Sanford Bishop must be defeated. I am running for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District of Georgia on the Republican ticket and we can win.
by 
Category Archives: Congress
Democrat Doublespeak
Leslie and I took a cruise at the end of the year and just returned. I purposely declined the ship’s internet package so the only reason I carried my phone was to take pictures.
We needed to get away from everything and make a major decision. I will write more about that in the near future. by
Sanford Bishop Must Go
Sanford Bishop put his contempt for the people of Southwest Georgia on full display. He voted in lock step with Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the radical left to impeach President Trump.by
Democrats Vote to Impeach
Democrats tonight voted along straight party lines to impeach President Trump. They do not appreciate the gravity of their act.
My congressman, Sanford Bishop, voted to impeach. Georgia’s 2nd District is generally viewed as a safe district for a Democrat. The idea of a safe district leads to complacency and an aura of invincibility.by
Schiff’s Last Stand
If you have wondered why the Democrats in Congress seem to be in such a rush to remove President Trump from office, wonder no more. They have been in a race against an impending dangerous storm warning.
The storm warning is not President Trump. It is US Attorney General William Barr, US Attorney John Durham, and Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
First, IG Michael Horowitz wrote Congressional leaders that his report on the secret surveillance warrants used by the FBI during the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign was “nearing completion.” The next day, news broke that the investigation by US Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation was now classified as a criminal investigation.
Over the past three years, mainstream media reports made bold predictions about impending revelations of treasonous behavior by President Trump. One by one these claims were thoroughly debunked.
During the same three years, conservative investigative reporters reported on unelected bureaucrats colluding to remove, disable, or impair a duly elected President. These investigations focus on what Donald Trump called “the swamp.”
The swamp is more than political parties or political philosophy. It is a controlling culture composed of elected officials, bureaucrats, lobbyists, consultants, and contractors who had a free run of Washington, DC.
Donald Trump ran on a platform of draining the swamp. He represented a clear and present danger.
The swamp used the power of the United States intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try to stop Trump before the election. When the people elected him, the swamp tried to keep him from being inaugurated.
Since the day Trump took office, the swamp used every weapon available to cripple or destroy his service as President. Every attempt has failed.
President Trump stood up against the swamp, He has also done his job leading the American people.
Real median household income continues to rise as wages rise. More Americans have jobs today than ever before.
The unemployment rate continued its drop to record lows not seen in half a century. African-American and Hispanic unemployment is at record low levels as well.
The people in mainstream America are better off than ever before. They are experiencing more freedom and opportunity to invest and enjoy the fruits of their labors.
This is all the more threatening to the swamp. Adam Schiff and House Democrats, as the defenders of the swamp, are dug in deep in the bowels of the Capitol basement. In this inquisition, they are frantically searching for something – anything that they can call an impeachable offense.
The dragnet of justice is closing in on the swamp. The threat is imminent and real, and they know it. This is Adam Schiff’s last stand.
by Truth, Justice and the Inquisition
Democrats continue to shock and anger the nation with their assault on truth and justice in their ongoing coup attempt to remove Donald Trump. News outlets are calling the latest efforts an impeachment, but this is not an impeachment, it is an inquisition.
A two year, multi-million dollar fishing expedition by Robert Mueller came back with no catch on Russian interference or obstruction of justice. The best Mueller could do was say that he could not file charges but neither could he exonerate President Trump.
The latest attempt came with an unauthorized discussion about the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last July. Conversations between the President and leader of another country are classified.
Someone who apparently was authorized to be involved in the conversation broke the law and talked about it with an unauthorized individual. That second-hand party, who is referred to as a “whistle blower,” then talked to Congressman Adam Schiff and his staff.
They helped the second-hand whistle blower craft a formal letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Schiff himself is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
That letter, then went to the Intelligence Inspector General (IG) as a “whistle blower” complaint. What the IG received, was, at best, a second-hand report of an allegation about the President.
It would seem that the IG would want to get someone who actually heard the call to corroborate the story. If he could not get a first-hand account, it should be “case closed.”
On September 18, the Washington Post published a story, based on an anonymous source, about the existence of a “whistle blower” report on the President’s phone call. That was the trigger in the Democrat playbook for Schiff, Pelosi, and the Democrats.
On September 24, Nancy Pelosi met with the Democrat caucus behind closed doors to discuss impeachment. In order to begin an impeachment process, the House of Representatives must vote. Newly elected Democrats who ran as moderates did not want to go on record voting for an impeachment.
Shortly after Pelosi had her closed door meeting, President Trump, who was at the United Nations, announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of his phone call with the Ukrainian President. The Whitehouse also announced that the second-hand whistle blower complaint would be released by the end of the week.
Later that afternoon, Pelosi addressed Congress. She said, “I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six Committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
There was no vote then. There still has not been a vote. I do not believe that there will be a vote.
In spite of having no vote for an impeachment inquiry, some Democrats were quick to jump on the bandwagon calling for Trump’s impeachment. Among the followers of the left was my member of Congress, Sanford Bishop, from Southwest Georgia’s 2nd Congressional District.
Even after President Trump announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of the call, Sanford Bishop published a statement saying that it was “imperative” that Congress begin an impeachment inquiry. He stated:
“The President has admitted publicly to asking the Ukraine President to investigate Hunter Biden and has instructed his Director of National Intelligence to withhold the whistleblower’s complaint from Congress, which is illegal.”
Sanford Bishop made up his mind without getting any facts. He pre-judged the reported allegation before knowing the details or even seeing the complaint itself.
The next day as President Trump promised, in an unprecedented display of transparency, he released the totally unredacted transcript of the call. Later that day, the second-hand whistle blower complaint was also declassified and forwarded to Congress.
Democrats were so caught off guard by the release of the transcript that Congressman Adam Schiff made up his own version. In a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, Schiff read into the record a totally fictitious transcript of the call.
Republicans called his hand. He said that it was just a parody.
When the second-hand whistle blower complaint was declassified, Sanford Bishop was quick to update his website with a link to the second-hand account of the whistle blower. In a blatant display of deceit, Bishop did not include a link to the transcript of the call itself.
The transcript was released before the whistle blower’s second-hand account and complaint. Nearly one month later, there is still only a link to the second-hand account made by the whistle blower.
Sanford Bishop has made no acknowledgement of the transcript. He has not provided a link that would allow a constituent to read the transcript of the call itself.
Sanford Bishop should provide the transcript so that his constituents can get the complete and accurate account. He is presenting only one side. This is a calculated and disingenuous ploy to mislead.
Democrats, with their loyal followers like Sanford Bishop, are seeking neither truth nor justice. They are carrying out a duplicitous, devious, dishonest inquisition.
by Trump Wins Again – Mexico Acts Positively
Have you ever been in the grocery store and seen a parent, let’s say a mother, with a small child, let’s say a 3 year old boy. The little boy spots a bright shiny package of candy. The mother says, “you can’t have that, you need to put it back.” You know that this will go one of two ways and what happens next will reveal it all.
One path could be that the little boy says, “yes ma’am” and puts it back as they continue to shop. End of story.
Well, I try to keep my commentary short, but this is a little too short. Nowadays, unless the boy is shopping with his retired Marine Drill Sergeant uncle, that ending is a rarity.
Here is the path this story more likely takes. After hearing, “you need to put it back,” the boy tightens his grip on the shiny package of candy, pulls it close to his chest and turns away from his mother. The mother says, “you know that candy is not good for you, so let’s put it back.”Little boy, “No.”
The mother, while still pushing the buggy down the aisle farther away from the candy, says, “well, you know that will give you a tummy ache and you won’t be able to sleep.” She extends her open hand toward the little boy to receive the package of candy. The little boy turns even farther away from his mother, pulling the candy even closer to his chest. He answers, even a little louder this time, “No!”
Still pushing the buggy down the aisle and rounding the corner to the next aisle, the mother says, “Now, I’m not going to tell you again, we’ll have to put the candy back. I’ll tell you what, I’ll get a nice little toy for you. Won’t you give me the candy?” The little boy now shouts as other customers in the store turn and look. “No! I want this!”
Fortunately for the mother, she was finished loading her cart so she continues the conversation with her little boy as she strolls to the checkout line. “You are making me sad and your father will be disappointed in you. Please give me the box of candy.” The little boy holds the candy even closer and twists farther away from his mother with another louder shout, “No! I want this!”
Just before going through the line, the mother stops the buggy and walks to face the little boy as he has twisted far away from her. Now things are really serious. “Give that package to me now. I’m going to count to three. ………. One ………. Two ……….
Moments later, you see the mother pushing the buggy with everything checked and paid for heading out the door. The little boy is happily eating the candy and holding on to the new toy that his mother bought for him.
This describes negotiations with other countries by the United States in recent history. China has cheated the world in trade deals and everyone knew it. It might be unfair to China to call it cheating since they were just going as far as they could go.
Iran and North Korea defiantly developed nuclear weapons. The Obama administration made a deal with Iran that was so bad, it makes the mother in the story above look like a stern disciplinarian.
Mexico, opened their doors for a pipeline of illegal immigration to the United States. Democrats in Congress refuse to support our Border Patrol to protect our citizens. President Trump declared an emergency and is building the wall in spite of the Democrat opposition.
Then, Trump played another card to stop the flow of illegals through Mexico to the US. He told Mexico to change their behavior and act in a positive, responsible fashion. In other words, “put the candy back.”
For decades, Mexico and all of these countries acted like the little boy in the grocery store. During those decades, Democrats and Republicans took turns playing the role of the mother. Predictably, every drama ended with the little boy happily eating his candy and playing with his new toy as they left the store.
This time, Donald Trump is pushing the buggy. This time he set forth expectations and clear consequences that would take effect on June 10.
The mainstream media exploded with doom and gloom. Democrats and Republicans reacted saying that his move was a blunder. Like the 10 spies that Moses sent to the Promised Land, they were saying , “we became like grasshoppers in our own sight.” (Numbers 13:33 NASB)
Mexico, on the other hand, knew that Donald Trump would do what he said he would do. It would hurt them worse than it hurt the United States.
Mexico deployed 6,000 troops to their Southern border with Guatemala. They took steps to stop the wide-open pipeline. They agreed to do more in a speedy fashion.
Once again, Donald Trump put America first. The swamp denizens were shouting the equivalent of passages from the 1950’s child rearing advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock. Trump just looked Mexico in the eye and said the equivalent of, “you need to put the candy back.”
After over two years with President Trump, Mexico knew what was about to happen. They chose to behave in a positive fashion. They put the candy back. Trump wins again!
by The Deception of the Equality Act
Last Friday, the Democrat controlled US House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the Equality Act. That sounds like a noble title. We are a nation of laws and they should be applied in an equal manner.
As with many laws passed in Congress, the name is deceptive. It purports to provide protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The truth is that it is an assault on religious freedom and it directly attacks the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
If you live in Southwest Georgia, you may wonder how your Congressman voted. Sanford Bishop not only voted for it, he was a proud co-sponsor.
The Equality Act amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act to elevate sexual orientation and gender identify to the same status as “race, color, religion, or national origin”. It would now read, “race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin.” There are other significant changes to the Civil Rights Act.
The Civil Rights Act has a lengthy list of establishments where discrimination is prohibited. The Equality Act adds:
- “stadium or other place of or establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public display.”
- “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services.”
It goes further to re-define the word establishment to include, “an individual whose operations affect commerce and who is a provider of a good, service, or program; and (2) shall not be construed to be limited to a physical facility or place.”
It expands the list of establishments and goods and services so that just about anything anywhere is caught in its net. A church or private school that has a gym or family life center would be included. Even broader is “public gathering or public display.”
Under the services it also expands the list by slipping in new ones. Among them are service centers, care centers, shelters, travel agency, and health care.
In Anchorage, Alaska in January 2018, Timothy “Samantha” Coyle, who identifies himself as a female, attempted to enter the Downtown Hope Center. It is a Christian shelter for homeless and battered women. They sleep on mats on the floor and take them up during the day to have room for other programs.
Coyle was drunk and injured from a fight. The Hope Center staff obtained transportation to the hospital for him. The next day he again showed up outside of the hours for overnight admission. Two days later he filed a complaint with the city’s Equal Rights Commission claiming that Hope Center, as a “public accommodation,” discriminated against him because of gender identity.
The Equality Act re-defines the term, “establishment” to include individuals. This is clearly targeting cases such as the cake baker, Jack Phillips, in Colorado. He designs custom cakes and declined to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. The state of Colorado charged him with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor.
The day after the Supreme Court ruling, a transgender lawyer came to Phillips requesting that he design a cake to celebrate a gender transition. When Phillips refused, the state of Colorado again charged him with discrimination.
This time it was on the basis of gender identity. Phillips responded with a lawsuit against the state for harassment. Eventually the case was dropped.
Section 1107 targets the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act by name. It says that act “shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim.”
This law has nothing to do with equality. We can already see the consequences of this law based on what has happened with similar municipal ordinances and state laws, such as Colorado’s.
Americans do not care to know about a person’s sexual orientation. They definitely have no interest in making a biological determination of someone’s gender. Neither do they wish to allow someone decide that they will “identify” as the opposite sex and invade the privacy of others.
The bill now goes to the Senate. I trust that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will exile the bill to the island of misfit law where it belongs.
by President Trump’s Compromise
Friday afternoon, President Trump announced that he would sign a bill to fund the government for three more weeks and end the government shutdown. He accepted the Democrat proposal to first open the government and then they will discuss the President’s request for border security.
It was evident on the President’s face that this was not something he wanted to do. He knew that the headlines would be, “Trump Caves.”
President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.
A cave is when one party gives in without fighting to win on their position. They may talk a great deal but do not put up a fight because they never intended to put up a fight.
A compromise on the other hand is when both parties come to an agreement to resolve an issue. Both parties come out of the deal with something and both parties give up something.
President Trump’s position was to fund the government and include border security provisions with physical barriers, commonly referred to as a wall. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said, no wall.
Both made small concessions along the way. Trump’s recommendation changed from wall to steel slats that allowed border guards to see through to the other side. He later threw in provisions to address the issue of children who had been brought to the United States illegally by their parents.
Pelosi and Schumer softened their position from “no wall” to a short term bill of a few weeks to open the government. During that period, they assured the President that there would be serious and meaningful bi-partisan discussions to fund border security.
The President had serious reservations about Democrats actually operating in good faith. He did not want to play the role of Charlie Brown to have Lucy (Pelosi and Schumer) snatch the football away again.
President Trump knew that the shutdown was putting a financial strain on impacted federal employees. The strain was showing, particularly in air travel.
During the shutdown, President Trump has been talking with members of Congress. Some meetings were well publicized while many were out of the limelight.
His statement below summarizes the spirit of the compromise.
After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside, I think, and put the security of the American people first. I do believe they are going to do that.
They have said they are for complete border security and they have finally and fully acknowledged that having barriers, fences, or walls or whatever you want to call it, will be an important part of the solution. A bipartisan conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers and leaders will immediately begin reviewing the requests of our homeland security experts, and experts they are, and also law enforcement professionals who have worked with us so closely.
The key in this statement is the agreement to have a bipartisan conference committee. A conference committee is generally formed after the House and Senate pass a bill with slight differences. The conference committee meets to work out the differences and present the same bill to both chambers for final approval.
The bipartisan makeup of the committee means that Democrats and Republicans will both be at the same table talking with each other. They will not be talking at each other via 30 second sound bites.
The address was originally scheduled for 1:00 pm last Friday. It was almost 2:30 before the President spoke. That delay indicates that he was working on this address, probably making phone calls, and finalizing agreements up until the last minute.
President Trump wanted a bill that included funding for a wall. He believed that he could strike some agreement to get it done.
Democrat leadership refused to talk. As time went on, the focus of attention turned more and more to the impact of the government shutdown and away from the crisis at the border.
The President decided to eat humble pie. He agreed to the appeals he was hearing from both sides to open the government. The compromise agreement is in the best interest of all Americans.
President Trump displayed leadership in fighting for his position. He displayed leadership by taking action to move the issue forward. He displayed statesmanship by putting trust in both parties to work together on a conference committee in good faith.
President Trump kept his part of the agreement. Within hours of giving his address, the President signed the bill to give full back pay and put federal workers back to work.
Furloughed federal workers are no longer an issue. Now, the issue is solely on border security and funding a wall to address the crisis on our Southern border.
The President recognizes the process that the Founding Fathers built into our constitutional government. Technically, the President could declare a national emergency and act unilaterally.
He believes that Congress should recognize the crisis at the Southern Border. They should acknowledge the crisis by funding border security.
The President has done his part. Now, it is in the hands of Congress. President Trump did not cave. He compromised. There is a big difference.
by The Shutdown, Charlie Brown, Lucy, and Football
Peanuts is an American classic. One of the ordeals for Charlie Brown is his repeated misplaced trust in Lucy holding the football for kickoff.
Time after time, Lucy assures Charlie that she will hold the football. Charlie hesitates because she always pulls the football away.
Finally, Charlie again trusts Lucy and races forward to kick the ball. At the last split second, Lucy snatches the ball out of the way. Charlie flips backwards through the air, landing on his back with a thud.
In some ways this is a good analogy of what is going on between the Democrats and President Trump in the government shutdown.
The latest proposals from the Democrats provide for opening the government for two or three weeks. During the two or three weeks, the Democrats promise that they will make an honest and diligent effort to consider the President’s request for border security.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called on the President to postpone his State of the Union address. It is scheduled for January 29. She wants him to wait until the government is reopened.
She also suggested that he deliver it in writing rather than a televised address to the American people. Her request is understandable given her poor performance with Chuck Schumer in their response to President Trump’s Whitehouse address on border security.
So far, the President is not buying it. He is standing firm.
Democrats are playing the role of Lucy. They promise that if President Trump will sign a bill to fund the government for just two or three weeks, they can work things out.
The script assures us that Charlie Brown will finally trust Lucy. There is a big difference this time. President Trump is not Charlie Brown.
by