Virtually NO Real Communication

Have you found yourself watching and listening to the protestors, liberal talk show hosts and guests, politicians from the left, and even some from the right, and felt a bit uncomfortable at the anti-Independent, anti-Federalist, anti-American message that seems to be the common thread in pretty much all of what you see and hear from them?

A Generation of “Non-Thinkers”

What at the birth of pocket electronics our parents were warning us about is coming true: laptops, smartphones, video games, and public school teachers are in large part “dumbing-down” an entire generation of Americans. First it was video games: we’ve come a long way since Pong! Then the internet, laptops, Wifi, satellite communication, culminating (at least so far) with social media.

I have laughed at the television commercial now airing that shows a group of young adults sitting in a den around a coffee table on two facing sofas with two end chairs, all with their smart phones in their hands and none talking to each other. That scene would have never happened 30 years ago. Why? Besides the fact there were NO smart phones 30 years ago, social culture still dictated REAL communication as the norm among people. And without electronic communication available, Americans relied on broadcast radio and television, hard print newspapers, and don’t forget conversations! 30 years ago is NOT today. And today regarding communication is NOT 30 years ago. “We’ve come a long way, Baby!” (Who remembers that line from a television commercial?) Communication now depends on electronics and has pretty much eliminated face-to-face talks, real discussions, and certainly the verbal in-person conversations.

Social Media

I’m a Baby Boomer, so “the” social media that I am most accustomed to is Facebook. I know it wasn’t the first, but it is the first to be so easy for people worldwide to access for mostly anonymous communications with people everywhere. There are those who maintain Facebook and other social media sites have opened the world to our children to learn about other people, other countries, and other cultures. While that is definitely true, that good comes at a great price.

It almost seems to me that the hours we spend on social media — writing, browsing, reading — has repossessed our ability to truly communicate with each other. After all, isn’t it easier, quicker, and briefer than picking up the phone (or simply closing Facebook and dialing) and calling someone instead of a Facebook message or post? Those who disagree might rebut that by saying using social media gives one a chance to get ALL their thoughts on any given subject out without interruptions that require answers which result in watered down overall results. I say, “No way.”

The art of communication is lost. It has gotten so bad that even the old telephone calls have gone by the wayside. How so? Texting. Here’s an example:

Our 2 daughters live in the same town as us. We have 6 grandchildren between them that are involved in EVERYTHING: football, basketball, soccer, plays, etc. There is literally something happening 7 days a week that we “need” to attend. Being a fairly organized man, my method of coordinating attendance at these events is to make 2 phone calls: 1 to Kimbi (the oldest) and 1 to Kori (the youngest.) My wife, on the other hand, begins texting. An hour later she still is not sure who’s playing where, what play and who stars in it, and if, when, and who needs to be picked up at school. Wouldn’t a 2 minute phone call be easier? It is for me.

So why the anonymity of texting, emailing, or social media posts rather than speaking directly to whomever to get an accurate answer? My use of the word “anonymity” in the previous sentence is not accidental. In our helter skelter society, almost all of us would rather be as anonymous as possible in our communications. I’m no shrink, but my analysis of the “Why?” in that is this: direct communication requires at least 2 to participate. And direct communication participation requires question, response, commitment, and then the big bad one: ACCOUNTABILITY. That’s the one that drives this boat.

Coach Mickey Slaughter — former Denver Broncos quarterback, longtime Offensive Coordinator/Genius at Louisiana Tech — when commenting on anonymous posters on a college bulletin board tried to calm me down one day when I expressed my anger and disgust at some of the things those posters were saying that were untrue and very snarky. Coach Slaughter said, “Dan, don’t worry about those guys. They can say that stuff because they’re just drive-by shooters.” He hit the nail on the head: being anonymous has its virtues. Nobody knows who you are. Nobody can hold you accountable for what you say.

Social media posting is usually a little different: it’s not usually anonymous. But isn’t it easier to say something — especially when what is going to be said is not nice — without having to look the person being told in the face? No accountability.


No other media has given people from almost every country the ability to express themselves like Facebook. I’m sure you will agree that people certainly take advantage of that. Some of the most ignorant, outrageous, and ridiculous things I have read in my life appear on Facebook. I often just shake my head and scroll on.

The 2016 election brought the “anonymous-es” out of the woodwork. There was so much venom spewed at/about/to every presidential candidate I am surprised someone didn’t die of snake bite! But you must agree that Donald Trump received more than his fair share of Facebook posts and messages. And, yes, he was in a constant Twitter-storm, often of his own doing.

But that social media cycle brought the communication lunacy we live in to the forefront for all to see. It is true that many Americans especially are perfectly willing to express themselves on every social media platform as they should be able to do: the 1st Amendment. But using social media as their platform means they can (and do) say anything with no accountability. And sadly it seems that a far greater number of Americans than I expected joined those conversations while agreeing almost totally with everything they heard or read being posted. The truth of the abysmal state of communication in America was pushed to front-and-center in 2016.

Sadly though it’s still out there going strong. Internet sites like and PolitiFact make pretty good income by simply researching and supposedly correcting false information posted in news stories and in social media. Unfortunately those 2 sites and others in the same business are often as incorrect as the stories they endeavor to debunk.

The horror to me in all of this is how much untruth there is in the public domain and how much is accepted as fact by far too many. Because we now live in an “instant electronic information” world, it seems that everyone is far too willing to just take what they see or hear as fact. We don’t communicate which means we don’t question and we don’t hunger for the truth like we did formerly. And that’s scary.

I just gave-up trying to have reasonable political conversations with some of my best friends during the 2016 campaign. Rather than wage a war of words, I actually blocked several dozen and actually unfriended a dozen more.

Facebook literally fuels the communication method of “talking at” rather than “talking to” those with whom we wish to communicate. And because of this instant electronic atmosphere in which we live, when we speak to others in soundbytes rather than full sentences, there is far too much space between the words for others emotions to interpret exactly what those words meant instead of conversing to find out for certain.

So the slide into horror begins: we think they said something that hurt our feelings. What do we do? We don’t respond or communicate. We simply make a decision about them based on what we thought they meant. THEN we say something back to them based on that emotion we feel rather than on the fact upon which what they said was based. THEY then receive what we respond with, and because we did not “speak” to them, only “posted” our response, they get mad because of what they “think” we meant. See how ridiculous and how dangerous it gets and how emotionally it escalates like a fire?


So what do we do? Should we delete Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, and the other social media platforms? I am not certain that would be the right thing to do. But we SHOULD think through how individually we are impacted by social media — especially how it impacts how we communicate with others.

As for me, I am so worn out by being attacked on all sides for simply being a Conservative, I’ve made some decisions:

  • I’m going to accept my role as a Deplorable. After all, I’m a Southern “former” Republican;
  • I’m going to quit my job, apply for unemployment, move to California where I can easily draw welfare, MediCal, and subsidized housing;
  • Even though I’ve never tried marijuana, I think medically I probably could “prove” I need some. So I’ll give it a whirl;
  • I’m pretty certain I have some Native American blood in my veins. That’s gotta be worth a little extra for me;
  • I already changed my voter party affiliation to “Independent.” I’ll just go ahead and change it to “Democrat” so I’ll fit in.

I’ve been married for 43 years to the same woman. That of course is not politically correct. So I’m thinking about divorce. But that brings up a dilemma for me: (Remember I’m a Southerner, and we go to family reunions to get dates!)

If I divorce her, will she still be my sister?


Civil War

Often we have our own opinions about things that directly impact our lives — often wrong opinions in which are contained “facts” that are not really facts. Ever wonder about how close this nation is to our seeing people lining opposite sides of city streets in preparations for actual attacks on those with opposite opinions standing across the street? Many think the U.S. is very, very close to seeing something similar to that happening.

Daniel Greenfield just painted that picture for us in vivid detail in a speech in Myrtle Beach. It was shared with me and I’m sharing it with you. For reading this, consciously adopt a politically neutral and non-confrontational perspective. It might just change your life.


This is A Civil War

“There aren’t any soldiers marching on Charleston… or Myrtle Beach. Nobody’s getting shot in the streets. Except in Chicago… and Baltimore, Detroit and Washington D.C.  But that’s not a civil war. It’s just what happens when Democrats run a city into the ground. And then they dig a hole in the ground so they can bury it even deeper. If you look deep enough into that great big Democrat hole, you might even see where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

But it’s not guns that make a civil war. It’s politics.  Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.

How do civil wars happen? Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

I know you’re all thinking about President Trump. He won and the Establishment, the Media, and the Democrats, rejected the results. They came up with a whole bunch of conspiracy theories to explain why he didn’t really win. It was the Russians…..and the FBI….and sexism, Obama, Bernie Sanders and white people. It’s easier to make a list of the things that Hillary Clinton doesn’t blame for losing the election. It’s going to be a short list. A really short list: Herself.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this.

The first time a Republican President was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here. Trump didn’t really win the election. Bush didn’t really win the election. Every time a Republican won a presidential election this century, the Democrats insist he didn’t really win.

Now say a third Republican president wins an election in say, 2024. What are the odds that they’ll say that he didn’t really win? Right now, it looks like 100 percent. What do sure odds of the Dems rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That’s a civil war. There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election, when you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship — your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country — according to the Left — is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The attacks on Trump show that elections don’t matter to the Left. Republicans can win an election, but they have a major flaw. They’re not Leftists. That’s what the Leftist dictatorship looks like. The Left lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without the judge’s say-so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the Constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Left’s system is that any part of government that IT runs gets total and unlimited power over the country. If it’s in the White House, then the President can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.

But when Republicans win the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has “discretion” to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the “discretion” to reverse him.

That’s how the game is played. That’s how our country is run.

  • When Democrats control the Senate, then Harry Reid and his boys and girls are the sane, wise heads that keep the crazy guys in the House in check. But when Republicans control the Senate, then it’s an outmoded body inspired by racism.
  • When Democrats run the Supreme Court, then it has the power to decide everything in the country. But when Republicans control the Supreme Court, it’s a dangerous body that no one should pay attention to.
  • When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws.
  • Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the Left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a “moving dictatorship.” There isn’t one guy in a room somewhere issuing the orders. Instead there’s a network of them. And the network moves around.

If the guys and girls in the network win elections, they can do it from the White House. If they lose the White House, they’ll do it from Congress. If they don’t have either one, they’ll use the Supreme Court. If they don’t have either the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court, they’re screwed. Right? Nope. They just go on issuing them through circuit courts and the bureaucracy. State governments announce that they’re independent republics. Corporations begin threatening and suing the government. There’s no consistent legal standard. Only a political one.

  • Under Obama, states weren’t allowed to enforce immigration laws. That was the job of the Federal government. And the states weren’t allowed to interfere with the job that the Feds weren’t doing. Okay.
  • Now Trump comes into office and starts enforcing immigration laws again. And California announces it’s a sanctuary state and passes a law punishing businesses that cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. So what do we have here?
  • It’s illegal for states to enforce immigration law because that’s the province of the Federal government. But it’s legal for states to ban the Federal government from enforcing immigration law. The only consistent pattern here is that the Left decided to make it illegal to enforce immigration law. It may do that sometimes under the guise of Federal power or states rights. But those are just fronts. The only consistent thing is that Leftist policies are mandatory and opposing them is illegal. Everything else is just a song and dance routine.

That’s how it works. It’s the “moving dictatorship.” It’s the tyranny of the network. You can’t pin it down. There’s no one office or one guy. It’s a network of them. It’s an ideological dictatorship. Some people call it the Deep State. But that doesn’t even begin to capture what it is. To understand it, you have to think about things like the Cold War and Communist infiltration.

A better term than Deep State is Shadow Government. Parts of the Shadow Government aren’t even in the government. They are wherever the Left holds power. It can be in the non-profit sector and among major corporations. Power gets moved around like a New York City shell game. Where’s the quarter? Nope, it’s not there anymore. The Shadow Government is an ideological network. These days it calls itself by a hashtag #Resistance. Under any name, it runs the country. Most of the time we don’t realize that. When things are normal, when there’s a Democrat in the White House or a bunch of Democrats in Congress, it’s business as usual.

Even with most Republican presidents, you didn’t notice anything too out of the ordinary. Sure, the Democrats got their way most of the time. But that’s how the game is usually played. It’s only when someone came on the scene who didn’t play the game by the same rules, that the network exposed itself. The shadow government emerged out of hiding and came for Trump.

And that’s the civil war.

This is a war over who runs the country. Do the people who vote run the country or does this network that can lose an election, but still get its agenda through, run the country? We’ve been having this fight for a while. But this century things have escalated. They escalated a whole lot after Trump’s win because the network isn’t pretending anymore. It sees the opportunity to de-legitimize the whole idea of elections. Now the network isn’t running the country from cover. It’s actually out here trying to overturn the results of an election and remove the President from office.

It’s rejected the victories of two Republican presidents this century. And if we don’t stand up and confront it, and expose it for what it is, it’s going to go on doing it in every election. And eventually federal judges are going to gain enough power that they really will overturn elections. It happens in other countries. If you think it can’t happen here, you haven’t been paying attention to the Left.

Right now, Federal judges are declaring that President Trump isn’t allowed to govern because his Tweets show he’s a racist. How long until they say that a president isn’t even allowed to take office because they don’t like his views? That’s where we’re headed.

Civil wars swing around a very basic question. The most basic question of them all. Who runs the country? Is it me? Is it you? Is it Grandma? Or is it bunch of people who made running the government into their career?

America was founded on getting away from professional government. The British monarchy was a professional government. Like all professional governments, it was hereditary. Professional classes eventually decide to pass down their privileges to their kids.

America was different. We had a volunteer government. That’s what the Founding Fathers built. This is a civil war between volunteer governments elected by the people and professional governments elected by… well… uh… themselves.

‘Of the Establishment, by the Establishment and for the Establishment’

The Establishment: You know, the people who always say they know better, no matter how many times they screw up, because they’re the professionals. They’ve been in Washington D.C. politics since they were in diapers.

Freedom can only exist under a volunteer government. Because everyone is in charge. Power belongs to the people. A professional government is going to have to stamp out freedom sooner or later. Freedom under a professional government can only be a fiction. Whenever the people disagree with the professionals, they’re going to have to get put down. That’s just how it is. No matter how it’s disguised, a professional government is tyranny. Ours is really well disguised, but if it walks like a duck and locks you up like a duck, it’s a tyranny.

Now, what’s the Left? Forget all the deep answers. The “eft is a professional government. It’s whole idea is that everything needs to be controlled by a big central government to make society just. That means everything from your soda sizes to whether you can mow your lawn needs to be decided in Washington D.C. Volunteer governments are unjust. Professional governments are fair. That’s the credo of the Left.

Its network — the one we were just discussing — it takes over professional governments because it shares their basic ideas. Professional governments, no matter who runs them, are convinced that everything should run through the professionals. And the professionals are usually Lefties. If they aren’t, they will be. Just ask Mueller and establishment guys like him.

What infuriates professional government more than anything else? An amateur, someone like President Trump who didn’t spend his entire adult life practicing to be president, taking over the job. President Trump is what volunteer government is all about.When you’re a government professional, you’re invested in keeping the system going. But when you’re a volunteer, you can do all the things that the experts tell you can’t be done. You can look at the mess we’re in with fresh eyes and do the common sense things that President Trump is doing. And common sense is the enemy of government professionals. It’s why Trump is such a threat.

A Republican government professional would be bad enough. But a Republican government volunteer does that thing you’re not supposed to do in government… think differently. Professional government is a guild — like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals, or if you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him.

Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That’s not a free country.

  • It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an “insurance policy” against Trump winning the election.
  • It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition.
  • It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media.
  • It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win, won.

We’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and leftist professional government. The pros have made it clear that they’re not going to accept election results anymore. They’re just going to make us do whatever they want. They’re in charge and we better do what they say. That’s the war we’re in. And it’s important that we understand that. Because this isn’t a shooting war………yet. And I don’t want to see it become one.

And before the shooting starts, civil wars are fought with arguments. To win, you have to understand what the big picture argument is. It’s easy to get bogged down in arguments that don’t matter or won’t really change anything.

This is the argument that changes everything: Do we have a government of the people and by the people? Or do we have a tyranny of the professionals? The Democrats try to dress up this argument in Leftist social justice babble. Those fights are worth having. But sometimes we need to pull back the curtain on what this is really about. They’ve tried to rig the system. They’ve done it by gerrymandering, by changing the demographics of entire states through immigration, by abusing the judiciary and by a thousand different tricks.

But civil wars come down to an easy question. Who runs the country? They’ve given us their answer and we need to give them our answer. Both sides talk about taking back the country. But who are they taking it back for?

The Left uses identity politics. It puts supposed representatives of entire identity groups up front. We’re taking the country back for women and for black people, and so on and so forth…But nobody elected their representatives.

Identity groups don’t vote for leaders. All the black people in the country never voted to make Shaun King al Al Sharpton their representative. And women sure as hell didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.

What we have in America is a representative government. A representative government makes freedom possible because it actually represents people, instead of representing ideas. The Left’s identity politics only represents ideas. Nobody gets to vote on them. Instead, the Left puts out representatives from different identity politics groups: there’s a gay guy, there’s three women, there’s a black man, as fronts for their professional government system.

When they’re taking back the country, it’s always for professional government. It’s never for the people. When conservatives fight to take back the country, it’s for the people. It’s for volunteer government the way that the Founding Fathers wanted it to be.

This is a civil war over whether the American people are going to govern themselves. Or are they going to be governed. Are we going to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people… or are we going to have a the kind of government that most countries have where a few special people decide what’s best for everyone. We tried that kind of government under the British monarchy. And we had a revolution because we didn’t like it.

But that revolution was met with a counterrevolution by the Left. The Left wants a monarchy. It wants King Obama or Queen Oprah. It wants to end government of the people, by the people and for the people. That’s what they’re fighting for. That’s what we’re fighting against. The stakes are as big as they’re ever going to get. Do elections matter anymore?

I live in the state of Ronald Reagan. I can go visit the Ronald Reagan Library any time I want to. But today California has one party elections. There are lots of elections and propositions. There’s all the theater of democracy, but none of the substance. Its political system is as free and open as the Soviet Union. And that can be America.

The Trump years are going to decide if America survives. When his time in office is done, we’re either going to be California or a free nation once again.

The civil war is out in the open now and we need to fight the good fight. And we must fight to win.

(This speech given by Daniel Greenfield delivered to the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention in Myrtle Beach.)

Criminal Justice Goes All Wrong

“Soft on Crime.” That was heard loudly from many in law enforcement describing the Obama Justice Department, especially as it pertains to severe and lengthy sentences. It did not seem to matter the seriousness of crimes nor the horrendous results of the actions of those who committed crimes. The bottom line was, “American jails are too full of primarily minorities. We must reverse that trend.”

“Reverse that trend” took hold, especially in Obama’s second term. Liberal judges and criminal justice bureaucrats began to find ways to arbitrarily determine which criminals “deserved” to be released from their sentences that often had been determined by juries. That policy has carried over into the first year of the Trump presidency.

Trump campaigned on tough criminal justice in the U.S. And his first-year policies support that, although no laws have been passed to reverse the trend to go soft on criminals that began under Obama. That will take time. The Trump DOJ has rolled out very tough stances on gangs and gang violence, pedophilia and drug trafficking, and serious drug offenses like drug trafficking.

The absurdity of the “new” criminal justice policy of early release of serious felons was illustrated no better than in the following story:


Shawangunk, NY – A violent member of the Black Revolutionary Army (BRA), who brutally murdered three police officers in two separate incidents, has been granted parole. The BRA, a radical, violent offshoot of the Black Panthers, attacked and murdered police officers indiscriminately in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page.

They were responsible for the murders of at least 10 officers, and launched nationwide attacks that injured many more. Herman Bell, 70, was one of three murderers who used a bogus 911 call to lure New York Police Department (NYPD) Officers Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini into an ambush in 1971, the New York Post reported. Officer Jones was shot in the head, and died instantly, according to the New York Daily News. Bell and his fellow BRA cohorts, Anthony Bottom and Albert Washington, ruthlessly tortured Officer Piagentini as he told his assailants that he had a wife and two children, and begged for his life. The trio shot Officer Piagentini 22 times. Bell used the officer’s duty weapon to fire the fatal round, FOX News reported.

             Herman Bell when arrested

According to the San Francisco Gate, the men then traveled to California, where Bell, Herman, and five other BRA members carried out an attack on the Ingleside District Police (IDP) station. The men entered the station, shoved a shotgun barrel through an opening that separated the waiting area from the rest of the office, and fired between five and 10 rounds, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page. IDP Sergeant John Young was murdered in the attack, and a civilian employee was injured. Bell and Herman fled the scene.

Bottom later told investigators that he had planned the attack, but that he was not able to participate, because he had been arrested the day prior as he attempted to murder San Francisco Police Sergeant George Kowalski, the San Francisco Gate reported. Sgt. Kowalski’s life was spared only because Bottom’s weapon jammed. Bell was apprehended in 1973 in relation to the officers’ murders.

In 1975, charges leveraged against him in Sgt. Young’s murder were dropped, after evidence indicated that Bell’s confession may have been the result of torture, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page. Bell was convicted for the murders of Officer Jones and Officer Piagentini in 1979, and was sentenced to life in prison. In 2009, after new forensic evidence surfaced in Sgt. Young’s murder, Bell was convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter.

For decades, Bell insisted that he was a political prisoner, and that he had been framed for the officers’ murders, the New York Post reported. His requests for parole had been denied by the board on seven occasions since 2004, on the grounds that his release would “deprecate the severity of this crime,” according to the New York Post.

Bell’s eighth attempt was successful, however.

Officer Piagentini’s widow, Diane, learned of the board’s decision after the fact.

“We are angered and sickened that this horrible person, who was devoid of any human compassion or empathy when he continued to shoot my already wounded husband, Joseph, while he pleaded for his life for the sake of his family, will now be free to walk out of prison,” she told the New York Daily News.

New York Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan demanded that Governor Andrew Cuomo remove the members of the parole board who authorized Bell’s release. “Herman Bell is a callous and depraved cop-killer who took the lives of two police officers just because they wore the uniform,” Flanagan told the New York Post. “He has forfeited his ability to live outside of the four walls of a prison cell.

Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association president Pat Lynch expressed similar outrage in a statement to the New York Post. “There are no words to express our anger and disgust that they have granted release to a cold-blooded cop killer who successfully gamed the system in two states to win his freedom,” Lynch declared. “Herman Bell, who committed the most barbarous and heinous crimes in killing three police officers and who showed absolutely no compassion to Joe Piagentini, who pleaded for his life saying he had two small daughters, should have never been granted parole,” he continued. “We are disgusted, offended and extremely angry with this parole board’s decision,” Lynch added.

Former Parole Board Chairman Bob Dennison, who led the panel from 2004 until 2007, said that the board made a “bad decision.” “I’m shocked,” said Dennison, who currently advocates for inmates. “A cop killer like this should never be released. This was a cold-blooded killing of a uniformed officer.”

Bell’s lawyer, Robert Boyle, argued that the cop-killer had earned his freedom. “He has satisfied all the criteria for parole, he has expressed remorse, he has an unblemished prison record and he’s been extremely involved in helping others inside,” Boyle told the New York Daily News. “It is only correct that the Parole Board apply the law in this controversial case and granted him parole and we are gratified they did so.”

Bell said he would not make a statement about his parole “out of respect for the victims and their families,” Boyle added.

The cop killer is expected to walk out of prison in April.


In my state of Louisiana, Governor Jon Bell Edwards (D) released 1400 prisoners November 1, 2017 under what is termed “The Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Act.” Those 1400 supposedly were non-violent offenders and non-sex offenders. That sounds rather benign until one understands the history of arrest charges and the process for applying those when it comes to trials, plea bargaining, and actual sentences.

It is customary in felony arrests for there to be multiple charges. As an example: when someone robs a convenience store with a gun, that person is charged with armed robbery, illegal possession of a firearm, holding someone against their will, theft, and if there is any violence, assault or assault and battery. In such cases when it is time for resolution and sentencing, plea deals result in dismissal of most of the charges. The perpetrator then pleads guilty to say illegal possession of a firearm and theft. That does not mean they were not guilty of all of the charges but will serve a sentence based solely on the charges pled to.

How many of those 1400 Governor Edwards sent packing were arrested for possession of Schedule 1 narcotics, intent to distribute, possession of a firearm illegally, use of a firearm during the committing of a felony, etc., who then plead to possession of Schedule 2 or 3 narcotics with the other charges dropped? There’s quite a difference between a guy smoking a joint at a party and another guy possessing a pound of uncut heroine that he intends to sell to a fleet of drug pushers who will then cut the narcotic and sell to hundreds of junkies. Under the Governor’s plan, that guy was released!

Yes, it is true that the U.S. Criminal Justice system needs reform. But it does NOT need reform at the expense of those that felons kill, injure, or harm in any way. Fines and sentences need to be overhauled so as to be fair to all concerned.

The purpose for criminal prosecutions is two-fold: first, to punish an offender so as to encourage by that punishment the offender to turn from the circumstances that allowed the wrong in the first place; secondly to discourage all others from committing the same or similar acts against others to prevent similar punishment.

Let’s rework the system so the punishment fits the crime. But let’s punish ALL crimes per the law and not rely on arbitrary enforcement. That’s fair to everyone.


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.


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

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.



Every day, all day, gun control is front and center on every news channel — both broadcast AND cable — spinning the political correctness features of it from every side. Quite honestly, we see and hear the same things immediately following EVERY mass shooting incident, especially when at a school.

Here are the solutions (in no certain order) that are being touted by pretty much everyone, from the President to school teachers:

  • Outlaw private gun ownership
  • Confiscate all guns from private citizens
  • Outlaw semi-automatic weapons — long guns and pistols
  • Raise the age for legal gun ownership to 21 for long gun purchases. It already is 21 for semi-automatic purchases
  • Add stiffer requirements for those who purchase guns
  • Include in that process intense screening of those who file applications who have a history of mental illness or being under physician care for mental issues
  • Arm some teachers who volunteer and go through professional gun training
  • Provide on-site professional armed guards at every school
  • Mandate (with state and federal funding) mandatory security provisions at every school, elaborate fencing, one way in, mandatory credentials for all who enter, constant monitored security cameras

Each of these definitely has some possibility. But each comes with issues that could preclude their inclusion in any security process to protect schools. Several are currently un-Constitutional and would require amending the U.S. Constitution. But, to be honest, I feel strongly that NONE of these (that are legal) would have stopped a single mass school shooting since the first years ago in Colorado.

In reality, each of these is an example of “political social engineering” that is becoming more and more common, and less and less effective. There ARE things that could significantly impact (and in many cases stop or severely limit) school shootings. But most of these things are not “politically correct,” have been discussed momentarily in the aftermath of every such shooting, and then tabled because they do not fit the framework of political correctness. And so the shootings continue as do the deaths and maiming of innocent students and teachers.

Want to hear about the epitome of the failure of a “sure thing” in political social engineering? Consider this:

Broward County

The Broward County school district’s adoption of a school discipline policy that was praised by the Obama administration for seeking to reduce the reported number of school suspensions, expulsions, and arrests may have played a role in the fact that Nikolas Cruz remained under the radar until his shooting rampage in Parkland, Florida, on February 14. The program was called “PROMISE.” (Preventing Recidivism through Oppotunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support, and Education) “The facts pattern that has emerged strongly suggests it played a role,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Max Eden said. “It’s not actually accurate to say that what Broward County did was the result of the Obama policy. It might be more accurate to say that what Broward County did was in some way the inspiration for Obama’s policy.”

The Obama-era Departments of Education and Justice – under education secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder –issued school guidelines in 2014 that claimed students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a situation they said leads to a “school-to-prison pipeline” that discriminates against minority and low-income students. “Broward County was the first to have the goal of lowering suspensions, lowering expulsions, lowering arrests,” explains Eden. “And, so, they decided to reduce police involvement by not bringing in cops to arrest kids for a whole range of serious offenses, and then, as you would expect, the arrests go down when you stop arresting — from 1050 to 365 annually. That was taken to be a sign of success, based on that metric alone.”

What was in this program for Broward County? In exchange for the school system taking on adjudication of “minor” crimes in the schools rather than reporting those offenders to local police, they received $54 million in grants to “assist them in helping those student offenders through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support and Education” rather than calling the cops. This is simply another example of “Pay for Play.”

According to the Obama administration’s 2014 “Dear Colleague” guidance, any school district whose disciplinary measures showed “disparate impact” – meaning a disproportionately greater number of minority students are affected – is open to investigation by the Departments of Justice and Education, regardless of whether the behavior leading to the discipline is unacceptable. Cruz, according to The Washington Post, had a long history of escalating behavioral problems which got to the point of some teachers becoming scared of him. “I can say I was so uncomfortable around him, I did not want to be alone with him in my classroom,” one former teacher told The Post. “That is how disruptive his behavior was.”

Sheriff Israel has repeatedly shifted responsibility regarding the multiple red flags his office received about Cruz, as well as why his armed deputies did not enter the school to engage Cruz. “As I said, I’m the Sheriff, my name’s on the door,” Israel told a local NBC reporter. “The people responsible are the ones who took the calls and didn’t follow up on them, as it was with the FBI, as it was with any person.” Eden scoffed at Israel’s assertion saying, “There’s this way in which it’s like dereliction of duty as virtue signaling. We’re going to stop doing our jobs and then we’re going to issue press releases saying look how much arrests have gone down. And then when something bad happens, well we weren’t informed about it but the entire policy was to not inform the police.”

The Broward County School District’s highly touted PROMISE program prevented Nikolas Cruz from getting arrested, which could have blocked him from purchasing his armory, if convicted. Because of PROMISE, Cruz was allowed to continue to walk the streets, evade any arrests, and allowed him to slaughter 17 innocents in Parkland! “Political Social Engineering”


There are many options for schools, law enforcement, parents, teachers, and everyday citizens to use to work together to stop the mass shootings. There is NO easy fix — NO single fix. It will require numerous elements available to all to put together like a puzzle to right the ship. But one thing is certain: Political Social Engineering by the federal government to attempt to cure a local problem has not and will not work.

We have heard this statement over and over again. And even though it is tired and maybe cliche, it is STILL the truth: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” We can’t take care of guns killing people without taking care of the PEOPLE who use guns to kill people!



The Future

2017 was (to say the least) a really interesting year. It was radically different for American politics. What’s ahead?

It is really difficult to project political events ahead for several reasons:

  1. We have never (at least in my lifetime) seen a President or administration like Donald Trump or his Administration;
  2. We have never seen a national media so “in-the-tank” against a sitting president as ours is;
  3. We have never experienced the outward nastiness across the Nation towards a President as we are experiencing today;
  4. There has never been such a huge divide between the Left and Right in the Nation politically and spiritually as there is today.

Why are these things happening?

Face of the United States

What people around the World see about the U.S. has changed dramatically. For many years — although people from some nations detest the U.S. (primarily because of jealousy) the U.S. has always been a beacon of light for citizens of countries that seem to be in constant struggle. There are those who disdain us because of political and religious ideological differences. But even most of those hold a measure of respect for the successes of our nation. This century we have seen some of that respect be eroded by the erratic and very visible structural changes in America.

The World has watched as the strongest and most democratic nation on Earth and the most Christian has slowly but steadily slipped toward a socialist model consumed by selfishness. Most of those countries that embrace Socialism have experienced only a modicum of success. They have no genuine ability to compare that political, religious, and social system to our Representative Republic model.

Let’s face it: what WE know and understand comes solely from our perception of what we personally see, hear, and experience. Few from other countries have the benefit (in most cases) of experiencing America on a personal basis. So their opinions are based chiefly on what they see and hear. To be frank, what they see and hear from the U.S. has been skewed dramatically by those in the 24/7 Leftist news media. And World media actually created the “reporting” model now used by Leftist American media. People of the World do not have the benefit of living “in” our actual environment to know if what they see and hear is real or contrived. They believe the skewed version of America as portrayed in their country’s news reporting, which takes its skewed version from that of American media. It’s a vicious, nasty, propaganda narrative fueled by what has now been termed a “Worldview.”


Everybody has a worldview, whether they acknowledge it or not. More often than not, they do not talk about it simply because they are unaware. This is because asking someone what his or her worldview is like trying to ask a fish to describe how wet the water is. You have no clue what it is; you are just in it. Nonetheless, your worldview defines everything about you.

What is a Worldview?
First of all, let’s say what it is not. It is not about the physical reality of the world that you and I live in; that is science. Instead, here is what worldview is and what it means for us:

  1. It is the metaphysical, or philosophical, or ideological reality of the world you and I live in.
  2. It governs how we live, not where we live. It defines why we live, what we live for, what we appreciate, what we reject, what we are passionate about, and what we detest.

What Makes Up Our Worldview?
Other than understanding what our worldview does for us, we also need to know that there are a few categories that shape our worldview:

  1. Cognitive: How we think. This is central. As a people think, so they will live. Everything else follows from this first category;
  2. Moral: How we discern between right and wrong. We cannot make a moral decision without having a clear idea of what is right and wrong. Our cognition and our morality are like two sides of the same coin. As we think, so we live. If we think something is alright even though it is morally wrong, we will act wrongly;
  3. Pragmatic: What we do with what is right and what is wrong. Have you heard this phrase, “the ends justify the means”? It is the belief that says, “It does not matter what I do as long as I get the job done.” Think about it. Is it really true that the ends justify the means? Not really. But we seem to think about it that way. We do that all the time. Every time we get into a situation where it is going to affect us, the first thing we are tempted to compromise on is not what we do, but how we do it.

These are the three fundamental things that shape our worldview. Understanding and defining these contributing factors will help us strengthen our values, and guide us on how to live.

For the most part, Americans like all other humans generally are quiet about things that are “normal.” We only get loud when something invades our lives that is different and makes us feel uncomfortable. Though things may be really going really well, we scream loudly about the things that seem or feel bad to us. And the American media has perfected the use of that human trait to create and paint an American persona to the World that has changed the World’s perceptions of our nation and has established worldview for everyone who thinks about the U.S. or interfaces with Americans. You know that old saying, “Perception is reality.” If they believe we are not the America of our parents, that must be the truth simply because it is their perception. The face of the U.S. has changed. What they see and hear about the U.S. is their reality — regardless of the truth. Hmmm……”regardless of the truth?” Seems like something the Leftist Media have perfected that operating style!


I feel strongly the chief result of conflicting worldviews of people has created the 21st century chaos we see played out on a national and international stage every day. There are so many competing worldviews and so little tolerance for the worldviews of others that this all results in pandemonium. So many philosophies, so many sets of morals, so many cultural differences have intersected and formed the “Perfect Storm.” The results remind me of the story of the Tower of Babel. In that story, people of one nation became so angry with each other and divisive, God caused them all to begin speaking in different languages. No one understood anyone else. That was THEIR pandemonium. Sounds a little like what plays out everyday in our lives, right?


We are headed straight for a world with nothing but Confusion. Babel is looking more real every day. Seldom do we talk “to” each other. We talk “at” each other. And seldom do we talk: we scream! Anger is everywhere and it quickly devolves into hatred, racism, and all the phobias you can think of. People turn against people simply for skin color, national origin, family name, hair color, religion, neighborhood of residence, frequented restaurant, etc. Oh, let’s not forget political preference. What we are now living is a world of great separation. It is fueled by many things but has one common denominator: Godlessness. We in the World — especially in America — have turned our backs on God.

Joy Behar said it best — or said what many Americans thought best is — when she ridiculed Vice President Pence for saying that he talks to God, and he listens to God. Joy’s worldview apparently does not include acceptance or even belief that there are actually people who believe communication with God is a two-way street. She forgot that 80% of Americans believe in God and His son, Jesus. But there’s no room in her head/heart for any worldview other than her own.

A troubled young man cries out to anyone who will listen out of his anger, frustration, loneliness, and empty heart. Apparently close to 50 times he reached out to others sharing his bizarre desire to hurt fellow students and teachers — even become a professional school shooter. Sheriffs, teachers, parents, students, and pretty much anyone that would listen to him heard his heart. Yet no one responded — no one did anything. And 17 are dead in Parkland, Florida today because of that.


Here’s my two cents, so humor me: Unless we begin to communicate with each other, respecting diversity of thought and opinion, put away racial, religious, political, ethnic, and sexual differences, we are doomed. I shudder to think about the U.S. going down that road. But if that happens it will be because the majority in this nation have made that choice.

Don’t make the mistake of laughing at me or saying that cannot happen. It can. And it WILL unless we find ways to stop the sliding.

It cannot simply be political, or religious, or ethnic, or geographical. We MUST find the common thing that historically has time and time again knitted the hearts of those with different worldviews together. People in times of horror, stress, and disaster historically have almost always found ways to lay down ownership of the “right” worldview, joined with others with different worldviews, and found ways to unite to achieve peace, love, and real harmony.

Joy Behar apparently hasn’t seen that common denominator that is necessary for this to develop. It comes from one source and one only: God. And, Joy, we CAN have a relationship with God and we can hear Him speak to us. What we need to right this ship is true relationship with God. And we need to listen.

Billy Graham found that as a young man. He gave his life to sharing his relationship with God will millions around the World who listened, believed, and adopted that same worldview. He was amazing in his simple commitment to others that came into his life — as life for all of us should be.

Got financial, health, marital, family, or job problems? Instead of just lashing out in anger or hurt at others who may not even be part of the problem, why not try reaching out to God? Tell him you’re lonely, miserable, angry, hurt, jealous, and desperate. Ask Him to help.

What do you have to lose? Go ahead and give it a try. I guarantee you’ll like it.



It’s “Rant Day!” Part Two: Justice for All or Just Some?

No doubt inequities in the U.S. Justice System have been exposed during the last year. The revelations of those (and others yet to be exposed) begs the question: Is American Justice really for all or just a select few? Let’s look closer.

FBI Issues with “Justice for All”

Parkland, Florida Several days ago I gave some examples of tremendous FBI gaffs in recent years, none of which rise to the level of injustice we saw played out in Parkland, Florida on Valentines Day. Let’s be honest: the fact that two very specific threats made by Nikolas Cruz to shoot up schools were shared with the FBI and they did not follow-up played an obviously dramatic role in the deaths of those 17 Floridians. On a national level we have been told by law enforcement agencies to report what we see and hear regarding threats like his to initiate law enforcement investigations into their validity. The FBI failed miserably….and 17 innocents died because of their neglect.

The Boston Marathon Parkland is not the only place the FBI failed to stop killings when given real warnings. Remember the Boston Marathon pressure-cooker bombers? Deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev came to the attention of the FBI on at least two occasions prior to a Russian government warning in March 2011 that said he appeared to be radicalizing — that according to former FBI Director Robert Mueller in Congressional testimony to Congress. “His name had come up in two other cases,” Mueller said in response to questions from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The FBI ignored those warnings that did not come from anonymous sources in America, but from the government of Russia! Certainly such warnings from Russian intelligence warranted follow-up by the FBI. Nope: they sat on their hands.

Local Issues with “Justice for All”

Parkland, Florida The Parkland shootings are the most recent to highlight local law enforcement failures. 39 times local authorities physically “visited” Cruz’s home regarding threatened violence and erratic behavior exhibited by the mentally ill Cruz. After all 39 visits, Broward County Sheriffs deputies simply left and did nothing. Further, high school classmates and friends reported numerous cases of threats and promises made to them by Cruz regarding his desire to shoot up schools, showing off this guns as he discussed their use in killings, and even posted pictures on social media of his hoard of guns along with mentions of becoming “a school shooter.” No justice for those 17 that day. “If” local authorities had acted — even just to implement mental incapacity protocol to have him examined by psychiatric specialists — those 17 would still be with their families and friends.

Imagine a scenario in which a large high school had a Sheriffs Deputy as its Resource Officer on campus everyday who was armed and there for the sole purpose of protecting students and faculty members against violence. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had such a Resource Officer who was at the school on Valentines Day. Instead of that deputy recognizing the slaughter as it unfolded and rushing into the freshman building and immediately confronting Cruz, Deputy Scot Peterson stood outside the building for 5 minutes while Cruz took out 17 victims in a rain of bullets. Justice For All? Nope. Broward County Sheriffs Deputy Scot Peterson stole the justice for those 17 while on his job, supposedly doing what he was hired to do: protect those students and faculty members. 

U.S. Justice Department Issues with “Justice for All”

Hillary Clinton There is little need to detail every inequity in equal justice for Ms. Clinton, but there are a few notable. Chief among those is there being no apparent justice for her mishandling of top secret and classified information by spreading it in the form of emails on an unsecured private server. There are numerous examples of others who paid significant penalties for doing far less than Clinton in this regard, including their incarceration. It is true that the Attorney General may have such an investigation underway that is secret. Not doing so would be a disservice to the American people. Time will tell.

The Clinton Foundation The apparent “Pay to Play” program that many are certain existed while Clinton was Secretary of State warrants thorough investigation by the Justice Department. Surely one is underway. An agreement with President Obama and Hillary was made in which she committed the Foundation would accept no donations from foreign countires in writing while she served. Evidence of her breaking that commitment is piling up in New York and Washington D.C. Former President Clinton received massive payments for speeches given to foreign entities that totaled millions of dollars. Interestingly enough those speeches and subsequent dollars dried up when Hillary lost her bid for President. Certainly that is a bit odd if there was no “Pay to Play” program in place for contributions to the Foundation in exchange for favor from the future President/former Secretary of State.

Former FBI Director James Comey lied under oath to Congress — apparently several times. These warrant DOJ investigation. He also mishandled confidential and classified information by submitting official notes to a friend at Columbia University for that friend to leak to the press. It is suspected Comey participated in numerous other activities that violated federal law. Is the DOJ investigating Comey? Crickets….

Uranium One The company that arranged the sale of U.S. uranium resources that ultimately are now owned by Russia certainly warrants investigation. The principals of that company donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Quid Pro

The Clinton Campaign It has been proven the Campaign paid for Russians to provide fake information to discredit Donald Trump in the 2016 election cycle — definitely investigation material not to mention the apparent collusion by the Clintons with the Russians.

Debbie Wasserman Shultz The Congresswoman and former DNC Head hired a Middle Eastern firm to manage the computer system for the Congressional Democratic Caucus members as well as that of the DNC. Subsequently contents of data from all those computers over a period of several years were allegedly passed along to foreign entities. Wasserman Shultz paid the firm several million dollars for that work. Providing and/or enabling such access and transfers is a felony and should be investigated immediately.

Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton’s confidant/assistant received thousands of Clinton emails that contained classified information that were sent from the unsecured server to Abedin’s laptop at home. Also, some were forwarded to Abedin’s husband’s laptop — Anthony Weiner, who plead guilty to sex crimes. That process was also a felony if verified. And that should happen in a DOJ investigation.

James Clapper Some lawmakers would like the Justice Department to prosecute former spy chief James Clapper for inaccurate testimony to Congress about domestic surveillance before it’s too late. Critics say looming five-year statutes of limitation for perjury and making false statements — establishing a March 12 deadline for charges — make an urgent case for action, and that non-prosecution would set a dangerous precedent that impedes oversight and executive-branch accountability.

Loretta Lynch Many think Obama’s former Attorney General was involved in preventing the Clinton email investigation from becoming a serious national security issue by first telling then FBI Director James Comey to term that investigation a “matter” rather than an investigation. The mysterious meeting on the airport tarmac in Phoenix with Bill Clinton prompted a loud cry of “foul,” seeing that Hillary was involved in the FBI investigation and the Clinton Foundation was under government scrutiny at the time. Some feel Lynch played a role in what was a certainty — Hillary’s charges for mishandling classified information — that was suddenly stopped in the famous Comey press conference in which he detailed dozens of acts of wrongdoing by Hillary in using that unsecure email server only to abruptly announce there would be no charges brought against Clinton. Although it is unpopular and therefore uncommon for U.S. Attorneys General to investigate their predecessors, it is widely held that AG Jeff Sessions should investigate Lynch for wrongdoing.

John Brennan Many are convinced the former CIA Director is guilty of many (or even most) of the intelligence leaks to the media and others over the last year. Former CIA analyst Tony Shaffer suspects Brennan as one of the leakers. He said on Fox Business Network that the leaks which forced Michael Flynn out can be laid “squarely at the feet of” Brennan, among other embittered Obama aides. What we know is that intelligence agencies taped Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador, and we know that the contents of the call were leaked to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who is a de facto stenographer for political liberals at the CIA. It is realistic to believe this would not have happened without Brennan’s approval.

Susan Rice Obama’s White House National Security Advisor made her mark by making the Sunday AM news shows explaining the Benghazi terrorist attack which resulted in the brutal slaughter of 4 Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya, was the result of the release of an anti-Muslim video by an American. This of course was not true. Later, Rice was accused of the unmasking of Americans surveilled for possible illegal activities with foreigners through FISA warrants, and doing so for political purposes. Unmasking private Americans is a felony IF done so for political use. Rice publicly denied at first for unmasking at all, then later corrected her answer to “I never did so for political purposes.” She would NOT state what the purpose for doing so was. Her doing so most definitely compromised the very lives of many of those Americans who she unmasked. If a serious investigation of Rice is carried out, conventional wisdom is that the implication of the former President’s involvement in the anti-Trump intelligence scandal would be likely. Is the DOJ investigating Rice or holding off because of potential Obama involvement? We may never know.


There are quite a few others who should be “looked at” by the DOJ — far too many to list here. But there is an obvious and very upsetting trend that has been exposed in all this: the ease at which political heavyweights in D.C. have at their access to escape prosecution for wrongdoing. Case in point: Kristian Saucier of Arlington, Virginia was sentenced to a year in prison for taking photos of classified areas inside a nuclear attack submarine while it was in port in Connecticut. David Petraeus, a retired general considered one of the greatest military minds of his generation, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials that had threatened to send him to prison. Petraeus, who admitted he provided the materials to his former mistress and biographer. U.S. Magistrate Judge David Keesler also imposed a $100,000 fine — more than double the amount recommended by prosecutors — to reflect the “seriousness of the offense.” Both of these committed acts for less serious than those of Hillary Clinton. Yet to this day she faces no threat of prosecution.

That double-standard is scaring the American public to death. The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws with “liberty and justice for all,” not just the politically corrected. Yet it appears to those in Middle America that if you are plugged into the politically correct position-of-the-day you can skate through ALL of your illegal acts. And in D.C., it’s not who you are, it’s who you know.

All this being said, under the direction of this President, it appears that the plug HAS been pulled in the Swamp, and that the draining has begun.

Mr. President: Americans who live and work outside the Beltway are begging you to stay the course that you promised to traverse if elected President. It may take some time. It certainly will be difficult. And the creatures who have lived in the Swamp for many years will fight with all their might to thwart your efforts, but that Swamp MUST be drained. If not, America as we have known it in our generation will not exist for our grandchildren. You have made many promises, many of which have already been implemented. But ridding the nation of those evil creatures from Swamp of Political Correctness/Elitism have got to go, or when you leave D.C., they will simply crawl back in.

Please fight to “Make America Great Again.”

“Liberty and Justice for All”