How Evil is John Brennan?

The former CIA Director has certainly put himself front-and-center in all things Intelligence Community related in the multiple investigations by the FBI, DOJ, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the last year. He just “spanked” the President in the latest Intelligence Community bombshell dropped on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Here’s the Twitter bomb Brennan dropped on the President today:

“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.”

The obvious response to “Brennan’s Venom” revealed in his tweet is that President Trump did NOT fire McCabe. His firing was initiated by evidence uncovered during the ongoing massive Justice Department investigation underway conducted by the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz,  assigned to the Justice Department. That IG position was created at the insistence of Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and other Congressional Democrats to “ferret out wrongdoing in the Justice Department.” Both the Justice Department inspector general and the FBI office that handles discipline had found “that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.” “Candor” in this case is the “soft” term for “lying under oath.” McCabe lied during testimony which is not only grounds for immediate termination of an FBI operative, but is criminal. Remember General Michael Flynn’s wrongdoing for which he plead guilty to a criminal charge? Lying to an FBI agent when he was not even sworn. McCabe lied under oath.

The “Woes” of John Brennan

Brennan confirmed he unmasked the identities of Americans in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. Upon questioning from Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R- SC) Brennan acknowledged he requested for U.S. citizen’s name to be unmasked and said that he did not unmask anyone on his last day at work, January 20. When asked if ambassadors requested names to be unmasked Brennan said that it may have “rang a vague bell,” but that he “could not answer with any confidence.” There is growing evidence the agency he oversaw has become one of the largest consumers of unmasked intelligence about Americans even though its charter prohibits it from spying on U.S. citizens.

Unmasking is the process used for the release of the names of American citizens who are caught-up in communications with foreigners captured by the NSA. There must be evidence to support the necessity of the unmasking of those Americans. Government Intelligence offices (under Obama)  in 2016 alone asked the NSA to unmask Americans’ names in intelligence reports more than 1,900 times and asked the NSA to do more than 35,000 searches of intercepted data for information on U.S. persons or their actual  intercepted conversations, according to data released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Almost all of those unmasking requests came from……John Brennan’s CIA. That was 3 times the number of requests from just 3 years earlier.

In March of 2014, at the Council on Foreign Relations, CIA Director John Brennan was asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers “to thwart an investigation by the committee into” the agency’s past interrogation techniques. The accusation had been made earlier that day by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said the CIA had “violated the separation-of-powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution.”

Brennan answered: “As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s — that’s just beyond the — you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.  And, you know, when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.” When he said that, Brennan lied KNOWINGLY.

Brennan later apologized to leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee after an agency investigation determined that its employees improperly searched computers used by committee staff to review classified files on interrogations of prisoners. A statement released by the CIA acknowledged that agency employees had searched areas of that computer network that were supposed to be accessible only to committee investigators. Agency employees were attempting to discover how congressional aides had obtained a secret CIA internal report on the interrogation program.

An apology and an internal review board might suffice if this were Brennan or intelligence leaders’ first offense, but the track record is far from spotless. In 2011, Brennan claimed that dozens of U.S. drone strikes on overseas targets had not killed a single civilian. This remarkable success rate was not only disputed at the time by news reports — even supporters of the drone program called it “absurd” — but as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the New York Times both reported later, President Obama received reports from the very beginning of his presidency about drone strikes killing numerous civilians.

But wait: after issuing an apology for lying, Brennan actually withdrew his apology and doubled down on his lie! Facing questions at an industry trade conference, Brennan carefully parsed his earlier statement, insisting that he had only been denying the parts of NBC’s Andrea Mitchell’s question that involved accusations of hacking with the intent to thwart the investigation. “Thwart the investigation? Hacking in? We did not,” Brennan said. Brennan had also publicly called the charges “spurious allegations that are wholly unsupported by facts.”

In his May 2017 testimony before the House intelligence panel, Brennan emphatically denied that the Steel Dossier factored into the intelligence community’s publicly released conclusion last year that Russia meddled in the 2016 election “to help Trump’s chances of victory.” Brennan also swore that he did not know who commissioned the anti-Trump research document, even though senior national security and counterintelligence officials at the Justice Department and FBI knew the previous year that the dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Last week, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) released a declassified memo exposing surveillance “abuses” by the Obama DOJ and FBI in their investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. It said the agencies relied heavily on the uncorroborated dossier to take out a warrant to secretly surveil a Trump adviser in the heat of the 2016 presidential election, even though they were aware the underlying “intelligence” supporting the wiretap order was political opposition research funded by Clinton allies — a material fact they concealed from FISA court judges in four separate applications.

Is it even slightly plausible that the Director of the CIA did not know the sourcing of the Steele Dossier? Highly unlikely that Brennan did not lie again.


Why would such a formerly powerful political figure from the U.S. Intelligence community say the things he said about President Trump today? In my opinion it can be for only one of two possible reasons: the first option is that he is just a plain bully. Brennan may be a bully. If he is not a bully he is certainly showing tendencies to bully. He had on numerous occasions lashed out at the President even though he never served in the Trump Administration. Many bullies because of personal emotional and/or psychological disadvantages use bullying as a crutch to deflect the attention of others from their inadequacies. However, bullying this President is probably not the smart thing for Brennan to try. Trump has proven that even though he is not a bully, he is quick to flip his bullying switch very quickly whenever needed. I don’t think Brennan wants to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

The second option is that Brennan needs to distract attention from some thing or things that has done wrong. So he makes a bunch of noise about the President to distract Americans away from things he has done wrong.

I honestly think the latter is the case. I have absolutely no doubt that Brennan’s hands are dirty and that Inspector General Horowitz has unearthed some evidence that proves that point. I think Brennan’s tweet blasting the President is the precursor to the initiation of a smear campaign designed by Brennan and probably others with dirty hands to discredit the results of the IG’s investigation as it pertains to them. Brennan knows he’s been found out. And I am pretty sure what Brennan has been guilty of is serious enough to cause him great panic — and his actions may cost him his freedom.

Whichever it is, Horowitz will be releasing his report in the next few weeks. He has carefully protected its contents. Get ready for the “tell-all of the decade.” It certainly is going to be worthy to be a best-selling spy novel.


Democrats Release Tax INCREASE Plan for Americans

That’s right: Congressional Democrats have quietly released their tax increase plan they intend to implement “IF” American voters give them majority control in Congress in November.

Think about that: Americans just months ago received the largest tax cuts in recent history that — in spite of the untrue rhetoric from the Left — have reduced income taxes for 90+ percent of Americans. Never before in U.S. history have we seen such dramatic, immediate, and positive results from federal tax cuts.

Trump Tax Cuts

Until these recent tax cuts, the U.S. had the highest corporate income tax rates on Earth among all developed countries. Why is that important? International trade has for many years been almost totally based on tax consequences corporations must deal with when locating operations in various countries. What advantage was there for corporations to relocate headquarters or even place portions of their operations in the U.S. when profits tax implications were so ghastly? That was the primary reason for international companies departure from the U.S. during the decades leading up to the Trump election taking with them their dollars and their jobs AND the taxes they paid to federal, state, and local authorities.

The Trump tax cuts initiated an instant change in that thinking. Immediately when signed into law, international companies began announcing relocation to the U.S., massive expansion in their existing U.S. operations, AND the re-patriation of hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate cash from operational offshore profits that for years had been held overseas to keep from paying unfair corporate taxes in the U.S. This has already meant several hundred billion dollars in added domestic product in the U.S., including new tax revenue for the federal government.

In spite of claims from the Left, every middle class American and almost all financial classes others are seeing their net income increase under these tax cuts. Results of these cuts have positively impacted every part of the financial structure of the nation: for individuals, small business owners and employees, large corporations and their employees, AND stockholders, most of who are those whose retirement savings are invested in 401K and IRA retirement funds on the Stock Exchange. All those amazing increases in stock prices/values in the markets are owned primarily by Americans who are watching their net worth increase dramatically.

In the face of all these successes, Democrats plan to raise taxes……again.

Democrat Tax Increase Plan

  1. Increase the top marginal income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent. This nearly 3 percentage point increase in the top personal rate is not only a hike in the top bracket levy, but it’s also a direct tax increase on small and mid-sized businesses. The 30 million companies which are organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, Subchapter-S corporations, and LLC’s pay their business taxes on their owners’ 1040 personal tax returns. Hiking the top tax rate is a small business tax increase. Thanks to the new IRS withholding tables, in February of this year over 90 percent of workers saw higher take home pay in the form of fatter direct deposits. They will continue to see those bigger paydays for as long as the tax rates in law remain in effect. This higher take-home pay is a down payment on a lower tax liability. Typical families of four should see their federal income tax decline from $2000 to $4000, depending on their income level and number of children.
  2. Increase the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 25 percent. Up until this year, the United States labored under the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. As a result, jobs and capital were fleeing America for more normal tax rates that could be found in tax havens like France and China. Finally, after many years of bipartisan consensus that the U.S. corporate rate had become a roadblock to attracting new jobs and investment, Congress cut the rate all the way from 35 to 21 percent. Even doing that only puts us in the middle of the pack of developed nations, but that’s a heck of a lot better than dead last.
  3. Bring back the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 4 million families. Up until this year, 4 million upper middle class families had to calculate their income taxes two different ways, and then pay the higher result. This was due to a provision of the law known as the “alternative minimum tax” or AMT. Millions more had to at least pay a tax preparer to run the calculation, even if they didn’t end up paying the AMT. The new tax law all but repealed the AMT for 99 percent of these families thanks to a higher AMT “standard deduction.” Congressional Democrats would bring back the dreaded AMT, which especially hit hard two-income white collar families with kids in New York, New Jersey, and California.
  4. Cut the “death tax” standard deduction in half. Over the past few decades, no tax has proven more unpopular in every single poll than the death tax, the federal tax on estates. 60 to 70 percent of poll respondents consistently call for its full repeal. The new tax law didn’t repeal the death tax, but it did the next best thing–it doubled the death tax’s “standard deduction” from $5.5 million to $11 million (and twice that for surviving spouses). As a result, far fewer family businesses and farms will be subject to the death tax, and many smaller firms can shed the costly insurance, legal, and actuarial costs of avoiding the death tax. Like the top personal rate, the death tax is not something that really affects the rich, who have plenty of resources to avoid the levy. Rather, it hits hardest those companies profitable enough to worry about it but not profitable enough to not worry about, if you catch my meaning. Democrats have never understood this, which is why it’s not surprising they want to reduce the death tax’s standard deduction back down to what it was before.


Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like or a proposed tax they wouldn’t support. Why? Those on the Left know for certain they can better take care of Americans and all they need than Americans can for themselves. How to do that? “Confiscate” Americans’ money through taxes and spend it “for” those Americans. That process is called “Socialism” — a term Democrats run from because of its negative connotation but in reality is exactly what they want to implement in America.

Remember what I have stated for more than a year: Leftist no longer are driven by their lust for money. Their plan is to accumulate POWER with which they control every aspect of the lives of Americans, including money.

Watch the run-up to the November 2018 mid-terms. Democrats will shortly begin a concerted call to their base for the need for tax increases. To do so they will re-institute their cries of class warfare against the American middle class trying to disguise their attacks as attacks on the American wealthy.

Don’t be fooled. Doing so by the Dems is the same song, second verse.


(Ryan Ellis contributed to this story)


Plenty of it to go around, that’s for sure.

Do you find yourself shaking your head in wonder at some of the policy decisions and opinions of non-Washington American life issues by some of those who Americans pay handsomely to craft laws to run the government? Have you ever asked this: “How in the world could she/he say such a stupid thing?” Honestly, it happens far too often to just be happenstance.

These are supposed to be the best of the best who make themselves available to serve Americans, committing in an oath of office: “ I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Does it seem to you that sometimes — far TOO often — they seem to forget a portion of their oath of office: “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”

Political Frustrations

  • President Obama: “My Administration Is Committed To Creating An Unprecedented Level Of Openness In Government.”
  • The Associated Press Headline: “Government Secrecy Up Under Obama Administration” (“Government Secrecy Up Under Obama Administration,” The Associated Press, 3/17/14
  • In An Interview Airing The Day After The Attack In San Bernardino, Obama Said A Paris-Style Attack Could Not Happen In The U.S.
  • In An Interview Airing The Day Of The Paris Attacks, Obama Downplayed The ISIS Threat, Saying He Doesn’t Believe They Are Getting Stronger And That They Are “Contained .”
  • “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall.” (Donald Trump)
  • Bill Clinton in 1996: “The era of big government is over.”
  • Barack Obama in 2008: “If you choose change you will have a nominee that does not take a dime from Washington lobbyists and PACs.”
  • Former Secretary of Defense William Perry (under Clinton): “Statements from the Trump Administration suggest that the U.S. goal is for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and become a non-nuclear power. There is every reason to doubt that North Korea would be willing to go that far; but even if they are, there remains a fundamental question: How could we possibly verify such an agreement?”
  • “We’ve got to pass the bill so that we can know what’s in the bill.” Nancy Pelosi about House passage of the ACA
  • Barack Obama: “If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”

Unfortunately, it doesn’t come from just elected officials. Political appointees, hires, those running for national office during campaigns, are all guilty of saying and doing may things that run counter to not only that oath, but all political reason regarding running the American government. Nowhere else is it more prevalent than in the political news.

The Media

Here are some examples:

  • In the final months of the presidential campaign, numerous media outlets decried “violent Trump supporters” at political rallies. Today those same outlets apologize for or ignore violence committed by anti-Trump demonstrators.
  • When President Obama halted acceptance of refugees from Iraq (albeit in a more limited fashion), hardly anyone noticed. Now with President Trump doing it, we see massive backlash and outrage.
  • For many years Obama and the Left, with the approval of the mainstream media, have harshly criticized American foreign policy since the end of World War II. Trump off the cuff says, “You think our country is so innocent?” and he is pilloried by the same talking heads that complimented Obama for his “thoughtfulness.”
  • Not everyone is convinced that Trump is sincere in his desire to resolve things with North Korea. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough described Trump’s decision as a “deflection” from controversies like his tough new tariff proposals and his alleged past affair with former adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
  • From Axios: “If the U.S. does come to the negotiating table, it might show North Korea the U.S. sees it as an equal, even if that’s not the intent,” writes Shannon Vavra of Axios. “That’s one big, tacit concession to the Kim regime — North Korea has long-wanted to be seen as a major player on the world stage.”


Frustrations permeate the lives of Americans about daily occurrences in and about the U.S. Government and those who operate within it. NO ONE in D.C. is exempt.

The total obscenity of this frustration for Americans is best illustrated by former NY Senator/U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her plethora of comments about her political opponents, the 2016 election results, the cause of her loss in that election, American voters, and the constitution of Americans who really “are” important in the scheme of things:

“Deplorable Americans”


In a strange visit to India this week, she explained in a speech another perspective of the reasons for her loss:

I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights; you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs; you don’t want to, you know, see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are — whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

But there was more:


It is time for Americans to no longer be shocked at all this. Why? It’s simple: this is the way Washington D.C. runs! No Doubt George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and even John F. Kennedy would never believe it. But the World’s “shining light on a hill” no longer possesses a light that shines for the World. It shines only for those who have captured all of its benefits they can direct to their personal interests while offering to their voting constituents only the crumbs those in D.C. determine are the minimum they need to return to their districts to maintain their government positions.

In Washington D.C. Truth doesn’t matter; Honesty doesn’t matter; Commitment doesn’t matter; Integrity is a forgotten relic. “Me-sim” rules the day: “I will do everything I can do to get everything I want for me and those I prefer. It makes no difference what courses of actions are necessary to obtain those things. The fact that I want them is all the justification I need for permission to do so.”

No wonder Congressional approval has dropped below 10% — and members of Congress do not even care! 100 years ago Congressional members would be horrified and ashamed. Not so this bunch.

I am not sure who first stated this. But I heard it first in reference to Israel’s Kings from the New Testament. “A nation deserves exactly what Kings it raises up to lead.” The same can be said for U.S. national elected leaders: “The people of the United States deserve exactly who they elect to lead.”

Boy, we certainly are getting that right now, aren’t we?

Frustration? I don’t see an end in sight. Do you?



Ever watched a 6-year-old who wants some money from Mom or Dad? When they get that money, something magical happens: they suddenly become “in charge” of something and feel empowered simply by having that money. It’s not so different for adults.

There is an often misquoted Scripture that discusses money’s role in the World: “Money is the root of all evil.” Of course that is an incorrect quote that should read, “The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.” Where else on Earth is that Scripture proven more true than in American politics and all that surrounds operations in political Washington?

The obvious trappings of quid pro quo are one thing. But the most devastating and consuming role the love of money in politics plays is in the ancillary industries that support government political operations: campaigning, lobbying, consulting, and even media. Each of these mentioned political operations sectors brings with it its own unique quest for money. And in D.C., the trappings of the free-flowing political dollars have for decades fed the ravenous hunger for bucks. That hunger has fueled almost all of Washington’s corruption. What’s the old saying? “Follow the money.” Nowhere else is that more true than in D.C.

Lobbyists are embedded in dozens of massive law and public relations firms that headquarter around the corner from the Capitol on K Street. These firms represent clients of all kinds: major corporations, non-profits, associations who represent companies and organizations who have stakes in legislation of all kinds, and even political campaigns and political parties. These special interests pay millions to these lobbying firms to “impact” the particular pieces of legislation that benefits them. Most of those funds find their ways into the pockets of members of Congress, often paid through junkets, scholarships awarded to a special few by Congressional members, jobs for various people, campaign contributions, and even real estate and elaborate vacations that often include use of private jets. And the list goes on and on.

PAC’S in the United States, a political action committee (PAC), is a type of organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC has been created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. This term is quite specific to all activities of campaign finance in the United States. PAC’s were created to bypass campaign contribution laws, primarily the maximum amounts that individuals and/or corporations can donate to candidates. The legislation that created PAC’s changed all that. Here are PAC regulations:

  • Contributions to campaigns from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising;
  • Union-affiliated PAC’s may only solicit contributions from members;
  • Independent PAC’s may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds.

Here are the REAL reasons for PAC’s and why they are so popular in D.C.

Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows:

  • $5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections);
  • $15,000 to a political party per year; and
  • $5,000 to another PAC per year.
  • PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party.

Campaigns especially on the national level have become legal money-launderers — well, not really. But it certainly seems that is so. It’s expensive to run a campaign. Seldom does a candidate have all the necessary funds to run a campaign — or at least funds sufficient to WIN a campaign, which is all that matters. And it seems they never stop campaigning.

Yesterday the Congressional special election for the 18th District in Pennsylvania was held. It is still not final, even though all the votes have been counted. It’s being contested. One would think campaigning was over. Not so. I received an email solicitation from one of the candidates begging for a $50 contribution to underwrite what is certain to be a very expensive recount effort. No telling how long that will take or how expensive it will be.

Media at the national level are money machines — especially during a political season. They foam at the mouth in anticipation of elections. Why? Political ads and all the extra revenue those ads bring. Billions of dollars are spent advertising in national elections every other year. Media budgets are set years in advance that rely heavily on campaign season revenues.

Additionally, FOX News showed network stations that there is a bunch of money that is NOT tied directly to elections. Having news talk all day long that centers on political events is as big or bigger a money-pot as election advertising. MSNBC, CNN, CNBC have all caught on. They all try to imitate FOX News with their programming, but with opposite perspectives. None even approach FOX News financial success. But being second and third is still financially rewarding. There’s a lot of money tied to D.C. And it’s not just for politicians.


Americans need to begin to objectively examine not just the methodology of operations in Washington, but to question the motives of everyone directly and indirectly affiliated with the political process. Cuba Gooding, Jr. said it best in the movie Jerry MacGuire when he said again and again, “Show Me the Money!”

The new slant that targets dollars in D.C. is simply to find power — political power. With political power and might the person(s) who control that power control most of or all of the process, including the money. Congress functions totally from that basic perspective, working diligently to appease voting constituency by time-to-time passing (or attempting to pass) legislation voters desire. But lawmakers make a bunch of noise about their efforts to do so, but seldom pass meaningful legislation that structurally changes America. Why is that? They cannot afford to rock the horse. They know “the other side” will eventually gain control of the House and Senate. No one in Congress wants to find themselves in such disfavor with members of the other party when control changes. They all want to maintain an even keel. That’s so they can maintain position, importance, and fat cat jobs with all the perks: MONEY!

Stop U.S. Mass Shootings: Another Doctor’s Suggestion

NOTE: At we do NOT endorse or recommend the works or services of any individual, group, or company of which we report, including the following doctor. We present these reports to our members for their consideration. As always we encourage you to read this report, do your own research, and make informed decisions for yourself and your family.

Don R. Ivey, Ph.D

Israel’s gun laws are the nightmare of Second Amendment champions.

  • To be eligible for a gun license in Israel you must be 21 years old and a military veteran, or 27 years old.
  • Only people who meet specific criteria are eligible to apply for gun permits. Israelis who live or work in communities defined as at-risk from a national security perspective by the government can apply for gun licenses. Farmers, tour guides, and people who transport hazardous materials are permitted to carry a gun. Military officers and NCOs on active duty may carry a personal handgun. Veterans of special forces units and other elite security services are permitted to carry a gun. Retired senior officers are entitled to carry a gun.
  • To receive a weapons permit, you must first undergo weapons training at a certified training facility and receive a health certification from a licensed physician.
  • If you are healthy and are eligible, you may receive a gun permit. That permit enables you to own and carry one handgun and fifty bullets.
  • Shotgun and rifle ownership is limited to veterinarians, nature preserve employees, and licensed hunters. These weapons may only be used for animal control. (Smaller country…less hunting)
  • However, whereas in the U.S. most states do not permit armed citizens to walk around with their weapons exposed, Israel has no such restrictions on its gun owners. Gun owners may carry their weapons openly or in a concealed manner, whichever they prefer.
  • Whereas private ownership of firearms is constrained, public use of firearms is more widespread. Every school in Israel is guarded by an armed security guard. Everyone entering a school has to pass through a manned, secure entrance. Armed guards escort all school trips everywhere in the country.
  • Armed guards and metal detectors are stationed at the entrance to every underground parking lot, every supermarket, every hospital, every shopping mall, and every hotel in Israel.
  • All major public events need to be approved by the police. The organizers need to secure the perimeter of their events in coordination with the police. As a result, most of the mass shooting attacks that happened in the U.S. and Europe in recent years would have been much more difficult to carry out in Israel. For instance, the truck ramming attack on Bastille Day in Nice in 2016, in which an Islamic State terrorist killed 86 and wounded 458, would not have been possible in Israel. In Israel, police would have cordoned off the entire area where the event took place. No trucks would have been permitted to enter the perimeter and likely no unauthorized vehicles would have been permitted to enter the perimeter. Moreover, security guards and metal detectors would have been deployed at all entry points to the event.
  • The massacre outside the Mandalay Bay hotel and casino in Las Vegas last year would also have been more difficult, if not impossible, to have carried out in Israel. A security officer at the entrance to the hotel would have stopped the shooter from bringing his weapons and ammunition into the building. If the killer had managed to smuggle his weapons into the hotel, and had begun shooting, it would have taken hotel security officers very little time to identify the source of the fire, enter his room, and stop him.
  • Israel bars gun ownership from mentally ill individuals. While there are a lot of illegal weapons in Israel – particularly in the Arab community – there is no legal way for someone who is mentally ill to acquire a weapon lawfully.

Two Israeli lessons for eliminating American mass shootings

  1. The first lesson that Israel can offer relates to tactics for minimizing the risk of attack. Americans can learn from the Israeli model of controlling entry and exit points from schools and other public facilities; from Israel’s ban on guns to the mentally ill; and from its unapologetic policy of profiling terror suspects.
  2. The second lesson from Israel’s experience that bravery is a vital social virtue.


Like millions of Americans, Israelis are brave. Because they are brave, they stand up to terrorists. When they have guns, they stand up to terrorists with guns. When they lack guns, they stand up to terrorists with whatever they have.

  • In February 2017, a group of citizens outside a sewing machine repair shop in Petah Tikva in central Israel stopped a terrorist who had been shooting and stabbing bus passengers by throwing sewing machines at him.
  • In January 2016, a mom-and-pop grocery store owner in a small town in Judea blocked two knife-wielding terrorists from entering his store by pushing them out with a shopping cart.

A society that values bravery can rely on its citizens to be brave more easily than a society that values victimhood. Israel’s restrictive gun laws are a function of many aspects of Israeli society that are very different from conditions in America, including its powerful central government, its socialist roots, and its large Arab community.

Israel’s tragic history with terror attacks has required Israel to learn how to secure all public spaces and deploy forces to major civilian thoroughfares. And it has also taught Israelis to be brave.

Don R. “Dick” Ivey, PhD

Dick is a minister, educator, technology executive and entrepreneur. PhD in Educational Psychology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth.

Mass Shootings: An Answer

There is NO cure-all to stop mass shootings.

In the wake of the slaughter in Parkland, Florida, once again Americans seek answers. Doing away with all guns would be wonderful IF legal, IF possible, IF practical. But that answer is “none of the above.” So what do we do?

One of the “cures” bandied around has been regarding control of those mentally ill to prohibit their getting guns in their hands. Certainly that might work. And if a process of doing so was successfully implemented it would no doubt stop some of these shootings.

There is another “angle” in the mental health discussion: pharmaceutical drugs. For pretty much every mental health patient — especially those whose conditions are determined by medical doctors to be severe — prescription drugs are prescribed. There are plenty of medical doctors who feel strongly that the misuse (and in some cases simple the “use”) of those pharmaceuticals if not instigate at least play a major role in most of these shootings. Let’s hear from one of those doctors.

NOTE: At we do NOT endorse or recommend the works or services of any individual, group, or company of which we report, including the following doctor. We present these reports to our members for their consideration. As always we encourage you to read this report, do your own research, and make informed decisions for yourself and your family. Tomorrow we will present to you a second solution for mass shootings — this from ANOTHER doctor. Be certain to look-in tomorrow morning.

Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD is the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation. She is a graduate of Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1970) who believes passionately in the right every American to choose a personal health path that is free of government or corporate interference. Dr. Laibow is the President of the NeuroTherapy Certification Board which she helped establish in order to strengthen and develop the field of NeuroBioFeedback and bring it into wide-spread use as a powerful, non-toxic tool for modern medicine.

Letter to Students at Stoneman Douglas High School: Parkland Florida from Dr. Laibow, MD

“My heart goes out to you in this time of tragedy. As a psychiatrist for nearly a half century, I have some idea of what you are experiencing it and I am so sorry for your pain and distress. I, along with the Natural Solutions Foundation, of which I am the Medical Director, stand with you and your activism. You need to fight to end school shootings and other senseless murders and we need to fight right along-side you, as, in fact, the Natural Solutions Foundation and I have been doing for a long, long time. That is probably the only thing that we can do to fix the problem of school massacres: fight for the freedom to live and grow in a safe and sane world. But you are fighting the wrong enemy for the right thing.


        Rima E. Laibow, MD

One American in six is on psychiatric drugs, which the FDA requires to have a “black box” package insert warning, its highest alert level, stating that both homicide and suicidal ideation, along with violence, are recognized side effects of these potentially lethal drugs. Your friends were killed by, and you were forever traumatized by, drug-induced lethality which happened to use a gun.More than a million kids under six are on these brain-battering drugs. By 2014, 8.4 million kids under 17 were on these drugs and those numbers have risen, and risen sharply, since then.

Unlike those who, unscientifically, believe there is a role for these dangerous drugs in therapy I believe that there is no such legitimate role. Whether there is a role for them or not, the uncontested, well-established and incontrovertible fact is that they frequently induce serious side effects INCLUDING HOMICIDE AND SUICIDE ALONG WITH OTHER ACTS OF AGGRESSION! We are not talking about “micro-aggression” here; we are talking about lethal aggression.

That means that people on psychiatric drugs are somehow chemically induced — “poisoned” is not a bad word for it — to believe that it makes sense to, for example, pick up a rifle and kill fellow classmates as quickly as they can pull the trigger.

This is not a theory or a hypothesis. This is such a well-established fact that the FDA requires a “black box” warning to precisely this effect, on each and every one of these drugs. The manufacturers are not at all happy to have that warning there but they can rest easy: such warnings are almost totally ignored as if they were not there.


If you were prescribed one of these psychoactive drugs, did your doctor tell you these dangers? Did you or your parents read the package insert? Yet a 2009 peer reviewed, mainstream journal study shows a quarter of all kids on drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft become dangerously violent and/or suicidal. How can you give “Informed Consent” to using one of these drugs without knowing that?

Another study in 2011 and another in 2014 and another in 2015 and another in 2016 all conclude with this type of information: taking these drugs, young people especially are significantly vulnerable to aggressive, suicidal and homicidal thoughts and actions. Significantly, not rarely. This was, once again, shown in a recent paper by Professor Peter C Gotzsche, MD, called“Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports” published in the very mainstream British Medical Journal. Dr. Gotzsche and his colleagues reached that conclusion after reviewing and including 76 trials with 64,381 pages of clinical study reports for 18,526 patients. All of the trials showed the high incidence of dangerous thoughts and behaviors. All of them.


How many of you, recently traumatized or otherwise dealing with life’s issues, are currently on psychiatric drugs? And what happens if these drugs turn you into someone thinking about suicide or homicide, or, worse, acting on either of those tragic options? One in six of you on drugs — or more — will experience that. Some proportion of you experiencing it will try to act it out and some tragic percentage will succeed. Guns or not.

God forbid, my friends, but for those who do, it was not the guns or the vehicles or the ropes or the belts or the knives or the razor blades: it was the drugs. The instrumentality of the violence is not its cause. The cause is in the mind of the person, not inherent in the tool [s]he uses. And when that mind is misinformed by use of chemicals known to promote violence, the tragic results are sadly inevitable and will repeat. And repeat, and repeat and repeat.

Wikipedia, that lover of facts (some true, some not, as it happens) has a page listing school massacres by victim numbers. But nowhere does that massacre message list the drugs that the shooters were taking. Why not? Because drug use and the supposed “safety” of those drugs is a well-fed Sacred Cow: we give drugs, we never question what they do! That drug impact information is easily available and it shows a frighteningly high percent of all mass killings are linked to “properly prescribed” psychiatric drugs.


And this one is a killer, far more lethal than the much-publicized Mad Cow Disease. This one was lethal for 17 of your friends and classmates and teachers and deeply damaging to you. And will be again, in another school, in a terribly short time, unless we corral it and stop feeding it! We need to stop feeding ourselves drugs that distort thinking and feeling and, ultimately, kill.

As a mother, a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and a compassionate human being, I am truly sorry for your many losses this past Valentine’s Day. Your trauma, your loss of innocence, of the perception that the world is a safe place, the lives lost, are bells that can never be un-rung and you will hear their pealing in your hearts for the rest of your lives.

You are calling for something to be done, and for that, as an activist and a member of society, I salute you. However, you are calling for the wrong thing. The gun killed and wounded, but the mind(s) of the gunman (or gunmen), poisoned by psychiatric drugs, was the reason that the gun was used to kill and wound. The cause precedes the effect.

Every school shooter we know about, every single one, was either on legal, doctor-provided powerful, destructive, mind-altering psychiatric drugs or just coming off them. Every single one.


  • Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox (Fluvoxamine maleate) — like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. He and fellow student Dylan Klebold shot 13 people to death and wounded 24 in a headline-grabbing 1999 rampage. Less well known is that Luvox manufacturer (Solvay Pharmaceuticals) admits that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox — that’s one in 25 — developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.
  • 1988, Laurie Dann (31) killed one child and wounded 6 in a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill. She was taking antidepressants Anafranil (Clomipramine) and Lithium.
  • 1989: Schoolyard shooter Patrick Purdy (25) murdered five children, wounded 30 in a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California. He was taking the antidepressant Amitriptyline (sold as Elavil), and antipsychotic Thorazine (Chlorpromazine).
  • 1989: Joseph T. Wesbecke, (47) shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. He was taking Prozac (Fluoxetine). Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.”
  • 1997: Michael Carneal (14) went to Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky and killed 3 students, paralyzing one during a prayer meeting. He was taking stimulant Ritalin (Methylphenidate).
  • 1998: Kip Kinkel (15) murdered his parents, went to Thurston High, Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He was withdrawing from antidepressant Prozac and stimulant Ritalin.
  • 1999: Eric Harris (18) and Dylan Kiebold (17) killed 12 students and a teacher at Columbine High School, Colorado before committing suicide. Harris was withdrawing from antidepressant Luvox.
  • 2004: Aaron Ray Ybarra (26) allegedly opened fire with a shotgun at Seattle Pacific University killing one student and wounding two others.” He was taking antidepressant Prozac and antipsychotic Risperdal(Risperidone).
  • 2013: Jose Reyes (12) killed 2 people and wounded two others with a shotgun at his Sparks, Nevada school. He was taking antidepressant Prozac.
  • 2013: Aaron Alexis (34) killed 12 people at the Washington, DC Naval Yard and then himself. He was taking antidepressant Trazodone (sold as Desyrel).
  • 2005: Jeff Weise (16) shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself on the Red Lake Indian Reservation, MN. He was taking antidepressant Prozac.
  • 2007: Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University killed 32 people and wounded 17 others on campus. He was taking Prozac.


The real murder weapon is the rampant and irresponsible use of the many psychiatric drugs prescribed as if they were safe and necessary. In fact, they are neither.

I have practiced Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatry for nearly 50 years without ever prescribing a drug, psychiatric or otherwise. Why? Because I know that there are non-pharmaceutical ways to help, rather than poison, people, and I use them. These include homeopathics, herbs, food, nutrients and a host of other non-toxic methods. They work and they do not have, or need, “black box” warnings.

May you find peace and solace in joining with your loved ones to bring this unnecessary and tragic slaughter to an end.”

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

“Pajama Boy” has the Left on Fire!



Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice on North Korea: Obama era and Trump

(In December, 2017) Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said that the U.S. has consistently failed to curtail North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, even during the Obama era. “You can call it a failure,” Rice told CNN. “I accept that characterization of the efforts of the United States over the last two decades.”

Rice advocated in an opinion piece in the New York Times that President Trump should tamp down his rhetoric and learn to live with a nuclear North Korea. “History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” she wrote. “It will require being pragmatic.”

(March, 2018) Susan Rice on Friday questioned President Donald Trump’s ability to successfully execute a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and she warned an unsuccessful meeting could increase the risk of conflict.  NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Rice this after the meeting invitation came to Washington from Kim Jong Un: “What is the downside, if there is this big-flags-waving, red carpet summit and then no results?” Mitchell asked the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and national security adviser. “I think it’s very risky,” Rice said. “It risks the president’s credibility, the credibility of the United States, and worse still, I think it increases the risk of conflict if they go into something with very high expectations, poor preparation, and the president acting in his typically mercurial way. “We could end up in a much worse place then we are today,” Rice warned.

Democrat Congressional Members on North Korea
  • Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the president should temper his trademark bellicose style. “The President must abandon his penchant for unscripted remarks and bombastic rhetoric to avoid derailing this significant opportunity for progress,” he said.
  • Rep. Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, was purely cynical, reacting to former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau’s assertion that Trump hasn’t made any deals as president. Of President Trump’s planned meeting with Kim Jong Un: “It will not end well.”
  • “Sitting at the table is the easy part,” Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said. “Solving this problem is hard.”
  • The consensus among the loyal opposition was that Kim emerged the victor in this initial skirmish simply by earning equal standing with the leader of the free world. “The worst-case outcome for U.S. is also the most likely — a great, legitimizing photo op for Kim, and no material commitment on disarmament,” tweeted Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
  • “Alarmingly, the United States enters into this arrangement with a serious dearth of regional experts and experienced negotiators: a hollowed out State Department, no U.S. envoy for North Korea negotiations, and no ambassador to South Korea,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.
Media On the Trump/Kim Jong Un Meeting
  • Jimmy Kimmel: Kimmel described the Trump-Kim get-together as “The two worst haircuts in the world, together.” He continued,  “The North Korean leader promises to meet by May. By May?  Trump’s not still going to be president by May. This need to happen by Wednesday.”
  • CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “What appears to have happened is the following: Trump was told that in the talks between North and South, Kim Jong Un expressed a wish to meet with him, and Trump jumped at the opportunity. Henry Kissinger has often said that presidential summits should be the climax of a long negotiating process, not the beginning. Trump’s gambit turns that dictum on its head. Victor Cha, once slated to be Trump’s ambassador to South Korea, warns that a presidential summit is dangerous because if it fails, it leaves little room for further diplomacy. The outcome, he says, could actually end up being war.”
  • MSNBC’s  Joe Scarborough: The hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” slammed President Trump over his potential meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “It’s all bluster, there’s no deal, because he doesn’t know how to make a deal,” co-host Joe Scarborough said Friday. “He’s horrible at making deals. That’s why the man ended up $9 billion in debt.”
  • MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “You might think another president in this circumstance, you can imagine a president asking himself or herself, “why has no other American president ever agreed to do this? Why has no sitting American president ever met with a leader from North Korea? Why has that never happened in all the decades North Korea existed as a nation? Should I take that to mean that this might be particularly risky or even an unwise move?” Maddow continued, ““I think a lot of people probably suspect tonight that those are not the kinds of questions that this president asked himself before agreeing to this meeting,” she said. “But this is the president we have and he said yes to North Korea.”
North Korea’s Neighboring Countries on the Trump/Kim Jong Un Meeting
  • China: “We … support the alleviation of the peninsula situation, and the positive inter-Korean and U.S.-North Korea interactions,” said China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Geng Shuang. He added that China will continue to play a positive and constructive role in a political resolution to the nuclear issue, after being asked if China is willing to host the meeting.
  • Japan: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters Friday that he had spoken with Trump by phone, and they had agreed to continue putting maximum pressure on North Korea. Thursday’s announcement was the result of strong U.S.-Japanese coordination, he said. There were times like this when North Korea stabbed us in the back. Abe also issued a clear note of caution: “Until North Korea takes actual steps towards a complete inspection of their nuclear weapons and missiles, and their irreversible abandonment, this will not sway the absolute position of Japan and the United States that we will continue to apply the greatest amount of pressure.”
  • Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — whose government is also one of Pyongyang’s few allies — told the TASS news agency that he was glad to see “a dialogue based on mutual respect” as opposed to “threats, ultimatums and unilateral sanctions.”
  • Australia Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: “This meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un could be an historical event depending on its results.” The Aussie stated further that coupled with Australia’s stiff sanctions, these meeting could be successful for the Korean people, North Korea’s neighbors, and all other countries in the Region.


Does it really matter what policies or legislation Donald Trump proposes? Does it really matter to the anti-Trumpsters what huge successes the Nation has experienced after his first year in office from those policies and that historical tax cut law? No, it makes no difference at all.

Can you believe that China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea along with Australia to the south are not only supportive of this meeting, they ALL praise it’s happening! But woe is America — according to the U.S. Left.

Here’s what Americans are beginning in droves to realize: Mainstream media, Democrats, and many establishment GOP members have huge personal investment in a Trump failure while in the White House. That investment has nothing to do with governing the country by the will of the People. By Donald Trump’s achievements, their plans are thwarted already! And they are all gritting their teeth at every victory.

It’s not just meeting with Kim Jong Un. It’s not just the largest tax deduction for the middle class and corporations in modern history. It’s not just the earthquake that happens almost daily with the zooming stock market. It’s not just the almost immediate resumption of manufacturing and new energy production in the U.S. resulting in several million new jobs — 300,000 of those last month. It’s not just the amazing reception by foreign leaders when they meet Trump because of his no-nonsense messaging that is straight to the point. It’s ALL of the above.

Donald Trump refuses to fit into their D.C. cookie-cutter mold of “How to function in D.C. politics.” He brought his own cookie-cutter with him, he’s using it, and it’s working.

I must be honest: sometimes his blustery tweets and campaign-rally rhetoric make me feel a bit uncomfortable. But he’s not the only person in my life for whom I have great respect who sometimes embarrass me a bit. I accept their momentary embarrassment of me. Why? Because they are genuine and have credibility with me. You know what? Donald Trump does too.

No doubt he brags. But to steal a quote from Howard Cosell regarding Deion Sander’s bragging about his NFL football prowess: “It ain’t bragging if he can do it.”

Trump’s doing it.

“To Tariff or not To Tariff?”

A short while ago I spent several weeks in Switzerland, which included several weekend trips to Milan, Munich, Innsbruck, and even little Lichtenstein. I’m a Harley guy, have a couple, and went to Harley dealers in these places to look. Needless to say, pricing in these European locations was significantly different than for Harley’s sold in the U.S., even factoring in the cost of international shipping. Why are they different?

One of the most memorable lines in President Trump’s address to Congress this week was when he cited Harley-Davidson as an example of a great American product facing as much as 100% tariffs in one country abroad — in this case, in India. Trump didn’t mention it, but India is not the only country that discourages Harley’s international sales. Thailand imposes 60% tariffs and China 30%, levels not seen in the U.S. since the 1930s following the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that raised tariffs to marked highs. Members of the European Union do not level large tariffs on many U.S. products, but there are tariffs imposed. And it’s not just on Harley’s.  In the interest of fairness, however, we must note that the U.S. imposes tariffs on European automobile imports that come into the U.S. Virtually every government on Earth that imports goods into their country imposes tariffs. It is a central government revenue stream upon which many countries rely for financial survival.

So why all of a sudden did President Trump raise the conversation about U.S. tariffs to be imposed on the U.S. import of steel and aluminum?

The Commerce Department is urging President Trump to consider hefty tariffs and quotas to limit the import of steel and aluminum, after concluding that the rising flow of those foreign-made products constitutes a threat to America’s national security. The recommendations were contained in a report released by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose agency tapped a rarely used provision of U.S. trade law in investigating whether steel and aluminum imports could pose harm to the country’s defense or security interests.

 Trump has promised to take more aggressive trade actions to protect American manufacturers, and the findings by Commerce give the president wide discretion to curb imports, although he could decide not to take any action at all. Trump has until mid-April to issue his decision. Domestic steel and aluminum manufacturers, along with lawmakers from big steel-producing states, have been pressing Trump to apply stiff measures against foreign producers, particularly targeting China.
 The Commerce Department’s recommendations to Trump listed three options for steel: a 24% tariff on all imports from all countries; a targeted tariff of at least 53% on imports from a dozen trading partners, plus quotas on steel shipments from other nations; or a global quota that equals 63% of each country’s steel exports to the U.S. in 2017. Ross also recommended three options on aluminum tariffs and quotas, although they were less restrictive. It is expected the President will announce those tariffs in the next few days.


The President’s announcement of possible tariffs has set the World on fire. Foreign leaders, members of Congress, American business leaders, and of course the Media, have all weighed-in. Most of their comments have been negative, promising financial doom for the United States that imposing import tariffs would initiate. There IS precedent. President Bush implemented significant tariffs in 2002 similar to those proposed by President Trump:

“President Bush took some of the broadest federal action in two decades to protect a major American industry today, imposing tariffs of up to 30 percent on most types of steel imported into the United States from Europe, Asia and South America. The tariffs will last three years, he said, to give American steel producers time to consolidate operations and stem layoffs.

Mr. Bush’s action is likely to send the price of steel up sharply, perhaps as much as 10 percent, a cost American consumers will ultimately bear in higher prices for autos, appliances and housing. The United States imports about a quarter of the steel it consumes, though Mr. Bush exempted steel made in Mexico, Canada and developing nations from the tariffs announced today. The nations hardest hit are Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Germany and Brazil.

Within minutes of the White House announcement, America’s European allies and Japan said they would almost certainly challenge the action before the World Trade Organization, setting the stage for a major trade fight with many of the same countries Mr. Bush is trying to hold together in the fractious coalition against terrorism.”

The results of the Bush tariffs were mixed, as are most all international economic policy results. In this case it depends on who is speaking.

The levy of tariffs result is NOT certain as many who are against tariffs claim. No one can predict their success or failure if/when the President assesses them just ahead. But I am not certain President Trump really intends for tariffs IF assessed will be severe and permanent. And he in direct contravention of his messaging may NOT implement levies at all. Let me explain:

  • First, the current import-export process is not working for the U.S. American businesses and ultimately citizens pay massive tariffs for goods we import while foreign governments get by virtually scot-free.
  • How is it not working? Last month the U.S. trade deficit was $56 Billion! That means (including foreign tariffs) more was paid by the U.S. for its goods than foreign entities paid for our goods.
  • The American government has historically touted tariffs as a way to level the playing field. Is there anyone who can support a narrative that says the current import-export system is fair for the U.S.?


Donald Trump is a salesman. He has demonstrated a fundamental sales tool again and again since taking office: negotiation. When one negotiates, an offer to sell is always higher than the seller is willing to accept; an offer to purchase is always lower than the buyer is willing to pay in both first offers. Negotiations almost always occur to reach a satisfactory mutually acceptable price to sell and to buy. Regarding tariffs: DONALD TRUMP IS NEGOTIATING!

  • “If” tariffs are actually put in place, it is to send a message to our international trading partners: the U.S. is willing to be a “good” trading partner for any and all countries, BUT, trades need to be restructured so as to be fair for BOTH trading parties. Trade Fairness is what defines “good” partners. Almost all of the U.S. international trade deals are one-sided — and not one-sided for the U.S.
  • “If” tariffs are actually put in place, they can easily be adjusted or even cancelled in a moments notice by the President. If they happen to work for the benefit of the United States, why not give them a try? Specific financial results will be verifiable in 30-45 days.
  • Here’s a novel idea: what if doing so can slash that 1-month $56 Billion trade deficit pretty quickly — maybe not eliminate that deficit but cut it sharply. In this present scenario, wouldn’t it be nice to cut it to “just” $10-$20 Billion?
  • Some countries will simply stop importing and exporting to and from the U.S. because of unsatisfactory tariffs charged by the U.S. government. But many rely on American goods to be brought into their countries, and obviously rely heavily to sell THEIR goods in the U.S. market. That means, of course, American manufacturers, automobile dealerships, produce operations, and many other business types will see the market demand for their products skyrocket. Why? Supply and Demand: the lifeblood of the Free Market System will kick in immediately. That means quickly a need for more jobs, people to fill them, new orders by manufacturing firms which will demand increased production, much increased sales and management personnel hiring for distribution operations increased demand.
  • The threat of tariffs could simply be President Trump’s “line in the sand.” He has already shown a different concept than his predecessor used in Syria — that famous Obama “don’t make me come back there” threat regarding Syria’s use of gas on its citizens. They crossed Obama’s red line and Syrian people died from Syrian government gas. Obama did nothing about Syria’s stomping all over his red line. Trump is not Obama.

I have laughed over and over again watching and listening to anti-tariff Americans forecast gloom and doom for the American economy with tariff implementation. And it’s not just Leftist Media members and Democrats. A bunch of Republicans are beating the same drum.

Give it a rest, guys! Regardless of your fired rescue flares hoping the President will see and respond to, there is NO reason for panic. (unless, of course, their doing so is purely for political and election purposes — which is likely) Pretty much every policy Donald Trump has proposed that ends up in place has been amazingly successful — especially his economic policies. To that end, why not give him a shot? As I said above, they can always be removed as quickly as they are put in place.

Tariffs are NOT the end of the World.


Oscars In the Tank

The 2018 overnight ratings for the Oscars showed viewership down 15%+ from the 2017 show. That coincides with precipitous ratings drops for the last few Screen Actor Guild Awards show (SAG Awards), Golden Globes, even the Grammys, CMA’s and American Music Awards. Why is that?

They don’t stand alone in the massive American Entertainment television ratings losses:

  • The just finished Olympics saw dismal viewership for NBC. The 2018 Games were the least-watched since NBC scored the rights to the Winter Olympics in 2002. Pyeongchang was down 7 percent from the Sochi Games in 2014 (21.3 million viewers). The second-least-watched NBC Winter Games was the 2006 Games in Torino at 20.2 million, while the most-watched was Salt Lake City in 2002 (31.9 million viewers).
  • The NFL 2017 ratings dropped 9.7% — that after an 8% drop in 2016.
  • The 2018 Grammy Awards ratings were down significantly from the 2017 telecast, nabbing the smallest audience in the show’s history in the key demo. The three and a half hour awards show averaged a 5.9 rating in adults 18-49 and 19.8 million viewers, according to time zone adjusted numbers. Last year’s show drew a 7.8 and 26.1 million, meaning the 2018 Grammys are down approximately 24% in both measures.
  • The Golden Globes took a similar hit. According to a report from Variety, Nielsen ratings were down for the politically heavy award show compared to last year’s. NBC reportedly drew a 5.0 rating among the coveted adults ages 18-49 category and 19 million viewers overall. This marks an 11 percent drop from 2017 and a five percent drop in overall viewers (5.6, 20 million).
  • The American Music Awards in 2016 AMAs fell 31% from 2015. In 2017, they were down again, only slightly.
  • In 2016 the Country Music Awards (CMA) ratings were the lowest since 2010. The 2017 show rebounded a bit, but still saw 2 million fewer viewers than their average for the 2013-2015 shows.

It Continues

Though I did not personally watch the Oscars, (even though I wanted to see Best Actor/Actress and Best Picture) it did not take but a few moments to be inundated with quotes of the anti-Trump, anti-Conservative barbs bandied about by host Jimmy Kimmel and some other Hollywood-ites when they had a microphone:

  • When talking about a move about gays, Kimmel said, “We don’t make films like ‘Call Me By Your Name’ for money,” he quipped. “We make them to upset Mike Pence.”
  • Kimmel lauded the actual Oscar statue, noting its age of 90 and taking a swipe at Fox News viewers in the process: “Oscar is 90 years old tonight, which means he’s probably at home tonight watching Fox News.”

Others who were presenters and winners also chimed in with their political correctness demands and shots at the President. (I will not detail any of those for sake of space/time) An irony in Kimmel’s evening was his beginning the show admonishing all who spoke to refrain from negativity and “keeping the show positive.” He then immediately started in on the President and conservatives and conservative causes.

The Blame Game

Many ironies in all this:

  • NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell explained away ratings drops on the vast options that NFL fans have for television viewing now that it did not have until recently, apparently. He of course was responding to the tireless questions from the media about the player kneeling in protest/National Anthem protests throughout the 2017 season and the second part of the 2016 season and their impact on NFL viewership. His statement about fan television options is ridiculous in that saying so infers that all those options suddenly appeared half-way through the 2016 season. If that was the case, wouldn’t it be prudent to expect that ALL television ratings for ALL entertainment shows to drop as significantly as the NFL’s? I guess Oscar, CMA, Golden Globe, Grammy, AMA, and SAG Award ratings all dropped for the same reason, right?
  • Ryan Seacrest — for many years the darling of Hollywood and the guy you see everywhere on television shows — was shunned this year by numerous stars as they walked the Oscars Red Carpet where Seacrest has been the Oscars “A” interviewer in the past. Why? Because he apparently is guilty of sexual harassment and they did not want to be seen on television giving him an interview. “Guilty” or “Accused?” Of course that does not matter in Hollywood any longer. Forget about any presumption of innocence. If someone blames someone else for something — anything at all — they are automatically considered guilty until proven innocent. That only applies, of course, to the non-politically correct stars. I could name dozens of Hollywood and New York and D.C. elites who have been accused of various sex crimes who still live their lives unscathed from their reported sexual inappropriateness that has destroyed the professional careers and personal lives of hundreds, simply because of an accusation. Want to get back at someone you don’t like? Next time you are with that guy you want to get and you’re in a crowd, raise your voice high and ask him, “Hey, when did you finally stop beating your wife,” or “You don’t have sex with children like they say, do you?” Guilty until proven innocent, and “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”

The Scary Stuff

Those who are members of the Entertainment Business — movie, professional sports, professional music, and television — because of mass media exposure and the gargantuan hunger for entertainment — have become superstars at a popularity level heretofore unseen. And as human nature dictates, all that attention and its fruits result in severe narcissism that drives many far away from realities. They find themselves so far from reality that they lose total touch with it. They no longer relate to people who are NOT in the entertainment bubble with them. And because human nature itself dictates basic selfishness that their success has driven to insane levels, they come to a new reality in which they think they are right about everything they believe or don’t believe, and those of alternate opinion are not only wrong, they are incapable of reason. They think, “I am a star and know that this is right and that is wrong. You don’t believe that? Then you are too stupid to reason the truth as I have.” That may seem a simplification of how they think. But if I’m off with that, I’m not far off.

Sadly, our Millenials and even Generation X’rs grew up with that reality, and many drank the Koolaid of the Entertainment profession. Fortunately not all have — there remains a nucleus of American young people who do not expect instant gratification, feel that only hard work begats significant results, that nobody owes them a free secondary education, a six-figure starting salary with 60 days paid vacation, free cell phones, free cars, free healthcare and the ability to answer to no one but themselves.


It is laughable to me now to watch and listen as television and radio commentators and editorialists who either ARE the fawners of the Entertainment/Political elitists or who support those adulators of the elite’s personal feelings on every public happening on Earth being accurate. The basis for their almost tyrannical support of the politically correct at the expense of all others reminds me of a few correlatives that I am shocked they obviously do not consider:

  1. “The Emperor has no clothes.” We all remember the nursery story about the Emperor who was so full of himself and his attire that he had his tailor create for him a personal wardrobe that was the finest in the Land. The tailor became tired of the bloviation of the monarch about his attire, so he decided to trick the politico into believing the new suit the tailor crafted for him was of such fine material and design that no one else could see it. The Emperor egotistically “put-on” the actual non-existent suit so fine no one could see, and rode in a parade. His subjects were all shocked at the site of the nude Monarch. Knowing his reputation, none would say anything aloud until one young boy cried as the Emperor rode by, “The Emperor has on no clothes!” The obvious was real, even if a majority refused to accept it. The truth is “truth.”
  2.   “What if they are wrong?” That’s easy to answer. If they are wrong and Americans are not self-aware sufficient so as to recognize that and then choose the opposite, America has an unnecessary dramatically difficult road ahead. The results could very well be catastrophic.

I have no idea and will not even venture a guess as to where all of this is going. It is obvious that these folks — and many others in other careers — are oblivious to the realities in which a huge majority of Americans live. Sadly, these stories above are examples of the inability or unwillingness of millions to reason, to ask questions, to self-research, investigate and demand facts rather than be truth-seekers and accept nothing less than the truth. Just because we believe something doesn’t make it true. Just because we disbelieve something doesn’t make it false. And there are prices to pay for both.

Isn’t it smarter to find the truth before deciding what to believe? And when it is impossible to know the truth when facing choices, wouldn’t it be smarter to not choose, but wait for the truth?

I’ll leave it here: what if after America has allowed 50 million or so abortions we find out someday that life truly begins at inception, or at 15 or 20 weeks? What would waiting for the truth have hurt?

No, that’s not an “Entertainment World” issue. But it too is a life issue being faced everyday by Americans. And the politically correct “truth” of that issue is the law of the Land. That’s how far this Entertainment debacle can go if we let it.


“If” Hillary was President

Just imagine for a few minutes what our world would look like if November 2016’s presidential election resulted in President Hillary Clinton rather than President Donald Trump. No matter your political persuasion, I think all will agree that the last year plus would have been different. How different? We can only speculate. But certainly things would have changed under Hillary, and certainly would have been vastly different than under this President.

Let’s “speculate” together. For the purpose of this story, let’s speculate those differences in these categories: Political, Economical, Foreign Policy, and Social. Let’s go!


There would be obvious differences that are certain: political appointees including cabinet heads and White House staffers. Let’s not waste time on speculation of who those might be. Let’s concentrate on other politically certain important differences.

  1. Supreme Court Appointee(s) Without a doubt the single most impactful political event of Trump’s first year was the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Gorsuch had a very conservative judicial record and extensive experience on the Bench. His taking the SCOTUS 9th spot was and will be critical as more and more contentious cases come before the Court that will assuredly result with verdicts often split down political lines. A Clinton Presidency would have certainly seen a liberal selection for the Supreme Court which would have certainly resulted in decisions that leaned liberal. Though not certain, there could likely be 1 if not 2 more SCOTUS changes in the next few years. If so, controversies that would include abortion, 2nd Amendment gun rights, and immigration law revisions would see certain Court challenges go the way of the Left under a Clinton administration.
  2. Appeals Court Appointees President Trump in his first year has appointed more judges to appeals courts than any other president. Why is that such a big deal? Obama appointed 362 judges: 2 Supreme Court Justices, 268 district court judges, 4 to the International Court of Trade, and and 55 to U.S. Courts of Appeal in his 8 years. Trump by November of his first year in office had appointed besides Gorsuch, 40 judges for District spots, but more importantly, 18 for Courts of Appeal. Adding 18 Conservative judges for Courts of Appeal is already making a staggering difference in cases. Why? Appeals judges make a huge majority of final determinations on cases — only 20%-30% of denials from appeals courts are ever heard at the Supreme Court. Obama stacked those courts with liberal judges. Replacing those 18 in Trump’s first 10 months will make a staggering difference on the outcome of controversial cases.
  3. “Russia, Russia, Russia!” The DOJ has announced a “look” into Clinton ties to Russia and their alleged ties to Russia for opposition research during the 2016 election. That is a 180 degree swing of the Russia narrative. With Hillary in charge, you can bet there would be NO look-back at the Clinton campaign for any wrongdoing. The current uproarl in the FBI and DOJ regarding leaks, fake news, false information, and potential obstruction of justice would have never happened under Hillary. All this and much more currently being investigated and some still to come would have simply disappeared or been quietly quashed when mentioned. Under Trump we are probably still a ways away from getting facts on all this. Under Hillary, such facts would have NEVER been known by the public.
  4. Clinton Foundation It is obvious from the dramatic and sudden “winding-down” of the Clinton Foundation after the election that there certainly was pay-for-play underway in their massive fund raising. When election results showed there would be no quid pro quo from a Clinton Administration for those contributions, contributions ceased. No doubt the Foundation would have continued to stay flush with money with Hillary in office. With a imminent DOJ investigation in addition to a Congressional look-see, no big companies or foreign governments are throwing good money after bad.


  1. Taxes Under Clinton, the massive corporate and individual tax cuts signed by President Trump into law would have never appeared. Probably (if not “Certainly”) there would have been federal tax increases instead.
  2. Regulations Hundreds of Obama regulations on businesses stifled the economy. Trump through Executive Order cancelled many of those and implemented a policy for the future stating that for every 1 new regulation, 2 old ones must be cancelled. Clinton would have kept the Obama regs in place and would probably have added more — especially in the case of Environment and Climate Change matters. The massive almost instant business expansions, increases in employment with historical declines in unemployment resulted in large part because of this. The Steel Industry received an immediate rebirth as did the Coal Industry. And there are more to come in the Trump era.
  3. U.S. Foreign Deposits Repatriation As a direct result of the new tax law, hundreds of billions of dollars stashed offshore by U.S. corporations is coming home, and bringing back manufacturing jobs and plants. Apple, which has 94 percent of its total cash of $269 billion outside the United States, said it would make a one-time tax payment of $38 billion on the repatriated cash. Apple also announced a $600 billion infrastructure and product development plan in the U.S. Dozens of other companies have already followed suit. Clinton would have maintained the Obama policy of doing nothing but blaming those companies who have made one thing clear: they pay massive taxes on profits to countries in which they operate. Why would they then pay the U.S. 35% taxes on top of that? So they have left money offshore. No more.
  4. Stock Market The status of the U.S. Stock Market is always a direct result of interest rates, corporate profits, and confidence in the U.S. economy. Because of numbers 1, 2, and 3 above, in a Clinton Administration we would have have not seen anything close to the $7 Trillion increase in the value of the stock market in a Hillary presidency. But it happened in Trump’s first year — which is the result of all of those 3 rolled together fueling massive confidence in the economy. Hillary Clinton followers scream that the Market increases result in good for only the wealthy and large companies in stock dividends and corporate profits. Not so. Tens of millions of Americans own stocks, bonds, and derivatives either through individual portfolios, retirement funds like 401K’s and Simple IRA’s. Market profits go straight to those accounts. And, of course, individuals buy and sell stocks and bonds just like the investment bankers, though in smaller scale. But profits as a per cent of investment are identical.

Foreign Policy

The World watched as during the Obama/Clinton Administration, America’s standing in the World took a sharp hit as the Obama Globalist agenda was rolled out over 8 years. Obama’s foreign policy was basically to tread water while doling out policies designed and implemented to be symbolic at best. The World looked on as his Middle Eastern fight against terrorism proved to be faulty at best and deadly at worst. ISIS burst onto the World scene for a longtime left unchecked. Many world leaders were cautious as they watched Obama cozy up to Russia, exposed by letting Putin know through his foreign minister on an open mike that Obama’s second term would bring “goodies” to Russia. Hillary’s role as Secretary of State resulted in tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments to show up in Clinton Foundation accounts, while Bill’s speaking fees tripled. On her watch terrorism exploded — and not just at Benghazi. Libya fell to ISIS because of her two-faced approach to diplomacy there and the Obama/Clinton led ousting of Quadafi. Although he was a longtime terrorist, he had gone quiet for several decades, primarily because of the bombing by Reagan of his personal conclave after the Libyan bombings throughout Europe. There was no real terrorist difficulties under his watch — until Obama/Clinton which resulted in his ouster and death.

Trump’s methods have been watched with caution by many world leaders while others have embraced his policies. He quickly made it clear through overseas visits, speeches, and White House meetings that the United States was no longer going to be the “Keepers of the World.” Under his guidance it would be “America First.” The obvious leaders were shocked and lashed out — at first. But when they saw his results in many areas at home and watched as he softened the disdain of the U.S., more and more have come calling. U.S. standing in the World has been horrible for more than a decade. Leaders in Asia and the Middle East have quickly warmed to the President and have renewed commitments on many fronts.

His recent announcement about U.S. intentions to demand fairness in the International Marketplace through U.S. tariffs on foreign goods to level the playing field have shocked many in D.C. and also overseas. Some leaders have responded in negative fashion — as was expected. But ALL realize that the U.S. has carried a tremendous load in paying massive tariffs for foreign imported goods while those countries plunder American markets without paying any tariffs for that access. Reality in world trade has simply been acknowledged now. Foreign leaders have been put on notice that the gravy train for them called the U.S. is over. Under Trump, what is good for foreign countries economically MUST be good for the U.S. If not, there will be a price to pay: literally.


  1. Criminal Justice As a lawyer, Hillary has always been soft on crime. Obama’s Justice Department relaxed jail sentences, implementing early releases for federal prisoners, and refused to even prosecute under federal laws for drug offenses. States began to legalize recreational marijuana sales and use in violation of federal law — with NO penalties to the states or those individuals who participate. Donald Trump has through the DOJ toughened stances against all types of crimes and has aggressively implemented programs to partner with state and local law enforcement agencies to assist in fighting crime. Hillary during the campaign gave no plans nor made any promises to change any of the Obama criminal justice policies.
  2. Immigration Hillary was an open-borders proponent who lauded immigration of all kinds, including illegal immigration. She offered no plans to change border control policies or any changes in immigration laws, although years earlier she took a position of stiffening control of all illegal immigration. She is a Globalist and would prefer to see virtual open-borders to all. Trump’s immigration plans are widely known and daily reported on. He supports (and is initiating plans for) strict border control, abolishing chain migration and the existing immigration lottery program. He offered a DACA plan that would give legal status to 1.8 million illegals qualified under DACA that Democrats (including Hillary AND Bill) summarily rejected. He has issued multiple executive orders to temporarily halt immigration of all kinds from known terrorist countries while the U.S. perfects a realistic and thorough vetting process for ALL immigrants, only to have all temporarily halted by federal judges. And he is pushing members of Congress demonstrably to pass a comprehensive immigration bill to resolve the decades-old immigration issue in the U.S.
  3. Right to Life Hillary supports abortion and would appoint federal judges at every level in numbers that would ensure that Roe v. Wade would never be overturned. She supports Planned Parenthood and its continued federal funding. Trump is hardcore Right to Life, an anti-abortionist, and anti-Planned Parenthood because of the volume of abortions at its nationwide clinics. He has already appointed one Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice and will appoint others if/when any spots open.
  4. Political Correctness We are watching a president who literally gives no thought or concern about Political Correctness. Trump is a pragmatist on pretty much every political and social issue and is very vocal about all. He laughs at the PC police and the national Media and the political correct stands they take on pretty much everything. And his thoughts are supported by most Americans. Hillary along with her husband wrote the Political Correctness book. For decades in their control of the Democrat Party, they have set the standards on every issue as to what is correct and what is not.


I’ll be quick here. The differences between Hillary and Donald are many and obvious. As President Trump works diligently to implement more and more of his agenda this year, he along with many other Americans watch as those on the Left take every opportunity to bash those agenda items just as they did throughout 2017. Clinton meanwhile continues to bask in her reality for her election loss to Donald Trump in 2016. Her reality is false. Yet she continues to beat that blame game drum.

Those from her “basket of deplorables” are pushing hard — fighting, if you will — to maintain the implementation of the Trump Agenda so as to see more good results of his promised concepts actualize. Their hope is to in the mid-terms give President Trump more Congressional support for that agenda while simultaneously pushing back against any Leftist agenda.

Even if one is a Hillary supporter, it would be lunacy to refuse to recognize the stark policy differences between these two, and that the Trump agenda — the small amount that has been passed and implemented by this Congress — has done (and is doing) great things in the nation. Most Americans are confident that the election result of a Trump Administration is a good thing, and that a Clinton Administration would have definitively set the nation on a dramatic course toward a European Socialist model.

And that scares them.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :