by - 0 comments

President Trump: Convicted Felon or Political Target | Part I

Imagine buying a printer and documenting it as a business expense.

Perfectly legal.

But pretend for a moment that instead of buying a printer, you bought heroin. Now, not only are you breaking the law by purchasing illegal drugs, but you’re also committing a crime in the way you reported it as “something for the office.”

If instead of buying a printer, you bought an ice cream cone, you’ve got a “falsified business expense,” but that’s not necessarily a problem. What makes it criminal is the crime being concealed by documenting the expense as something legitimate.

If someone is going to accuse you of committing a felony because of a falsified business expense, they have to prove to the jury that you’re guilty of committing a crime that was funded by the money you reported as a legal transaction. In the case of our example, the purchase of heroin.

But if you bought ice cream, that’s not illegal and however you accounted for it is not a felony and…

…they don’t have a case.

These are the 34 “felonies” that President Trump was charged with:

 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust2/14/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 8424572/14/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 8424602/14/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 0001382/14/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust3/16/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 8469073/17/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 0001473/17/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump4/13/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump5/22/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 8553315/22/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 0027005/23/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump6/16/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 8587706/19/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 0027406/19/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 8587726/9/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 0027416/19/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump7/11/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 8610967/11/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 0027817/11/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump8/1/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 8636418/1/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 0028218/1/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump9/11/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 8681749/11/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 0029089/12/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump10/18/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 87265410/18/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 00294410/18/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump11/20/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 87651111/20/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 00298011/21/17
 Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump12/1/17
 Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 87778512/1/17
 Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 00300612/1/17

These were all identified by the prosecution as falsified business records.

34 falsified business records, 34 felonies.

But remember, in order for a falsified business record to quality as a felony, it has to be proven that the money was intentionally categorized to conceal the fact that the law had been broken.

An excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors’ bill of particulars in the Donald Trump hush-money case referenced in the “Old, unused, and ‘twisty’ — meet the obscure NY election-conspiracy law that just might get Trump convicted” article printed in the Business Insider, April 27, 2024.

But what was the crime?

You can’t tell by looking at the business records, apart from the name, “Michael Cohen.”

In 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer, cut a check to Stormy Daniels in exchange for her discretion when it came to her relationship to Donald Trump, given its sordid characteristics that occurred in 2006. That same check was later categorized as an illegal contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign and Cohen wound up serving three years in prison.1

Later, however, it was alleged that Trump tried to reimburse Cohen for the money paid out to Daniels and used a series of falsified business records in order to conceal the true nature of the payment made to the former porn star. In doing so, at least one of three crimes were committed (see sidebar):2

  • Violation of State Election Law
  • Tax Fraud
  • Federal Election Law

But you can’t simply list 34 transactions and call them 34 felonies. You have to prove that every one of those line items was intentionally mis-categorized in order to conceal a violation of either State Election Law, New York Tax Law, or Federal Election Law.

Get ready for Part II…!

by - 0 comments

A Difficult Truth or a Convenient Lie?

When you’re talking with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they’re living in a manufactured reality where there’s no such thing as truth, only personal opinions. Truth only exists in the context of what they’re comfortable with – a preference that’s unique to every individual as opposed to an Absolute that applies to all individuals. That’s why when you try to tell them that they’re wrong, you’re heard as someone who’s just trying to force your beliefs on them.

All the boundaries represented by logic, common sense, morality, and even rational thought are now nonexistent because there’s no fixed point of reference.

  • There are no Divine Absolutes, those are “your beliefs.”
  • That isn’t irrevocable evidence, that’s just your perspective.
  • Those aren’t indisputable facts, those are just your personal preferences.

Truth is defined exclusively according to whether or not a person wants to believe it – there’s no kind of accuracy that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels. If they’re not comfortable with what’s being said, it is automatically untrue. There are no principles, only preferences.

That is the key difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. The Liberal gauges everything according to whatever best reinforces their core assumption that they are the standard by which all things are measured. Every resource, be it a news outlet, a personality, a poll, a statistic, a picture, or a study – however credible they may be – none of it is considered as admissible evidence if it resonates as a threat to the way they want to see themselves and the world around them.

The Conservative, on the other hand, believes in something greater than themselves which means that they are focused on a Standard that doesn’t change and is coming from a Source that is morally and intellectually flawless (“In God We Trust”). That doesn’t mean that the Conservative is never beyond reproach. What it does mean is that they see themselves as being accountable to someone other than the one who stares back at them in the mirror every morning.

The Liberal, on the other hand, because they see themselves as their own bottom line, they are never responsible for their actions as much as their oppressed by a system that is corrupt. They may be different, perhaps they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

What can make this exhausting is that when you accuse a Liberal of basing their convictions on preferences rather than principles, they will insist that you’re doing the same thing. They cannot process the concept of a transcendent reality that prevails over an individual’s desires and appetites. In fact, they see it as unhealthy distraction.

Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, captures that mentality in a presentation she made entitled, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs” featured on ted.com. At one point she says:

We all have different truths. They’re based on where we come from, how we were raised and how other people perceive us.

That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.1

The problem with Maher’s approach, and the Liberal perspective in general, is that it contradicts the very definition of what truth is. The dictionary definition of truth is, “…the body of real things, events, and facts.”2. Truth is an objective absolute and is not something that can be established simply by speaking it into reality anymore than you can change your gender simply by changing your pronouns.

To insist that truth is relative is a self-defeating statement because if truth is relative than even declaring it as such is relative and is therefore meaningless.

Yet, this is a necessary premise in order for the Liberal mentality to function. Once you introduce the idea that truth is nothing more than a word that’s used to elevate your personal disposition to the level of a universal given, then everything from your testimony in court to the way you evaluate the behavior and the credibility of other people depends solely on how that scenario either weakens or strengthens your ability to maintain the illusion that your definition of the human experience is the only definition that matters.

This is why the immorality of a particular individual is labeled as heinous and the same behavior in another individual doesn’t even justify a headline. It’s not a “double standard.” To the Liberal, there are no standards, only situations. The Liberal isn’t as concerned with the behavior as much as they are in demonizing anyone who represents a philosophy that promotes the practical existence of objective truth.

This is why they can lie in court because, again, there is no truth apart from whatever is preferred in that moment. You can’t be lying if you have eliminated the standard by which your statement would otherwise by measured.

Inevitably, this is more than just a self-serving philosophy. This is a spiritual condition.

There are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something or abstain from something to the point where you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. This is the lie that satan fed Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:5:

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5)

Christianity, on the other hand, says you’re a spiritual corpse. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. The gospel is the only religious doctrine that positions mankind as absolutely subordinate to his God.

That doesn’t work in the mind of a Liberal.

You can’t be your own absolute and be subordinate to a holy God at the same time. It’s one or the other and that’s why the separation of church and state is such a volatile issue.

It’s not just American History, nor is it a Sunday morning tradition. It is toxic in the mind of the person who is determined to be their own bottom line.

However unsustainable or nonsensical that approach may be, it can nevertheless be championed very effectively by insisting that, as Katherine Maher said, “We all have different truths,” and that it is ultimately a “distraction.”

But it’s not distracting, it’s stabilizing. And when that stability is in place, it’s liberating.

The death and resurrection of Christ aren’t certified as actual calendar events simply because I find the notion of a loving and forgiving God appealing. It either happened or it didn’t. However I “feel” about the empty tomb doesn’t validate its authenticity one way or the other.

The question isn’t, “How do you feel?” Rather, you need to ask, “Is it real?”

The question isn’t whether or not I can force my beliefs on you. The question should be, “Is what I’m saying…”

…true?

The word “truth” is used frequently in our society. Even in the context of swearing to, “…tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.”

But when truth is nothing more than one’s personal version of reality as opposed to that which is genuinely real, then you are attempting to function in a manner that is not only completely inconsistent with the way the universe operates, but you have cast off every reliable metric that would otherwise guide you in your pursuit of happiness, and redefined rights, not as gifts given to you by God to guard your way, but as weapons you use to get your way.

As long as you’re determined to ignore principles in favor of your preferences, you are missing the life and freedom afforded to you by what is, at times, a difficult truth, and exchanged it for the frustrated existence supplied by a convenient lie.

1. “What Wikipedia teaches us about balancing truth and beliefs”, ted.com, https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_maher_what_wikipedia_teaches_us_about_balancing_truth_and_beliefs, accessed March 30, 2025

2. “truth”, “Merriam Webster Dictionary”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth, accessed March 30, 2025

by - 2 Comments

A Time to Speak

I’m seeing several posts coming from well meaning people saying that we need to just love everybody and avoid any kind of confrontation.

Last year, President Trump narrowly missed being assassinated. This after several years of his opponents calling him a Nazi, a fascist, and a threat to democracy.

We need to just pray and not argue…

Where in Scripture does God tell us to be quiet and remain in our prayer closet while everyone else is voting, debating, knocking on doors, and basically pushing back against the narrative that says there is no absolute save the person who stares back at you in the mirror every morning?

This is the time to speak!

Here’s what I see:

First of all, to process Christ’s approach to the cross as our template for the way we confront evil is to forget that Jesus at one point said,

Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns. (Lk 22:53).

Jesus’ willingness to be crucified was not meant to be an example for the way we resist evil and fight back against corruption. He had to go to the cross in order for the Scriptures to be fulfilled and to pay our debt (Matt 26:54). While there may be a time when Christ asks you to sacrifice yourself, simply laying down and doing nothing in the face of being attacked or not standing up for what’s right, believing that you’re an example of piety, is not an accurate interpretation of the whole of God’s Word.

John the Baptist wound up in prison for rightfully confronting the current administration and calling out Herod as being an immoral dirtbag. Jesus said that no human being was greater than John (Matt 11:9-11; Lk 3:19-20).

How many times in the Old Testament did a prophet confront a king or an entire nation and tell them that they were godless and offensive in the sight of God? Was Nathan vague in the way he spoke to David (2 Sam 12:7)? Did Elisha mince words when he told the king of Israel what was going to happen to him and his wife as a result of doing evil in the sight of God (1 Kings 21:21-24)?

Did David give Goliath a brochure? Did Paul try to be extra sensitive when he spoke to King Agrippa (Acts 26:24-29)?

There’s a difference between righteous indignation and the kind of rage that springs from thinking of no one other than yourself. Ephesians 4:26 says to not let your anger provoke you to the point where you do something wrong. That’s obviously something you want to avoid. Simply exchanging insults on social media is not accomplishing anything.

But at one point, David said…

Do I not hate those who hate you, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. (Ps 139:21)

What David is saying is that he hates the work of sinners, and for good reason. Nothing good comes from those who intentionally try to do the wrong thing. And when you consider the pain and the problems that come from doing the wrong thing, you have every reason to detest that kind of mindset.

But, how do you respond to the “wrong thing?”

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11)

Expose them!

The person who doesn’t want to be “exposed” is not going to want to listen to you, nor do they want others to listen to you. They will be antagonistic and that kind of reaction is difficult to endure, which is why it’s so important to know what you believe and why you believe it so when it’s time to “expose them,” you sound like you have a point.

It also takes courage. For those who cringe at the thought of being criticized, it’s easy and convenient to retreat behind a biblical sounding excuse to not say or do anything.

That’s not discipleship, that’s cowardice.

What would’ve happened had our founding fathers not stood up to King George?

On one hand, they could’ve referred to Christ’s command to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s as well as the biblical admonishment to obey those in authority (Matt 22:21; Rom 13:1).

But rather than base their perspective on a mere portion of Scripture, they looked at God’s Word as a whole and were able to justify separating from England due to the fact that we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

They stood up and they spoke out.

Your witness means very little if you smile at the things that send a person to hell and endorse the things that put Christ on the cross.

David didn’t just sing, Paul didn’t just write, and Jesus didn’t just pray.

There’s a time to be silent and there’s a time to speak.

This is the time to speak.

by

The Broadside | Take the Money and Run

Trump is offering illegally present foreigners a gift.

The Department of Homeland Security is intensifying its efforts to persuade unauthorized immigrants to self-deport by offering a $1,000 stipend and travel assistance.

The federal agency announced Monday that those who use the CBP Home app to voluntarily leave the United States will receive assistance “to facilitate travel back to their home country” and $1,000 “paid after their return to their home country has been confirmed through the app.”

When I first saw that it struck me negatively. Why would we “reward” people who had illegally crossed into our country? Not only did millions of people commit a crime when crossing our border illegally, millions of people were given handouts when they got here. Some of them were flown to a city of their choice.

It wasn’t until I read further that I realized that there is a huge benefit for illegal aliens who self-deport, namely that they preserve the right to return to the U.S. using proper channels and processes. But the even bigger benefit is for U.S. citizens: it saves taxpayer dollars.

A single deportation costs U.S. taxpayers $17,121, according to DHS. The federal agency expects self-deportations to decrease that cost by 70%, even after factoring in the stipend.

Matt Margolis adds:

At first glance, it might sound counterintuitive that the Trump administration would offer $1,000 to illegal aliens who self-deport—but that’s exactly why the liberal media ran wild with it. They led with the cash payments, plastering them across headlines and opening paragraphs, hoping to spark outrage while conveniently glossing over the bigger picture. What they buried—on purpose—is that these stipends are part of a strategic effort to restore order at the border and save taxpayer dollars.

By encouraging voluntary departures through a streamlined process, the Trump administration is projected to slash deportation costs by up to 70%. It costs the government over $17,000 to arrest, detain, and remove someone through traditional deportation channels. Voluntary returns also sidestep the complex diplomatic negotiations typically required to get countries to accept their returning citizens. 

I don’t really care how illegals leave; just that they do. If we can bribe them with $1,000 and it saves us money, I’m all for it.

This is what I voted for.

I mentioned yesterday that my buddy Bruce Gust will be taking over the blog for the next few days as I take a break to visit the littles. He’s filled in for me several times over the last five years and I always appreciate it.

Bruce was at the center of a controversy earlier this year when he sang a unique rendition of the national anthem before a Nashville Predators v. Anaheim Ducks hockey game. Maybe you heard about it.

U.S. Marine Corps veteran Bruce Gust performed his own rendition of the anthem at the Bridgestone Arena before the Nashville Predators took on the Anaheim Ducks. He brought out bongos to help add a rhythmic beat to the song.

Ducks star Trevor Zegras joked that the unique performance affected his play at the start.

“I think the bongo anthem threw us off a little bit in the first,” Zegras said. “But once we recovered from that, we were back to our game, which was good.”

I personally thought the rhythmic rendition, while unique, was quite well done. In addition to being a musical artist, Bruce is also an author of several books. I recommend his “American Devotional Series: Part One: The Revolutionary War.” You can also check out his Muscular Christianity website, where he offers spiritual encouragement and physical fitness resources.

Thanks Bruce!

by

The Broadside | ‘The Rock’ is Back as My Vote Pays Dividends

Trump orders Alcatraz maximum security prison to reopen, rebuild and expand to house ‘America’s most ruthless and violent’ criminals.

President Donald Trump is calling for the notorious prison and now historical landmark, Alcatraz, in San Francisco, California, to be rebuilt larger and reopened to house the country’s most ruthless and violent criminals.

Trump made the announcement in a Truth Social post on Sunday evening.

“REBUILD, AND OPEN ALCATRAZ!” the president said. “For too long, America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat Criminal Offenders, the dregs of society, who will never contribute anything other than Misery and Suffering.

“When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm,” Trump continued, adding that it’s supposed to be this way. “No longer will we tolerate these Serial Offenders who spread filth, bloodshed, and mayhem on our streets.”

Trump is all in on reversing with intensity the indulgences of the prior administration. If Brandon allowed an invasion of foreigners without structure or oversight, then we’re going to arrest, imprison and deport them, and we’ll use the most notorious supermax prison to do it.

I’m all for reclaiming and reimagining that jetty of rock off the San Francisco coast. And it’s clear why Trump wants to do so:

Trump, in his social media post, said the country can’t be held hostage by “criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally.”

The Republican has railed against federal judges who have slowed his effort to boot alleged gangbangers and ship them off to the infamous El Salvador megaprison.

AP wrote, “Trump, returning to the White House on Sunday night after a weekend in Florida, said he’d come up with the idea because of frustrations with “radicalized judges” who have insisted those being deported receive due process. Alcatraz, he said, has long been a “symbol of law and order. You know, it’s got quite a history.”

Fine. If activist judges want to bottleneck Trump’s executive power, he’s got to find another way to deal with the threat. Funny enough, Don Jr. floated the idea of reopening Alacatraz back in January.

After his father’s announcement of creating a facility at the military base in Cuba to hold thousands of undocumented immigrants, Don Jr. tweeted, “Maybe we should also reopen Alcatraz?”

Being 1.25-miles from shore, Alcatraz has a reputation as being inescapable, even though 36 inmates tried and failed over 14 attempts during the years it was open (1934-1963). (There may have been three who made it in 1962, but there’s no definitive proof.) It used to hold some of America’s most violent and notorious criminals including gangsters James “Whitey” Bulger, Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly. It closed in 1963 after “island operations proved far more costly than mainland-based prisons.”

It’s both a symbolic and practical solution to a big problem.

Maybe Trump will hire some of El Salvador’s prison wardens to teach us how to handle the most violent offenders in our country. They’ll still get ‘due process,’ but we don’t need to make it pleasant for them.

A programming note: my buddy Bruce Gust will be filling in for me starting Wednesday as we visit with the littles. He’s always got good things to share with a Christian emphasis. My last post before break will be tomorrow.

by - 1 Comment

The Broadside | The First Shakeup of Team Trump

Mike Waltz is out as Trump’s National Security Advisor. But I’m not sure this is the coup that the Left thinks it is.

Quick Hit:

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will nominate Mike Waltz as the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Waltz, a former Green Beret, congressman, and current National Security Advisor, is expected to vacate that role immediately.

Key Details:

  • Trump praised Waltz for his military service and leadership, saying he “has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first” and will bring that same commitment to the U.N.
  • In the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as National Security Advisor while continuing his leadership at the State Department.
  • Trump stated the appointments reflect a continued push “to Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN,” signaling a focus on national security and international diplomacy heading into the next phase of his administration.

Democrats have been trying to oust Pete Hegseth over “Signalgate” a few weeks ago when Mike Waltz inadvertently added the Atlantic’s editor to a chat where senior officials were discussing attacks against the Houthis. Waltz owned the error and apologized but the Dems pounced on the situation as leverage to get rid of America First appointees.

It may be that Trump took care of the issue by removing Waltz but keeping him involved by nominating him to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. That’s got to make Dem’s heads spin.

If you thought President Trump was running out of ways to troll the left, you probably weren’t counting on the ultimate bait-and-switch that is sure to send the Democrats into a collective hissy fit.

On Thursday, we learned that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, are out at the National Security Council. Democrats absolutely salivated at the news. Of course, Waltz was never their true target—that’s Pete Hegseth—but, clearly, they saw Waltz’s departure from the National Security Council as a victory, and they felt emboldened by it. 

And then Trump nominated Waltz as his new pick for UN ambassador. 

“I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.”  

Trump can’t be accused of not acting in response to the “scandal” of the Signal chat. Waltz is out.

But Waltz is also not out.

What played out this week was not just classic Trump—it was trolling on a level that left Democrats and the media scratching their heads in disbelief. It’s the kind of move only Trump could pull off, turning a target of a faux scandal into the face America presents to the world at the United Nations.

Trump’s nomination of Mike Waltz to the UN ambassador position proves once again that he’s playing 4D chess while his opponents are stuck playing checkers. What might Trump do next to troll the left? I have some ideas. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be interim national security advisor, a totally boss move would be for Trump to nominate General Michael Flynn as Waltz’s replacement.

Can you imagine?

Have a great weekend.

by

The Broadside | Today is the National Day of Prayer

Thanks to Linda for calling it to my attention.

Instead of writing about the latest political or cultural rot, here’s the official “2025 National Prayer.” Honestly, I’m as guilty as the next Christian when it comes to pointing out the flaws in our great nation rather than petitioning God to change hearts and minds by His Spirit.

Take a moment with me to pray this prayer on behalf of our nation today.

God of hope, fill us with all joy and peace

in believing, so that we will abound in

hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

You have caused us to be born again to

a living hope through the resurrection of

Jesus Christ from the dead; therefore,

we hope in what we do not see.

This world is not our home or reality,

but the Lord is our Rock,

our Truth, our certainty.

God of hope, we pour out our praise

and are filled with Your powerful presence.

We pour out repentance of sin and are filled

with forgiveness and righteousness.

We pour out pain from the attacks of the

enemy—anxiousness, fear, anger—and You

fill us with courage, assurance, and love.

We pour out our needs, the desires of our

hearts, and are filled with Your Kingdom

provision and purpose.

We pour out our hearts for our nation, for

the people and places, relationships and

responsibilities the Lord has established: the

Church, Family, Education, Business,

Military, Arts, Entertainment, Media, and

Government. May all who live, serve, and

steward in these be filled with Your purpose,

wisdom, strength, and truth.

Let Your lovingkindness, O LORD, be upon

us, as we have hoped in You.

In abounding hope, anchored by our hope

in the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen!

See you tomorrow.

by - 1 Comment

The Broadside | Trump’s Presidency Is Going Down in Flames! (But Not Really)

The Democrats and the MSM (sorry for the redundancy) want you to think that support for Trump is in serious trouble.

Oh noes! The liberal progressive anti-Trump networks conducted some polls!

Fortunately, even if his numbers have dropped, his base remains strongly committed to his platform.

The liberal media keeps pushing its narrative about Donald Trump’s unpopularity, but the numbers tell a different story. Trump’s base is more passionate and committed than Obama’s ever was, and we’ve got the data to prove it.

Mark Mitchell from Rasmussen Reports dropped a truth bomb on X today, sharing a chart that liberals won’t want you to see. The data shows Trump’s Approval Index — the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove — consistently beating Barack Obama’s numbers. 

The key here is to not place your hopes in the polls. Instead, watch for what Trump’s strategies produce. Is he going to be perfect? Nope. (For example, some are blaming him for Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals federal election victory yesterday.)

Keep a couple of things in mind. First, it’s only been 100 days and Trump has been keeping his promises to kick illegals out of the country, to rebalance trade, and to bring businesses and manufacturing back to American shores. He’s standing up to China, he’s brokering peace between Russia and Ukraine, and he’s put Iran on notice. He’s slapped down the Houthis in Yemen, he’s exerting tremendous influence on control of the Panama Canal, and he’s quietly still working on an agreement with Greenland.

In other words, he’s putting America first.

Second, remember that the MSM polls are skewed liberal. The better polls are Rasmussen, which was pretty accurate about the 2024 presidential election. The MSM is no longer favored by this White House and is being dealt with like the partisan hacks that they are.

Mitchell accused legacy polling firms and the mainstream media of working together to paint a misleading picture. 

“The mainstream media on top of that is gonna be this information gatekeeping layer,” he said, citing Quinnipiac’s poll from a month ago showing Trump at negative 12 points — a number that was heavily promoted in the media despite being completely ridiculous. 

“Well, their numbers haven’t moved, and so now it’s, um, they’re gonna use Reuters. They’re gonna use ABC Washington, you know, negative 13, negative 12, negative 14,” Mitchell added. “Those are all new. They all dropped over the weekend.”

He even joked that the pollsters might be congratulating each other behind the scenes. “I wonder if they’re, like, slapping each other on the butts and saying, ‘Good game,’ after this coordinated, like, dump of polling,” he said. “I think that’s probably what it is.”

Don’t fret when you see a negative poll about Trump. Give him time to work.

by

The Broadside | The New Wave of Lawlessness Is Coming from Our Judiciary

When I was a kid, I was taught that if I ever got lost, I should find a policeman, who would help me get back to my mom and dad. There was implicit trust that law enforcement authorities were safe and would do the right thing.

How things have changed.

New Mexico Judge Joel M. Cano, Massachusetts Judge Shelley Richmond, and Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan made conscious, deliberate, and premeditated decisions to aid criminals, obstruct law enforcement, and desecrate the very system they were sworn to uphold.

In just a few days’ time, these three black-robed offenders committed what can only be described as acts of judicial treason against the American people.

And make no mistake: holding them fully accountable isn’t merely an option—it’s an absolute necessity.

It’s a necessity because if they’re allowed to get away with the alleged crimes then it confirms our system of justice is a collapsing two-tiered joke that “no one is above the law.”

Joel Cano, Shelley Richmond, and Hannah Dugan must be removed from office, disbarred, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less sends a deadly message to America: that the people enforcing the law can live above it.

They must face consequences—not because they made human errors—but because they made deliberate, calculated betrayals.

When those who have power to make decisions about how laws are enforced no longer follow the rule of law, then by definition they become lawbreakers. In other words, they become criminals just like those they are supposed to judge without tipping the scales of justice in one way or another.

In these cases, they were not just accomplices, but perpetrators themselves.

Dugan’s fellow Wisconsinite, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Leftist), was incensed that a Lefty judge was arrested and charged with two felonies:

“Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country and we are a democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by,” Baldwin said.

Everyone, apparently, but illegal aliens and ideological judges.

My shocked face wore out in 2020 but it’s still bracing to see the knee-jerk denialism and breathless sky-is-falling catastrophizing from the Left.

What’s “not normal” Amy is that a sitting judge aided and abetted a criminal illegal alien’s escape from federal authorities. Our only response to Klobucher should be:

If Ms. Dugan wants to protect illegal aliens and help them evade ICE officials she just can’t do it in her judge’s robes. And if she can’t separate her personal activism from her official duties as an unbiased judge, then she must leave the court — voluntarily or involuntarily.

And either way she should pay the penalty for her criminal law breaking.

If you want to know why Leftist Democrats and Leftist judges want to prevent illegals from being deported, here’s all you need to see:

by

The Broadside | What is This Fetish That Democrats Have With Foreigners Here Illegally?

It boggles the mind that a Maryland Democrat senator goes all out for an illegally present, MS-13 gang member and human trafficker from El Salvador accused of beating his wife who was sent back to his country of origin—while ignoring the brutal 2023 murder of a 37-year-old mother of five by a different Salvadoran illegal immigrant, without so much as a full-throated denunciation.

Why is it that Sen. Chris Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador last week—most likely on the taxpayers’ dime—to try and win the release and return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Why isn’t he applauding the deportation of a foreigner who illegally crossed into the United States in 2011 and lived here for 14 years even though he was under deportation orders? And why are Democrats as a party outright opposing the efforts to repatriate the millions of foreigners who flooded our nation over the last four years during the reign of Joey Sponge-Brain and his Cast of Hannibal Lecters?

I’ll tell you why.

It’s because they’ve inhaled the toxic fumes of Marxist-based wokery and believe that the United States of America is a racist country that oppresses minorities and that it is a moral imperative to elevate the oppressed and crush the oppressor. Sen. Van Hollen sees his effort to reverse the Trump administration’s action as a noble virtue that expresses his contempt for the ruling class and identifies himself with the oppressed.

“Why is the government of El Salvador continuing to imprison a man where they have no evidence that he’s committed any crime and they have not been provided any evidence from the United States that he has committed any crime?” Van Hollen told reporters before Morin took the briefing room podium. “They should just let him go.”

Well, senator, it may be that the laws are different in El Salvador. Perhaps just being a member of MS13 is grounds for imprisonment; I hear that they’ve been rounding up gang members by the thousands under a state of emergency for the last couple of years. But you go right ahead and tell El Salvador who should and shouldn’t be in prison. Seems to be your thing.

It’s true that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and “to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador” due to an administrative error. But it’s also true that the court didn’t require the administration to “effectuate” his return.

I’m guessing the difference is that “facilitating” his return means cooperating with El Salvadore to return him to the US once he’s made available by El Salvador, whereas “effectuating” his return means that the administration is responsible to get him back—to make it happen—whether El Salvador wants to cooperate or not. It’s the difference between waiting for the other party to act or taking the initiative yourself.

(Of course, I don’t know the legal nuances of such words. I’m an opinion writer, not a lawyer. So, take what I think with a grain of salt.)

Our immigration system is not only broken, but overwhelmed. There is no way for us to process tens of millions of foreigners in a reasonable amount of time. Thousands of them are criminals.

If they are here illegally, the only way to reduce their presence quickly is to round them up and send them back to where they came from. Even if they’ve claimed asylum.

Will some of them sincerely fear for their lives? Yes. But the responsibility for that lies with the previous administration, which illegally facilitated (there’s that word again) the worst foreign invasion on American soil in our history.

They made the mess. We need to clean it up and quickly. Kick them all out and tell them to come back through legal channels.

And if they’re angry about it, tell them to talk to Mayorkas and Biden.