successful in many different models, from Finland to Canada to the UK,” she said.

She also believes in tuition-free public colleges and universities. Her platform includes guaranteeing Americans a living wage that maintains “basic levels of dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “That’s what democratic socialism means in 2019, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.”


“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Capitalism has always been the home of true entrepreneurship, encouraging through free market trade the initiative for people to create and develop new technology and continual innovation for improvement and invention. Those who take advantage of the capitalistic environment receive rewards tied directly to their efforts. 

The greatest drawback of Capitalism is corruption that results in individuals and groups from both private and government sectors taking advantage of capitalistic opportunities to garner power and wealth: sometimes illegally and sometimes skirting the law but doing so unethically.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  2. The fifth would pay $1.
  3. The sixth would pay $3.
  4. The seventh would pay $7.
  5. The eighth would pay $12.
  6. The ninth would pay $18.
  7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected: they would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

  1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
  3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
  4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

  1. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
  2. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
  3. “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
  4. “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!


Socialism, whether called simply that or with the word “Democratic” in the front, is nothing new. And there have been those who have tried and tried to get Americans to take more than just a passing glimpse at Socialism to try here. Very smart men and women have spurned the idea for a couple of centuries. They have stood on America’s shores and watched Socialism destroy cultures and societies all around the World. One of them was Ronald Reagan and long before he became President. A half-century ago, “The Gipper” had this to say about Socialism:

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system AND Socialism works. The people who pay the highest taxes today or do the most effort and provide the greatest amount of work in Socialism don’t get any extra benefit from what they bring “to the table.” Like the guys who met for drinks in the bar night after night — especially the guy who made the most money. Tax him too much, attack him for being wealthy, take from him the extra he put into the system, and he just may not show up anymore. In fact, he might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier!

One of our forefathers was asked once why Socialism never lasts anywhere. When does Socialism die? His answer: “It happens every time the country spends all of the ‘other’ guy’s money and there’s none of the ‘other’ guy’s money left.”


U.S. Problem Solving

As a young boy, I always thought I’d grow up and become one of two things professionally: a doctor or a lawyer. I loved medicine. And I loved the Law.

I studied both diligently. By the time I entered high school, I decided I wanted to be neither. I loved current events, civics, and writing. So I threw myself into public speaking, debate, and journalism.

That (and my high school Speech/Debate teacher — who was a news director parttime at a local radio station) sent me into broadcasting. I worked parttime through high school and full time in college doing on-air radio work. I majored in Journalism, fell in love with writing, and have kept my hand in it since.

As a true entrepreneur, I started several companies and immersed myself in growing them. Having to twice monthly meet payroll, I learned about American economics and how everything in government impacted American economics. Politics grew in importance, and I found myself immersed in understanding and participating in the government process. My love for Journalism and politics, when linked to owning and operating my own companies, resulted in my discovery that I was (and am) a true Conservative. I watched closely as the divide between conservatives and liberals in the U.S. grew wider every year. Liberals seemed to want more control over our lives. Conservatives seemed to want less government intrusion and more freedom to operate in a capitalistic economic environment. I understood how each work, but I have never been able to comprehend the liberal political drive to tax Americans more and more, therefore making the federal government bigger and bigger and spending more and more tax dollars. I soon learned the liberal political drive in the late ’90s started pushing harder and harder away from “tax and spend,” and sprinted toward “more and more power to the government.” It dawned on me: when a government has unlimited power over its citizens, it STILL has control of all the money. But because of power, it controls everything else, too.

The Law

I never let myself get too far away from the Law. There are many parts of the Justice System I feel strongly are broken. I don’t like unlimited civil litigation. I’ve watched it destroy lives and bankrupt good people and thriving companies just because of the outrageous cost of litigation. I heard it stated a long time ago that “the only ones who win in litigation are the lawyers.” That fact is grossly understated. The costs of civil litigation are staggering.

Criminal Justice in America is as bad or worse. It favors the wealthy. Why? Because it’s expensive. It is grossly unfair to minorities — primarily because of the expense of criminal defense. And as we’ve witnessed, minorities find themselves facing prosecutors and needing good defense counsel more than Caucasians. I’ve written extensively about it in the past here at

Today, our conversation is about the “principles” of United States Law. We are NOT going to talk about expense, attorneys, or its structure. Let’s simply stipulate that even with its issues, it is still the greatest justice system on Earth.

The U.S. Constitution and its contents are the reasons the United States is known as the most unique country on Earth, and from that uniqueness, the best country on Earth. It differentiates America and Americans from all other countries and people. The Constitution created and established the fundamentals of governing all Americans. Those laws in part have been treated universally for 240 years as the guidelines for the lives of us all. On the most part, they have worked remarkably well. But people and politics have changed American Law: not the “substance” — just the applications.

Our forefathers fled countries where a political elite class of European citizens either created all laws or determined who was forced to abide by them, who could opt out, and if and how when those laws as written (OR as interpreted by those elitists) would be enforced. From those travesties came the American promise to its people for all eternity, “Equal justice under the law.”

The Constitution was the guarantee to Americans that there will always be equal justice under the law. But it also guaranteed the freedoms in every area of the lives of the settlers. All laws would be put in place ONLY by those who were chosen from among the settlers and given authority by those same settlers to craft, implement, and enforce those laws. That promise for equal justice became “Liberty and justice for all.” T

No one could state it better than this:

“…Freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith.”

– Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)

While we are quoting Thomas Jefferson regarding U.S. law, let’s keep going:

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

– Thomas Jefferson (1788)

And then a lawyer from Illinois — a mediocre attorney at best — weighed in with his thoughts about the Constitution:

“A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations…is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism.” 

– Abraham Lincoln

MLK brought the “realistic” view of U.S. law and how it should operate equally for everyone when he said this:

“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” 

– Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Constitution: Selective Enforcement

Our early leaders in Philadelphia met over and over again, crafting, editing, debating, editing, arguing to find consensus to create a single document that would become and remain America’s template for justice. By all counts, they were successful. The United States Constitution became the fairest and most comprehensive roadmap over governance on Earth then and still is today.

It is unfortunate that during its lifetime, many have attempted to fundamentally change the Constitution. Fortunately, it contains a very difficult amendment process that has allowed its amendment only as deemed “vitally necessary.” That difficult process to amend was purposeful. Why? To prevent any fundamental change in it based solely on “political perspectives of the day.” The forefathers knew that times would change legal necessities which would necessitate amendments. But they were so certain (based on their European experiences) the Nation’s longevity would rely chiefly on the consistency of its fundamental legal backbone, they assured Americans that forever this legal treatise would NEVER be substantively altered based solely on peoples’ whims.

It has been amended only for very important reasons. BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, IT REMAINS VIRTUALLY AS WRITTEN. And for that, Americans are fortunate.

Sadly, there have been, and still, are today, those who want to amend it based purely on “current” political whims. The difficult amendment process thankfully has protected it so far.

Politicians have consistently sought and tried to find ways to circumvent parts of the Constitution with which they disagree. They’ve tried pushing through controversial federal laws, legal actions at the state and local levels, and through regulations. But the difficulty of making such changes so frustrated “politicrats” that their ability to govern has been seriously diminished. Politics has overtaken reason in that regard. Their unified cries for amendment of the Constitution are targeted chiefly at:

    • The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press
    • The Second Amendment: Protection of U.S. citizen’s to possess firearms
    • The Tenth Amendment: The Details of Rights Reserved to the States
    • The Twelfth Amendment: Established the Electoral College
    • The Twenty-Second Amendment: The Two-Term Limitation of the President
    • The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: The Inability of a President to Serve in his Office

It would be easy to spend much time debating the merits of each of these amendments. We have previously done so regarding several. But today we will not dive into these amendments, just briefly point out the obvious: the fact that these six Constitutionally amendments which were all passed and ratified through the extremely difficult and arduous method required are under attack primarily by politicians illustrates the reasoning of the founders used for this process. If amending was too easy, in a heightened negative political environment such as the one in which we live today, we certainly would be exhausting our government’s time and resources in amending the Constitution rather than abiding the Constitution.

Politically — especially since the 2016 Presidential election upset of Hillary Clinton — the cries from liberals are deafening as they push hard for a Constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. Why? Hillary won the popular vote and President Trump won the electoral college, which is the deciding factor. Those on the Left argue that the electoral college keeps some voters from casting a ballot that actually counts. Our forefathers anticipated that the heavily populated areas of THIS nation would be similar to those in Europe, (like London, Paris, Barcelona, and others) and that the populations in those large cities are usually more educated and more impacted by political matters than were their counterparts in Middle/Rural America. The electoral college was structured to balance the power of votes

The latest and most egregious example of people of political power working to circumvent provisions of the Constitution were the appointments by President Obama of very liberal and politically active judges to federal courts at every level, especially in federal appeals courts. While there is no public proof that those appointed judges operated under a coordinated agenda, one must only look at the case results on which they have ruled to see that politically, they pretty much fall in line. All judges have political feelings. Hopefully, all judges vote. But what is dangerous for our system of laws is for federal judges to craft their rulings by instead of being based on their determination of Constitutional precedent and actual intent of applicable laws, based on what those judges felt what existing laws SHOULD HAVE been based upon, and even what they thought such a law SHOULD say!

In his 2017 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Neil Gorsuch (now a Supreme Court Justice) responded to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) when the senator asked Gorsuch what his opinion of the intention of our founders regarding separation of powers. He said this:

“Your job comes first, to make the law. Article II, the president’s job, is to faithfully execute your laws. And our job, Article III, down at the bottom, is to make sure that the cases and controversies of the people are fairly decided. And if those roles were confused, and power amalgamated, the Founders worried that that would be the very definition of tyranny. And you can see why.”

Gorsuch continued, “Judges would make pretty rotten legislators. We’re life-tenured, right? You can’t get rid of us. It only takes a couple of us to make a decision — or nine, or 12, depending on the court. That would be a pretty poor way to run a democracy. And at the same time, with respect, legislators might not make great judges, because they’re answerable to the people.  And when you come to court with a case or a controversy about past facts, you want a neutral, rigidly neutral – fair, scrupulously fair, decision-maker. You want somebody who’s going to put politics aside. So the separation of powers, I don’t think has lost any of its genius over 200 years. In fact, it’s proven it.”

Justice Gorsuch believes in the Constitution and its strict adherence by members of all three branches of government. And, in case you haven’t noticed, our “abiding” by the Constitution instead of 24/7 debates to amend it has worked out pretty well!

Headed Where?

Great question. With our fractured political climate exacerbated by agenda-driven politicians, the desired finish for our nation’s journey has changed. Therefore, where we’re headed now is totally dependent upon who one listens to and THEIR perspectives. In that regard, our destination options are across a broad spectrum. Which nirvana we’ll find is anyone’s guess.

In this journey though, there are some absolutes for us to consider. And those considerations just might make the trek a little less onerous. Wouldn’t it be glorious if we could just pull the plug on the national political discourse? How many reading or listening to this often think quietly, “Can’t we all just get along?”


  • We have a roadmap. No doubt the gift of the U.S. Constitution is the best guide owned by any nation in World history. So why not study it objectively, discuss it objectively, and simply accept its success at maintaining the legal and social structure of the United States 240+ years? There are a plethora of nations who would LOVE to have OUR foundation, OUR legal structure, and OUR opportunity. Those didn’t just happen, they were collectively crafted and agreed to by Americans.
  • We are a “Melting Pot.” Many scholars have maintained for more than two centuries that the backbone for America’s success is the diversity of its citizens. The linchpin of our society is the promise that citizens here have equal rights regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or social preferences. While other countries try to instill and perpetuate similar practices, none has done so as successfully as the U.S.
  • We have geography. Few places on Earth have such choices of landscapes as America: oceans, deserts, mountains, valleys, prairies or lakes. And wrapping all of these zip codes is potpourri weather conditions that are as varied as are landscapes. Socially and culturally the U.S. has a citizenry comprised of Native American Indians and Alaskan Eskimos, Wyoming ranchers and Louisiana alligator wranglers, Hollywood movie stars and D.C. politicians, Conservatives and Liberals, Catholics and Pentecostals, Muslims and Jews. And all of these are in unity ruled by these people using one single document.


Here’s our problem: too many have lost the ability for realistic discourse regarding the political problem. Politicians talk “at” each other rather than talking “to” each other. They speak about voters based entirely on political “Identity Categories” that have been devised by political elitists to denote people they do not like. An example was Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” in which SHE “put” Donald Trump supporters. The opinion of almost every Democrat voter is that Democrats are smarter, more loving, kinder, and politically savvy than all Conservatives. There is no willingness to discuss differences or to even consider opinions of those from the other side.

Our forefathers dealt with much of the same issues. Think about this: the United States from its conception in the dreams of persecuted castaways in Europe has always existed as a country with unlimited diversity among its citizens. They knew for that to work, people would be required to be tolerant of others differences. They understood that tolerance did not mean approval. But tolerance was an absolute that must exist for this nation of laws to survive.

That tolerance is being torn out every day. And the attacks are not coming from rank-and-file citizens. They are coming from politicians — at least a dozen of who are running for the presidency! Not only is that a scary sight to behold, but it is also incomprehensible that those presidential candidates of that opinion represent many non-politicians who have chosen to adopt the intolerance of those liberal politicians and to make that intolerance as “normal.”

The scariest part of that: having high “normals” in every area of life for decades and even generations, only to watch those “normals” being lowered again and again by leaders in the nation, making “new” normals that accept compromise and failure in certain areas as “normal.”

That’s all here TODAY in America!

God help us….


“I Know You Are But What Am I?”

“I’m rubber, you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.” Pee Wee Herman wasn’t the only one to use these insults in arguments with his peers. Members of Congress and other politicians do the same thing around the clock. That’s really mature, isn’t it?

America is bleeding reason: reason of all types. Whether in politics, media, entertainment, athletics, religion, or education, having differences is common, but serious attempts to find resolution with others regarding differences are long gone. Political bi-partisanship: a lost art. The culture of recognizing differences of all kinds with others and working collectively for resolution disappeared in America in the ’80s. It began with the loss of fundamental understanding of how to even start a reconciliation process yet alone try to work through conflict.

Remember President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neil? The Massachusetts Democrat was a firebrand: so was President Reagan. The government was deeply divided — an eerily similar Congressional divide as we see today: a slim GOP Senate majority with Democrats firmly in charge in the House. 

Now, as both sides grapple with a Grand Canyon-size political divide, some are looking to the O’Neil and Reagan model for guidance. “You have to develop the relationship before bipartisanship,” says moderate Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf, who was one of 54 Republicans swept into office with Reagan in 1980. “A lot of it was done after hours. They got together, they broke bread, they told stories, and they did things that I think helped us do things to make some accomplishments,” says Wolf. But, alas, I doubt we will ever see Speaker Pelosi and President Trump sharing a cozy dinner or even an occasional nightcap at the White House.

Today’s divide and resulting political animus have unfortunately tainted the discourse between Americans of all descriptions. O’Neil and Reagan got together often, not to badger each other about differences, but to recognize those differences and then discuss solutions. They ALWAYS sought solutions. As argumentative as was Speaker O’Neil, so too was President Reagan. But here’s the difference between then and now: the objective was never “It’s my way or the highway.” Each understood and accepted that there always WERE differences. Each understood and accepted that there always WERE possible solutions. But, more importantly, both were driven by one thing only: the necessity of finding compromise sufficient to implement policies that, while addressing the issues of each side, always put the Nation and its citizens’ welfare first. And each outcome rarely contained demands for political power for either’s advantage. That quest for advantage and power consumes all Congressional negotiations today.


We’ll detail that answer in our summary. But let’s examine what is lost (besides common sense) in all this: time and taxpayer money.

It’s bad enough that Congress is barely in session throughout the year. They justify this with “I have to spend time in my district/state because I represent the People in D.C.” That’s a total cop out! They know what their constituents want regarding every issue. In today’s electronic 24/7 instant media environment, every member is inundated with their constituents’ thoughts on every key issue. They’re being out of session and D.C. so much is about maintaining D.C. status and raising campaign dollars — PERIOD.

While they’re away from Washington, the extensive cost of Congressional operations continues: U.S. Capitol operating expenses, Congressional office staff, and office operations — hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. And nothing gets done.

Don’t forget about taxpayer payment for  Congressional travel. Oh sure, most of the junkets (like the one taken to the Caribbean by Democrats during the partial government shutdown) are paid by lobbyists, (which in our opinion is campaign fraud) but most of their travel costs come from taxpayers.

And, obviously, while away from D.C., they’re not doing what they were hired by Americans to do: LEGISLATE.

Just how much does Congress cost to run? Latest “estimated” costs to taxpayers are $5.75 Billion each year. That’s $10.75 Million per member of Congress annually!

Can you imagine any scenario in which Speaker Pelosi would introduce for floor debate legislation to rein-in Congressional spending and waste?

Not going to happen: but it certainly should. And her counterpart in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, certainly is not planning on doing that either.

Congressional Comradery Just Got Worse

Remember this: Congress gave Reagan fits with investigations. Everything wasn’t rosy then either. Even though there was definitely partisanship — especially in Tip Oneil’s House — members from both parties found ways to work together, even during investigations. Remember the Iran Contra Affair? Put Google to work when you have some time and watch or read some of those hearing minutes. They were contentious, but they were “real” investigations. Not so in this New Democrat House. Here’s what the next two years in Congress will be consumed with: Investigations – “Partisan” Investigations.

Investigations are piling up. If it seems like new ones are being announced every day, that’s because they are. In fact, February 27th we saw three new investigations crop up.

Early that day, House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) sent a letter to the White House announcing an investigation into the Trump team’s shoddy handling of the security clearance process.

Just a couple hours later, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) said his committee will look into whether Trump’s tangled network of business dealings are influencing foreign policy decisions.

It’s a logical choice for an investigation. We already know Democrats claim Trump’s D.C. hotel is a conduit for foreign money, particularly Saudi Arabian money, to make its way to Trump. They maintain Trump is willing to go easy on Saudi Arabia, even after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was allegedly ordered by that country’s crown prince.

That same day, we learned that House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) and House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters (D-CA) are teaming up to dig into Deutsche Bank. Dems feel there’s “Trump blood in the water” there, given that special counsel Robert Mueller has already subpoenaed the bank for its records related to Trump and his family.

Schiff says that the bank is an “obvious place to start” in examining whether the Trump Organization laundered money. Deutsche Bank was recently fined several hundred million dollars for helping the Russians launder money. Additionally, that bank made numerous business loans to the Trump Organization.

Here’s the one that Americans knew was coming, but most still shake their heads hearing about it. Schiff said the investigation will include “the scope and scale” of Russian intervention in the 2016 presidential election, the “extent of any links and/or coordination” between Russians and Trump’s associates, whether foreign actors have sought to hold leverage over Trump or his family and associates, and whether anyone has sought to obstruct any of the relevant investigations.

Forget about the Democrat adoration for that bastion of investigatory perfection who spent (so far) $50 million U.S. dollars doing just what Schiff is planning. Forget that Democrats threatened anyone who even frowned at Robert Mueller — especially the President. And Schiff was chief among them!

House Democrats are opening an investigation into what they say are abuses of power by President Donald Trump through his attacks on the courts, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the media, according to a House official familiar with the plans.

Topics for the inquiry will include Trump’s public humiliation of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his attacks on actions by the liberal Ninth Circuit Court and his abuse of reporters as “dishonest” and “enemies of the people,” said the person, who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

And those are just the beginning.

Just how many meetings do you think those Democrat committee chairmen had with their Republican counterparts, coordinating these pending investigations to assure maximum results for Americans, minding the use of their time and our money in the process?

Not One Minute! Dollars? Add another Billion or so the cost of operating Congress each of the next 2 years: “Investigation Gate!”

The fundamental flaw of all these investigations is exactly as that in the Mueller probe. Typically in law enforcement investigations, a crime (or wrong) happens. Officials examine that crime (wrong), obtain evidence of every kind to determine its scope, origin, intentions of perpetrators of that crime (wrong), and hopefully from those will determine the identity of the wrongdoer.

Robert Mueller worked backward, and so is the Democratic Congress. No crimes or wrongdoing initiated these investigations! Instead, Mueller, Schiff & Company have determined who the perpetrator is: Donald Trump. These investigations are not to track a wrongdoer for committing a wrong. They are to find or create some criminal act committed by the President. And if they find something, their political lives will be complete!

Does anyone else smell something foul in that philosophy?

Summary: “Why?”

For the “Why,” one must begin here: there is no verified crime or wrong exposed to justify initiating these investigations. The reason for doing so must be one thing and one thing only: to somehow through what is found (if anything) put President Trump in House impeachment.

I know: that sounds ridiculous. Do you know why? Because it IS ridiculous. 

Just imagine what the U.S. Government would have looked like in 1984 if House Speaker Tip O’Neil had simply started a dozen or so investigations into President Reagan, with NO evidence of any crimes or wrongdoing. Honestly, that Congress would not have done so. But if they did, the American people would have revolted. But the main reason was that Americans were still unified, still respected the Office of the President AND who was in it, and expected all elected officials to abide by the Rule of Law while working for the American people crafting Legislation.

What a unique idea. We’d all pass out if this Congress did that!

What happened during the last administration is Washington leadership devolved into a petty partisan operating system in which ALL reason and all accountability to the American electorate were abandoned. And that started at the top.

The truth was abandoned. Integrity was non-existent and deemed unnecessary. The Rule of Law and respect for leadership were banished to Gilligan’s Island. All-consuming power and its pursuit devoured our government. And it’s alive and well today. Example?

Speaker Pelosi and a delegation of U.S. lawmakers were recently in Brussels to convince European heads they had control amid the uncertainty around transatlantic relations. Pelosi claimed that the U.S. president is not all-powerful in the meetings in Europe. The House speaker used her recent standoff over the government shutdown as some sort of ‘evidence’ that she has power over the president.

Further evidence of this pervasive evil gripping our country is what we see and hear in Media. Formerly non-partisan news is almost entirely nothing more than propaganda. And news “reporters” long ago evolved into nothing more than “Opinionists” who demand those who read, watch, and listen to their mantra accept it as gospel. And 90% of their “gospel” is garbage when vetted.

Peter Jennings worked the desk at ABC Evening News during Reagan’s two terms. I was a huge fan of his. He never once that I can recall made a single negative remark, editorial comment, or read a partisan story about any politician — Democrat OR Republican.

And, by the way, at the re-lighting of the Statue of Liberty that was nationally televised, Jennings cried after Sandy Patti sang the Star Spangled Banner. And he was Canadian!

In closing, let’s dream a little:

  • Pelosi and Schumer will call for meetings with the President, Mitch McConnell, and Kevin McCarthy. In those meetings, they will all mutually commit to regular policy conversations about EVERY legislative issue.
  • They will each present their ideas about every pending piece of legislation. Then they will each amicably and honestly discuss specifics of reasons why each legislative matter is not acceptable.
  • They will in EVERY case find consensus on all issues, even if and when the end product is NOT what each desired.
  • They will discuss truthfully separately and together in total honesty the details of any good results of implemented laws and policies. They will separately and together in total honesty discuss the details of any bad results of those same items.
  • They will NEVER publicly denigrate each other or the offices they separately hold.

Let’s be honest: Reagan made some bonehead mistakes in office. So did Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. We all have our opinions about things they did and did not do. We ALL have political perspectives.

Recognizing our differences should be just the start. Objectively discussing our differences as only steps to find a reconciliation of those differences into positive outcomes should be the ONLY end result we look for.

Everyone in D.C. needs to take a hard look in the mirror. They all need to pull out some history books and revisit past governments methods of reaching governing consensus. That is NOT happening in this government and didn’t in at least the last 3 either.

We owe at least that to the next generation so they can know something other than political partisanship. How can we expect them to build this nation into something greater without learning how to resolve differences for “the common good?”

If Pee Wee Herman could do that in “Pee Wee’s Great Adventure,” we certainly can.


Dems 2020: Radical Extremism

Americans have wondered for a while, “What is and will be the Democrat Party platform today and for the 2020 election cycle?” Wonder no more. The Democrat Party has moved so far to the left, not even Bernie Sanders recognizes it. And NO one should be surprised. Why?

There’s a simple answer: Democrats had nowhere else to go, other than to Extremism. Donald Trump has won the middle — where Democrats have always excelled. Their only “middle” scrap left on which to campaign is “Trump’s tax cuts left middle-class Americans out and has given the wealthiest of Americans billions in income.” That’s simply untrue. Then why are Dems who are scrambling to put their “candidate card” in for the 2020 White House race railing so loudly about something that is untrue? Because the  financial analysis is incomplete for determination of the exact impact of those tax cuts up and down the tax charts. And Dems need something — anything — to go after Trump other than how mean he is. They’re grasping for straws.

Where Is Democrat Extremism?

You don’t have to look very far. It’s everywhere. There are so many examples of Dems’ extremism — many of which we have exhaustively detailed here — that we will list them only in bullet point fashion, just to jog your memory.

  • The Green New Deal Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) takes credit for the 18-page manifesto with basic details of this “deal.” It probably is the MOST extreme of current Democrat proposals. It is such an elaborate scam that is fundamentally impossible for the U.S. to do, it deserves its own bullet point references. A brand new report released in the last few days sets the price tag for this proposal at $94 Trillion.

The resolution in Congress from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., calls for a “10-year national mobilization” that would include:

– “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

– “Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

– “Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”

– “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

– “Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.”

– “Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”

– “Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

– “Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

– “Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”

– “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

  • Medicare For All Touted nationally by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) in his 2016 run for the presidency, this idea is NOT a new one. Proponents have brought it up again and again from as far back as prior to World War II. But it always dies for lack of its feasibility on many levels. Such a plan in its purest form is financially unsustainable  — at least when compared to current healthcare. Sanders’ plan was not Medicare For All, but a “single-payer” system. The “Bernie-version” would greatly expand Medicare and overhaul it — for example, it would greatly expand the type of coverage offered and also eliminate deductibles, copays, and premiums. Private insurance companies are also currently a part of the Medicare system. That wouldn’t be the case under Sanders’ plan. It would eliminate co-pays and deductibles, would offer comprehensive coverage for a host of treatments heretofore typically not included in health insurance, like dental and vision care. The gargantuan cost of such a program is the primary reason single-payer health insurance has never been implemented. And Democrats of all ilks are all over this concept. Every declared Democrat candidate for president in 2020 has voiced their support for Medicare for All. Its cost according to several non-partisan groups: $32 Trillion over 10 years.
  • Free College Tuition No doubt college is expensive. Total student loan debt has reached an abysmal level, reaching per the latest report $1.56 trillion in total U.S. student loan debt. 44.7 million Americans currently have a student loan debt of which 11.5% is 90 days or more delinquent or are in default. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been a vocal proponent for free college tuition. However, several other declared Democrat presidential candidates are not so sure. But as a whole, Democrat Party members nationwide favor a plan for free college financed through increased taxes on the wealthy.
  • Gov’t takeover of Student Loan Debt This novel idea was the foundation of a secret plan created by former President Obama with Hillary Clinton. Obviously, it was never implemented, but leaks have confirmed that if Clinton had been elected President in 2016, this would have been chief among her policy proposals. Several Democrat presidential candidates are for the forgiveness of student loan debt. But as yet, no one has offered up a specific plan for doing so.
  • Late-term Abortion It began in New York which passed a law allowing abortion — with the consensus of the mother and a “medical professional” which is not necessarily a doctor — at any time up to the actual birth of a baby. That idea quickly showed up in Virginia’s legislature and is being considered in other states across the country. The outcry against this among many Americans reached a fevered pitch when a bill in the U.S. Senate that would require physicians to give medical care necessary to sustain the life of a baby that lived in a botched abortion procedure was shot down by Democrats who voted against the measure. In essence, by doing so, Senate Democrats endorsed the actual killing of a baby who is born alive after a botched abortion procedure.
  • Anti-Semitism Two professed Muslims were elected to the House Democrat majority in 2018. Muslims fundamentally debunk even the right for the existence of the nation of Israel. Newly elected Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) recent antisemitic comments threw the Democrat Party for yet another wild loop. Some Democrats in Congress voiced their disagreement with Omar’s stance against U.S. support of Israel; most were eerily silent. To many Americans, the Dem silence signaled a shift in Democrat Party national support for America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. In case after case, public comment after public comment, the two have made serious anti-semitic comments. Yet other Democrats throw out the allegation against Republicans for being anti-semitic without giving specifics showing such charges are true. Donald Trump has even been accused of anti-semitism, even though Jared Kushner — President Trump’s son-in-law and White House Advisor — is Jewish. Ivanka Trump has become a Jew and their children (who are the President’s grandchildren and who he adores) are Jewish.
  • Reparations Those Democrats declaring for president in 2020 have made it clear they support reparations for African Americans for the slavery of their ancestors. In doing so, those Democrats have revealed a likely objective Americans will probably see in the 2020 general election. But many Dems feel that may be a difficulty in primaries in that rank-and-file Democrat voters are split pretty much down racial lines regarding reparations. While reparations may play well among followers of Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, it will be a divisive topic for others.
  • Southern Border Security The Democrat talking point regarding border security — at least so far — has been that there is NO border security issue at the southern border that requires urgent action by the government like the declaration of a National Security Notification issued by President Trump. This may be the most polarizing party policy of Democrats for the 2020 election. Polls show that most Americans feel there IS a border crisis and they want the southern border enforced. Democrat candidates continue banging that drum while crying that President Trump is “ripping babies from the arms of their mothers.” That line may play well in soundbites, but facts do not bear out those claims. The same policies are in place today as were under President Obama that resulted in the same actions then as now.
  • Investigate, Investigate, Investigate At the writing of this story, the President’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen is appearing in a public hearing before the Democrat-controlled House Oversight Committee. As we reported in our most recent report here, that committee’s chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has notified all that they have and will launch relentless investigations into all things that pertain to the President  from even BEFORE he was inaugurated. Though that hearing is still ongoing, Mr. Cohen has been exposed in multiple lies other than those exposed previously. He testified to the committee he never wanted to be a part of a Trump Administration when in his sentencing summary for his crimes prosecuted by the Southern District of New York federal attorney, his personal texts and emails to his friends and associates detailed his desire and plans regarding what his anticipated role in the Administration would be. In his questionnaire he completed regarding his testimony before this committee, his answer to the question regarding what foreign entities with which he held contracts, his questionnaire answer was “Not Applicable.” But in his testimony when asked that question, he testified that he was contracted with 20 foreign companies. In fact, one GOP committee member made a motion for criminal referral of Mr. Cohen for violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act — the same act that led to federal criminal charges against Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta. Cohen testified that he overheard a telephone conversation via speaker between Mr. Trump and Roger Stone in which Stone told the President that Julian Assange of Wikileaks was about to make a massive public dump of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Cohen testified that happened on either July 18th or 19th. Cohen was shocked to be notified today that those emails and that dump were made public 5 weeks before that alleged phone call on June 10. As a side note regarding how outrageous the actions of Democrats are regarding their platform, the Democrat Chair and Vice-Chair of the House Oversight Committee actually met with Mr. Cohen to coordinate his testimony — a very unusual action which is also unethical and illustrates desperation of Democrats.


Angst among Democrats is front and center every day. And Americans — especially Democrats — are wondering where the party is on policies, who speaks for Democrats, how will the party successfully take-on President Trump in 2020. And they’re not getting good answers.

  1. It is true that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House has more women, persons of color and LGBT members than any House in history — and fewer white males. But many Democrats are wondering if that will be enough to win. And the day Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) was sworn in, her hand on a Quran, our first Palestinian-American congresswoman showed us what Democrats may expect. As a rally of leftists lustily cheered her on, Tlaib roared, “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive deleted)!” How did Pelosi respond to her “rookie’s” attack on Trump? Not only was no apology forthcoming from Pelosi, the host of the New American Leaders event where Tlaib spoke those words warmly endorsed her gutter language. Her remarks said Sayu Bhojwani, “were raw and honest, and came straight from the heart. … a refreshing break from the canned comments our elected leaders usually make. Tlaib spoke … with the fire that so many at our event wanted to hear.”
  2. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, the youngest member of the new House, told CNN there is “no question” President Donald Trump is a “racist,” for he regularly uses “historic dog whistles of white supremacy.” Ocasio-Cortez at no time has offered any support for racist allegations against Mr. Trump. Many Democrat voters are now asking for examples of those often-mentioned “dog whistles.” Are such racial attacks going to be a plank in the new Democrat Party platform?

Who’s running the Democrat Party? Where are they going? Less than two years before the next federal election and there being no answers to those questions is the actual reason for the all-out extremism being demonstrated by Democrats. Many Democrat leaders are very concerned about this as they should be. They and many others are asking this question: “Can we beat Donald Trump by simply beating the drum of emotion against the President or should we circle the wagons around the publicly incendiary policies (many which are mentioned above) trying to galvanize Democrat voters on the issues?” Can the Democrat Party make “The Green New Deal” and “Medicare for All” palatable to Americans, especially when their combined cost projection is just over $110 Trillion over 10 years, which is more than the entire tax revenue of the federal government?

Here’s the thing that Democrats don’t know or understand, or maybe just ignoring: Donald Trump. I have seen not a single Democrat politician act in a manner that shows they understand they are NOT dealing with a politician, that they ARE dealing with a legitimate businessman who is focused on specific issues in American life. He has committed and performed as President what is necessary to tackle and solve those issues. No Democrat so far has shown any initiative to address that capability that most American voters relate better with. Why? Almost all Americans are NOT politicians, do NOT have the fairy tale existence that most federal politicians have, and DO live day-to-day in a world that requires hard work, specific job performance, and accountability. American voters accountability? Achieving expected results for ALL those for whom they perform.

Politicians thumb their noses at that premise. And their doing so may cost them the White House — AGAIN.

This journalist at this point feels certain that without specific tangible, detailed, and Democrat Party supported policies with which American voters identify and embrace, Democrats are doomed to only continue to be who they appear to Americans to be today: Extremists, and nothing more. And their 2020 Platform: “Radical Extremism.”



“Investigator in Chief” Adam Schiff

The California Congressman loves the camera, loves the interview, and hates President Trump. He has now (with the Democrat Party control of the House of Representatives) seen Part 1 of his dream come true: the opportunity to be the “boss” of the House Intelligence Committee with unfettered access to whatever investigations his committee wants to initiate: chiefly that of harassment of this President. And that’s the direction that Congressman Schiff has already pointed his investigators.

Adam Schiff: “The Russians are Coming!” Claims in 2017

In 2017, Schiff was constantly in front of television cameras. This story came out in an interview Schiff had on MSNBC.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that there is “more than circumstantial evidence now” to suggest that President Donald Trump’s campaign may have colluded with Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election, but he would not offer details.

“I can tell you that the case is more than that,” Schiff told Chuck Todd on MSNBC. “And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

Schiff Keeps it Going! Claims in 2018 Before Midterms

Schiff just kept pontificating about the President. He obviously is on a quest to “get” Mr. Trump.

During an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” host Margaret Brennan said she wanted to “drive distinctions as we’ve been saying here that some of the facts can get muddled here in the president’s language. I want to make sure we’re being precise in our conversation. Can you agree that there has been no evidence of collusion coordination or conspiracy that has been presented thus far between the Trump campaign and Russia?” she said.

“No, I don’t agree with that at all. I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. Now, that’s a different statement than saying that there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal conspiracy. Bob Mueller will have to determine that,” Schiff said in response.

“It’s going to be important for Congress to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is being driven by U.S. national interests and not by Trump family finances,” Schiff said, in reference to the president’s business ties to Saudi Arabia and his pro-Saudi policies, such as backing the kingdom in its confrontation with neighboring Qatar. “The president has not truly divested his family’s interests or been the least bit transparent about it,” the congressman said, and lawmakers need to “make sure we’re protecting the country.”

In that CBS interview Schiff doubled and tripled down on Russian election tampering looming over the U.S. 2018 midterm elections and that President Trump and his administration firmly stand against the truth of such hacking. Schiff quoted statements made by heads of U.S. Intelligence agencies made in a press conference. U.S. intelligence agencies warn that Russia – among other countries posing cybersecurity threats – will continue to meddle in U.S. politics.

“Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea will pose the greatest cyber threats to the United States during the next year,” the report states. “These states are using cyber operations as a low-cost tool of statecraft, and we assess that they will work to use cyber operations to achieve strategic objectives unless they face clear repercussions for their cyber operations.”

2018 Midterm Election Hacking or Not?

In spite of Schiff’s claims, a “different story” about Russian 2018 hacking in our elections has surfaced:

A new report from two top Trump administration officials said they have found no evidence that foreign governments had a significant impact on the integrity of the 2018 midterm elections. Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Homeland Security chief Kirstjen M. Nielsen said in a Feb. 4 report to President Donald Trump that both the election and political infrastructure used during the midterm vote were free from meaningful interference. The election marked a key test for Pentagon leaders, who were using the event as a measuring stick for a new cybersecurity strategy.

In the weeks leading up to the midterm elections, senior Trump administration officials worried about the potential for a series of cyber mishaps, from hacked preliminary results to inaccurate voter registration databases. Burke Wilson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber, told reporters Oct. 30 that the midterm elections was one metric that could be used to judge the success of the Trump administration’s plan to become more aggressive in cyberspace.

But the new report does not mean that other nations were quiet or that their efforts were non-existent during the midterm elections, only that they had no significant impact on the vote.“Russia, and other foreign countries, including China and Iran, conducted influence activities and messaging campaigns targeted at the United States to promote their strategic interests,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, said in a December 21 report.

Adam Schiff Today

The 2018 Midterm elections are behind us. Congressman Schiff in coordination with Democrat heads of other House committees even before taking control of the new Congress ramped up getting set to take on Donald Trump with non-stop investigations. That meant subpoenas: subpoenas to the Trump Campaign and the White House for documents and records, subpoenas to members of the Trump Campaign and members of the Administration for sworn Congressional testimony, and has even threatened to subpoena Special Counsel Robert Mueller to appear. (Whatever happened to the praise and adoration Democrats had for Mueller and how afraid they were Trump would either fire Mueller or interfere in other ways with Mueller’s investigation?)

And Schiff continued:

“Within our committee, we certainly have a compelling interest in making sure that U.S. policy … is not driven by leverage that the Russians have over the president,” Schiff said. “There have been credible allegations that the Russians may have laundered money through the Trump organization, and if that’s the case, then we need to be able to look into it and be able to tell the country, ‘Yes, this is true,’ or ‘No, this is not.’ But I think it would be negligent not to find out.”

In that same conversation, Schiff identified some of the factual information he holds about wrongdoing of President Trump: “We know the president used a blocked cellphone during the campaign, and so naturally we sought to subpoena the phone records to determine whether the president, despite his protestations to the contrary, was knowing and approving of this meeting with the Russians to get dirt on his opponent,” Schiff said, without elaborating on the source of the claim that Trump frequently used a blocked number.

By the way, Schiff’s claim of the blocked phone purportedly used by President Trump to hide his “secrets” in his phone calls was debunked. The Donald Trump, Jr. calls in question were to other folks, not the President. But Schiff didn’t just now indicate he had “factual” information that verified Trump collusion with Russia.

Michael Cohen

The President’s former personal attorney is headed to Capitol Hill for testimony before Adam Schiff’s committee. In that testimony, the name Felix Sater will certainly come up in questions asked of Cohen by committee members. The political dance between Adam Schiff and Congress, Michael Cohen and Felix Sater are going to be very interesting. Felix Sater is the linchpin for the British Spygate scandal because he was James Comey’s FBI asset used to set up numerous October Surprises that were intended to “take out” candidate Trump. Felix is the “Russian spy” who tried, again and again, to set up Trump through the Trump Towers/Alfa Bank accusations, the Michael Cohen Russian sanctions letter, the meeting with Natalia Veselnetskya, the Russian Trump Towers deal, and many other crooked “frame-ups.”

Last year, Cohen pleaded guilty to a series of felonies, including campaign-finance violations that involved hush-money payments he made to two women who alleged past affairs with Trump to silence them just weeks before the 2016 presidential election.

Cohen also pleaded guilty to making false statements to congressional investigators about the scope and timeline of negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen had originally said that talks were not pursued past the very onset of 2016 only to later admit that they went on into that summer. He said he lied in order to keep in line with Trump’s narrative about the Russian dealings. Cohen was then sentenced to serve a three-year prison sentence for his conviction.

Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 total charges. But in the context of Cohen’s appearances before House and Senate Intelligence Committees, an obvious question even if not asked of Cohen will certainly dominate the atmosphere in those hearing rooms: What if anything should members of Congress or anyone else believe that Cohen says? Think about it: when testifying previously before House and Senate committees, Cohen lied! He was sworn, under oath, and he lied. And he pleaded guilty to lying: for which he is going to prison!

Only Cohen and his attorney have information regarding exactly what he will testify to in these hearings. But that really doesn’t matter. What matters is the truth and the fact that on multiple occasions about multiple issues in multiple answers to the Committee’s questions, Cohen lied. How does anyone know which if any of the things he testifies to is true and which is false? For me, “if the tree is poisoned, then the fruit of the tree is automatically poisoned as well.”

Don’t forget this: as of Tuesday, February 26th, Michael Cohen is no longer a lawyer. He’s joining Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama in that high honor. Bill and Hillary “voluntarily surrendered” their licenses. Michelle Obama declared herself as “inactive.” Barack Obama’s is in “retirement” status. But, “if it quacks and waddles it’s usually a duck.” Cohen was disbarred because of his felony conviction he just pled to.


The bottom line is this: Adam Schiff is willing to do pretty much anything to “get” President Trump. He’s made it a personal quest. Just as has U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Schiff has proven he is NOT above stretching the truth a bit to open the door to investigations, taint the opinions of the American people, and even lie. Their objective? To find some way to kick Donald Trump out of office.

Isn’t it a sad state of affairs that we in which find ourselves? A U.S. President has just endured two years of an approximate $50 million investigation by a person who holds what is literally the most powerful position in the United States — Special Counsel Robert Mueller? During that two-year period, the sitting president has been smeared as have members of his Cabinet, Administration, friends, and even his own family. For what? To find some way in which the President colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election away from Hillary Clinton.

Could it be more obvious to Americans that there is something to hide, something to cover, some mysterious gotcha hanging out there that Schiff, Blumenthal, and a host of other Democrat operatives and career politicrats fear will be uncovered in some way by President Trump or those in his Justice Department? Why else would there be such animus for a president who has done more for more American citizens than any other president in recent history? It can only be to keep hidden some very nasty things that if uncovered under the light of Justice would end many careers and probably send multiple people to prison.

Who are they and what have they done? I cannot answer that. But one thing is certain: THIS president is guilty of NO political wrongdoing or civil or criminal political activities. How do I know that? In the short time that he has even been a politician, every waking moment, every phone call, every email, every meeting, every conversation that he has had have been monitored electronically in at least one way and probably in multiple ways. His wrongdoing would be trumpeted to the World immediately upon discovery because the evildoers who are so desperate to cover up their misdeeds cannot afford for President Trump to continue down his present path. They are certain if he stays in the White House, their sins will be uncovered.

Q-Anon (who we have introduced to you earlier with a video or two) today stated this: “It’s going to be HISTORIC! Planned long ago. Within the next 21 days, BIG BIG BIG HAPPENINGS are going to take place.”

I have no idea who Q-Anon is or if there is any validity in what Q-Anon says. But with 70,000+ federal sealed indictments pending — a fact that we at TruthNewsNetwork have independently confirmed on our own — it seems that time is running out on a bunch of people.

I wonder who that could be?


America’s Socialist Darling: “AOC

Few could believe that a bartender from The Bronx could upset the 3rd most powerful Democrat in Congress. But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did just that. She’s now a member of the United States Congress: a loud member, and is an example of the “new breed” taking over Washington. And she’s taken leadership from Senator Bernie Sanders and is not the “Purveyor-in-Chief” of Socialism in America.

“AOC” (as she’s called) began her endorsement of Socialism and her anti-Capitalist campaign in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. Her following is bountiful, comprised mostly of Millennials who love the idea of the government paying for EVERYTHING. She’s picked up that mantle and is racing down a path toward Socialism with NO hesitation.

In doing so, AOC’s shiny exterior is beginning to show some wear — the in-your-face facts of true Socialism are currently playing out on the world stage in a not-so-pretty fashion. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The reality is, she is — like so many people crying out for socialism today — responding to a form of trendy political “hipsterism.” The need to signal herself as a radical, a leader of counter-culture, ahead of her time, rebelliously new-age icon is powerful, and adopting a once-scorned label and trying to make it cool is a great way to do that.

She doesn’t have to actually understand socialism at all, she can just makeup whatever she wants and call it socialism. She can position herself as mainstream and her opposition as extremist by suggesting that any and all government action, tax collection or spending is an example of socialism. “What, do you hate road, highways and schools, you dinosaur?”

I understand why Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s philosophy can be mistaken for actual socialism. They both have in common their glorification of big, powerful government. They both have a slavish devotion to the state. They both require restrictions on personal freedom. They both worship at the altar of humanitarianism. There’s no doubt, they do share a lot in common, and I don’t think there is any question that Ocasio-Cortez’s actual philosophy paves the road for her stated philosophy.

But it is important to say without question that actual socialism is, in fact, worse than the agenda of the typical American liberal, and I think we need to start making that plainly clear so that we don’t ever open the door to socialism — real socialism — being implemented in this country.

One of the reasons that socialism has been such a miserable failure — worldwide — over the course of the last hundred years, is because it inevitably takes a very strong, centralized government command economy that restricts civil, political and economic freedom to force society to behave in the way that socialism demands. This isn’t FDR or Barack Obama’s big government, we are talking about. This is Venezuela’s big government.

There actually aren’t very many countries left that practice true socialism. Those that do, (like just-mentioned Venezuela) are riddled with political corruption — which unfortunately flows from a powerful central authority —  as well as economic instability, stagnant growth, and virtually non-existent personal freedom.

But to socialists, Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union and every other failed state that practices socialism is not “real” socialism. No, they are fake socialism. They were just doing it wrong.

Fake socialists and real socialists alike will tell you that today there are in fact socialist success stories, like the Scandinavian countries, which are constantly held up as shining “see, I told you so!” examples of socialism in action.

This, predictably, is not true.

Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are not socialistic. As the Foundation for Economic Education pointed out two years ago, in Scandinavia (like virtually all wealthy, economically developed western countries) the means of production is mostly owned by private individuals. It is not owned by the government or the local community.

More importantly, resources are not allocated by central government planning, but rather by various capitalistic markets. Scandinavians operate under a privately owned, market economy.

People think that the Scandinavians — and the rest of Europe, while we’re at it — are socialist because they have a very extensive social safety net, and heavy government spending. Conservatives have historically reinforced this perception, using the term “socialist” to describe them because they associate high taxes,  spending, and big government with socialism.

But once again, government programs and the welfare state — whatever your opinion on their wisdom — are not examples of socialism. The Nordic model so frequently cited as a success is really just the European concept of “social democracy,” which ultimately boils down to public welfare mixed with a capitalistic economy.

The Scandinavians themselves reject the socialist label. Speaking in a lecture at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government during the last presidential election, Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen didn’t mince words.

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said. “The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.

No doubt, comparing the Ocasio-Cortez socialism model with that of Scandinavia and Europe does not fly with reality. But still, AOC and her followers think that, call it that, and will go to the mat screaming THAT socialism model is the one the U.S. must have.

The “Green New Deal”

Who doesn’t think the U.S. and every other country must get their environmental goals and objectives cleaned up? Who doesn’t want clean air, clean water, and less reliance on fossil fuels? Who doesn’t want more green energy?

But who thinks we should find ways to get to those objectives with realistic and attainable steps? Who REALLY thinks we can achieve the Green New Deal plans for NO fossil fuel cars, NO fossil fuel air travel, retro-fitted buildings — ALL buildings — to be totally fuel efficient, solar and air power at full speed in just 10 years?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does. How? We don’t know. Her “deal” that has taken Washington by storm is actually NOT legislation at all — though she claims it is. It is actually an 18-page draft document — “draft” being the operative word. Several draft versions of the Green New Deal have come and gone from the Congresswoman’s website, specifically the one that included the problem in getting cows to stop farting.

Meanwhile, Back in the Big Apple….

Then there were her victory laps for taking leadership in killing the Amazon deal to bring their 2nd headquarters to Long Island — just next to HER district — along with 25,000-40,000 jobs in the tech sector. New York Mayor de Blasio stated the Amazon deal would have given New York $27 billion in new revenue. Those would be NEW jobs. Her reasoning? It would be stupid for New York to cut a $3 billion check to Amazon. New York should instead take that $3 billion and invest it in infrastructure, education, and paying off college student educational debt.

Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to understand that by helping to drive Amazon away, she did not save New York $3 billion; she cost New York $27 billion. There is a difference between having bad ideas and not grasping basic facts. Reasonable people can disagree about whether New York should have offered Amazon $3 billion in tax incentives — or anything at all — to build its headquarters in the city. But that is different from not understanding that New York is not writing a $3 billion check to Amazon.


Millions have watched as Ocasio-Cortez has whipped her followers into a frenzy after frenzy, breathlessly dominating prime time news minutes. Many of those millions have been wondering why leaders in the Democrat Party have not stepped into to muzzle this rookie who is just barely even in Congress. But so far every announced Democrat candidate for the 2020 presidency has loudly proclaimed their support for that Green New Deal. They are doing so not even knowing what is in it — BECAUSE IT HASN’T BEEN WRITTEN YET! But endorsing her deal is the “hip” thing to do right now — forget about the $7 trillion estimated price tag. We all know that in “D.C. Speak,” $7 trillion really means “$20-30 trillion — maybe that…maybe more.”

But while we’re waiting for Pelosi and Schumer to rein in their starlet from the Bronx, consider this: maybe, just maybe, they don’t want to rein her in. Maybe they are confident her blazing exuberance will burn out before they have to step in and shut her up. So far, she’s doing a pretty good job working on that. Chuck and Nancy maybe just “giving her enough rope to hang herself.”

Even if Ocasio-Cortez loses her steam and her bully pulpit, the scary thing remains that talks about socialism and its merits are today, have been for several years, and likely will continue and probably even increase, with AOC and her followers aggressively pushing it to other Millenials as exactly where the U.S. must go to survive.

How will they handle that?

Don’t think for one moment that what she is selling is new to them. An entire generation of American youngsters has for more than a decade worshipped at the altar of socialism being propagated by teachers and professors across the nation. Highschools and universities are full of 1960’s hippy and free love loyalists who were taught Big Brother was evil. That generation has grown up and is now teaching our kids and their kids the glories of Big Brother and government doing for and providing citizens everything necessary to be happy.

Baby Boomers can’t fathom that. But our kids can…and do.

Chuck and Nancy are holding on to the hope that Ocasio-Cortez’s star will burn out and she’ll melt back into the landscape of Washington, quietly taking her rightful place as a rookie lawmaker. But I’m not confident AOC will be comfortable with that.

She’s confrontational, she’s loud, she’s opinionated, and she’s a woman on a quest. She was outspent in her 2018 election campaign 18 times over by her establishment opponent, and she still won. She’s a fighter. She’s not “quietly going into the night.”

But as we all watch exactly what longterm impact she will have on her party and the U.S. Congress, she will certainly give Americans a few laughs. Her tenure in office so far has been replete with the opportunities for giggles and chuckles. Try YouTube and enter her name for a search. You’ll get more than just a few good laughs. Like this:

”Jack walked into a sports bar around 9:58 pm. He sat down next to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) at the bar and stared up at the TV as the 10:00 o’clock news came on. The news crew was covering a story of a man perched on a ledge of a large building preparing to jump.
Alexandria looked at Jack and said, “Do you think he’ll jump?”
Jack says, “You know what, I bet he will.”
Alexandria replied, “Well, I bet he won’t.”
Jack placed a couple of twenties on the bar and said, “You’re on!”
Just as she placed her money on the bar, the guy did a swan dive off of the building, falling to his death.
Alexandria was very upset, but she handed Jack her $40, saying, “Fair’s fair, here’s your money.”
Jack replied, “I can’t take your money, I saw this earlier on the 5 o’clock news and knew he would jump.”
Alexandria replies, “I did too; I just didn’t think he’d do it again.”

No matter how successful the young Congresswoman is in D.C., we’ll all get plenty of laughs at her expense.

Don’t go postal on me: every politician is fair game when it comes to being fuel for jokes! Even Obama chuckled at some of the jokes at his expense.

And so does the “orange-hair” guy in the White House!