The Confused Generation – Our Wrap Up On Traditional Living


   The overall lesson of this piece: If we would just make the world a lot less confusing a place, wouldn’t there be a lot less confused people living in it? And why isn’t that a no brainer?


   Thank you for listening, so far, to what we have told you here at WeMustUnite. Thus far, the talk has (mostly) centered on how easily children can become confused. We will end the discussion on just how bad this confusion has become – and about why.

    The how badly question is easy: it is nearly total. We have a new generation that is clueless on even the most basic aspects of life. Socialism, ‘alternative’ lifestyles (as being a norm) and on the list could go. But as to the why: this is where I feel forced to say a stern message. For I blame it all, not on people being, say, ‘born that way’. Instead, I blame it on a horrific Gallup Poll that was taken when I was a young person in the 1980s. The time of my generation.


   It was a very revealing poll. One finding was that the people of my generation had real concerns for the next generation. A second was that we were concerned on how our behavior might affect future generations. But, as incredible as this may seem, the next finding was that … we still had no intention of changing our behavior!

   In other words, we knew what we were doing was wrong. And that it could adversely affect the future – but we were still going to damn well do it anyways!!! And we did. Now, a couple of generations later, we have The Confused Generation – and the proof that these fears were justified.

   As to our behavior: we were the ones who broke down the age of moral certainty and tradition – so that we now have the Era of Confusion. Those of us who were married allowed the divorce rate to continue climbing. And for those of us who weren’t married, we normalized premarital sex and made it an acceptable part of society. And, in so doing, we let an evil genie out of the bottle that I will simply call The Cycle.

   First, there was an increasing rate of out-of-wedlock births. Next, society scored an F minus at this test to its’ own normal existence. It failed to do the normal type of push backs – that were historically done against people who engaged in this activity.  This led to a demand for abortions while the normal push backs – by society – were still left undone.  Ergo, the society of my generation made an eyes-wide-open decision to capitulate to immorality.

   Rather than pushing back against the unethical behavior, they legalized the abortions. And then they continued to allow male gendered people other ways to be able to ‘hit and run’ – and to get away with it. And thus, the cycle started: the illusion of a consequence free society led to still more irresponsible behavior.

   Which then led to still more abortions and ways to duck one’s responsibilities, which then led to further irresponsible behavior etc. etc. As a result: between illegitimacy and the surging divorce rates we have gone from a 95% rate of intact families (being the way to deal with all children) – down to a rate of around only 25%. And so it was that my generation between 1) exercising self-centered punk attitudes as singles and 2) no longer being able to persevere for ones’ family as a married man, ended the traditional family unit. And ended the age of moral certainty.


   Unsurprisingly, after the end of moral certainty you then have moral confusion. Once you have divorced yourself from moral certainty what is to stop the effects I am talking about? Where every quack theory or cultural elitist (more on them in a second) can take over the game for you – and set up the next confused generation?

   Thus, since the time of my generation there has been even more of a social collapse. The entertainment industry, the educators, the journalists and politicians have stopped even appreciating the traditional family concept. Now there is open advocacy of utter fairy tales: that it doesn’t matter how you do your sex acts (when we have a 50% rate of knock-ups?), that it is all six of the one thing and half a dozen of another, that there are an endless number of ‘alternative’ ways of doing sex, family and lifestyle issues – that are all just as good as one another. And, thus, have been given their names as simply being ‘alternatives’.

  And this is the type of thing that plays right into the hands of the cultural elitist types. There has always been a type of person that has a smug superiority about themselves – and just because they reject everything that the rest of society may take for granted. This somehow makes them more morally or intellectually superior or more ‘enlightened’ than the common man.

   And this is where we now stand. No longer being ruled by God, we are now in the era of, and are ruled by, these cultural elitists. And this question, of elitism, is an overarching issue that seems to affect all the main issues we are dealing with in society.

   In the Rogues Gallery section of our library, we talk about political and legal elitism. In our Denova’s Gallery, I would describe it as a Cultural Elitism. And a clueless elitism. Just as socialism has never actually worked in any real-world setting, neither do ‘alternative’ lifestyles or ‘alternative’ families. But none of this stops these people from a) believing in all these things anyway and that b) in believing them that they are morally superior to all the rest of us.



   I also share a deep concern about the role of ethics in our society. We have ended basic rules about morality but now we are changing into a society that has neither morality nor ethics. I am sympathetic to the idea that we can have differences on what we think is moral or immoral, are Bible verses a correct authority (yes or no) etc. But we can NOT afford to live in a society where we do not share a scrupulous – and virtually universal – agreement on questions of ethics.

   For that is all that ethics is: it is the question of how we deal with the differences. And, say, what are to be the ground rules on how we go about acting on our disagreements. While still, of course, having several hundred million people occupying the same space – and all of them still having the same democratic rights.

    Now, how this ties into our discussion of the family is fairly basic. Just as we used to have accepted moral norms, we also used to have accepted ethical practices. And on how, specifically, society is to deal with the family. It was never acceptable, before now, for the current situation to even occur: where everyone is entitled to raise your children for you – with your approval being strictly optional. And these twin questions of returning to basic ethics – and sidelining the elitists – has an easy solution that can handle both issues at once.

   Because both concerns, about elitism and ethics, can be solved by the same simple rule. If you ARE the biological parents of a child: then your number one duty is to be the one who is involved in all their quandaries: what they should believe on things like politics, religion and sexuality. But if you are NOT the biological parent of a child: then your number one duty (and, again, pardon my bluntness) is for you to shut the blank up and to stay the bleep out of it.

   Which has, in fact, always been the moral and ethical basis for all of societies since time immemorial. Unless there is a case where the child has become a physical danger to others (or is in imminent physical danger themselves) the first question on everyone’s mind has always been “Where are these kids’ parents?” If they are acting up it has always been “Where are these kids’ parents?” And if someone wants to deal with the kids? Again, it has always been “Where are these kids’ parents?” – and then you are to deal with the parents first. Consequently, the best way for me to do a wrap-up is to refer to two statements from my prior presentations to the King County Library System.



   I say that jokingly but, when you look at some of the materials they are now being presented with, you could wonder. And that, perhaps, the current fad of having a Walkman on (so that they also can’t hear what they are being taught) might not be so bad either. One of my prior statements was that “all we need from the educational establishment is to teach Johnny how to read. We do not need them to teach him how to do his sex acts.” And yet society is at a role reversal here.

   The universal prescription was to have an intact family dealing with the sex acts business while everyone else stayed out of it. Now, everyone and his kid brother is constantly engaging in the sex acts business with our children EXCEPT for there being an intact family to deal with it. Thus, it is time for both 1) the return of the traditional family unit AND 2) the exit of everyone else from the sex acts business. Or we will continue to have the Confused Generation as we have it today.  

   For, as I have pointed out earlier, their confusion does not come from any of this garbage about “Have homosexual gene am biologically dictated – like a wind-up robot – to do homosexual behavior.” Nor do the people with gender confusion have a biologically dictated problem that winds them up like a robot. There is, too, fault involved with these problems – and that fault comes from our allowing a social breakdown to occur. And, thereby, allowing something that is not, in fact, confusing to become that way.

    If we still lived in a society where every act of conception developed into an intact, two parent family then the confusion level would become virtually nil. It is the decrease – from 95% to around only 25% – of intact family units that has opened up that extra 70% of the population to confusion. And the confusion has then been able to enter after, essentially, being invited in. This is where all of our confusion comes from – not from all this self-serving nonsense about our biological dictations forcing us (against our wills) into certain types of behavior.



   And now I will refer to a second statement from my presentations to the King County Library System. I stated that I don’t presume to know 100% of all the answers about sexuality. But that I do know, and to a 100% certainty, what is NOT the correct answer to our problems. And that would be to take this same confusion, that some people have, and then spread it to all the rest of the population as well. Thus, I will plunge into an area that everyone else is trying to avoid: what about the candidacy of a Mayor Pete – and his outspokenly public handling of his homosexual behavior?

   This is a disqualifier for his acceptance into public life. And it is for the same simple reasons that I have been talking about. He is, intentionally, acting as a Confusion Factor, when we have enough of a Confused Generation already. It has nothing to do with his personal life; it is his unwillingness to keep his personal life personal.

   Donald Trump’s personal lifestyle may well be just as unbiblical as his is in many ways. The difference, though, is that the President does keep his personal life personal. He has not decided to turn getting divorced or (perhaps) being guilty of philandering into a political lobby – and then forcing the rest of the public to go along for the ride with what he does.



   Also important, is that the President does not try to masquerade his personal foibles as something that is acceptable.  But there is this one-sided, flunkying approach of most journalists (and others) that have made every issue a one-sided one. And it is one that whitewashes virtually all acts of personal behavior. But when it was permissible to have two sides to the debate (about homosexual behavior – and other things) people weren’t being fed such a complete bill of goods. So, I will still state that, despite decades of flunky journalism feeding people bad info, it is still true that:

      1) it is physically dangerous to engage in homosexual behavior. The AMA, despite its gutless cave-in to political pressures, still has rules that homosexual behavior – and the donating of blood into the nature’s blood banks – are still incompatible with one another. But why? It has long been known that homosexual behavior is physically dangerous – but it is now a taboo subject due to PC (political correctness). But if the PC people are right then why not end this restriction?

     2) it comes with a much higher tendency for reckless behavior, and without stability, in one’s personal life. And these problems are readily foreseeable. It is NOT because of ‘queer’ or ‘homo’ or “I don’t like you”; it is simply because there are two men involved in a relationship and no women.

   ALL male behavior has a dark side to it due to the T-word: testosterone. But what happens when there is all testosterone in a relationship with no yen to balance out the yang? No checks and balances, no pluses cancelling out minuses and etc? You will wind up taking the worst aspects of male behavior (that the T-word can produce) and you will have it ramped up on steroids.

   Though PC forbids one to talk about it, this is another factor in the inherent unhealthiness of homosexual behavior. Things that are extremely rare in other lifestyles can be commonplace in homosexuality. The best evidence for this was a puff piece done by a Tri-City Herald in the early 80’s with a Marshall McClintock.

   He was allowed to tell the whole narrative his own way – and with no push back or interruption. In the course of this he related, matter of factly, that an immediate sex act with a perfect stranger was simply how it is done – “like having a drink among straights”. That a public facility was often a place to go for Stranger Sex. One visiting businessman from Chicago – in the mid-80s – once even mentioned that he had heard about a public facility in a Frederick & Nelsons (in Seattle) as quote “the place to go”.

   But that is what tells you the whole story. This was an article from the mid-80s – and it is the last one of its’ kind that I have ever seen published. Where, that is, one might ever question whether you might want to live in a homosexual lifestyle. Thus, if you are under 45 years of age you have probably never noticed any stories – from the mainstream media – that do anything other than to praise these presumed ‘alternative’ lifestyles. And these people (that have been misinforming you in this way) are complete liars and hypocrites.

   Example: suppose their daughter said they were going to a ‘shower’ house. She describes it as a place where she would prone herself in a room where several perfect strangers would look on. This would go on until one of them would get revved up enough to make the charge. Afterwards, this might go on throughout several more interludes. So, what would happen if we were a fly on the wall?

   Bet you my all we would hear them saying things like “Are you crazy?”, “Are you sick?’, “What the hell is wrong with you?” And, even though most of these people are too ‘enlightened’ to believe in corporal punishment, we might even hear a ‘whack’ whack, whack’. But all I have described here is exactly what goes on in a bath house among gay men. But because now we have mentioned the gay word, and we are now talking PC, it is somehow different than that.

   These people are willing to regale our new generation with nonsense about how your male same sex relationships will be just like a Hallmark romance. But only between two men rather than between a man and a woman. It is all total garbage; these people are all total hypocrites and liars.

   And, once again, these problems have nothing to do with ‘queer’ or ‘homo’ or “I am a Bible thumper and therefore hate you.” It is a readily foreseeable outcome when you double down on testosterone – and no longer have any counter balancing realities. And now I make a critical point: I am against condemning the people who practice these acts.

   But what of the people who are, effectively, orchestrating homosexual and ‘alternative’ acts on to the rest of society? I fully condemn (and passionately so) this modern talking class of liars and hypocrites who are (wittingly or unwittingly) doing this. They are willing to destroy a new generation of people simply over PC and their personal ideological biases.

      3) it is still much more likely that you will be hurt or injured by a fellow practitioner of this behavior than by someone who is opposed to it. Surprised to hear that? It is not surprising, that you would be surprised, if you are an under-45 person. But going from what I am personally aware of – and not from stereotypes – it is very common for a homosexual male to have his first experience come from abuse. Or from what used to be called ‘recruiting’. Where someone, much older than them, catches them in a vulnerable moment and gets them introduced to homosexual behavior. This is still just as factually true as always – you are just not allowed to talk about it anymore.

    And as to someone who has been in this practice for a while? Do you remember a Dahmer and a Cunanon? Do you know what a Super Macho Butch or Bad News person is? It is a term created by the people who are in the homosexual lifestyle. But why would these people, themselves, create a term for something that does not exist – if you are to believe the chattering classes?

      4) It is still a deal breaker that you do not get biological children of your own. Why this is not obvious to more people is something I do put the blame back onto my generation – and it’s wrecking of the traditional family. This is one I will give the chattering classes a pass on. But this is what is factual: there is nothing, nothing, that evolves you as a person more rapidly – and more thoroughly – than having biological children of your own. Nothing.

     And our entire purpose in life is to evolve ourselves as better people – it is not simply to have sex. There is nothing, again nothing, in life that is more important than this. And on a personal note: I, myself, ran into some other types of problems – and I will pass away from life without leaving behind any biological heirs. The Lord still carries you through it – but it does grate throughout the years. From personal experience, this is not a “so what, six of one thing and half a dozen of another” matter.



   Now, is every single person, practicing a homosexual lifestyle, vulnerable to every single item above? Like all things, it is not a case of one and all and each and every. There are always the made-for-television types – where people with an agenda – can portray something in only its best possible light. But nothing that you will ever see on television is remotely representative of a lifestyle that is not, in fact, an ‘alternative’. But is, at least in most instances, something that is simply very wrong and bad for someone who gets involved in it.

   And what of the other side of the question? What about the positive side of traditional life? For, conversely, even proponents of ‘alternative’ lifestyles, can not make a case for them doing anything to, say, reduce poverty and crime in the inner cities. Or to increase the growth in the national economy.

   Yet traditional lifestyles do precisely that. The best way that we can reduce crime and poverty – and to dramatically speed up growth in the national economy – would be a return to a family friendly society. One where intact families can, again, become the almost universal norm. For if we, again, had a 95% rate of intact families then

   1) 95% of all the abortions would go away – since there would be no crisis pregnancies to create the demand for them

   2) 95% of all the people who are currently in confusion about sexual identities or practices would go back to a state of certainty. And would be comfortably living out what used to be considered the norm

   3) and there are the other beneficial effects on crime, poverty and economic growth rates.

   That is why the New American Left is so extreme on lifestyle issues. For there is not, in fact, any “marriage equality” between a lifestyle that creates certainty vs. one that creates confusion. Between one that reduces crime and poverty and one that doesn’t. And between a lifestyle that increases economic prosperity vs. one that doesn’t. “Marriage Equality” is a fiction that is based on an ideological point of view rather than on facts. And it is high time for someone to call this issue out.

   For we are, literally, piling up dead bodies due to a lack of traditional family life in the high crime areas of our country. I have no interest in playing along with someone’s ideologically based fictions when we are having corpses being created by real life problems. And when that real-life problem centers around a lack of traditional family life – not around a lack of ‘choices’ or ‘alternatives’.

  Enough is enough; I will call it the way that it is.


    Again, thank you for listening, so far, to what we have told you here at WeMustUnite. But I must issue an urgent request: next read the article from the following link. It is even more grave than what you have just read.

   Finally, please feel free to visit the rest of our site – other news, other subjects, other articles – all written up for the average person. Our Home Page Link is below:

We Must Unite!

The Pelosi Vendetta Part 1

   Pardon the rather high drama caption here. But this is why I have connected this Gallery of articles (the Rogues’ Gallery) with the notion of re-securing our political and legal systems. I refer you to the “resistance”: they have made a phenomenal decision about ethical issues. And it is that ALL forms of ethical behavior are no longer relevant to (their version) of pursuing The Greater Good.

The Pelosi Vendetta Part 2

Note: As promised from Part 1, we will now show how a prosecutor can be a real danger – if they are simply wandering about looking for a crime to prosecute. And have already decided who is going to get charged for it.

My Remarks to the King County Library System on 12/18/19

To the Web site viewer: The people I am referring to in my second presentation are the same Library employees as my first presentation. This involves the same issue of exposing chronically underage children to sexual themes and materials.

Please pardon, again, my way of doing a rather unorthodox opening point. I will go a little bit off our subject matter for a moment – before getting back to it. Now, have you ever heard of an Evidence Whisperer?

True story: I once did some pro bono investigative work for a wrongfully convicted person. During my evidence whispering (someone who vets evidence for missed clues) I noticed several witness interviews with some odd statements. Just sifting through this evidence, it led to a critical conclusion. For seventeen years a witness had been known to the prosecutors – but had been suppressed from the defendant. This witness could have verified his claim about where he was.

And thus, you have the tragedy involved. For seventeen years this truth could have come out earlier – if other investigators had simply noticed the connections. But they hadn’t: there had been seventeen years of wrongful incarceration when the evidence was available to stop it. To be fair though: the evidence in this case did need a little bit of whispering, it was somewhat hidden.

Now to get the present set of issues: though there is no physical incarceration involved, we are now jeopardizing the welfare of an entire generation of Americans. But, unlike the case mentioned above, we are doing it despite clear – nothing hidden about it – evidence that what we are doing is wrong. That we are, effectively, subjecting not just one person – as in my investigative case – but literally of millions of people to a grave injustice. And there is a reason for this that has some parallels from the criminal justice system. It sometimes happens in the justice system – and in public policy debates – that people will often ignore clear evidences just because their minds are already made up.

In my last presentation, for example, I highlighted a horrific problem with many adolescent youths in the State of California. They are being condemned to a life of mass, and unnecessary, confusion. I don’t have time to go in depth on it but this is done on notions that many would consider utterly ridiculous. Or even against, what most people would consider anyway, basic common sense.

As I noted in the previous presentation about the mass confusion in California: “So what causes a rare confusion to become such a rampant one – if it is not the type of people that are seated in the front of this room tonight? It is not nature since, just left to nature, it would be rare rather than rampant. It is not choice since no one would choose to deliberately make themselves become confused – by choosing to have other people make them become that way. So, what does leave left?”

This was what I would describe as one of those basic, common sense arguments. But, if simple common sense is not enough, what about some more actual evidence to justify my previous claims – about how mass confusion can get started? I can give you an overwhelming case for how you can massively, and again unnecessarily, get young children into complete confusion. And I can do this by simply stating one word: McMartin.

McMartin? Yes, but because of time constraints, I can only summarize. This was a very high-profile criminal case that demonstrated – and beyond all question – just how easy it is to induce confusion into young children. It resulted in numerous false convictions – on what was utterly fictitious testimony from these same young children. It further demonstrated that such confusions can happen, and easily so, even if there is not any deliberate effort being exerted.

So … what in heaven’s name are we doing introducing young children to sexually sensitive themes and materials? Why is there even a debate on the question of whether this is right or not?
I will conclude by going back to my opening point: I am someone who worked long and hard, and minus the compensation, over an injustice to one person – and where the evidence wasn’t always easy to extract. So how can I say nothing when things are being done that are unjust to potentially millions of people – and where the evidence of wrongdoing is obvious. And where, at least according to many, you shouldn’t even a new slug of evidence because the practice violates even the most basic common sense.
Stop with the clear absurdity of what you are doing.

My Remarks to the King County Library System on 10/30/19

To the Web site viewer: to understand these remarks note the following: I refer to “the type of meeting, that we are now holding” – the meeting was about a library system that exposes chronically underaged children to male crossdressers. (And why we should even have to argue that this practice is wrong.) My references to “your type of social experimentation” and “the people in the front of the room” refer to the Library employees who were sitting at the front of the room – and who were responsible for such a complete lack of responsibility.

Please pardon what is going to be a bizarre opening point. But the fact that we are even holding the type of meeting, that we are now holding, shows that we are living in a bizarre era anyways. So, to open: have you ever heard of the “Walking Corpse Syndrome”?

To quote from the medical literature: “Cotard delusion, also known as walking corpse syndrome … is a rare mental disorder in which the affected person holds the delusional belief that they are already dead, do not exist, are putrefying, or have lost their blood or internal organs.

So …. If a person really believes that something is true does that automatically make it so? If the Cotard delusion victims are correct (just because they think they are) then I guess the modern fad of zombie TV shows and movies must be based on reality after all? Now what about, to use the medical phrase I just mentioned, someone has a “delusional belief” that they are not the gender they appear to be?

And, that is, in fact all that we are talking about here. There are only two genders, there is no such thing as a woman trapped in a man’s body, there is no such thing as the modern buzz words of LGBTQ+ and the alphabet soup approach to who and what you are. Because, to refer to what I mentioned before, if it is physically possible for someone to sincerely believe that they are a corpse (and have it not be true) then why isn’t it physically possible for a man to believe that they are actually a girl – and have it also not be true? Or for that matter, become convinced that they have to have a same sex relationship – and that also not be true either?

In short, left strictly to nature, there are the rare occasions where a person’s brain will simply misfire -and they will become utterly convinced of things that are, in fact, not true. But here is where we come to the problem that we are trying to deal with tonight. For I stated, LEFT STRICTLY TO NATURE, there are very rare cases of confusion.

So what happens in cases like, say, California where your type of social experimentation has been going on – and at full throttle – for a long time? The answer: their percent of confusion is no longer rare but rampant. You have a situation where minor children are – literally – staring down at their private organs and are unable figure out what it’s there for. And, this is in nearly 25 percent of all cases. That is, “Am I actually a girl?” “If I am a guy do I still do it with other men rather than with women?”, etc.

So what causes a rare confusion to become a rampant one – if it is not the type of people that are seated in the front of the room tonight? It is not nature since, just left to nature, it would be rare rather than rampant. It is not choice since no one would choose to deliberately make themselves become confused – by choosing to have other people make them become that way. So what does leave left?

Now, I don’t claim to know, with a 100 percent certainty, what all the answers are. But I do know, and with an absolute and mathematical certitude, what is not the answer. What is absolutely not the answer is exactly what it is that you do. Where you take a form of confusion that would, normally, affect only a small percentage of the population and you then spread it to all of the rest of the population as well.

Therefore, I respectfully state that this is not an endeavor that should use my mandatorily paid taxes. If there really are parents who are foolish enough to turn their children over to what is, ultimately, a form of child abuse then there may not be much that we can do about that. But we should at least not be required to pony up our taxpayers money for it. And as to the other case, where it is being done behind the parents backs, I say that all we need the educational establishment to do is to teach Johnny how to read. We do not need you to teach him how to do his sex acts.

WeMustUnite supports DeNova


I met DeNova Weaver only recently. Our connection was a shared concern of ours about today’s society. It seems that there is an almost relentless effort to subvert our children. Whether it is the entertainment industry, the journalists, the educators, politicians, etc. it seems like everyone wants to indoctrinate our children – and into things that are far from appropriate for what they should be dealing with. The latest front for this is the King County Library System that was her most recent area of concern.

From my brief and few meetings with her, I can still make some observations. She was not rabidly political or prone to extreme points of view. She was what I would call politely religious (which I would like to think that I am also). And her concerns were entirely valid.

As to our present tense use of “we support DeNova” that does trace back to my own religious beliefs. I do feel it is appropriate to still use the present tense with other believers who have recently passed away. As to that – as a final commemoration we have inserted a portion of her memorial service below:

“People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway. If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway. For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

– Mother Teresa”

Yours Truly,
Mark W Christie
Director of WeMustUnite


See the following links after this one. They talk about the specifics of this outrageous controversy that she was standing up against.

No More Witnesses – and no more of this again (ever?)


Great news!!! I think we have all had enough – and I am glad to say that this will be my last recap of the impeachment situation. This recap will have three sections, and this is the first one. The next two will be very small points on some evidence and a final takeaway.

So, to start this first section … maybe some comparisons are in order. Start with Chuck Schumer and his first foray into the impeachment. It was a session where you simply made motions about the proceedings that were going to happen.

At that time, people only thought there were 3 or 4 people who had some more pertinent information. Schumer could have made one motion for all the witnesses that he wanted to hear from. Then added something to the effect of “along with all relevant documents and supporting materials.” Or, the motion could have had all the prolonged legalese that such requests can be made to have – but have a waiving of the reading.

Instead, he separated everything into 13 different motions. He also made each motion have a deliberate overkill of legalese to maximize the length of time involved. Then demanded the full reading of each motion. It resulted in more than 2 hours being devoted to just reading the motions into the record. For whatever the reason, he seemed to feel that being as deliberately obnoxious and overbearing as possible had a value to him.

Then compare the final four motions he made – after he had effectively lost any more control over the hearings – and the acquittal became a fait accompli. He made four motions (that still could have been rolled into one) and the reading of each motion took about thirty seconds. And, thereby, totaled about two minutes worth of time.

Ergo, when Schumer is free to be Schumer it takes him two hours to do things that could have been done in two minutes. Thus, you have about a 60-fold factor of deliberate obnoxiousness involved when he is left to his own devices. And then there were things that remained the same throughout the entire set of hearings.

Specifically, what I have referred to as “totally pompous and manifestly hypocritical” statements. Like “You REPUBLICANS have to make sure this winds up as a fair hearing.” Really???

Fact: to make the process wind up being equally fair – to both sides – you would have to deal with the denial of cross-examination the DEMOCRAT House did to the GOP. Thus, if we really wanted everything to wind up with a totally fair and equal balance, we would have to allow the President’s lawyers to cross exam all 17 of the Democrats original witnesses.

Fact: to make the process wind up being equally fair – to both sides – you would next have to deal with the fact that only the Democrats got to call witnesses. Wouldn’t the President have the right to call his 17 witnesses – that he should have been allowed to call also? Which would then mean that the Democrats would next cross examine them.

Takeaway: If we really wanted to wind up with a 100% fair work product – and for both sides – then the Senate chamber would have to be closed for all other business for around 2 to 3 months. And this would be just to equal things back up again from the DEMOCRAT unfairness coming out of the House. And so, then what?

You now have the standardized Late Hit that has become a part of every disputed process. This is where you have the deliberate and calculated leaks from the ‘unbiased’ journalists – to drop an endless number of shiny new objects into the discussion. The Democrats would demand a witness for each of them – and the Republicans would then have the right to demand rebuttal witnesses to dispute each shiny new object. Ergo, not going to happen, was never going to happen and, thus, it should indeed have simply been dropped – like it was.

So … I will go back again to what I mentioned in the last update. Why do they do things this way? Why does Schumer have to be as belligerently obnoxious as he can get away with? Why does Pelosi act so gratuitously disrespectful to the President at every opportunity – and have every word that comes out of her mouth be so manifestly hypocritical?

It is, again, because they have been taught to act that way. There are rewarded by the mainstream media fawning on them for their every word. And by then ensuring that there is never any accountability. And, to another point I raised earlier, what if someone was to go around in this same manner – to me – that the ‘unbiased’ journalists go around with Pelosi and Co.? Then I imagine I might also become one of the worst possible versions of myself.

I don’t need someone to swoon on my every syllable, to kiss me (pardon my bluntness) on all four of my cheeks and to just, generally, encourage me to become an arrogant, narcissistic creep. This behavior, from flunky journalism, is the type of thing where you are doing someone a favor that is not really a favor at all. Destroy someone as a person by flattering them through their ears. Not good for either them or America.


1) For the final time: It doesn’t matter how much you may hate Trump, how evil a person he may (or may not) be – or any other factor: the physical universe still makes it impossible for there to be a crime if there is no crime victim. There is only an alleged crime victim (the Ukrainians) who steadfastly maintain that Schiff and Co. don’t know what they are talking about.

Secondly, there is another fact of the physical universe and that is: that it is not possible to stop something that you have never started. To those who say “he only stopped doing it once he got caught”: again, the official Ukrainian position is NOT that they felt pressured and then it stopped. It is that nothing ever started in the first place. It is not physically possible to stop something that you never started doing in the first place.

2) For the final time: Why would they being asking “why” in the first place? When the news came out about the hold several White House staffers received many calls from the Ukrainians about “Why is there this hold?”. And, once again, not even Trump can defy the physical laws of the universe. It is not physically possible to threaten someone without explaining what they are being threatened about. So, why would they be asking why if, according to Schiff, they had already been told why as of several weeks earlier?

3) For the final time: The only person who has testified that the firing of an ambassador was connected – to all the things that they said it was connected to – is Adam Schiff. It is not just assuming facts not in evidence – it is assuming an entire case not in evidence.

Further, if Trump really got rid of an ambassador (because she was not a Trump lacky that would help him with his illegal schemes) – then why didn’t he replace her with a Trump lacky who would help him with it? Instead, he allowed the acting ambassador to stay on – and he still stays on to this day. And in neither his testimony, nor in his actions, did he ever act as a Trump lacky doing illegal schemes.

This is what I am talking about with the utter ad nauseum effect of the Pelosi charade. Once you know that it is physically impossible for him to have done an illegal act, then all he can be guilty of is (perhaps) talking about doing it or (perhaps) considering doing it. This is the type of thing that you handle politically.

If you think it was bad judgment – or you question how he could even talk or consider something about it – then that is a valid campaign issue for you to run on. I don’t agree with you – but it is valid as a campaign issue. But it is never a valid reason for a prosecution and for a very simple reason. “Do only unto others what you would want them to do to you”. I would not want to be prosecuted for what I have (maybe) talked about or (maybe) considered. Therefore, I am also against someone else being prosecuted for it.


Trump is nasty and vindictive, Trump is a wannabe dictator, Trump is a threat to our civil liberties, etc. etc. etc. etc. But let’s narrow it down to a two-party comparison for the moment: Trump vs. Trump’s adversaries. Between the two: who is the most nasty, vindictive, wannabe dictatorish and a threat to our civil liberties?

And let’s narrow down the arena to the SDNY (the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors)/Mueller team as an example of a Trump adversary. And let’s use Gordon Sondland as a case in point to study this question: of people getting their civil liberties threatened, being shown nastiness and vindictiveness etc.

First, there is why I hold the view that the SDNY/Mueller Team is, effectively, a criminal organization. Do you remember George Papadopoulos and Mike Flynn? Papadopoulos was the first person under the FBI surveillance – and has a legitimate reason to question exactly what – and how – things happened to him.

While no one claims to have all the answers even mainstream media outlets have tried to do a (somewhat) fair spin on his case. And it is because it is so much like a bizarre spy novel. It is almost as though he joined the Trump campaign at a virtually nothing burger level – and immediately seems to have a target on his back!

For no discernable reason, he has a (maybe) Russian spy initiate an encounter where he spills to him about a potpourri of bizarre news tidbits. And from that instant forward, it is like he is travelling the globe with everyone and his kid brother chasing him down: “I’m a spy! I’m a spy! Collude with me! Collude with me! Please!!” And he is caught on tape saying, essentially, “Hell no! I’m not a traitor.”

Despite his bizarre travails, the most compassionate thing the authorities can think to do with him is to still charge him with some process crime. He passed his “collusion” test with flying colors but, as I have mentioned in other writings, federal prosecutors have a very hard time just accepting no for an answer. There is just something that seems to gall them about someone leaving one of their buildings without being charged with at least something. The agency involved was the SDNY/Mueller team.

We now know that Mike Flynn was as blatantly transgressed against by the law as the FISA warrant controversy has had its transgressions. Like the FISA process, evidence was manufactured against him during his proceedings. The agency involved was the SDNY/Mueller Team.

There was a same judge who presided over the trials of a Mr. Manafort and a Roger Stone. He was not able to stop the SDNY (them again) from prosecuting them – but he admonished them that it was still an arbitrary prosecution (if not a false one). He said that they were only being charged because of their connection to Donald Trump. He is also the judge I referred to – who made the comments about how people will often “compose” rather than merely “sing” when the squeeze is on.

There is a reference of mine (in other writings) about how the feds will often break through your lawyer/client confidentiality. And I described how they did this with Trump’s lawyer, a Michael Cohen. The agency involved was the SDNY/Mueller Team.

There are two current legal activities being done against Trump regarding an affair with a woman and the question of his tax returns. Both are being handled by the SDNY. Finally, I have previously mentioned a lot of high-profile celebrity cases that were used by SDNY lawyers to advance themselves in some way. To sum up: There have taken it upon themselves to leave New York (where they are supposed to operate) and to become the Resistance against Donald Trump. And, if in the course of their quest they should wrong a few people, then they are just fine with that.

But now we get to Gordon Sondland. He is one of the two people I have talked about elsewhere. He is someone who was in the middle of the impeachment inquiry, started out favorably disposed to the President and then flipped the other way when he was subjected to the SDNY experience.

The specifics are that the impeachment inquiry, at that time, had no possible legs under it. There was no one pointing the finger at the President to say there were any malign connections in anything he was doing. There were tons of Democrat Congressmen stating it as a fact – but they had no specific person to carry their story for them.

Then other facts started to emerge. As all the pieces of the puzzle swirled, it became obvious that if Sondland stood by the President then the new narrative could never take off. And then ….
A U.S. Congressman, Earl Blumenauer, led a boycott of Sondland’s hotels – as a retaliation for his original testimony that unwaveringly supported Trump. With a curious twist here: Blumenauer is of the same political party as Adam Schiff who stated, “We take all forms of witness intimidation seriously here.” And then ..

Sondland wound up in the newspapers with an unfavorable story about abusive behavior towards women. And then …

Sondland got notified by – you guessed it – the SDNY that they had questions about his behavior (regarding matters that had no relationship to the impeachment inquiry.) And then …

He flipped!!! And this leads to our closing this point out with the comparison I talked about earlier. After he flipped, his troubles vanished like the morning mist. Whatever abusive behavior he had ever done towards women (if he ever really did any at all) no longer seemed to matter. There were no more contacts from his new-found friends at the SDNY. But … there is still the other side of the comparison.

Now that he has flipped against the President, how much nastiness, vindictiveness and abuse of his civil rights has been done to him – by the President? None. How much nastiness, vindictiveness or civil rights violating behavior was ever done to him to get him to originally be pro-Trump in the first place? Again, none.

So, if you go strictly off Gordon Sondland, who is the most nasty, vindictive and civil rights violating of the two parties? Is it Donald Trump or his adversaries?


So, to not further prolong this impeachment, I will try to keep my remarks short on a last couple of points. I am trying to be a “new outreach” Republican with a hope to unite people. This impeachment has worried me. By (presumably) “defending Trump” I am a little leery about “un-uniting” people rather than the other way around.

But, if you are fair, am I just defending Trump? Haven’t I stated (many times) that there are much deeper issues than Trump involved? And that you, therefore, need to ignore whether you do or don’t like Trump?

So, I conclude with one bit of praise for his administration. He has made a lot of our issues his issues. There are the one-sided trade deals, the chaotic immigration policies, the collapse of manufacturing and heavy industries. And, despite all of his ‘racism’ he was the one who sponsored the second chance program. Then there are the opportunity zones for the most blighted areas of the country. Between this issue and the second chance program – you have two areas where he is helping people in situations where it is the African American who is hit the hardest.

So why not a turn about being fair play? He has made our issues his issues. So, isn’t it right for us to now make his issue our issue? We need to get off the sidelines – this type of nonsense, ultimately, attacks us all anyways.

Q & A (with a basic message for the Reader)

Well … depending upon some votes it could be all over – now that we are done with the Question and Answer sessions. I will let the reader decide how he liked the last two days of Q and A between the partys. I will only focus on one exchange. First, I will do the more superficial who-won-or-lost; but I will then get down to more substantive issues. Below is the rundown of my one example of Q&A –

At first, I thought it was a classic mistake. The GOP sent a zinger question to Schiff where they set up a hypothetical question. It was, basically, a hypothetical that involved an identical situation (to the impeachment charges). But it then had the theoretical change up of it being Barack Obama running against Mitt Romney. My concern was that he would just deflect the question – and talk up another round of talking points. I thought it was going to be a total waste of a question.

And it seemed that way at first. He did deflect the question but then made, as he often does, a totally pompous and manifestly hypocritical set of statements. He said that:

1) you should never talk to foreigners about a political rival (the thing that is admitted by Hillary Clinton vis a vis her paying for a Steele dossier.) And, incredibly, that

2) you should never be investigating your political rival during an election year!!!! Say what? Has he already forgotten that the FBI investigated Donald Trump during his election year? Using material paid for by his political rival – Hillary Clinton? Who collected this material – on her rival – from foreign sources? And that was, ultimately, used to set up an illegally obtained surveillance warrant – on her rival and during an election year!

Good Lord ….. even for Schiff that is a hard to imagine level of hypocrisy. But I wasn’t sure what was accomplished by the Republicans setting him up with the question. Until, that is, their next question was brought forward. It was: would you like to comment on Adam Schiff’s last answer? And … bang there you have it! Everything that I just laid out above was totally dump trucked on top of Adam Schiff by one of the President’s lawyers.

Now consider some of the takeaways. Basically, Adam Schiff has gotten to the point of being predictable in his behavior. Even to the point where you can 1) rely on him to act out on cue and then 2) have a pre-setup answer prepared – for what you already know he is going to say!

But here is we need to get away from Schiff and go to deeper lessons. A deeper question is why does Schiff act out the way that he does? What I will show is that he acts that way because he is being taught to do so. We will now move over to an even most central actor in our toxic politics that we have today.

Did you know that the CNN network gave an order to all its employees – that they were to never cover Donald Trump in a favorable manner? Did you know that the New York Times once did a groveling apology for writing an article that did NOT provide bad coverage to the President? You should know this because they did it openly and before the whole world.

You have a new type of journalism where they are deliberately, intentionally – and even admittedly – being flunky journalists for only one point of view. MSNBC even boasts how you will never find a Trump defender on any of their shows! Isn’t that wonderful?

And this is where we can start moving back to the Schiffs, the Pelosis, the Schumerites and Co. What happens to people like them (or perhaps to any of us for that matter?) when they are told – by what is still supposed to be journalism – that no matter what they think, say or do they will still have the guardians of the airwaves bootlicking them at their shoe level? How does that teach you ……. ACCOUNTABILITY?

Thus, I can wrap this up. The number one villain for all the toxicity in the political process are the people who are simply supposed to be covering it – rather than molding it instead. And that is why I made my initial observation. Why do Schiff, Pelosi and et al act the way they do? It is because they are being taught to.

The Final Day for the President – and don’t worry about Bolton!

The President ended his case today and it was well played; less is often better than more!! My update today is to reassure the reader that this last maneuver from the Late Hit Specialists is just that. A calculated late hit to do the maximum damage to the GOP. Not to do the maximum to get to the truth. And I am happy that the defense covered it quickly but effectively.

As to my certainty on this Bolton matter: While I don’t want to be divisive, I have followed Democratic party tactics on significant hearings for decades – not just for years. There is always the orchestrated late hit and it is always, and in every instance, 100% the bull’s whatnot. BUT …

I am being divisive and negative so down to the good news instead. I have been getting something from others in the web community. There is one idea – and with many people suggesting it – that is an absolute masterstroke!!! It centers around Lindsay Graham (who I am being referred to repeatedly with some very similar suggestions). And it revolves around a good point: why does the Impeachment hearing have to be the way to run down the loose ends? These suggestions have been made with several different components:

1) A high profile joint appearance between Lindsay and the President

2) This appearance announces that the loose leads will be run down thoroughly – but fairly also – through the Senate Judiciary Committee of Graham and Feinstein!!!

3) The statement itself – at the appearance – hits two themes hard. The first is a very well put statement that the behavior of Schumer, Pelosi and Schiff deserves no respect whatsoever – and that the impeachment hearings are not the right place to solve the remaining loose ends. But, secondly, Trump totally respects the American people and their right to get a fair and thorough process. Thus, the transfer of the investigation to a better and fairer place!!!

4) With this done it is time to acquit the President, outplay the Late Hit Specialists but, actually – and most important – it would, in fact, be the best way to proceed for the country. All in one stroke!

Since we have a break … Parneas and other tidbits

Whew! No more ‘action’ for today. So … I will leave you with a few tidbits about some breaking news. And (no surprise here) the latest tidbits seem to be about a Lev Parneas. Also that, as happens often, the mainstream media seems eager to ignore the big news – and just as eager to peddle things that are meaningless.

For example: I have mentioned the SDNY experience. A politicized group of federal prosecutors are lending themselves out to do witness intimidation – of anyone favorable to the President. I have previously stated that I am aware of two people who have been put through this. And I have mentioned someone named Sondland as the first one. This newly discussed person, Lev Parneas, is the second.

Like Sondland, he was:

1) on the periphery of the impeachment investigation

2) was favorable to the President and

3) he was someone that the Southern District of New York couldn’t wait until after the impeachment investigation to deal with. Arguably, you don’t want to unfairly influence an impeachment investigation. But, like Sondland, he was called before the SDNY – on a matter totally unrelated to the investigation about impeachment – and then ‘flipped’. He is now another weapon against the President. So much for the big news that the media is eager not to cover.

Their nothing burger news (that they are eager to cover) now centers around a 3-minute excerpt (from an 80-minute tape). This item ‘contradicts’ the President because Parneas is engaging the President in a conversation. But … it is a Donor’s Dinner with multiple people in it (and that have no real connection either to the President or to each other).

I know this because I attended something like it once. And I intend to have the experience be something that I only do once. Why? Because of corrupt cabals and/or impeachable behavior? Quite the opposite. What the Donor’s Dinner is is just a dog and pony show that is arranged by a low lever staffer.

You are given a lavish dinner, a rousing pep talk, and you get a once in a lifetime experience of (seemingly) getting listened to by someone of influence. Except, that they have no real interest in getting your opinions about how they should do their jobs. Nor will the encounter give you a chance to become a big-time wheeler dealer type. It is just a show that is put on to keep you donating more money.

You don’t believe me? But what about the part of the story that the media seems to be stumped on. How his suggestion about an ambassador was never acted on for at least 14 months. But there is nothing stumping about this.

It is simply what I have described. Like virtually all people that are at a donor’s dinner: you will get respectfully listened to, flattered for your brilliance (and what-not) and then both you and your suggestions will be forgotten all about just as soon as you leave. It is just a show that is put on so you will keep donating more money.

Thus, this explosive(?) new revelation shows exactly what Trump is maintaining. That, at least as of that moment, Parneas was no one to him going into the meeting – and remained a no one to him after he went out of it.

So … enough about Parneas. What about the continuation of the Presidents defense – and what they should be doing come Monday? I have some quick and simple suggestions:

1) No Senate vote is needed for the President’s defenders to show some depositions. They should show depositions of the President getting to speak out for himself. And, while I will not elaborate on it at the present time, it is time for the public to be introduced to an Admiral Mike Rogers. This can also be done by way of a deposition.

2) Before the Democrats should be allowed to call their witnesses, they should be required to allow the President to face his accuser, the whistleblower, and be given his constitutional right to face one’s accuser. Next, because the Democrat floor managers have hurled several allegations at people other than the President, they should be given their chance to respond to it with some rebuttal testimony. After that, I am not too worried about the matter one way or the other – but with one caveat.

Like I stated elsewhere: The Democrats, so far, have not even demonstrated that a crime has occurred – since no one is claiming to have been victimized. Thus, there is a point of principle involved: anyone else would have had their case shoved down their throats for trying to do something like that in court. And, like this same crowd said about Clinton, a President is not above the law, but he is not below the law either.