This overview provides a glimpse into what to expect from President Trump’s next four years. The political and economic landscape will undoubtedly be dynamic, with significant implications for various segments of the population. President Trump’s Second Term: What to Expect 2024-2025: Setting the Stage Inauguration and Early Policies: President Trump’s second term begins with a focus on solidifying his base and implementing key policies. His administration is expected to prioritize immigration reform, including the continuation of building the border wall and implementing stricter immigration policies, Trump has also promised to cut taxes further, particularly for corporations and high-income earners. Congressional Dynamics: With Republicans likely holding a majority in both the House and Senate, Trump will have more leeway to push through his legislative agenda. However, he may still face opposition from within his party on certain issues, particularly those that require significant funding or are highly controversial. 2025-2026: Economic Policies and Social Security Tax Cuts and Economic Impact: Trump’s economic policies will likely include extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reducing corporate tax rates, and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. While these measures aim to stimulate economic growth, they could also increase the federal deficit and potentially lead to cuts in social programs. Impact on the Lower Middle Class: The lower middle class may face mixed outcomes. On one hand, tax cuts could provide some financial relief. On the other hand, proposed tariffs and a potential national sales tax could increase the cost of goods, disproportionately affecting lower-income households. The burden of a national sales tax is typically regressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from lower-income earners. Social Security Concerns: Trump has pledged not to cut Social Security benefits, but his economic policies could inadvertently strain the program’s funding. Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits and other revenue-reducing measures could exacerbate the funding crisis, potentially leading to benefit cuts in the future 2026-2027: Legislative Battles and Policy Implementation Healthcare and Education: Trump’s administration may attempt to repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act, focusing on reducing federal involvement in healthcare. Education policies could see a shift towards school choice and voucher programs, aiming to increase competition and improve educational outcomes. Infrastructure and Trade: Infrastructure development will likely be a key focus, with Trump pushing for significant investments in rebuilding America’s roads, bridges, and airports. Trade policies will continue to emphasize tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests. 2027-2028: Preparing for the Next Election Political Climate and Midterm Elections: As the 2028 midterm elections approach, Trump’s administration will focus on maintaining Republican control of Congress. This period may see increased political polarization and efforts to rally the base through populist rhetoric and policy initiatives. Long-term Economic Impact: The long-term effects of Trump’s economic policies will become more apparent. While tax cuts and deregulation may boost economic growth, the potential increase in the federal deficit and strain on social programs could pose significant challenges. Defense, NATO, and Terrorism Defense and Military Spending: Trump has consistently advocated for increased military spending and a strong national defense. His administration is expected to continue this trend, focusing on modernizing the military and ensuring the U.S. maintains its global military dominance. NATO and International Relations: Trump’s relationship with NATO has been contentious. He has criticized NATO members for not meeting their defense spending commitments and has suggested that the U.S. might reduce its involvement if other members do not increase their contributions. This stance could lead to tensions within the alliance and impact the U.S.’s role in global security. Terrorism: Trump’s approach to combating terrorism will likely involve a combination of military action and intelligence operations. He has emphasized the need for strong borders and strict immigration policies to prevent terrorists from entering the country. Additionally, Trump has advocated for aggressive measures against terrorist organizations abroad, Immigration Policies Mass Deportations: Trump has promised to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. This plan involves mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, increased workplace raids, and the use of the U.S. military to assist in enforcement. Critics argue that this approach could lead to significant humanitarian and economic challenges. Border Security: Building and expanding the border wall remains a priority for Trump. His administration will likely continue to allocate significant resources to border security, including hiring more border agents and implementing advanced surveillance technologies. Asylum and Visa Policies: Trump’s administration is expected to implement stricter asylum policies and reduce the number of visas issued. These measures aim to curb illegal immigration and ensure that only those who meet stringent criteria are allowed to enter the country. Legacy and Future Prospects: Trump’s second term will shape his legacy and influence the future direction of the Republican Party. His policies and leadership style will continue to be a source of debate and analysis, impacting American politics for years to come.. Post Views: 4
Category: Politics
The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
Pat Tillman was a man of immense courage, both on the football field and the battlefield. Known for his selflessness, Tillman walked away from a successful NFL career to serve in the U.S. Army following the attacks on September 11, 2001. His decision shocked the sports world, as he turned down millions to follow a higher calling. Tragically, Tillman’s life was cut short in 2004 while serving in Afghanistan. What followed his death was a series of misreports and accusations of a military cover-up, sparking one of the most controversial military cases in modern U.S. history. Pat Tillman’s Path from NFL Star to Army Ranger Tillman was a rising star in the NFL, playing safety for the Arizona Cardinals. He was known for his relentless work ethic and fierce determination. In 2002, after completing the NFL season, Tillman made a life-altering decision. Deeply affected by the events of 9/11, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, leaving behind his NFL career to serve his country. Tillman joined the elite Army Rangers and served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His decision to enlist in the military at the height of his career earned him admiration from fans, players, and the American public. He became a symbol of sacrifice and service. However, his journey took a tragic turn on April 22, 2004, when he was killed in a firefight while on patrol in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Initial Reports and the Tragic Friendly Fire Incident When news of Pat Tillman’s death first broke, it was reported that he had died heroically in a firefight with enemy forces. The U.S. military initially described his death as the result of an ambush by Taliban insurgents. Tillman’s story became a rallying cry for patriotism, and his sacrifice was celebrated nationwide. However, within weeks of his death, disturbing details began to surface that challenged the initial reports. It was revealed that Tillman had not been killed by enemy fire but by “friendly fire”—a devastating revelation that sent shockwaves through his family and the public. The term “friendly fire” refers to a situation in which soldiers are accidentally shot by their own forces, and this was the grim reality of Tillman’s final moments. Tillman had been accidentally shot by fellow U.S. soldiers in the confusion of battle, when his platoon was split during an engagement with enemy forces. In the chaos, Tillman was struck by three bullets to the head, fired from a fellow soldier’s rifle. The soldiers involved were reportedly unaware of their mistake until it was too late. The Cover-Up and Misreporting The controversy surrounding Pat Tillman’s death stems not only from the friendly fire incident itself but also from how the U.S. military handled the situation. For weeks, the military continued to promote the narrative that Tillman had been killed by enemy forces, even as evidence of friendly fire became clear to those on the ground. This led to accusations that the military had deliberately concealed the truth in order to preserve Tillman’s image as a war hero. Tillman’s family was devastated when they learned the truth about how he had died. They became outspoken critics of the military’s handling of his death, accusing the government of using Pat’s death as a propaganda tool to rally public support for the war. The family felt that the initial misreporting of his death was not merely an error but part of a calculated cover-up to hide the uncomfortable reality of friendly fire. The Official Investigation The controversy surrounding Tillman’s death eventually led to multiple investigations by the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and Congress. The Army conducted a formal inquiry into the incident, which confirmed that Tillman’s death was indeed the result of friendly fire. The report also noted that there had been a failure to report the details of the incident accurately and promptly. However, the investigation into whether there was an intentional cover-up remained contentious. Testimonies from soldiers who were with Tillman during the firefight revealed that the military had been aware early on that Tillman was likely killed by friendly fire. Yet, despite this knowledge, it took weeks for the truth to be disclosed to Tillman’s family and the public. Congressional hearings were held in 2007, during which military officials were questioned about the delayed and misleading reports. Army officials admitted that the initial account of Tillman’s death was wrong but denied any deliberate attempt to cover up the truth. The hearings left many questions unanswered, and the Tillman family continued to believe that there had been an effort to mislead them and the public. Lingering Controversies and Theories Despite the official investigations, controversy still surrounds the handling of Pat Tillman’s death. The central question remains: Was the initial misreporting a result of confusion and poor communication, or was it a deliberate attempt to manipulate the story of Tillman’s death for political purposes? The Role of Leadership: – Some critics argue that military leadership, particularly at higher levels, may have intentionally delayed the truth about Tillman’s death to avoid public relations fallout. At the time of his death, Tillman had become a national symbol, and revealing that he had died by friendly fire might have undermined his legacy and damaged morale among U.S. forces and the American public. Political Motivations: – There is also speculation that Tillman’s death was manipulated to serve as a patriotic rallying point during a period when public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was wavering. Tillman’s death, as initially reported, was seen as a heroic sacrifice, and some believe this narrative was maintained for political purposes. The Question of Accountability: – While investigations confirmed friendly fire as the cause of death, many believe that those responsible for the delay in revealing the truth have not been held accountable. The Tillman family, in particular, has sought greater transparency and justice in the handling of Pat’s case. Conclusion: A Complex and Tragic Story Pat Tillman’s death is a story of both heroism and heartbreak. His… Continue reading The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
Electoral College: Protector of Small Populous States RIGHT TO VOTE
It has been brought to my attention, some states are taking steps to eliminate the ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE”. Apparently the people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, either missed that day in school, or was asleep when the subject was being taught. You see the Electoral College was put in the constitution to protect smaller states from being RULED by the whims of the larger populated states. It is a safe stop; which is more necessary now than at the time of its placement in the constitution. Before you begin reading the main body of this post, I ask you to keep in mind these numbers. (Although the Electoral College isn’t perfect please consider these numbers). Then tell me who completely controls the “POPULAR VOTE”. California: 38,889,700 people. Texas: 30,978,754 people. Florida: 22,975,931 people. New York 19,467,232 people. Pennsylvania 12,951275 people. I am using numbers available for April, 2024. The total population of just these 5 states, (according to my calculator), 335,893,238 that is almost 336 MILLION PEOPLE. Now as for the other 45 states (again according to my calculator), 206,982,776 almost 207 MILLION PEOPLE. My point being with 5 states having 129 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THE remaining 45 states. These 5 states have more than enough people to elect whoever they want not necessarily who is best for the entire country. This conundrum (to ME). Do I want a president I do not want or even have a say in? The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1. It was intended as a compromise between those who advocated for the election of the president through a vote in Congress and those who believed it should be decided by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors in total, which represent the 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes. This system is not based on equal representation of individuals, but rather on equal representation of states. Now let’s consider your hypothetical scenario where just five most populated states control a presidential election. These states are California (55 Electoral Votes), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), and Pennsylvania (20) as per the 2020 allocations. This adds up to just 171 electoral votes – still far short from the required majority of 270. Therefore, even though these states might have large populations, they alone cannot decide an election through popular vote due to our current electoral college system. However, if we were to shift to a direct democracy model or use only popular vote to determine elections, theoretically these states with high populations could indeed dominate national elections. This could lead to political imbalance and neglecting interests of less populous areas which often have unique socio-economic and environmental issues that require specific policy attention. If this were the case, citizens from less-populated states might feel that their votes don’t carry enough weight or their voice is not heard adequately in deciding national leadership. This could lead to certain degree of voter disillusionment or lower voter turnout among them because they may see their role as insignificant next to larger populace areas. This concern forms one of key arguments behind maintaining our Electoral College – it ensures all parts of country can have recognizable say in choosing our national leader irrespective of their population size. Furthermore, the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to seek support from a wider geographic base, instead of just focusing on densely populated urban areas. It maintains the balance of influence among states and encourages candidates to understand and respond to diverse needs of different states. So despite criticisms, many argue that maintaining the electoral college is an important tool in preserving our federal system and ensuring that all parts of the country have an equitable say in national elections. In conclusion: What am i missing? After all I am sure these lawmakers have a much better education than I do. OR, are they ??? What is their motive for taking away the voters rights, as IT IS possible that the votes cast by these 45 states are just a matter of going through the motions, allowing the residents to feel their votes count. Thank you. Artie Fischal P.S. Please feel free to leave me comments those who agree and those who don’t agree. Maybe I’ll learn something. Post Views: 134
If Elected I Will: Promises Made by Politicians
Election time is here ! We can tell by the sprouting of signs in lawns, billboards, newspapers, TV and Radio ads. (which is, it seems at least one or two out three ads). They fall into three different catagories. One is telling you how bad a person their opponent is. The second is telling you what a terrific person the one who’s being told what a louse he is by his opponent. The Third is PROMISES, that are in truth what the politician thinks the people he represents want to hear. So, today let’s take a short look at how valid, or likely those freely strewn promises have of actually happening. It is really more complicated than what we see here; but this will give you somewhat of an idea how most of the things promised Won’t happen. I would much rather hear, “These are the things I WANT to do”. Rather than, “This what I WILL do, if elected”. Doesn’t that sound more truthful? So here we go. When politicians run for office, they often make a variety of promises to the electorate. These campaign promises are designed to align with their constituents’ values and concerns, and are intended to illustrate the candidates’ goals if they are elected. However, it is true that these promises sometimes extend beyond what the politicians themselves can personally deliver. Let’s look at some of the reasons why this is the case. 1. Separation of Powers: In many democratic societies, powers are divided among different branches of government. For example, in the United States, power is split between executive, legislative, and judicial branches. If a candidate running for an executive office (like President or Governor) makes a promise that requires legislation to be passed or changed, they will need cooperation from the legislative branch where lawmakers may not share their views or objectives. 2. Opposition: Politicians often face opposition from other elected officials who either have different views or might not want them to succeed for political reasons. This opposition can come from within their own party (intra-party) or from other parties (inter-party). This opposition might block or delay legislation needed to fulfill certain promises. 3. External Constraints: Sometimes events outside a politician’s control can hinder their ability to fulfill promises made during campaigns. The economy could enter a recession; there could be natural disasters; international events could demand time and resources–all these factors can divert attention and resources away from certain campaign promises. 4. Public Opinion: Public opinion can shift over time due to external factors or changes in societal attitudes which may make it difficult for politicians to keep certain campaign promises without risking public approval. 5. Constraints by Law and Constitution: Many countries have constitutions that place restrictions on what government bodies can do within their jurisdiction which may limit a politician’s ability to fulfill some election promises. Despite these constraints, it’s important for citizens in any democracy to hold elected officials accountable for their campaign pledges within these realistic limits. If a politician consistently fails to meet their promises without good reason, voters can express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box in the next election. An educated electorate is a key pillar of any healthy democracy, and understanding the real constraints politicians face can help voters make informed decisions about which candidates truly have their best interests at heart. Post Views: 129
COULD THE CRASH OF THE DALI INTO THE FRANCIS SCOTT KEY BE COINCIDENTAL
[adrotate group=”1″] I am no expert on what I am about to bring up. Merely a possibility, The Singapore flagged ship which crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. The Pilot claims to have lost control of the ship. Could this be the case? Very much so. Is it possible some terrorist group remotely took over control. I don’t know. It just seems odd the bridge is the Francis Scott Key Bridge, (Francis Scott Key the writer of the poem, “The Defence of Fort McHenry”. Now known as the United States of America’s National Anthem, “THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER” Written while watching the bombardment of the fort by British Navy in Outer Baltimore Port in the PATAPSCO RIVER. (Same River) HERE is some things I found researching the possibility of a remote control take over. The Dali, a Singapore-flagged container vessel, collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. Here are the key points: Incident Details: The Dali collided with the bridge, causing it to collapse into the Patapsco River. Video evidence captured the ship’s approach and subsequent loss of control. Police radio traffic reported steering failure just before the collision. Remote Control Possibility: While the incident does not directly involve remote control, the concept of remotely operated vessels exists. Large robotic ships equipped with cameras, radars, and GPS can be operated from land-based control centers. Investigations will determine the precise cause, but there is no evidence of intentional remote guidance. Advancements in Maritime Technology: Autonomous and remotely operated ships are transforming the industry. The Dali incident highlights the need for safety protocols and further research in vessel control systems. NOTE: I HAVE NO REAL PROOF. THIS IS MERELY CONJECTURE !! An American Veteran exercising my first amendment right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH ! Post Views: 100
THE DISAPPEARANCE of CENTRAL AMERICA: A TALE of INEQUALITY, VIOLENCE, and MIGRATION
[adrotate group=”1″] When I attended school way back in the 1950s, we were taught the 3 AMERICAS. 1. North America: Canada, United States of America, and Mexico. Then there was 2. Central America: Now made up of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. However, you rarely, (if ever), hear Central America mentioned. Did North America eat up these countries, OR did South America take them over? So I decided to do a little research. This is all I could come up with. Apparently this area is still CENTRAL AMERICA, seems the MEDIA is unaware of the existence of Central America. This will be a two post story. Please let me know… DOES CENTRAL AMERICA STILL EXIST? PART 1. Central America, a region steeped in history and complexity, has witnessed profound changes over the centuries. From colonial conquests to modern-day struggles, its story is one of resilience, tragedy, and hope. In this blog post, we explore the disappearance of Central America—a disappearance not of landmass but of lives, dreams, and stability. Roots of Inequality and Violence Central America’s woes trace back to the age of Spanish colonization. The legacy of inequality and violence has haunted the region for centuries. Here are some key factors: Spanish Conquest: The arrival of Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century marked the beginning of a tumultuous era. Indigenous populations were subjugated, their lands seized, and their cultures suppressed. The seeds of inequality were sown. Elites vs. Populations: Over time, small criminal elites thrived at the expense of the masses. These elites controlled resources, perpetuating poverty and injustice. The majority struggled to survive, caught in a cycle of exploitation. US Intervention: The United States played a pivotal role in Central America’s fate. Sometimes unintentionally, other times deliberately, US actions shaped the region. Whether motivated by profit or ideology, the consequences were far-reaching. The Desperate Exodus Fast-forward to the present day. Families in Central America face a hellish existence—a reality the US has helped create. Here’s how: Costly Journeys: Desperate to escape violence, poverty, and hopelessness, migrants embark on perilous journeys. The cost of smuggling services has skyrocketed—from $1,000 to up to $12,000. Families take out loans, hoping that reaching the US will be their salvation. US Policies: US foreign policy has often favored the powerful and wealthy. When activists championed the dispossessed, the US either intervened against them or turned a blind eye to their plight. The result? Families flee their homes, seeking refuge from a system that failed them. Unintended Consequences: Enforcement measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration inadvertently increased the stakes. Failure meant debt, and the only way to repay it was to keep trying. Women and children migrate, hoping to stay together. The Missing Voices Central America’s disappearance isn’t just about physical borders—it’s about the missing voices. More than two-thirds of migrants fleeing the northern triangle countries (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) have experienced murder, disappearance, or kidnapping . The toll is staggering: Guatemala: More than 45,000. El Salvador: Over 5,000. A Call for Change Central America’s struggle continues. Poverty, violence, and corruption persist. But so does resilience. Communities fight for justice, families search for their loved ones, and activists raise their voices. As we reflect on Central America’s disappearance, let us remember the faces behind the statistics—the lives lost, the dreams shattered. And let us advocate for a world where no one vanishes into the void, where every voice matters. In the end, Central America’s story isn’t one of disappearance; it’s a story of survival, endurance, and the unwavering quest for a better tomorrow. [adrotate group=”1″] Post Views: 98
THE PEN vs. THE SWORD: A DUEL of INFLUENCE
[adrotate group=”1″] We have all heard the sayings: “The pen is mightier than the sword”. “Actions speak louder than words”, Here we examine the two sayings, to see if we can determine which is more true. In the vast arena of human communication, two powerful contenders step into the spotlight: the pen and the sword. Each wields its unique force, leaving an indelible mark on history, culture, and the hearts of people. Let us explore this timeless clash of metaphors, where ink battles steel, and ideas spar with blades. The Pen: A Quill of Transformation “The pen is mightier than the sword.” This venerable adage, penned by English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839, resonates across centuries. It proclaims that the written word possesses a potency beyond mere physical force. Here’s why: Ideas Unleashed: The pen, poised over parchment, births revolutions, reforms, and enlightenment. It etches treaties, constitutions, and manifestos—blueprints for societal metamorphosis. The ink flows, and minds awaken. Silent Rebellion: While the sword clangs in battle, the pen whispers dissent. It infiltrates minds, dismantling tyranny, prejudice, and ignorance. The pen’s ink seeps into hearts, urging change, compassion, and justice. Silent Rebellion: The sword rusts, but the written word endures. From ancient scrolls to digital archives, it transcends time. Shakespeare’s sonnets, Voltaire’s essays, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s and echo across generations. The Sword: A Blade of Defiance “Actions speak louder than words.” This maxim, rooted in wisdom, reminds us that deeds resonate more profoundly than mere promises. Behold the sword: Visible Impact: When wielded, the sword cleaves reality. It defends, conquers, or avenges. Its blade, unsheathed, alters destinies. Battles won, kingdoms toppled—the sword’s legacy is etched in blood and valor. Immediate Resolve: In the heat of conflict, words falter. The sword, swift and decisive, demands no eloquence. It slashes through ambiguity, proclaiming intent. Actions—bold, unyielding—shape history’s contours. Symbol of Authority: Kings, knights, and warriors brandish swords—a badge of power. The blade’s gleam intimidates foes, rallies allies. It carves paths through chaos, forging empires and legends. The Harmonious Duet But can these adversaries coexist? Indeed! Their synergy births revolutions. Consider: The Treaty: Diplomats wield pens, drafting peace accords. Yet, ink alone won’t quell strife. Swords enforce treaties, ensuring compliance. The Martyr: Words ignite revolutions, but courage wields the sword. Think of Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance—a fusion of pen and sword. The Artist: Shakespeare’s quill conjured Hamlet’s soliloquies, while the sword danced in Macbeth’s battles. Art and action entwine. The Verdict In this cosmic duel, neither triumphs absolutely. The pen scribes ideals; the sword defends them. Together, they shape humanity’s saga. So, let ink flow, blades clash, and ideas roar. For in this symphony of expression, both pen and sword find their immortal refrain. “The pen is mightier than the sword,” whispers the sage. “Actions speak louder than words,” echoes the warrior. And we, mere mortals, dance between their harmonious chords. [adrotate group=”1″] Post Views: 130
THE WALL, GUN CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS
I must apologize. With TAX season upon us; I got busy and didn’t realize my hosting fee was due. SORRY about that. But we are up and running again. Let me begin by re-affirming. I AM NEITHER A REPUBLICAN NOR DEMOCRAT. I FEEL THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN GOVERNMENT. Recent events have shown WHY I have this belief. Was Donald Trump my first choice for President of United States. NO! However given the choice between Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton ( a proven anti American candidate), there was little choice. I figure women voted for her because of their desire to have a WOMAN President. Then you have those people (of both parties) Who will vote for a candidate because he/she is of a certain party. If Hitler were alive and nominated for a political office there is NO doubt he would get the vote of those hard line PARTY MEMBERS. I do not think Donald Trump believed he had a chance to become President. And was really taken off guard when he got the nomination and then actually WON. Had the democratic party chosen an able candidate I may have voted for that one. However given the record of Barack Obama, IT would have been difficult to justify any DEMOCRATIC candidate.. I could write volumes about how Obama wasted eight years of being a very powerful person. (I did like that he appeared to to LOVE basketball). I could also fill volumes of why I feel Ms. Clinton is anti-American. Let me say that I was no fan of Republican Ronald Reagan, or H.W. Bush. Now on to my POST. As I see it TOO MANY OF YOU HAVE BECOME FOLLOWERS. You will sit there and watch a speech or a video account of something and RATHER, Than believe what YOU hear or see. YOU believe the editorialized version you receive from the MEDIA. We have so few NEWS “REPORTERS”. What we have are…” NEWS EDITORIALIZERS” They do not “REPORT NEWS” . THEY merely give you their version. (Or their boss”s version). I have seen many LIVE speeches given by Mr. Trump. Only to see the news version which has been edited. Omitting even a word or two can change the entire meaning. This is one trick they use to convince you to believe their way. I find it hard to believe the majority of DEMOCRATS are being truly represented by the people they elected. (Some Republicans are the same). It just seems that the DEMOCRATS now in office have no LOGICAL THINKING ABILITY. (I am one who relies on LOGIC more than not. Let us look upon Nancy Pelosi. A person totally void of LOGIC. I know for a fact that Mr. Trump tried in earnest to negotiate with her on the wall deal. But Pelosi (being one minded), refused to try to negotiate. (NEGOTIATE: TO DEAL OR BARGAIN WITH ANOTHER OR OTHERS IN THE PREPARATION OF A TREATY OR CONTRACTIN PRELIMINARIES TO A BUSINESS DEAL). Example: If you are wanting a raise in wages. Say you are really wanting a dollar an hour raise, or if on salary you want a $5000 a year raise. Do you go to your boss and say I want a dollar an hour more. He will com back and say I will give you a quarter and hour and somehow you reach an agreement between his offer of a quarter and your asking one dollar. No you go in and ask for say $2 an hour raise through negotiation you agree to the dollar raise ( or near it), you get your raise the boss feels he has saved $1 an hour. You both are pleased. BUT If you go to the boss and say I want to negotiate a raise. The boss says NO I won’t discuss a raise. Thus you have no negotiations. That is exactly what Ms Pelosi told Mr. Trump. So he did what you and I would do and walked out. Ms. Pelosi has her own agenda and thinks she is the sole charge of USA. An ego trip if you will. She is not interested in representing the majority of democrats, She is merely trying to make a name for herself. The name she is making I personally would hate to have. I know MANY Democrats whho have tuned her out and are ashamed to admit they are Democrats. People who have been Democrats for SIXTY to SEVENTY years. Now let’s move to this wall thing. Jim Acosta a CNN reporter was walking along a portion of wall and telling everyone the wall was not needed. After all the businesses behind that wall were all doing well and no trouble with people illegally crossing ACCROSS the border. FROM BEHIND THE WALL.. Did you see the interview of the tthree ranchers whose ranches are along the border? One rancher tells of 2 million illegal crossings on his property and tearing down his fences. (I think that number could have been stretched a little), BUT they are entering our country illegally.. Another tells of 38 trucks coming across with illegal guns to be sold in our USA. Another tells of truckloads of drugs crossing onto his ranch. The third tells of even more truckloads of drugs, crossing over his ranch. Ms. Pelosi and her comrade Schumer seem to go blind to these things. She claims we need “MORE GUN CONTROLS”; BUT ! Pretends there are illegal guns coming ILLEGALLY, into the USA.. Not to mention, in this day of “IDENTITY THEFT, HOW many of these illegal trespassers are using good citizens identities to obtain “ LEGAL GUNS”. As to PRESIDENT TRUMP stating he could have not used his power to accelerate the building of the WALL, (I personally don’t like the idea of a wall ….BUT). To delay the inevitable is like shutting the barn door after the horse is out. Lets curb these illegal activities as quickly as… Continue reading THE WALL, GUN CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS
