The New York Times Gives In to the Mob. All the Adults are Gone!

Saying that “Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” New York Times columnist and editor Bari Weiss resigned yesterday with a scathing letter to the paper.

Weiss, one of the few centrist voices at The Times, said she faced bullying at the paper for her views, and that the free exchange of ideas on the opinion pages was now dead. The search for truth has been replaced by “orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

In the letter addressed to publisher A.G. Sulzberger, Weiss bemoans how the Times has strayed from the ideals laid out by Adolph Ochs in 1896, that the paper should publish “all shades of opinion.”

In part, here is Weiss’ resignation letter:

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it.

What’s Going On?

Weiss was an unusual fit at the New York Times. It is a rare occurrence when a young writer at that paper still maintains a sense of providing its readers looks into both sides of political policies — not just that of the Millennials who gorge daily on Twitter and Snap Chat. Weiss honored the institution of Journalism. She is not a patsy and never hesitated to pen her thoughts on any applicable subject.

But she also allowed for considerable room for readers to hold an OPPOSITE opinion. After all, Journalism is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas.

The marketplace of The Times is anything but open to multiple ideas on ANY subject.

“Bari Weiss’s letter was tame,” a New York Times insider said. She could have named names. She could have said, “There are dozens of other instances of bullying and harassment. Because there are.”

What took Weiss so long? Prominent writers at the Times never accepted her as a colleague. Instead, her colleagues on the opinion page sniped and leaked against her on Twitter from the first. Was it “tall poppy syndrome” – resentment of a young writer who, in an era when legacy media seem to be in perpetual crisis, landed a plum job at the Times? Or, as Weiss implies in her resignation letter, was it something nastier than mere jealousy – an ethical and legal failure that my source calls a ‘hostile workplace culture’?

The resignation letter she released on Tuesday alleges that Weiss, a liberal centrist who also happens to be a prominent Jewish supporter of Israel, has been called a “racist and Nazi” in her place of work and on Slack social media channels on which senior Times management are regular presences. She also says that the Times’s publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, and ‘other Times leaders have “stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage.” Her letter is restrained, but still, what sources call “the actual horror of her daily life at her job” again comes across.

“It’s astounding, but it’s also instructive,” one source says. “This is what happens when management doesn’t lift a finger to defend you.”

As Weiss herself says, her verifiable claims could amount to a costly compensation case for the Times: “unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge.” The Times’s management may also have breached Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), by failing to protect Weiss from “discrimination based on certain specified characteristics” including “race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.”

Weiss’s online enemies are already assuming that she jumped before she was pushed. That alone would confirm the impression of ethical collapse at the Times. The radical left is running the paper, and no dissent is tolerated – not even from a US senator. But the truth is that she left in disgust.

‘This was obviously her decision. It was just, “What am I doing here anymore? The place has gone mad.”’

It won’t stop with Weiss. Colleagues on the opinion pages and in the newsroom have ratcheted up their disdain for moderates and conservatives. Who’s next?

It’s harder to get rid of a weekly columnist than an editor like Weiss. It’s a much bigger stink if a columnist leaves. But the fish stinks from the head, and the owners have no guts.


In her resignation letter, Weiss blathered what must have been devouring her insides for months. She made clear what the internal issues are at the formerly top newspaper not just in the U.S. but in the World. Today, it is far from that. Why is that?

The Times editors and publisher have stepped to the side in silent approval of a pronounced swing to the far left — not just far-left politics, but far-left social and moral mindsets that heretofore been subjects of columns like those from Weiss. Today, they are nothing more than ho-hum tweets from pimple-faced teens opining about their barrage of tweets that embarrassed, humiliated (or both) subjects of their attacks.

With Weiss gone, The Times has relented to be little more than an extension of Twitter. Maybe the paper should change its prominent building signage in Manhattan. Based on what Americans see today, an applicable sign on their building would say: “Twitter-East.”

The Adults Have Left the “Twitter-East” Building!

The Boogaloo: Extremists’ New Slang for a Coming Civil War

boogaloo cover adl

It’s not often an old joke evolves into a catchphrase for mass violence, but that’s just what’s happened this past year when a variety of extremist and fringe movements and subcultures adopted the word “boogaloo” as shorthand for a future civil war.

From militia groups to white supremacists, extremists on a range of online platforms talk about—and sometimes even anticipate—the “boogaloo.” The rise of “boogaloo,” and its casual acceptance of future mass violence, is disturbing. Among some extremists, it may even signify an increased willingness to engage in violence.

“Boogaloo” has its roots in decades of jokes about an old movie: the 1984 breakdancing film Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. Almost from the moment of the movie’s release, people exploited the format of the movie’s title for humorous purposes, replacing “Breakin’” with some other film, event or person of their choice.

These jokes included “Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo” references, made every so often by gamers and history buffs, among others.  But its most recent, and most serious, iteration caught on and spread very quickly. Though some still use the phrase as a joke, an increasing number of people employ it with serious intent.

Gun Rights Activists Threaten Violence

This new usage seems to have started with gun rights activists intimating or promising violence if the government were to “come for their guns.”  The full phrase has been used this way before; for example, in June 2018 someone started a Reddit thread titled “Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo” featuring a 2012 Facebook post by Gavin Newsom, then California’s lieutenant governor, telling the National Rifle Association, “we ARE coming for your guns.”  The implication made by the poster was clear—that any such effort would result in civil war.

In 2019, usage spread widely among pro-gun activists on a variety of online platforms, so much so that it was quickly pared down simply to “boogaloo” or “the boogaloo.”  In August, a Twitter user warned others to buy whatever guns and ammo they wanted now, because soon the ability to do so would be “severely curtailed,” adding, “Button up for the #boogaloo. Now.” That same month someone else tweeted the hashtag #boogaloo, warning about 100 million “active shooter” situations “when the cops try to do nationwide gun confiscations.”

A range of boogaloo-related phrases also emerged this year, as the term became more popular, including: “showing up for the boogaloo,” “when the boogaloo hits,” “being boogaloo ready” and “bring on the boogaloo.”  Boogaloo-related hashtags have surfaced, including #boogaloo2020, #BigIgloo (igloo-related images are now also used as boogaloo references), #boojahideen, and #boogaloobois.

Some people predicted that proposed “red flag” laws (laws allowing the temporary seizing of firearms from individuals deemed to present a danger to themselves or others) would bring on the boogaloo. Boogaloo-related hashtags now often appear along firearm-related tags, such as #2a, #gunrights, and #ShallNotBeInfringed. Many boogaloo references are directed against the “alphabet boys” or “alphabet gang” – federal agencies like the FBI and ATF – which people assume would assist in any gun confiscations.

In September, then-presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke called for a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons, sparking a rash of boogaloo references. “You realize your gun confiscation plan would set off the boogaloo, right?” one person asked O’Rourke on Twitter in October.  “Do you know that you will start a boogaloo?” demanded another.  “Once Beto starts taking the guns away, the boogaloo will start,” asserted a third.

The boogaloo meme soon spread from angry gun-rights activists to the militia movement and survivalists.  The Telegram channel “Boogaloo: How to Survive” claims to show “how to survive in a post society world through understanding the psychology of violence, attaining resources, and organizing to accomplish post society tasks.” It currently has more than 1,700 members. A militia movement-related website now sells a “Boogaloo 2020” t-shirt—and it is hardly alone.  Now one can buy boogaloo-related clothing and accessories from a variety of online marketplaces, including Amazon. Items include patches, pins and apparel (such as “Big Igloo” t-shirts).

The boogaloo meme has spread to other movements with anti-government beliefs, primarily minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, which are essentially conservative alternatives to anarchism, as well as a few apparent anarchists. Use of the term by adherents of these philosophies often refers to violence against the state and its institutions, especially law enforcement.

White Supremacists Take Up the Term

White supremacists have also adopted the boogaloo concept. A particularly disturbing boogaloo t-shirt (currently available online) features the word boogaloo under a photograph of John Earnest, the white supremacist who opened fire at a synagogue in Poway, California, in April 2019, killing one person.

Whereas the militia movement, radical gun rights activists typically promote the boogaloo as a war against the government or liberals, white supremacists conceive of the boogaloo as a race war or a white revolution. Some promote boogaloo-related phrases alongside hashtags such as #dotr or #DayOfTheRope, both of which are references to neo-Nazi William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, a novelized blueprint for a white revolution.

Accelerationist white supremacists are particularly apt to use “boogaloo” – they seek the violent collapse of modern society in order to bring about a new, white-dominated world. Among them is Paul Nehlen, who gained notoriety by running for U.S. Congress in Wisconsin in 2016 and 2018. After the Poway synagogue shooting, Nehlen embraced both accelerationism and the term boogaloo and has even posted photos of himself wearing the John Earnest/boogaloo shirt.

In August, the accelerationist “Terrorwave Refined” Telegram channel posted the following call to arms:

If they are ever dumb enough to come for your guns, let the executive, legislative, and judicial workers and their kike handlers know that they had better confiscate all the manure and trucks in America…because the first places you’ll visit will be the courthouses, legislatures, barracks, and next, their personal homes, their parents [sic] homes, their kids [sic] homes…and it will truly be the beginning of the White Man’s Boogaloo.

The reference to manure and trucks is likely an allusion to Timothy McVeigh’s use of an ammonium nitrate truck bomb to destroy the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

The white supremacist (and accelerationist) group Feuerkrieg Division recently posted a song about a race-war boogaloo to its official Telegram channel. A sampling of the lyrics makes its thrust clear:

Do the Boogaloo!

Kill the kikes, and save the whites

Come on, it’s time to go!

Do the Boogaloo!

Plug a pig, and then a Yid

Let’s do the Boogaloo, all together now!

Care must be taken when evaluating boogaloo-as-civil-war references, as some people—even those in extremist movements—still use the phrase jokingly, or to mock some of the more fanatical or gung-ho adherents of their own movement.


Just what we need: another fringe group. Yep, more divisiveness in America. Who thought we could become even further divided!

Is there any solace anywhere in the U.S. today? Is there any hope for “Liberty and Justice for All?”

All of the American “isms” do little more than confuse those of us in Middle-America. Are you like me growing rapidly sick of having to try and remember all the politically correct nomenclature for each of the groups who demand their own separate identities?

I must be honest and tell you that when the LGBT movement added the “Q” at the end, I thought for many months the “Q” stood for “Queer.” Imagine my horror when one young adult very loudly in front of others corrected me. How stupid could I be! Everyone knows the “Q” in “LGBTQ” stands for “Questioning.”

And now we have the Boogaloo movement. I may be too old to remember a lot of things, but I know factually that during my sophomore year in high school, the boogaloo was a dance that I desperately tried to learn but failed. How can I remember that? The girl in school that I dreamed would become my first real heartthrob laughed at me when I demonstrated just how incompetent I was with the Boogaloo. I guess now to do the Boogaloo you have to carry an AR-15.

No, none of this is funny. But it’s all sad. “One Nation Under God” used to mean something. Today it is just a slam against every religion but Christianity and is certainly xenophobic, islamophobic, racist, and every other “phobic” or “ism” one can think of.

I have a novel idea: why don’t we simply call ourselves “Americans?” That would certainly make it easier.

Wait, we can’t do that. It would alienate the 11- 20 million people who call the U.S. home that are here illegally. And we certainly cannot label them as “illegals,” even though that’s what they are.

I wonder if THEY know the old meaning of the word “Boogaloo?” I bet they’re better dancers than I am.

Wait a minute: I can’t say that — it’s racist!

“Could’ve, Should’ve, Would’ve”

Now that it appears that the nation has turned the corner on coronavirus, let the blame game begin. After all, isn’t everything that’s happened in the last 3.5 years the direct result of Donald Trump? Wait: I said “everything.” That can’t be right. Let’s restate that: “…isn’t everything BAD that’s happened in the last 3.5 years the direct result of Donald Trump?” There’s a BIG difference there. As a matter of fact, if you listen to anybody that even leans a bit left politically, not very much good HAS happened since 2016. Anything that happened that was good was because of the policies of Barack Obama, Democrats in Congress, and because those Democrats beat back the attempts of the GOP to hurt the American people.

It may not be quite like that. But if it’s not an actual representation of how the political ride of this administration has been, it’s awfully close.

Now, the Left has another arrow in their quiver with which to attack Donald Trump: Coronavirus.

“Tony, Boy”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, known to the world as THE infectious disease expert of all experts. He knows it all when it comes to measles, whooping cough, and pandemics. No one has more street cred on these subjects than does Dr. Fauci.

Who will ever forget that meeting in early January in which Dr. Fauci predicted the tragic results of COVID-19 we’ve seen in our country in the last few months? Indeed, that day in January will go down in history. That was the day when Dr. Fauci gave the advice to the White House to eliminate social contact between Americans as best as possible and to quickly close schools, tighten down on human connection in every other gathering, and avoid human contact altogether. I’ll never forget the doctor’s press briefing in which he told Americans there was hope, that if we did everything he said for us to do, we’d get through this with minimal losses. (I think that was in mid-January) Surely CNN and MSNBC will replay those press conferences to illustrate how the President ignored the specialist’s warnings.

Here’s the latest Dr. Tony Fauci headline: “White House coronavirus expert Dr. Tony Fauci said Sunday lives could have been saved if the US had been shut down earlier. Speaking on CNN, the immunologist said the US could start to reopen next month, but warned a second wave of the virus could still hit the country.’

Here’s the rest of Sunday’s CNN story about Dr. Fauci’s interview:

During the interview, Fauci revealed that the government had been advised to begin social distancing measures in February. President Trump announced plans to roll out “self-isolating” in mid March.

“We look at it from a pure health standpoint,” Fauci said. “We make a recommendation, often the recommendation is taken, sometimes it’s not. But it is what it is.”

Fauci was then asked if lives could have been saved if stay at home measures had started in February, rather than almost a month later. “Obviously you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier you could’ve saved lives, obviously,” he replied. “No-one is going to deny that. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.”

“Could’ve, Should’ve, Would’ve”

Here’s a partial timeline of the U.S. governments direct actions at the beginning of Coronavirus:

Jan. 6, 2020: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns Americans to take precautions if traveling to China.

Jan. 7: The CDC’s Emergency Operations Center activates a COVID-19 Incident Management System,  used to direct operations, deliver resources and share information.

Jan. 8: The CDC issues an alert about the coronavirus, saying it is “closely monitoring” the disease and that there are “no known U.S. cases.”

Jan. 14: The World Health Organization issues a statement about the first COVID-19 case outside of China, saying, “There is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

Jan. 17: The CDC holds its first COVID-19 telebriefing. Officials say that the agency will start screening passengers on direct or connecting flights from Wuhan. However, they said that they are not aware of measures regarding exit screening in Wuhan.

Jan. 21: The first case of the coronavirus in the U.S. is confirmed in a patient near Seattle.

Jan. 29: Trump announces the creation of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force to lead the “United States government response to the novel 2019 coronavirus and with keeping him apprised of developments.” The White House said the task force was being led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar.

Jan. 31: The Trump administration suspends entry into the United States by foreign nationals who traveled to China within the last 14 days (excluding Hong Kong and Macau). This does not apply to lawful U.S. residents and family members/ spouses of U.S. residents or citizens. Azar declares a U.S. public health emergency for COVID-19. The declaration was retroactive to Jan. 27.

Feb. 6: The first U.S. citizen diagnosed with the coronavirus dies in Wuhan, China, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing says.

Feb. 7: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announces a U.S. pledge of $100 million to help China and other countries combat the coronavirus. The pledge is also mentioned in an HHS press briefing with members of the coronavirus task force.

Feb. 18: The CDC issues an order requiring airlines to provide information about any passenger coming from China within 14 days of their entry into the U.S.

Feb. 24: The White House asks Congress for $1.25 billion in new funding to help with coronavirus response. The administration also asked to move $535 million more from an Ebola preparedness account.

Feb. 26: Trump announces that Vice President Mike Pence will head the U.S. response to the coronavirus outbreak.

Feb. 29: First U.S. death related to the coronavirus is announced after an individual in Washington state dies from the illness. That same day, Trump and Pence announce additional travel restrictions involving Iran and an advisory against traveling to certain parts of Italy and South Korea.

March 2: Trump and members of the coronavirus task force meet with pharmaceutical companies to discuss speeding up the development of a vaccine and treatments for the coronavirus. Trump claims some of the companies said that a vaccine would be ready in three to four months. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, later clarified that a year to a year and a half would be a more accurate timetable.

Trump signs an $8.3 billion spending package to combat the coronavirus. This comes a day after the Senate approved the House-passed legislation.

Trump travels to CDC headquarters in Atlanta and at one point says he “wouldn’t generally be inclined” to cancel travel and social gatherings.

This timeline was produced by a news source that is almost exclusive anti-Trump in its stories. Therefore it comes as no surprise they did NOT mention one very important dig at the President in their timeline: Where is the day in which Dr. Fauci recommended to the President (or any other member of the task force) that we needed to begin social distancing?

In hindsight, there we probably “could’ve” had fewer U.S. cases and subsequent deaths if we had much more information. And if we had that information from the experts at the time, President Trump “would’ve” announced the necessity for social distancing. And if he had all that information along with Dr. Fauci’s recommendation and did NOT push for social distancing, he certainly “should’ve.”

With Dr. Fauci’s CNN interview comment that “we certainly could have saved lives if we began social distancing sooner” “could’ve” been true. In retrospect, that social distancing policy “should’ve” been given to the general public. We’ll never know factually, but if the social distancing policy would have been better explained along with its grave importance to the American people, it probably “would’ve” saved more of our citizens from coronavirus death.

Blame Game

Stop right now and do a Google search: “The first announcement promoting social distancing in coronavirus pandemic.”

The earliest I can find is by Dr. Fauci in a March 20th interview on PBS. In that interview, he did NOT make a demonstrative statement about social distancing or even recommending any type of strict guidelines. He was asked what was his fear about the virus and its impact on Americans and he replied, “I’m worried that too many people will not adhere to staying away from big groups, going to restaurants and bars, and putting themselves and other Americans in harms way.”

There was NOTHING in that interview nor was there ever any indication to the public by Dr. Fauci or any other member of the task force that social distancing was a necessity to stop its spread.

And then Sunday, April 12, Dr. Fauci deflected any accountability for there being NO earlier warning to “others” in government — without saying it, he meant the President.

And the Sunday news media have taken stories about that to the moon.


Remember when the President ordered the travel ban on January 31 for anyone coming to the U.S. from China? Remember what Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), both said about it? Both called it “unnecessary, political, rash, racist, xenophobic, and unconstitutional.”

“Experts” have repeatedly stated that travel ban probably saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans who would have been exposed to additional entries from China of those carrying the virus. 400,000 travelers from China entered the U.S. in the 90-days before the travel ban!

It certainly made a difference. Yet for that sensible decision — in defiance of the World Health Organization — Mr. Trump was criticized by Democrats such as Joe Biden as xenophobic, and by China as racist.

“This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia — hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering,” said Biden the day after the travel restrictions were imposed.

CNN ran a story warning that “the US coronavirus travel ban could backfire” and have the effect of “stigmatizing countries and ethnicities.”

The Chinese Communist Party’s official mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, called the ban “racist.”

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned it would increase “fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”

What it DID do was stop thousands from being exposed.

Most Americans applaud the President’s early actions. But those early actions initiated by Mr. Trump and others in his administration are rarely mentioned in today’s media. They no longer just ignore the good things and great results and accomplishments by this administration; they make up stories that feed the narrative of a now-dwindling group of “expert” politicians and news journalists.

Has anyone thought this through?

January 15, House Democrats delivered two articles of impeachment to the United States Senate. Democrats knew the Republican-controlled Senate would not have enough votes to convict President Trump. But that didn’t deter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) from wasting government time, resources, and attention for months in a doomed effort to remove Donald Trump from the White House. Six days later, on January 21, the first known case of novel coronavirus (COVID-19, or the Wuhan virus) was reported in the United States. There was a little matter of those impeachment articles being handed over to the Senate for an impeachment trial. Pelosi sat on them for two weeks!

How much did you hear from Democrat leaders during that time regarding their coronavirus concerns? Nothing. But we listened to a lot about impeachment: NONSTOP. Come to think of it, what have we heard from Democrat leaders when they continuously attack the President for not doing soon enough enough that the President SHOULD be doing? NOTHING.

It’s not about leadership to the Left. It’s about the politicization of what they see as one more opportunity to impeach Donald Trump, either literally or figuratively.

While the Left predictably gathers steam to condemn Trump for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, congressional Democrats have escaped any accountability for ignoring the early stages of the outbreak. And, with no sense of irony, the very journalists and pundits who cheered impeachment are the same folks now blasting the president for “not doing enough” to stop the spread of COVID-19.
Some things never change in Washington. The greatest of those things is that Democrats attack every person in any position in life who refuses to bow at their altar of Identity Politics. How’s that going to work out for them in November?

Emergency: Very Important Message!

I’m writing this in the middle of the night after a day and one-half of fighting the fallout of the COVID-19 chaos that has now become part of all Americans’ lives.

I have a critical message to share with you today. But it will take me until 12:00 noon Central time to be able to present it. It will be ONLY in podcast audio format. Please come back at 12:00 noon Central today and plan on using your smartphone or computer to listen to a brief, information filled 1-minute podcast: no frills, no music, just frank talk.

It’s grim in America.

I’ll see you Saturday, March 14 high noon.



Presidential Endorsements: Media Failed Again

One would think that the mega-media newspapers in the nation would have every necessary resource from which to draw to give the public educated and accurate predictions of election outcomes. And if you read or listen to them toot their own horns, you know for certain THEY know it all in this political game! But, once again, the Lamestream Media stepped on their dresses with their pre-Super Tuesday endorsements. And they missed miserably.

“It’s too early to say they missed with their endorsements!” No, it’s not: the candidates they endorsed to win have withdrawn from the contest!

Why do newspapers make endorsements at all?

I’ve always thought it’s kind of weird that newspapers endorse candidates. The rest of the time they report the news and maybe print a few opinion pieces, all the time claiming objectivity and neutrality. Then, every few years, they take up at least a full page to explain why they think you should vote for a particular person. Why does anybody do it?

Some major newspapers have ended the practice. David Haynes of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explained why his paper stopped endorsing candidates: “It really boils down to this notion of independence. We work very hard each day to provide a balance of views on our pages and on our website increasingly and mobile devices as well. And we work hard to be open-minded and approach issues that we’re going to editorialize on independently. We pull good ideas from both major schools of political thought, and we’re pragmatic. We back ideas we think will work. Ideology is really immaterial.
 So then, we do all that for 364 days of the year and turn around and choose sides in a bitter partisan election? I think that tends to undermine this whole idea of independence, and it really undermines this idea of being an honest broker of opinion. Again, that forum, that’s our real mission. The editorial is a part of that.”

He is on to something; distrust of the media is at an all-time high in the United States. One 2018 study found that many of those surveyed blamed bias. You can’t help but wonder if part of that is because newspapers waste their credibility by endorsing a candidate with one hand and then claiming not to be biased in their reporting with the other.

Newspaper endorsements have been a “big deal” for a long time. That has never interpreted into election success, however.

Remember Gretchen Carlson, former morning co-host of Fox and Friends on the FOX News channel? She piped in on this years ago and her words still ring true:

Maybe Readers Feel Newspapers no Longer Report the News

For the last 100 years or so the opinion and editorial sections of every major newspaper have been completely separate entities. The people who decide who to endorse report to different people than do the journalists who write the news. The journalists often don’t know who is getting endorsed until you do.

However, despite those who adamantly justify endorsements by their papers (on which many of those explainers write opinions and endorsements), many people still fail to grasp this fact. The mass belief by the public of this misunderstanding is why USA Today doesn’t endorse anybody — at least they did not UNTIL 2016 when they endorsed Hillary Clinton. Maybe that endorsement was just of “whoever ran against Donald Trump.”

Rather than speculate at the reasoning for newspaper endorsements, I find it easier to simply analyze those who are the pundits who MAKE these endorsements. Most often they are editors, columnists from the paper, and sometimes even publishers who weigh-in. Americans are not so vapid to the political persuasions of those who opine their politics through editorial endorsements — and ALL endorsements are editorial, opinion-based declarations.

Case in point: The Shreveport TIMES is owned by Gannett — a newspaper mega-conglomerate. Shreveport nestled in the pines of northwest Louisiana is a largely conservative community. Louisiana has for a longtime been a red state — especially the northern parts of the state. One would think that the newspaper of a city and sector of a Southern state that bleeds bright red would make an endorsement based on what the paper knows is the choice of the majority of its subscribers. I do not remember a state or national election in the last decade in which The Shreveport TIMES endorsed a Republican. By the way, not a single editor in the paper is from this area and all in their other writings lean left.

I for decades have tried to understand the reasoning for doing so. Maybe Gannett doesn’t care about the leanings of a majority in the Shreveport market. Or maybe they don’t know the leanings in the market! One would think it would be certain suicide for a newspaper to do such over and over with no concern for the newspaper’s subscribers’ opinions regarding any endorsement.

Maybe that’s why the paid circulation of the paper has reportedly dwindled to 50% of its former self. Of course, they maintain it’s because of online instant news access.

Do you want a look at the newspaper endorsements for 2020  presidential candidates before Super Tuesday?

Did you notice the New York Times endorsements? They endorsed two candidates, which has never been done before. Those two, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, certainly knew that endorsement was probably the kiss of death.

But it’s not just the Big Apple paper. Look at those from other major markets that jumped out picking winners and losers: The Charlotte Post and Boston Herald endorsed Michael Bloomberg. The Boston Globe endorsed hometown Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Klobuchar wiped up on endorsements. In addition to the co-endorsement from the New York Times with Elizabeth Warren, She knocked home runs with the nod from the Las Vegas Sun, Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, and Seattle Times. Mayor Pete racked up the endorsements of El Paso Times and Orlando Sentinel.

It may have been because of his extreme socialistic views, but Bernie Sanders received an endorsement from just one large newspaper, The San Francisco Bay Guardian.

None of these endorsements made a difference — at least not in the Super Tuesday primaries.

So why do you think voters ditched the ideas and choices of the nation’s leading newspapers and voted for the only real moderate in the field while spurning the nomination of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist? I can certainly answer that question, and I will. But, understand, what I’m about to say is pure speculation. Granted I have significant data to prove it. But of late, data and evidence in America don’t seem to be very valuable.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out to you that in the 2016 election, of the top 25 polling news sources, only one — just one — correctly predicted Donald Trump’s win in the presidential election. And it was NOT a bastion of big time news organizations. It does not have correspondents covering the international major cities or even U.S. major cities. In fact, it’s not even a newspaper. It’s a university journalism department: that of University of Southern California — the only one who predicted a Trump 2016 victory.


Here’s the problem that newspapers today face regarding whether or not to make endorsements for presidential candidates. Even though most editorial page editors insist an endorsement is NOT a recommendation for readers to vote for that candidate, most readers don’t believe that. Most of those readers feel that’s exactly what the paper is doing! If that’s not the purpose, what could their purpose be?

In my humble opinion, there’s only one other option: newspaper editors are a dying breed — leftovers from a news era in which newspapers really did reflect the senses of those in their respective communities. There was no internet, no social media, no news but theirs and that from the three television broadcast networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC.

I remember a day not too long ago when every morning, my Jack Russell couldn’t wait for me to open the front door and run to the street with me to fetch our daily newspaper. That was less than a decade ago. By the same time each day that my dog and I formerly made the paper trek, today I’ve already read the morning news from about 20 different online news sources, including that from the three local network television stations and our local news radio station, all online. And I can say I have NO clue who our newspaper endorsed in our November governor’s race nor the mayoral race either. I really don’t care. I’m not one who has ever put much stock in the opinions of editors. I’ve always felt my opinion was just about as valid as theirs. But I had one thing they never had and never will: my perspective. 

After the Super Tuesday endorsement gaffes made by so many newspapers around the nation, I wonder if they’ll back out of the endorsement game for November? Surely they’ve learned they’re going to be wrong at least half the time and hack-off the readers they still have half the time by endorsing. Why not just let their readers (who all have high-speed internet and social media accounts) make their voting decisions based on the facts their paper publishes regarding each candidate in each important race? 

They can’t do that. After all, Americans are generally too lazy to find out on their own who the best candidates are for specific offices. That’s why we have CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Whoopi Goldberg. We need somebody — ANYBODY — to tell us what to think!

Two-Tiered Political Justice: For Elites and “Us”

You can have stark differences with the President. That’s easy for many to do. But one thing that cannot be said about him is that he runs from a fight. No one in my life in any White House has worked so diligently to expose the corruption among Washington elites. Yes, they exist. Yes, there is a Deep State. Yes, Their justice under federal law is different from mine. If you want to argue that point, pull up a chair. There are far too many specific examples for me to share with you than you think exist. We’re going to be here a while.

Americans believe that the two-tiered justice system has existed for a long time. But no one has been able to nail it down. Or maybe we haven’t seen proof of it because no one WANTED to nail it down. (The latter is probably correct) Want some recent examples?

  • Attorney General Eric Holder. When Obama took office, the DOJ had already launched a very public investigation into the racial election intimidation by two Black Panthers in a wealthy, mostly white suburb of Philadelphia. The two on election day stood in front of the door to the polling precinct in full militant garb. Voters were petrified. The Bush DOJ ramped up that investigation. Holder, on orders from the NEW president, terminated the case. Was it racial? You be the judge. But it certainly was an example of two-tiered justice.
  • FBI Director James Comey. The fact that he lied several times while under oath is uncontroverted. Additionally, he leaked classified information purposely to a “friend” for the express purpose of leaking it to the press. His doing that was a felony. Comey was severely chastised in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report for numerous offenses while in office. He committed federal crimes — no charges made, no investigation, no charges pending.
  • Hillary Clinton. She transmitted for several years classified emails to and from numerous government officials using an illegal personal server that had not been registered with the State Department, had not been examined by State Department IT officials, and was not certified for use regarding classified information. Each instance of an email being sent or received on that server was a felonious action.
  • Barack Obama. That Clinton email server? Obama, during his presidency, corresponded using a secret Gmail email name. He frequently sent to and received from Ms. Clinton classified emails — dozens if not hundreds. Again, each such transmission broke a federal felony statute.
  • Andrew McCabe. The former FBI #2 was outed in the Horowitz investigation for lying to investigators. Horowitz referred McCabe for prosecution. A grand jury looked at the charges and investigated. Nothing happened for several years, and subsequently, the case was dropped.
  • John Brennan. Brennan, as CIA Director, lied while under oath in his Senate testimony. When asked by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), if the CIA had ever electronically surveilled members of the Senate, he answered they had not. It was later proven the CIA did just that and did it with not only Brennan’s knowledge but at his direction.

We could keep going throwing out names of past members of the government, several members of Congress, and numerous individuals that worked for the government but not in appointed positions. That list is exhaustive. There’s no need for us to do that. We all now know — especially after three years of the Mueller Investigation replete with constant lies and misrepresentations — members of the federal government, for the most part, get different and very partial treatment regarding being held accountable for illegal actions on their part.

This once again became front and center with the craziness of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he with a bullhorn spoke to a crazed crowd in anger regarding a case the Court heard at that exact moment. The case was regarding a Louisiana law that requires all doctors who conduct abortions in the state have Admitting Status with a hospital close to the abortion clinic being used. The law’s purpose is to mandate immediate medical help for anyone that requires emergency treatment as a result of the abortion.

Schumer using the bullhorn threatened Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh if they chose to support that law. If you didn’t see or hear those few words of his threat, here it is again:

The current Senate Minority leader threatened the two Justices — an unprecedented act committed by the Number two U.S. Senator.

Thursday, on the floor of the Senate, all expected an apology from Schumer. He did NOT apologize. He gave “reasons” for his saying so — “excuses.” One could easily reconcile that Schumer was caught-up in a heated political demonstration about the most polarizing political policy in American history — abortion –, but that would be disingenuous. By federal statute, he broke the law in making those threats.

We at TruthNewsNetwork decided to turn to a professional — a lawyer AND a sitting member in the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA). He had some very enlightening things to say about not only Sen. Schumer’s actions, but the current state of “Equal Justice Under the Law” in the U.S. Click on the link below to hear Congressman Mike Johnson answer my questions:

Click Here


Congressman Johnson more than just agrees our justice system is in danger. He also agrees that we have problems that are evident, serious, and need to be addressed. He lives in the mess we call “The Swamp” and knows first-hand how the elitest tags given to certain people who are part of the Swamp allow them to live and abide by different rules than other Americans.

All the wrongdoing listed above by those political insiders will NEVER be prosecuted!

Just imagine if you were James Comey, Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe or even Chuck Schumer and you did just one of the many things those were guilty of. If you did, you’d spend a long time in jail! This is not the way this nation was founded. In fact, our leaders through decades have let the sharp edges of Justice carve out specific guidelines called “Laws” by which we are governed and by which we live. They prayed our nation would never slip into the merry-go-round of partisanship in which we find ourselves today.

Thankfully, it has been exposed. That is the beginning of getting this issue resolved.

Remember this: it did not happen quickly — it will not be repaired quickly. Patience is not much of a virtue for many of us. But our opinions on timing are immaterial. It is OUR responsibility to remind our government members of their commitments to the Rule of Law. And if they continue to perpetuate that second tier of justice, we need to at the ballot box remove them from their power seat and replace them with those who will honor their oaths of office and complete the restoration of our nation to a Justice for All America!



Roadblocks, losses, rejection, failures, being not good enough: all these are things that most of us can relate to. It is rare when someone — ANYone — can say honestly, “I’ve not experienced any of those.”

Going through these things are normal occurrences. And each contains unique elements that do no impact everyone the same way. That makes it almost impossible to create a perfect how-to manual with accurate instructions one can use to solve the problem. Because of that, many just throw-in-the-towel.

Thankfully there has always been a sense of “anyone can do anything if they try hard enough” spirit in the U.S. That encourages many to dust themselves off after failures and go after the same objective again or go tackle a new one.

Have you known anyone that seems bullet-proof? No matter what they face that doesn’t work out, they just move on to a different way of doing it, or they just move on to something else.

Have you ever faced one or two of these circumstances? How did you handle losing or not being good enough or rejected? Did you give up or stop trying?

Today just might be a magical few minutes that change your life and maybe even many others through you. What follows is a video that is timed perfectly for this topic and today especially.

LSU faces Clemson tonight in the College Football National Championship. These are without question the best two college football teams in the nation. That means each roster is bloated with phenomenal athletes. Each has a quarterback that most experts feel are not just the best two college quarterbacks this season, but maybe the best two QB’s to play at the same time in college history.

I’m an LSU fan: a Louisiana “lifer.” I’m excited that the Tigers — “our” Tigers — are facing Clemson’s Tigers for the trophy. More than the chance to win that championship, I am ecstatic that for the last two years I have personally witnessed one of the most amazing responses to adversity ever seen in college athletics. Take a few minutes and watch this video then let’s get back together for two minutes.

Meet “Joe.”

Joe when not allowed to play at Ohio State knew he had failed. He kept trying. He worked hard to be the best at quarterback. He never quit.

After things like this happen to most of us and we choose to give up, we quit. But worse, most of us want to place blame for our failure.

“Your wedding didn’t work out and you divorced your husband.” Our response to that: “Yeah…But….”

“You were fired at your job.” Our response: “Yeah…But…”

It’s the “Yeah…But…” that destroys millions of lives yearly. How? Just look at Joe Burrow.

He was benched again and again at his dream college, Ohio State. He kept working. He kept getting better. He never gave up. He never quit. His friends and teammates taunted him and maybe his position opponents talked down to him. He almost certainly heard this: “Hey, man. You aren’t good enough. You got permanently benched. You’ll never play quarterback.”

Joe could have said, “Yeah…But…” and rattled off a list of excuses. He didn’t do that. He simply found a way to push through. He transferred to LSU and began a college football historical run that is probably long from over.

If Joe had listened to and accepted what the Ohio State coaches said and did to him, he’d be somewhere working today, probably in the private sector. Instead, Joe Burrow leads LSU tonight into the college championship game. And in a couple of months, he’ll undoubtedly be the first college quarterback taken in the NFL draft — maybe even the #1 player drafted — and begin what portends to be a dramatically successful NFL career.

Joe never said “Yeah…But…” When anyone said any of those things to him, he probably just looked at them and smiled.

Geaux Tigers!

“Obam-A-Nomics” Or “Trump-O-Nomics?”

Which President’s U.S. economy is/was better: Obama’s or Trump’s?

If you’re not careful with your answer to that question, it could get you into a fight. There is little question that today’s U.S. economy is better than it was. But there are so many variables that factor into the “definition of a good economy,” there is no absolutely correct answer.

Of course, if you do a Google search on the internet for “Is Trump’s economy better than Obama’s?”  You’ll see two pages of stories that poo any such claims. Most all of them include this or a similar disclaimer: “Today’s economic numbers cannot be claimed as Trump’s. Remember that Obama took over a sluggish economy in the middle of a serious economic downturn. Obama began economic policies that started economic reforms throughout the nation that are still in place and responsible for this economy today.”

Every one of those stories is from Leftist media sources or media organizations that are outwardly anti-Trump. Don’t forget that most economists who are “reputable” (or claim to be) are professors, other educators, or are part of think tanks that are almost totally tied to liberal universities and/or organizations.

Like Robert Reich: economist in several presidential administrations including a long stint as Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. In the national uproar about Trump’s tax cuts and how they positively impacted the lives of most Americans, Mr. Reich weighed in:

But almost in total, hard facts and results prove Mr. Reich to be dead wrong. He drew all his statistics he calls “facts” from that U.S. Government “never-been-wrong” Congressional group titled “The Congressional Research Service,” who said this: 1. The tax cuts were a total bust. They did not spur economic growth with little or no growth in their first year; 2. They didn’t raise wages; 3. They didn’t cause corporations to bring offshore profits back to the U.S.; 4. Corporate profits did not increase as projected so there were no significant increased corporate tax payment increases; 5. Corporations did NOT take excess profits to give raises to any workers other than supervisors and above. You saw and heard that from Mr. Reich. The only way to put it is He’s wrong! Let’s quickly respond to his five “facts.”

  1. Just the “news” of the tax cuts spurred hundreds of billions of new dollars flooding the U.S. marketplace. Corporations with no government prodding paid massive employee bonuses, announced new hiring, pay raises, corporate domestic expansions and factory additions. GDP climbed steadily. However, pundits knowing GDP does not sit in a vacuum used that fact to confuse average Americans. “The U.S. Economy” does not exist in a vacuum either and is a measure of broad economic improvements — which the nation has unquestionably seen and that are growing every month. Government revenue has grown steadily since Trump’s election, as much as $500 billion annually in spite of reduced taxes to Americans and corporations!
  2. Raises HAVE gone up and not just for managers. Working-class Americans are benefiting in such a way that their salaries are increasing faster than those of their bosses, under the booming economy of President Donald Trump. The salaries of these workers registered increases of 4.5% between November 2018 and November 2019, while the salaries of the 25% of the highest salaried workers increased by 2.9%, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
  3. Corporations have brought massive amounts of corporate profits back to the U.S. How much? According to Bloomberg News — not a conservative news outlet and certainly not supporters of Donald Trump — $1 trillion dollars at the end of 2019!
  4. Corporations have not had higher profits so there were no significant corporate tax payments. Wanna hear the truth?

    “Corporate profits in the United States rose by  $11.2 billion, or 0.6 percent, to $1.869 trillion in the third quarter of 2019, following a 3.7 percent increase in the previous period. Undistributed profits advanced by  $18.4 billion, or 3.6 percent to $529.1 billion and net cash flow with inventory valuation adjustment, the internal funds available to corporations for investment climbed by $40 billion, or 1.7 percent to $2.4442 trillion. Corporate Profits in the United States averaged $494.46 Billion from 1950 until 2019, reaching an all-time high of $1.8748 trillion in the third quarter of 2018 and a record low of $14.67  billion in the first quarter of 1951.”

  5. Corporations went far and above any expectations of bonuses primarily for workers, pay increases, increased corporate payments to IRA, 401k and other investment accounts. And these fly in the face of folks like Mr. Reich and his claims. There are far too many to enumerate here. So you can click the link below to see a .pdf of 900 such actions taken by companies that have already totaled hundreds of billions of dollars to American workers.

There are plenty of naysayers just like Reich out there who scream as loudly as possible that the economy is bad, for no other reason than to try to prevent the President from having a victory. How sad is that?

But that brings us to a really important question:

Is Our Economy Really Good?

There are six facts that tell you how the U.S. economy is doing. Economists call them “leading economic indicators” because they measure the early influencers on growth. In October 2019, they report that the economy is faltering slightly. It has slightly slower growth, low unemployment, and inflation is below target. But it’s still almost a “Goldilocks economy” because it’s neither too hot nor too cold.

I. 266,000 Jobs Added In November 2019: Strong

II. Stock Market Is Setting New Records: Healthy

III. In Third Quarter 2019, GDP Growth Was 2.1% = Good

IV. Durable Goods Orders Fell 1.1% in September 2019 = Low

V. Core Inflation Was 2.4%: At Target

VI. When Interest Rates Remain Stable = Healthy


Remember those screaming from the mountaintops even before President Trump was elected that the stock market would crash with a Trump election? There were those that even warned of a massive worldwide financial panic that would destroy the economies of our partners in Europe, Southeast Asia, and even that of China! It’s odd that none of these have shown back up on talk shows or written columns in which they apologize for being wrong. In fact, several have even doubled-down.

Charles Payne — an economics specialist on FOX Business — said this the other day: “It has been uncanny to watch and listen to economic pundits continue their dire projections of pending financial doom for the U.S. The problem is, most in their lifetimes have not seen any sustained growth in the U.S. economy akin to what they see today. Why haven’t they seen it before? Because it hasn’t happened in their lifetimes!”

In spite of all the whining, all the financial nuclear devastation warnings, and the continued predictions of the “imminent crash of the Stock Market,” our economy continues to grow at healthy rates. And it’s not just happening in the Stock Market: inflation is low, unemployment at record lows, more people employed than ever before, every worker in each employment sector is seeing their unemployment drop to record levels, incomes are climbing, corporate profits and subsequent tax payments are soaring. Financial pundits are gnashing their teeth at all this, actually praying for the U.S. economy to fail!

HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher admitted that he hopes the American economy will crash so that President Donald Trump will be voted out of office! Think about the hatred that must be in Mr. Maher’s heart. That anyone could actually wish the entire U.S. economy would fail, result in a recession, solely for the purpose of seeing this president — ANY president — voted out of office is unfathomable to most Americans. Think of the financial devastation for tens of millions of Americans that would result from such a recession. But that’s just how much they hate Donald Trump.

Will this economy remain this strong? What’s ahead for the U.S. financially? Is there a looming recession?

The answer to each of those questions is simple: “I don’t know.” And, further, “No One Knows!”

Fortunately, this economy is not soaring as it is just by accident. This president as a very successful businessman saw long before entering politics the structural changes that were needed to spur our economy back to steady growth. And either through legislation (his tax corporate and personal cuts), executive action (termination of stifling regulations), or just the confidence Americans have in a president that actually fulfills the campaign promises he made rather than just ignoring them, Mr. Trump has us headed in the right direction.

And if his opposition is prevented from destroying all the processes he put in place that resulted in these improvements, we’re headed to another great year.

That’s the reason why they want him gone! He’s messing with their candy jar!


Saturday Bullet Point Headlines

Wow! There’s a bunch of news flooding us 24/7. How can we possibly pick the top headlines from the week to give you a brief and concise but thorough snapshot of the week? But we’ll give it our best shot. Remember: first we give you a quick synopsis followed with a hyperlink to the full story of each. This way you can choose that you want to go deeper into without wasting team trying to pick through the ones that are what you want to examine.

Enjoy your weekend!

  • For FOX news fans, Judge Andrew Napolitano has been a frequent contributor regarding all things legal. On several occasions, I have differed dramatically with his conclusions. I know, I’m not an attorney and don’t have any legal background and he is and does. That being said, I have often found with attorneys in my business life an often stiff resolve regarding certain issues that sometimes are not accurate. I’m not saying the Judge is in such a spot, but I differ greatly with his conclusions that are the subject of the story below. The title to the story tells the entire story:Trump’s call with Ukraine president manifests criminal and impeachable behavior.” Click on this link for the full story:
  • Facebook was just handed a massive blow from a European court. A European Union court ruled that content on all IT platforms could be regulated by this court on internet sites worldwide labeled by the court as “defamatory content.” You will remember that Facebook has recently come under fire by even the U.S. Congress for their policies regarding their right to determine whether or not U.S. content is ruled unacceptable — not be any published policies but by Facebook editors alone. Click on this link for the full story:
  • In 2017 there were frequent reports about confusion and vitriolic feelings among White House staffers and those of VP Pence. The same thing is happening again. Speaking with CNN hosts Alisyn Camerota and John Berman,  former White House Communications Director Joe Lockhart said that the offices of the president and the VP are not on the same page and that is leading to panic in both offices. Click on this link for the full story:
  • Right behind that Pence story comes another. This one is directly from the mouth of the Vice President. Although he did not reference the story above about his staffers having issues with their White House counterparts, the VP made it clear he is in locked-step with the President. Click on this link for the full story:
  • Presidential candidate Biden gives no signs of quitting in the midst of his personal and professional allegations of intense Ukraine corruption that embroils him and his son Hunter. He’s actually taken out a “Super Tuesday” insurance policy of sorts. He’s really thinking ahead: March of 2020! Click on this link for the full story:
  • President Trump’s now-infamous phone call with the President of Ukraine prompted the “supposed” final action necessary for Democrats to launch their “formal” impeachment inquiry. Why? Because the President, they say, asked the Ukrainian President to restart his government’s investigation into Joe Biden and apparent corruption involving his son and a company involving large amounts of money from a Russian oligarch. Now, it’s Trump’s Biden talk with China. Click on this link for the full story:
  • The latest in the Batman series — The Joker — opened Thursday night. It is literally a psychotic thriller. And with its release, some folks have gone absolutely bonkers online, actually making threats of violence around the country in coordination with the movie’s release. Obviously, many moviegoers are scared to death which has prompted the FBI to take a look. Click on this link for the full story:
  • Speaking of movies, the FBI gets pointed out in the upcoming movie about Richard Jewell. Remember him? It’s about the drama surrounding the bomb-plant at the Atlanta Olympics. During that scare, a security guard who “found a bomb” implicated Richard Jewell. The FBI famously swept in and grabbed Richard Jewell who was implicated as the bomb maker and who planted it. But it was discovered long after a massive and nasty FBI investigation that the reporting security guard actually planted the bomb himself. The movie titled “Richard Jewell” is set to appear in theaters in early December. It is supposedly a blockbuster presented by Clint Eastwood. To get full details and see the trailer, click on this link for the full story:
  • And a final headline for your weekend. I’ll not even comment on this one. Click on this link for the full story. And, you’ll certainly get a chuckle!:

It seems that the majority of the time we concentrate on controversial political stories. And that’s true. But we try to find stories from other than American politics that are critical to all of us. Yes, sometimes it seems there aren’t any others nearly as important as those detailing the political state of our country. But, believe it or not, there are other important issues for us to consider. Saturday is the time and is the place to get a breakfast mix of it all.

Thanks for joining in!



Dems Quiet: What are They Up To?

It’s quiet in D.C.: not just because members of Congress are home on vacation or campaigning. It’s quiet because other Democrats are in their bunkers mapping out battle plans.

No, I’m not speaking of Democrats that are running for president. I’m speaking of Democrat “worker-bees” who are deep into preparations for impeachment. Yes, Donald Trump’s impeachment is front-and-center again for the Democrat Party. They’re not just talking about those plans: yet. When will they go public with their latest Trump conspiracy allegations? Not until the time is perfect and the political landscape is ripe.

Make no mistake: one of the greatest political success stories in Washington D.C. is how united and on-message members of the Democrat Party have become. They may have varying opinions in politics while campaigning. But when it’s time to draw swords and wade into battle with Republicans, no one in political history has ever been so accomplished as is this Democrat Party. Not only are they (on the most part) young and energetic, they always stick together — especially once a common foe is identified. Enter Donald Trump — their foe.

Before we detail the angst Democrats hold against Mr. Trump, let’s talk about Democrat leadership.

Democrat Party Bosses

In this battle to get rid of Donald Trump, House and Senate Democrat leaders are the obvious ones to lead the charge to battle. But have you noticed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have pretty much disappeared? These two are always in any Democrat/G.O.P. war on point at least in front of television cameras detailing the unified Democrat attack plan. Neither has showed-up anywhere of late. What’s that all about?

We’ll probably know that answer very shortly. Both the House and Senate have been on staggered summer vacations and will be back in session soon. You can bet the Trump attack will escalate to deafening levels.

Meanwhile, the communications arm of the Democrat Party — the Media — are in full swing in their unified Trump attacks. Have you heard the latest? Trump is mentally deranged and a mental danger to us all!

CNN and MSNBC hosts have gone crazy themselves the last two days pointing out numerous examples of Trump’s “losing it.” But their memories are short or they think ours’ is. Just a little over a year ago the same media pundits spent many hours drawing examples of proof of Trump’s mental issues then. I guess his intelligence and mental prowess quickly jumped for a bit. But, he’s lost it again!

Donald Trump

They hate him. Why? Their plans for the White House were dependent on the blonde from New York living there. When Hillary Clinton fell short in her bid for the presidency, the party fell short of finding the missing critical elements necessary for their liberal government takeover attempt. Hillary just screwed things up.

But what made their failure even more damning was the HRC loss to the orange-hair mogul from Queens. His beat-down of the odds-on favorite Hillary Clinton left not just egg on her face, it lit the fires of hatred that are driving Democrats to a frenzied pace to put whatever elements are necessary to drive Trump back to real estate in New York.

First they put Comey and Company on the task of framing Trump et al for Russian election collusion. There was no evidence there. Then it was obstruction of justice. Nope, he’s clean. Then the fall-back was racism — something they knew they did not have to prove was real. Painting the perception of racism of the President and members of his campaign would be sufficient to drive him from office. That didn’t work either.

What’s next? The “Trump” card (pun intended) is the big “I” word: Impeachment.

Wait: it was proven there was no election tampering and no obstruction of justice by Trump or members of his campaign. On what basis is there any provable actions by Mr. Trump that rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors,” what is necessary to successfully impeach a president? None come to mind. But having solid and real actions by Mr. Trump that rise to that threshold is NOT necessary. Democrats are in luck!

It dawned on some bigshot Democrat that no actual evidence of presidential wrongdoing is necessary for impeachment. It’s the old “symbolism over substance” concept. No smoking gun or formal testimony riddled with holes and/or innuendo is necessary. All that is necessary is “reasonably believable” evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach a president. And even though no such evidence has appeared, you can bet they have something more than just “in mind,” they have it ready to roll into witness subpoenas.

Gerald Nadler (D-NY)

I should apologize here. I caste Rep. Nadler some time ago as nothing more than just a Congressional professional or, in Southern terms, an “empty suit.” After all, he never practiced law after passing the Bar. He’s been nothing in his professional career but a politician. There are two strikes against Nadler: 1 is as a lawyer. Secondly is law school. I’m certain Nadler has financial backing to send him to great colleges from which he was put in the perfect spot for a political career. And that’s exactly what happened to him.

Nadler revels in his chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. It probably (in this political environment at least) is the most powerful House committee. It’s where any impeachment action must be initiated. And Nadler has made it abundantly clear for over a year that President Trump’s illegal actions that cry for Congressional impeachment are well documented. In his words, “They’re in plain sight.” But try as they have, no one in the media or fellow Congressional member can get from Nadler exactly what things that evidence justifying impeachment includes.

Trump impeachment is now something that two-thirds of Americans do not think is warranted. Democrats should do a bit of historical research on this one. Republicans by most accounts lost their bid to upset Clinton in 2002 because they so aggressively pushed through impeachment proceedings against Clinton when Americans in large were against it. Americans have long memories when it comes to politics.

Word leaked yesterday that it is apparent that Nadler’s committee had already begun preliminary impeachment research even before the Mueller Report was completed and released. This apparently happened even though Nadler on numerous occasions claimed that nothing regarding impeachment has been initiated.

Pelosi and Schumer have both publicly stated they favor “at this point” not impeaching President Trump. However, both made it clear that “if” findings indicate there are grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the Constitution, they would emphatically support impeachment.

Wait a minute? 2.5 years, $30 million taxpayer dollars, thousands of subpoenas, millions of pages of evidence, hundreds of sworn testimony, and no evidence of Trump wrongdoing and they still “have evidence” of Trump’s impeachable actions? If they do, Trump needs to face the music as should all guilty of government wrongdoing. But if Nadler’s wish it for truth in the matter, and if as he says there is absolute evidence of impeachable offenses, why hasn’t that evidence been brought forward to substantiate impeachment proceedings and a trial in the Senate? The only reason for that is there must be no evidence that supports impeachment!


Let’s be frank: doesn’t Congress have a plethora of legislative issues that should be handled instead of chasing another impeachment rabbit for two years? I can think of a few: immigration law, federal law enforcement, illegal drug epidemic, government spending, foreign trade, corruption in government, etc. Why should we expect Congress to act on any of this? Simple: because that’s what elected members of Congress are elected to do!

Let me remind you of this: I predicted some time ago on this website that President Trump will be the subject of impeachment proceedings in the House. And the House possibly can harvest enough votes to get an impeachment finding sent to the Senate to hold an impeachment trial. I doubt if that happens there will be any impeachment success. But that really is not critical to Democrats. All they care about is holding questions of Trump wrongdoing up in the air to get them to the 2020 elections. Maybe then enough Americans will have that question about Trump in their minds to entice them to vote for a Democrat presidential candidate. Remember: they desperately feel the sense of urgency to hold the House, retake the Senate, and, of course, the White House.

Many on the Right are tempted to write Democrats off as being in chaos. Don’t get caught-up in that reasoning. In my lifetime no political party has ever been as adept as these Democrats at unifying around a common foe, getting on the same page from which to campaign, and their unification of vitriol for a president. Democrats are really good at messaging — much better than Republicans. And if they stay their course, they may upset Trump in 2020.

But here’s the catch: they have no good options to put before Americans! The closest they can come in a palatable Democrat they can run to beat Trump is Vice President Biden. And he’s a lost cause.

Face it: the 2020 White House bid is as of now pretty much a sure thing for Trump, “if” he doesn’t do anything really stupid or nothing serious from his past shows up. And even then, there may be enough Americans who have watched the amazingly wonderful accomplishments made by this White House.

Thanks for looking in.

Share your thoughts! America depends on it.