Promises, Promises, Promises

President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “There are always politicians willing, on the one hand, to promise everything to the people, and, on the other, to perform everything for the machine or the boss, with chuckling delight in the success of their efforts to hoodwink the former and serve the latter. Now, not only should such politicians be regarded as infamous, but the people who are hoodwinked by them should bear the blame.”

Sadly, we live in an America where we are seeing President Roosevelt’s statements proven true. Leaders continue to make promises to voters election cycle after election cycle, while all the while pandering to their political machines behind the scenes with real promises. Who gets left out of that process? The voters. Who pays the price over and over again? The voters. But it’s not just American voters who pay that price. It is being paid by the country itself: it’s history, heritage, and identity are all being morphed by those who use this process for personal gain. America is now officially literally “for sale.”

Promises

We will not waste your time to list all of the promises made during recent campaigns that were made over and over again by desperate political candidates who willingly succumbed to temptation to do and say anything to get elected. However, the most recent and most costly example of this practice was the Omnibus Bill passed by Congress that will fleece Americans of at least $1.4 Trillion dollars. A government spending bill that is exorbitant is nothing new. What IS new, however, is that the GOP Congressionals who ran for office in 2016 almost unanimously promised full support of President Trump’s presidential campaign promises that any spending bill would de-fund Obamacare, fully fund the southern border wall, de-fund Planned Parenthood, and reject funding for Sanctuary Cities that refuse to cooperate with Homeland Security in notification of jailed illegal immigrant criminals about to be released so that ICE agents could step in and take custody of those criminals. They passed a bill that included ALL of these BUT EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what was stated in their campaign promises.

I mention this bill only to remind all that “Promises, Promises, Promises” on Capitol Hill ring hollow and should for the near future — especially during the 2018 election campaign cycle — fall on deaf ears. Voters need to listen to their hearts instead of hearing and then simply believing what candidates promise this year.

Debt of Candidates

No, I am not referencing the massive amount of dollars that many candidates must borrow to finance their campaigns. Think about that for a moment: a member of Congress who makes less than $150,000 a year often borrows several million dollars to fund a campaign for that office. How can they repay the source from which they borrowed? Simple: through campaign contributions. Who donates a total of millions to Congressional campaigns? In Teddy Roosevelt’s words, “the boss or machine” who makes those contributions to those candidates do the funding that does NOT have to be repaid.

Rush Limbaugh said it best when asked years ago about his running for national political office. He responded this way:  He could not afford to fund a Congressional or other national office campaign on his own. Therefore, he would rely on political contributions. His makeup would require his “commitment” to those contributors to be obligation to facilitate their needs/desires should at some future point they reach out to him to draw on that “commitment.” He personally found no way to be able to reconcile in his mind to successfully respond without some quid pro quo. Therefore, he will never run for office.

Sadly, Rush Limbaugh’s honesty and moral compass is NOT shared by many in D.C. The accepted method of running for office is reliance on campaign contributions. Certainly small amounts from many voters dilutes the potential for quid pro quo demands from contributors, but with the invention of PAC’s — Political Action Committees — and their ability to collect unlimited amounts in campaign contributions entices candidates to instead of doing the hard work of interfacing with thousands of small contributors to discuss their concerns and political ideals, to simply turn to the big contributors who can fund a campaign requiring very little effort by the candidate. In that scenario, American voters lose and promises are broken.

Actual debt from borrowed dollars are NOT the debt of candidates that is concerning. It is the debt of candidates to contributors — not the “little guys,” but the Unions, PAC’s, corporations, and even national political parties. When payback is expected, corruption will ALWAYS be present.

Summary

In the current political process, the fabric of independence, liberty and justice for all, and the election of Americans to actually serve their country with their service is virtually lost to the greed of self accomplishment in achieving influence in government. We see the evidence of this playing out on an international stage as political leaders are being exposed one at a time in D.C. The only surprising thing appearing in each expose is just how brazen and callous to the immoral if not illegal actions being embraced by most all of the professionals working within the Beltway — and not just elected representatives. Even those who are appointed are increasingly being exposed as perpetrators of impropriety to enhance their personal agendas — AT AMERICAN VOTERS’ EXPENSE.

The bar of honesty and integrity in our nation’s capitol has been lowered so often it is dragging the ground. Trust by Americans in the government and the political process is dragging the ground with their honesty and integrity. Washington D.C. looks everyday more like capitol cities in Europe, South America, and Southeast Asia.

Americans must be diligent in demanding for and settling for nothing less than honesty and facts. Those things are there. Sadly at one time we had smooth access to “real” actions that paralleled promises. It is actually unusual for members of Congress to follow through on their political commitments. Gone is simply doing the right thing.

Our hopeful salvation is on the horizon as long hidden evil deeds are being exposed. If Americans as all of these are revealed, analyzed, and corrective actions taken demand complete transparency that is always promised by candidates, we will see this horror begin to disappear. But American voters must accept nothing less…period.

 

A “Free Pass”

Everyone likes a free pass every now and then to get something for nothing, or — in many cases — a chance to be “excused” for something done in error or done without permission. But this practice has taken on a new and dangerous face.

Anyone who reads the stories on this site know full well my disdain for the current Mainstream Media practices of picking and choosing winners and losers when it comes to holding folks accountable for things they say and do. No longer is “news” based on truth in reporting facts — good and bad — about people, countries, and things that happen. Today’s “news” is in large part based totally on the political correctness of the day pertaining to whomever and whatever is being reported about. Who shapes that political correctness that is used daily by shaping what America sees and hears? That’s anybody’s guess. And apparently that “Authority” to determine the political correctness of the day is passed around.

Who decides who gets called out and who gets a free pass? Since 2007 it seems that the Mainstream Media as self-appointed arbiters of all things report-worthy AND the shaping of each story to favor one side of the political narrative rather than just report facts. And there are LOTS of free passes floating around today: in every political issue, every ethnic discussion, and every social issue of today. Let’s look at some current “free passes.”

Free Passes of the Day

  • Pelosi We could not have this discussion without calling up the latest free pass given by the Leftist Media to the “Queen of PC:” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca). (Listing all her free passes by the media would fill a medium sized notebook) According to a FOX News report, the California Democrat sent out an email last week titled “Mueller FIRED” and asked people to donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) amid speculations that President Donald Trump may fire Mueller in retaliation for the FBI raid on his lawyer Michael Cohen. But as the actual fundraiser email text acknowledges, Mueller was not fired by Trump:“I’m so furious I can barely write this email,” Pelosi wrote, according to The Washington Examiner. “President Trump is inches away from firing Robert Mueller and derailing the entire Russia investigation.” The fundraising email was sent on Friday, just a day after Trump reiterated that he isn’t going to fire the special counsel. “If I wanted to fire Robert Mueller in December, as reported by the Failing New York Times, I would have fired him. Just more Fake News from a biased newspaper!” Trump tweeted.
  • Comey In our last story we chronicled the lies of James Comey — or at least several of them. In his ABC News Interview with George Stephanopoulos, the fired former FBI Director made some amazing statements that went largely unchallenged. George gave Comey several free passes in the interview. Can you imagine any scenario in which a Conservative FBI Director would not have been challenged for the following? Comey maintained again and again that he was NOT political in his controversial dealings with Hillary Clinton’s investigation or with President Trump. Yet Comey made it clear he made the decision to have those 2 press conferences based on the “political” polls that stated HRC would win the presidency,and that his doing so would not affect the election outcome. That is totally political! Stephanopoulous: “Free Pass” — no challenge; According to the OIG report recently released detailing abuses by former FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe and McCabe’s response to that release’s contents, McCabe called Comey a liar and claimed that Comey knew about the releases by McCabe to the press. That’s a juicy news story, especially with the “other guy” sitting down for a television interview and denying McCabe’s claims. Stephanopoulous: “Free Pass” — no challenge; An FBI employee discussing details of an ongoing investigation by the FBI is expressly forbidden. Yet Comey — even though he was fired — talked at will in the interview about the current Mueller investigation into Russian collusion. George: “Free Pass” — crickets; Comey, when asked, acknowledged in the meeting in which he told President Trump about the Steele dossier he did NOT tell the President that the DNC and Clinton Campaign had funded it. When asked why, he stated “No I didn’t. Stephanopolous’ response: “Free Pass” — no challenge.
  • Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch Comey famously stated in sworn Congressional testimony that AG Lynch instructed him to not call the Hillary Clinton email server investigation an “Investigation,” but to call it a “Matter.” One week before the Comey ABC interview, Lynch contradicted that statement. His response to Lynch’s denial in the ABC interview: he questioned the honesty, political intentions, and investigative methods of his former boss: Lynch. In fact, it was Comey’s concern about the public’s perception of Lynch’s role in the inquiry that led him to become a more active participant in the investigation, he says now. In early 2016, the U.S. intelligence community obtained classified information that, according to Comey, “raised the question of whether Loretta Lynch was controlling me and the FBI and keeping the Clinton campaign informed about our investigation.” The FBI investigated the claim and found no evidence to support it. In the news world, this was a blockbuster story about the U.S. Justice Department. How did Stephanopoulos respond to Comey’s new allegations? “Free Pass” — no challenge.

American Opinion of Today’s Media

  • In its annual confidence poll, Gallup found that Americans’ trust in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” reached its lowest level in polling history, with only 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. Trust in the establishment media did not begin with the contentious 2016 election and Donald Trump taking the stage, but after a steady decline over the past 20 years, it took its deepest dive yet.
  • In a recent Rasmussen poll, 51% of all voters think the current media coverage of political issues and events is worse than it has been in the past. Just 19% say the coverage is better, while 27% rate it as about the same.
  • In a detailed poll by Pew Research Group, American voters by political party overall have an unfavorable opinion of truth in news. About Republicans, 11% trust the news media; Democrats: 34%; Independents: 15%.

Summary

To say there is (according to American voters) a political credibility perception of the Mainstream Media that is horrendous is an understatement. That distrust comes from about a decade of News Journalism being allowed to slide when it comes to the truth. Yes, that is terrible. But beyond terrible it is dangerous. How so?

Imagine if every American parent allowed their children to in their lives mimic the actions of today’s American media. Here’s how it would work:

  1. Kids tell lies to their parents, teachers, and other authority figures in their lives;
  2. Parents, teachers, and other authority figures make substantive decisions for and about these kids based on the lies told by the kids;
  3. Those decisions shape the culture of the families and all others outside those families with which they interact. That culture is shaped and molded by those lies of the children;
  4. As those kids become young adults, they find that everyone else in “their” world are products of that same type of culture that evolved through identical environments where truth has been abandoned;
  5. Those young adults mature and begin employment AND permanent relationships with potential spouses. They bring that culture of acceptable untruth to each of those relationships.

Imagine a world where lying is not only allowed, but accepted without a single challenge. Imagine the bad choices that will certainly be made from that culture. Imagine a world void of ANY substance in communication, action, or deed, and where “anything goes” literally!

All I can say is this: you can have my seat in such a world. As for me, I will continue as long as I can to challenge every lie, every half-truth, every misrepresentation in my life as they show-up. And show-up they will.

My challenge to George Stephanopoulos, Nancy Pelosi, Loretta Lynch, and James Comey: John 8:32 “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

There’s no need for any to denigrate the intentions, motives, or reasoning behind lies we hear. The truth does NOT need our interpretation. The truth stands alone and is sufficient.

How can we eliminate darkness? Shine a light on it. The light takes care of the darkness without us having to weigh in. Truth does the same thing to lies.

If Truth by itself was good enough for the Son of God, it should be good enough for all of us.

Political Pinocchio

You are right: that picture of James Comey to the left could be one of hundreds who are qualified for this story. But in honor of the millions of dollars the disgraced former FBI Director has already garnered from his new book, AND in light of the Justice Department OIG’s recently released report of former Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe which contains numerous allegations of Comey lies, for the sake of THIS story, we will concentrate on James Comey.

My son in 6’9,” and even having him in our home it took a long time to get accustomed to his height. Comey is 6’8″ tall. As I have learned first-hand, being so much taller than others “in the room” garners the tall guy a measure of benign acceptance for what he says that sometimes is not warranted. My son growing up (as kids often do) stretched the truth a time or two. But James Comey squeezed all the possible credibility from almost anything that comes out of his mouth. We’ll get to that in a bit.

My father was the pastor of a small south Louisiana church. We never missed a service: Sunday mornings and evenings, Wednesday evening prayer meetings, and even youth services. We were a pastor’s family by the book. My father “wore” the lies out of my older brother and me. And if you’re from the South you know exactly what I meant when I said “wore the lies out…” Turned out those “whoopings” taught me a really important lesson. My Dad could have simply told me that when someone lies habitually they lose ALL credibility with others. Why? If someone lies all the time, is it safe to EVER believe anything they say?

Yes, Comey’s book deal will make him millions of dollars. Actually he has already parlayed his legal career into millions. Of course in the federal government there is no way for an attorney at any level to make millions from salary and bonuses. But the “deals” made available to federal lawmakers and members of Congress and those close to them are abundant. Comey has taken advantage of many of these opportunities. When appointed FBI Director by Obama in 2013, Comey reported his net worth at $11 million. So this book deal — even though certainly will provide him millions more — many think it is more his way to take aim at “The Guy” who fired him in such a public and humiliating way: President Trump. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a very common explanation of why so often some women are prone to not take unearned traumatic experiences without firing back at the person who sourced their traumas. Though no woman stands in this apocalypse unfolding between the former FBI Director and his ex-boss, there is NO doubt this book is about “Payback.”

I haven’t read it, and I have no plans to do so. The leftwing media are already all over it and will spoon feed all its content over upcoming weeks to continue the feeding of their anti-Trump narrative. Comey is giving them lots of new and juicy content. (Can’t wait to read Joy Behar’s perspective!)

Can/Should James Comey be Believed in this Book?

That’s the million dollar question. Personally I hearken back to what my Dad taught me with a belt and/or a switch: don’t believe anything from anyone that tells lies again and again — they haven’t earned the right to have what they say taken at face value by others. I can’t imagine a scenario in which I would be tempted to give James Comey the benefit of the doubt. But in a sense of fairness, I refuse to simply tell all www.dnewman.org readers to blindly ignore any of James Comey’s allegations against President Trump or even any statements Comey makes about his life in office at the FBI. Why? I don’t know for certain the allegations he makes or other things he states in the book are true or untrue. You don’t either: none of us were there when they happened. But it is not only fair but prudent for all to weigh in our minds who is stating these, the personal history we have shared with this person, and past results of claims made when compared to actual facts given and/or confirmed by others.

With that thought in mind, let’s segue to those very things: allegations made by Comey and “factual” statements made by Comey or things he has stated as facts. Are those things all true? Have they been proven? Were they true when made as allegations or stated as facts? We certainly cannot answer that in every case. BUT, there are a bunch that we have answers for. Let’s look closer.

James Comey: True or False

Congressional Testimony  In May of 2017, Comey was asked under oath before Congress whether he had authorized anyone to leak information to the press. His answer was an emphatic “no.” If we were passing out Pinocchio’s he would win one here. In the response to his recent firing, former Deputy FBI Andrew McCabe stated plainly that he had personally leaked information to the media and that his former boss — James Comey — not only knew about it but let it happen. In his actual statement, McCabe forcefully defended his contact with the media, denying that it could even be called a leak. “It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter,” McCabe said in his post-firing statement. The “director” he referenced was Comey. According to legal authorities, McCabe’s statement if true could link Comey to the illegal act of leaking classified information to the media, but also for lying under oath to Congress.

FISA Application In a letter to the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham say information Comey provided members of the Judiciary Committee in a private interview regarding the FISA application to spy on former Trump campaign official Carter Page was contradicted by the applications themselves. “What is the reason for the difference between what Mr. Comey told the Chairman and Ranking Member in March 2017, and what appears in the FISA application?” they ask. “No explanation for the inconsistencies has ever been provided,” they said, adding, “did Director Comey intentionally mislead the Committee?”

Trump Dossier Comey testified that he briefed Trump about the salacious “dossier” before Trump was inaugurated because he’d learned that the media were about to report on it. But it’s more likely that Comey briefed Trump for the express purpose of getting its embarrassing content out into the public. Since, as soon as that meeting was over, it leaked to the press. As Graham and Grassley note in their IG letter, the press wasn’t covering the dossier before that briefing because they considered it unverified. But the mere fact that Trump had been briefed on it instantly made it newsworthy. “CNN only broke the story on the dossier because Mr. Comey briefed the President-Elect about it,” they note. In other words, it’s far more likely that Comey lied about why he briefed Trump, a briefing that just happened to get the entire Russia scandal story rolling in the press.

Trump Memos Comey repeatedly asserted that none of the memos he wrote about his interactions with Trump contained any classified information. That matters because Comey took these memos with him after he got fired by Trump, in violation of FBI rules. Comey then shared some of the memos with a friend, who leaked them to the press. Despite Comey’s claims, however, the Hill reported that four of the seven memos did, in fact, contain classified information. So it’s highly likely that Comey shared classified information. Comey did admit that he leaked these documents in hopes that a special counsel would be appointed to investigate Trump. Hmmm…..the FBI Director justifying his breaking the law “in hopes” a special counsel would be appointed because the President had just fired him!

Clinton Exoneration Then there was Comey’s insistence that he hadn’t decided what to do about Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal until after the FBI interviewed her on July 2, 2016. Comey told Congress that “the decision was made after that (interview), because I didn’t know what was going to happen in that interview. She maybe lied in the interview in a way we could prove.” Long after Comey made that claim, however, draft FBI memos exonerating Clinton — written months before several key figures, including Clinton, had been interviewed — came to light, suggesting that the FBI was planning to exonerate her all along.

“No reasonable prosecutor….” There’s the claim Comey made when he issued his statement exonerating Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” That, too, was not true. As reported in multiple sources in October 2016, “career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.” What’s more, a key term in Comey’s final statement was changed from earlier drafts from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” The difference was critical, because gross negligence is specifically listed as a prosecutable offense when it comes to mishandling classified material, even if there was no intent to do wrong. In other words, the only way Comey could convincingly claim that Clinton’s actions were un-prosecutable was by watering down the language.

Summary

Just keep these thoughts in mind as you weigh everything in the media about James Comey et al:

  1. He DEFINITELY violated federal law by turning over the memos from his meetings with President Trump that contained classified information;
  2. He lied in sworn testimony before Congress — reportedly in multiple answers to questions and statements. While lying to Congress in itself is not criminal, a grand jury upon a referral by Congress can take criminal actions against someone if they choose;
  3. He lied on numerous occasions about details of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and FBI actions he initiated in that matter and several he circumvented. As Director he may have had the right to do so, but he lied TO do so;
  4. According to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey lied about the reference in Congressional testimony that AG Lynch instructed him to not call the Clinton email investigation an “investigation.” She instead (according to Comey) told him to call it “A Matter.”

In my honest opinion, James Comey is not just 6 feet 8 inches tall, his nose is that long or longer!

You may not share my opinion in all this — but you may. While you consider all this, please keep in mind that just because someone says something is true does NOT make it true. Also, just because someone says something is false does NOT make it false. The book is still out on Comey — EXCEPT — we KNOW James Comey has lied, and lied a bunch.

By my now deceased father’s perspective, James Comey should NOT be believed.

But truth be known, my father was not always so truthful either.

Potpourri

Today we do an Audio Podcast. I am certain you will enjoy this — it’s a layered analysis or summary of 5 of the political “hot spots” in our Nation as of today. Every American needs to consider these and — more importantly — reach a conclusion about each that they are comfortable in their understanding. Please feel free to share your thoughts either in the comments section below or to me at dan@dnewman.org. Your privacy is guaranteed! Thanks for “listening” in!

We Enter a New Era

It’s right on top of us. In fact we have been in its beginnings for a year or so and did not realize it. But we now live in a new era in the U.S.

I detest the term “weaponization.” It is used far too frequently by those who wish to demonize somebody or some group who chooses demonstrative ways to argue with or complain about a person or group who has diverse opinions from theirs.

In today’s era of weaponization, the anger from those who choose such a course of action has risen to a never before seen level. That anger quickly turns to hate. And when hate “drives the boat,” very little reason is included — it’s all pure emotion. And when emotion is the basis for decisions, very seldom are such decisions good ones. Let me explain:

Politics

No, it is NOT just politics. But that is the obvious place we see most of the angst we are talking about. But political discussions, debate, and even conflict have never before in history existed at such a fever pitch on the U.S. All civility is gone. Whether it comes early in the morning from President Trump tweets, late nights from Jimmy Kimmel, or from Morning Joe on MSNBC or Chris Cuomo on CNN’s morning show, the calm discussions between educated and concerned people are out the window. What remains is anger and hatred.

There’s no specific ownership from the Left or Right. There’s plenty to go around.

The horror of this process is it is before our eyes being refined and shoved into the chamber of a “weaponization gun” to fire away at any who disagree, and to fire with abandon. It’s like using a shotgun. Shotgun shells contain a bunch of projectiles called bb’s that scatter when fired and purposely strike a much larger target than a single bullet. That collateral damage is pretty much the desired result of political weaponization we witness today. And it isn’t pretty.

Education

I have 6 grandchildren all in school. Not in my lifetime has the educational system been so political, so liberal, and so biased. Certainly there have always been liberal and conservative teachers and administrators, but seldom did they espouse their various political ideologies to others as part of their work — especially not in classrooms. That has changed dramatically as the public school system almost as a whole has morphed into a political arm of the Democrat Party whose single objective is to attack the President, his policies, all those who serve in his administration, and now all those in the U.S. who number themselves as Trump supporters. Education weaponization has become so aggressive and outward that conservative educators are literally afraid for their political position to be known for fear of retribution from school administrators and even fellow teachers.

And the students….

Have we all not seen and heard students at all levels marching, carrying signs, (often nasty signs) attacking conservative ideals including the policies of the Trump Administration, Republicans in Congress, people who voted for conservatives at local, state, and national levels in 2016? We often excuse this or ignore it as simply being the exercise of free speech. Certainly a portion of it is. But the weaponization carries it to a much more serious level. And it is changing America — drastically and swiftly.

How is Weaponization Happening?

Here’s the most dangerous part of this. We can forget about the bitterness that develops between former close friends, family members, and fellow workers when this weaponization is actualized. Forget about it being a simple exercise in free speech.

NONE of it is random….NONE of it is positive….NONE of it has an objective to make things better for America and Americans. ALL of it is fueled by an intense hatred by a specific group from the Democrat Party who claim to be “Hard Left” and from some who are far left of Democrats.

The single objective of those who have refined the use of weaponization is to purposefully drive a much stronger, larger, and much more intense and specific divide between Americans who identify as conservative and those who consider themselves liberal. Their desired outcome? To turn the American political, social, economic, and educational system hard left, and dramatically away from Conservatism.

It is well planned, well funded, and well coordinated. It doesn’t take much to figure this out:

  • Riots in Portland. Wasn’t it odd to watch as masked young people who burned cars, torched businesses, demolished buildings and threatened people on the streets of Portland had advertised in local media for 2 weeks for “paid demonstrators” to apply for hundreds of “demonstration positions?” Wasn’t it odd that several blocks from downtown Portland, that night a reporter found a chain of chartered buses parked where many of these demonstrators dis-embarked to “go to work?”
  • Parkland, Florida. Just a couple of days after the mass shooting in Parkland, several chartered buses carried student protestors from Parkland to Tallahassee for those students to lobby the Florida legislature to pass “meaningful” gun control. Who paid for the buses? Who paid for the hotel rooms? Who paid for the food? Who paid for the printing of those thousands of professionally produced signs that bore the various attack slogans against gun advocates?
  • “March for our Lives.” Was organized by the new #NeverAgain movement – founded by survivors of the Florida school shooting – received a permit for half a million people in Washington D.C. to protest March 24, 2018, for “Commonsense Gun Control.” Related marches happened at several other major U.S. cities. Planning, organization, funding, coordinating with others took hundreds of thousands of dollars.

These are just a few of many examples we could relate of well planned, well funded, and well coordinated demonstrations of various kinds over the last year or so that are full of anger and hatred that often boils over. But weaponization never just “happens.” It only occurs in a controlled environment with specific targets and objectives.

The Purpose of Weaponization

You might be surprised to know (and ultimately believe) that a very large group of intellectuals, very famous and very wealthy individuals are participating in several large organizations and groups whose target is the quiet elimination of all things conservative. They are NOT gun control advocates. They are NOT free speech hawks. Thay are NOT about power to the people. In fact, their objective is exactly opposite. Their purpose is anarchy.

What is “Anarchy?”

1.  absence of government; a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority; eutopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2.  absence or denial of any authority or established order; absence of order

 Any of that ring a bell?

(Don’t call me a conspiracy theorist, please. Just put all the facts as you know them together. And if you can explain any of what we are watching unfold daily in any other reasonable way, please share your thoughts with us in the comments section below, or simply write your response and email to me at dan@dnewman.org for publication here)

The fuel for these comes primarily from some of the richest Americans: George Soros has been reported to transfer tens of Billions of his dollars to various not-for-profit entities that he controls to fuel this enterprise. Other billionaires have quietly kicked in. Obama through his Foundation is involved in organization and structure, although not financially in any substantive way other than to funnel outside funds to various non-profit entities to use in this effort.

Oh, and this is NOT about Donald Trump. This certainly was to be initiated in a more peaceful and much quieter way with Trump’s opponent living in the White House. A Hillary presidency was just what the organizers of this preferred and were certain would happen. Trump is just a temporary nuisance to their cause. His departure is what they MUST have before too many more Americans awaken to the truth that American freedom is truly in jeopardy and our nation as it has existed for more than two centuries is facing certain dramatic change — from the inside.

Summary

What would this anti-political experiment look like? “If” this group gets their objective, we would see the dismantling of the current government: Congress, Judiciary, and of course the White House. The “People” would install a government that would purportedly be really FOR the people as compared to our current government. If history serves us as to how/who runs such a government, the people would choose leaders — although it is likely the power brokers have already determined who and what would happen in way of control.

All sound far fetched? It did in 19th century Russia and Spain. But both were torn apart by anarchy. Neither movement was totally successful to achieve their stated objectives. But what they succeeded in doing was tearing apart the existing governments of each country.

Could it happen here? I think it very well could and that it might — UNLESS Americans stand up and stop it. Waking to it as a possible if not eventual event that we could experience is a first step.

Look around your specific world. Watch the news — real news. Read, listen, and express yourselves. Making others aware of real truths and how you personally feel will go a long way in helping others understand the realities of today’s political system and the cost of a different form of government.

There’s a lot of venom being spewed in this weaponization we live in. No doubt the Leftist media have actually allowed themselves to be weaponized in many cases without even knowing it. What other explanation is there for the almost constant false news reports we read, see, and hear attacking conservatives and Conservatism? Fifty years ago, no such thing was allowed.

Remember Dan Rather? He was canned for simply manufacturing and reporting an untrue story of then President George W. Bush. That wasn’t very long ago. It ended his longtime stint at the top of broadcast journalism on a national stage.

How many “fake” Donald Trump news stories have you heard or seen that were eventually debunked as being pure fiction? There are many to choose from. NONE OF THOSE ISSUING SUCH REPORTS ARE CONFRONTED BY THEIR MANAGEMENT.

Why is that?

There’s surely an objective.

 

 

Who is “Lisa?”

She has some pretty substantial credentials.

Lisa H. Barsoomian is a U.S. Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law. She’s a protege of James Comey and Robert Mueller.

Barsoomian with her boss, R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998.
Craig Lawrence also represented:
* Robert Mueller 3 times,
* James Comey 5 times,
* Barack Obama 45 times,
* Kathleen Sebelius 56 times,
* Bill Clinton 40 times, and
* Hillary Clinton 17 times between 1998 and 2017.
* Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.

You may be saying to yourself, okay who cares, who cares about the work history of this Barsoomian woman. Apparently someone does. Someone out there cares so much that they’ve purged all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999 from the D.C. District and Appeals court dockets. Someone out there cares so much that the internet has been purged of all information pertaining to Barsoomian. Historically this indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative.

Additionally Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community. And although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the D.C. Office of the U.S. Attorney her email address is Lisa Barsoomian@NIH.gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of Health…a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an operative by using another government organization to shield their activities. It’s a cover, so big deal right? I mean, what does one more attorney with ties to the U.S. intelligence community really matter?

With Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uniparty unrelenting opposition to President Trump, the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization mix, and last but not least, Mueller’s never-ending investigation into collusion between the Trump team and the Russians — why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention?

BECAUSE: She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s WIFE !!!!

Barsoomian’s loyalties are obviously tainted. How could this NOT have influenced Rosenstein? This clearly violates the appearance of impropriety attorney’s rules regarding conflict of interest. Both owe their careers as U.S. attorneys to Mueller, Obama, Bush, and the Clintons.

Impartiality? That’s impossible.

Rod Rosenstein has no business involving himself in the Hillary Clinton-DNC funded Steel dossier, and the ongoing Russia investigation, much less the selection of his mentor and his wife’s mentor Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.

The Rules of ethics: funny how that does NOT exist in Washington D.C. Draw your own conclusions. As we often do at dnewman.org, here are links that verify all of the above information (and much more) about the obvious corruption in this entire Special Counsel process, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and the management levels of almost ALL intelligence agencies.

I encourage you to access these to get the truth. Copy and paste each link into your browser to see each of these. I know it’s tedious, but it’s important for you to know.

https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2017/05/proof-robert-mueller-cannot-be.html#rosenstein-conflict

https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2017/05/proof-robert-mueller-cannot-be.html#rosenstein-conflict

https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2017-05-22-Lisa-Barsoomian-represented-William-J-Clinton-98-cv-01459-TPJ-06-11-1998-PACER-accessed-May-22-2017.pdf

https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2017-05-20-R-Craig-Lawrence-DC-Appeals-Court-Docket-PACER-accessed-May-20-2017.pdf

https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2017/05/proof-robert-mueller-cannot-be.html#rosenstein-conflict

https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2017-05-22-Lisa-Barsoomian-represented-William-J-Clinton-98-cv-01459-TPJ-06-11-1998-PACER-accessed-May-22-2017.pdf

https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2017-05-20-R-Craig-Lawrence-DC-Appeals-Court-Docket-PACER-accessed-May-20-2017.pdf

Summary

Just imagine if all of this collusion, inappropriate interaction between investigative officials on multiple federal levels, with such blatant conflict of interest in a federal investigation of ANY Democrat in federal office or the Democrat Party, and the investigative members instigating and conducting this investigation were Republicans. Would the Mainstream Media be going nuts everyday? They have demonstrated their capabilities in going nuts daily on air and in print through this “Russia, Russia, Russia” investigation. Step on their toes and listen to the howling.

I’ve just about had enough.

Even Civil Liberties attorney and longtime Democrat Party supporter Alan Dershowitz said that he is fearful of the criminalization of political differences in today’s discourse and that he doesn’t think special counsels are the right way to approach criminal justice. Dershowitz spoke to CBS political reporter Jack Fink about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. “I think the investigation should end and I think the Congress should appoint a special non-partisan commission,” said Dershowitz. He said he thinks a Congressional committee would be too partisan.

Dershowitz said that citizens should fear the direction of this investigation for their own sake. He warned that today criminalization of political differences appears – now – to only affect presidents and political leaders. “Tomorrow it can affect you and me. If you give the prosecutor the ability to stretch the criminal law to fit a target, it’s very dangerous.”

Dershowitz said that special counsels are not the right way to approach criminal justice. “When you appoint a special counsel you give them targets and you say, ‘You better get that guy or the people around him…and we’re going to give you tens of millions of dollars. And if you come up empty handed you’re a failure.’”

Dershowitz said that if an ordinary prosecutor goes months without finding a crime then “that’s great, no… there have been no crimes committed.” He says not so with a special counsel. “Special Counsel always has the goal of ‘getting the people.’ They’re going to find crimes, or they’re going to manufacture crimes or they’re going to stretch the criminal law to fit the ‘crimes’ because they’re not going to come away empty handed.”

When is enough enough? 15 months of investigating this Russia collusion allegation with the greatest intelligence gathering organization and an unlimited budget to do so should definitely uncover any such collusion IF there’s any there. At this point, most Americans agree, “there ain’t no there there.”

Can’t we just get moving forward in Government to get the good things done that American voters overwhelmingly voted for? The ones that President Trump has set in motion — even with the amazing obstruction from Democrats and even members of his own party — have proven to be pretty good so far. Yet still the Left cries to tear down all the good that has been done and to prevent any further positive accomplishments by this President.

I’m a Southerner. Down here the cry is, “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”

It ain’t broken.

Many thanks to Dick Ivey for much of this information. Dick does a great job of investigative work.

 

Intelligence Corruption: The Final Chapter

If you’d like to listen to the audio version of this story instead of reading it, scroll to the bottom of the story and click on the audio link. Enjoy!

No doubt we could probably go on and on with “new” chapters about corruption in Intelligence agencies in our government. But let’s wind this series down with a look at James Clapper, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers. I warn you: this “look at” is pretty sleezy.

Susan Rice

Rice served as the 24th United States National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017. She was formerly a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She served on the staff of the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during President Bill Clinton’s second term. She was confirmed as UN ambassador by the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent on January 22, 2009.

                Susan Rice

Ms. Rice is probably best known for two scandals during her NSA tenure in the Obama Administration: she appeared on every Sunday morning news talk show immediately following the Benghazi attack that resulted in 4 American deaths, including that of American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stephens. It was obvious to all her appearances that Sunday were to trot out an Obama Administration narrative that led Americans to believe the Benghazi attack was prompted solely by an internet movie that originated in the U.S. that was anti-Muslim. That story was not only debunked, but it was learned that Rice knew before making those appearances that the story was false.

The second known incident of corruption Rice participated in was at the end of Obama’s second term. In the Fall of the 2016 election and President Trump’s January 2017 inauguration, Rice as National Security Advisor requested the unmasking of American citizens by the NSA, purportedly for security reasons other than for political purposes. (Unmasking of Americans caught inadvertently in NSA surveillance of foreign persons is illegal for political purposes) In multiple interviews and stories, Rice steadfastly denied  she even had any Americans unmasked, then changed her story to say she never had any unmasked “for political purposes.” It was later learned she lied in both of those situations.

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) stated the following in an interview: “I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the president-elect and his team were at least monitored,” the House intelligence chairman said at the time. “It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the president-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.” Nunes went on to claim that the information was spread across a number of agencies and had “little or no apparent intelligence value.”

On that same day, Rice in an interview with PBS’s Judy Woodruff:

Woodruff: We’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, and after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?

Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

Rice lied.

James Clapper

Clapper is a retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and is the former Director of National Intelligence. A career intelligence officer, Clapper has held several key positions within the U.S. Intelligence Community. He served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from 1992 until 1995. He was the first director of defense intelligence within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and simultaneously the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. He served as the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) from September 2001 until June 2006.

             James Clapper

Clapper probably was best known for lying to Congress and getting caught. There is stiff Congressional insistence that he face charges for an admittedly false statement he made to Congress in March 2013, when he responded, “No, sir” and “not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans. About three months after making that claim, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the answer was untruthful and that the NSA was in fact collecting (in bulk) domestic call records, along with various internet communications. In an apology letter to lawmakers, however, Clapper said he gave the “clearly erroneous” answer because he “simply didn’t think of” the call-record collection. Numerous lawmakers insist charges be leveled against him: “No one is above the law. Officials who commit perjury or lie to Congress should be held accountable,” Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold told U.S. News by email.

The former head of the DNI has since leaving that office turned into a very public and very insistent anti-Trumpster. In doing so he is the darling of Leftist Media outlets because of his open disdain for the President.  “I lived through Watergate; I was on    active duty then in the Air Force; I was a young officer — it was a scary time,” said Clapper. “I have to say, though, that I think if you compare the two, that Watergate pales, really in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now.” Clapper said the “egregious and inexcusable” manner in which the Trump Administration removed James Comey from office reflected a complete disregard for the independence and autonomy of the FBI. “I am very concerned about the assault on our institutions coming from both an external source — Russia — and an internal source — the President himself,” he said.

He wasn’t through there. Clapper does not attack just the President, but members of Congress who in his mind in any way support the President. Enter Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) when Nunes released the famous memo his committee compiled showing intelligence abuses by the Obama FBI. Clapper called the memo a “hit job” designed to attack the FBI and the Justice Department.

“Well I think this is a hit job, more or less, to attack the FBI, attack the Department of Justice and inferentially, or by extension, the Mueller investigation,” Clapper told CNN. “I think the whole point here was to discredit all this.”

Clapper characterized the memo release as a “drive-by shooting in the interest of defending” President Trump, and said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), is acting as an “agent of the White House.”

Samantha Power

Power is an Irish-born American academic, author, political critic, and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017. She in her career as a journalist won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide

She was a senior adviser to Senator Barack Obama until March 2008, when she resigned from his presidential campaign after apologizing for referring to then-Senator Hillary Clinton as “a monster.” Power joined the Obama State Department transition team in late November 2008. She served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security Council from January 2009 to February 2013 before her appointment as UN Ambassador.

            Samantha Power

Power in 2016 was ‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News. Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

The details emerged ahead of her testimony before Congress on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing intense scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

In that October 2017 testimony to the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors,  she claimed others in the intelligence community used her name obtain this unprecedented unmasking. According to the Committee Chairman Representative Trey Gowdy, her only defense was “It’s not me it’s my subordinates.”

Summary

Why would Susan Rice make those television appearances with the same story on the same day that were untrue? Why did James Clapper lie to Congress, and why is he still long after resigning from his position attacking on a political level AND personal level the President over and over? Why would Samantha Power serving as U.N. Ambassador even NEED to have any American unmasked — and to have HUNDREDS of Americans unmasked?!?!

The answers to those 3 questions is not 1 answer, but several. And NO answer is that “It was part of my job and duty when serving the American people.” Most feel these 3 people are just a few of a myriad of individuals from the Obama Administration that have stealthily carried out a hit campaign to not only denigrate this President, but lay enough negative groundwork to create a perception of corruption of this President to lead to an impeachment or to push him to resign from the exhausting onslaught of attacks that never stop.

I will close this series of some of the Obama Administration corruption (and we have barely scratched the surface) with this: why hasn’t the current Attorney General filed any charges against any of these three for their obvious and blatant and serious actions that violated multiple federal laws? You can be certain that if any one of these 3 was Republican, they would already be in jail, convicted of multiple federal crimes. A.G. Sessions, where are you?

One last thing: you can bet in the coming days there will be numerous new revelations of massive corruption from the 8 years of government before the Trump inauguration. How do I know? There are 19,000 sealed indictments that have been obtained in federal district courts around the U.S. against undisclosed individuals and entities with undisclosed charges JUST SINCE OCTOBER 31, 2017! What are their details? They are sealed indictments — no public disclosure of any details are allowed.

Oh: if any of these indictments were against Trump, the Trump Campaign, or government conservatives, you can bet there would have been immediate and thorough leaks to the press and the press would be all over them on air and in writing.

Who do you think are the charged in these sealed indictments?

I can’t wait!

 

Postponement Of Chapter of “Corruption” to Discuss Congressional Corruption Seen Today!

If you’d like to skip the written story here scroll to the bottom and simply click on the Podcast link and hear the story instead. Enjoy!

Apologies to all our members. This is supposed to be an installment detailing Intelligence Department corruption. Today’s chapter (which will be published tomorrow instead) talks about the NSA, DNI, individuals like former Obama White House National Security Director and UN Ambassador Samantha Powers.

The “Latest” Congressional Boondoggle

Today we need to weigh in on the pending boondoggle in D.C. that is the largest financial boondoggle in U.S. History: they are calling it “The Omnibus.” What does that mean? Instead of each House of Congress separately over a period of time creating a budget template, debating specifics, presenting and debating amendments, talking with voting constituents to get ideas, then reaching consensus in the respective chambers and reconciling the House and the Senate versions into an exhaustively researched and debated budget, these Congressional members simply sent 4 leaders into a room — 2 from the House and 2 from the Senate — to discuss a MASTER bill that included EVERYTHING! There was NO individual introductory, debate, discussion, or individual Congressional input. These 4 developed a 2200 page bill that they showed to NO ONE until 6:00 Wednesday night! There is no way a single member had time to even read the massive legislative bill yet alone understand any part of it. And just 12 hours after seeing it for the very first time, the House was forced to vote on it Thursday morning. The Senate must pass it before Friday night so as to have the President sign it into law before — guess what — THE GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN!

Let me ask you, our faithful readers a few questions:

  • There are 535 members of Congress. How is it reasonable in any scenario for 4 of the 535 elected Congressional members to determine what should and what should not go into a $1.3 Trillion bill? (By the way, that bill if signed into law will last only until the Fall, will create by itself an additional $1 Trillion deficit increase in these few months?
  • How many of you are OK with just a few of the elements that we know so far that include fully funding (with our federal tax dollars) of Planned Parenthood, Sanctuary cities, building a tunnel between Manhattan and New Jersey, and allocating just a bit over $1 Billion to start the border wall when $25 Billion was DEMANDED by the President for his willingness to sign any budget deal?
  • Are you comfortable with Congressional leadership forcing votes on this incredible expensive bill just 12 hours after first showing it to anyone? That sounds a bit like Pelosi’s famous “We must pass this law before we can find out what’s in the law” statement about Obamacare.
  • Are you a tad upset with the President who first maintained he would veto any budget bill sent to him that funded Planned Parenthood, funded Sanctuary cities, and did NOT include money for increased southern border security AND fully funded the border wall? House Speaker Paul Ryan visited the White House on Wednesday and reportedly talked the President into accepting this spending monstrosity.
  • Does it bother you that just 90 of the Republicans part of the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted against the measure on Thursday while 145 voted for the Bill? (In the interest of informing our readers from around the nation and around the World, click on the following link to see the complete detail of the vote of every member of the House on House Bill 1625)  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h127
  • Does the hypocrisy of the GOP House members who voted “Yay” on this bill shock you at all — especially in light of the fact that virtually NONE of them when campaigning for the 2016 election/re-election to their Congressional seat gave even passive support of Planned Parenthood, voting against the border wall, fully funding Sanctuary cities, and doing so without even taking time to read the content of the 2200 page bill. I can honestly say that I doubt if ANY GOP House member stated support of any of these when campaigning. In fact, virtually ALL campaigned in total support of President Trump’s promises. And probably ALL of these 145 promised to support de-funding of Planned Parenthood, to never fund Sanctuary cities, and to pass a sensible budget that would either cut government spending or stop its growth.

So where does your district’s Congressional Representative weigh in on this vote?

Very early this morning I sent a text to my Congressman expressing my horror at what was happening: “Mike: Dan Newman here. I encourage you to vote against the Omnibus Bill. I know you are FOR the common sense process of budgeting and Leadership in the Senate is ramming this spending boondoggle down our throats. They continue to use the “shutdown” as a threat. IT MUST STOP! Please continue to demand realistic spending planning. Thanks!” (“Mike” is Mike Johnson (R-LA), a freshman Representative) His reply was, “Thanks, Dan. The omni is an OUTRAGEOUS betrayal of our people and our principles, and I am a DEFINITE NO!”

Only 89 other Republicans voted against the bill. Here’s what those 145 Republicans who voted for the bill said to American Conservatives:

“Na NaNa Boo Boo!” We fooled you. You thought we were honest, hard-working, cared for you and our Country. You believed we would vote for conservative ideals that included smaller government, protecting our borders to keep our nation safe, and stop senseless spending, like sending your tax dollars to slaughter another million or so babies at Planned Parenthood. Sanctuary Cities — who cares? We certainly don’t. You were stupid to believe we would expend any real efforts to ebb the flow of illegals into our country and cutoff sending your tax dollars to those cities that refuse to handover those criminal illegals to ICE agents. Boy, we sure got you!”

Summary

Can you tell I’m a little ticked off? Honestly, this surely is the most tragic event regarding dollars to happen in American history, IF the Senate passes this tomorrow. How ticked off am I? Before the House passed the measure I posted this in social media:

“If the Omnibus Bill passes and is signed into law, in November Democrats will regain control of the House and Senate AND the White House in 2020. It fully funds Planned Parenthood, regulates 2nd Amendment gun rights, funds Sanctuary Cities, AND no money for the border wall: all things that Congress committed in 2016 campaigns. Oh, it funds a Schumer pork project to build a tunnel between Manhattan and New Jersey INSTEAD OF THE WALL!

I should not be shocked because we know how corrupt Congress is. Personal deal making. “Why,” you ask? No one leaves Congress poor. Their pockets are filled with your hard earned money they confiscate through taxes for their gifts to special interests.

Fund Planned Parenthood? Another million babies will be sacrificed at the altar of D.C. greed.”

If President Trump who spent his entire campaign in many cases nastily lashing out against ALL of these elements in the Omnibus Bill, lashing out against the corruption in Congress that allows such things to happen, signs this bill into law — HE IS DONE!

And he should be……

Democrats Release Tax INCREASE Plan for Americans

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

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

Trump Tax Cuts

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

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

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

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

Democrat Tax Increase Plan

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

 

(Ryan Ellis contributed to this story)

Frustration

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

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

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

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

Political Frustrations

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

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

The Media

Here are some examples:

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

Summary

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

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

“Deplorable Americans”

 

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

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

But there was more:

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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