sounding: noun, the act of measuring the depths or the heights.


On November 11, in a speech near the Arc de Triomphe marking the 100th anniversary of the Armistice that ended World War I, French President Macron implicitly attacked the foreign policies of President Trump who was sitting there. He said, “By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others…” I think that’s a straw man. President Trump is putting American interests first, but he is not doing so without regard for others. For example, when President Trump has called out NATO allies for their long-term failure to pony up a minimum of 2% of their GDP for NATO defense, such a calling out is not focused solely on American interests, but all of NATO’s interests, all of NATO members’ interests. When the French failure to pony up (the most recent French commitment, in 2018, is to achieve the 2% goal by the year 2024!), this is the French putting French interests in spending on French domestic programs ahead of the alliance. How empty is it for Macron to argue for a multilateral world when France does not keep its commitments to a multilateral deal? France has no moral authority to complain about President Trump. 

Another example: When President Trump announced the decision to withdraw from the 1987 treaty limiting intermediate nuclear missiles treaty with Russia because, with Russia’s long history of violations, the treaty had become a one-sided deal, Macron complained that this was putting NATO allies at risk. I don’t comprehend. The risk to NATO had been created by Russia’s violations whereby the U.S. had its hands tied but Russian hands were not. The risk to NATO was not created by the American, the Trump, recognition of those violations and acting on them.


CNN “reporter” Jim Acosta asked President Trump at the November 7 post-mid-term press conference about the “caravan” of people intending to cross the Mexican-U.S. border illegally, arguing with the President that it would not constitute an invasion. Sixty thousand (60,000) people were apprehended for illegally crossing the border in a single month, October 2018. This figure does not include the number of people who were not apprehended after crossing the border illegally and it does not include the number of people, from around the world, who entered the U.S. legally but who “overstayed” their visas, that is, they remained in the U.S. illegally.

If over 60,000 people per month is not an invasion, pray tell what would constitute an invasion? Does an invasion require that people enter by force? Would they need to be armed? Must they have an intent to commit additional crimes after they cross? What percentage of them, and what absolute numbers of them, would need to be traffickers, drug dealers, gang members, terrorists, to render the entire group invasive? 

I believe that the story of the cooked frog, the frog who doesn’t jump out of water that is slowly heated, is useful in a large variety of circumstances. As it is here. If one million people cross the border illegally at a large number of locations and spread over an entire year, we Americans are as cooked as if the same one million people were to cross the border en masse on a single day in a single location.

The President is bound by the Constitution (Article 2, section 3) and his oath to faithfully execute the laws, including the immigration laws.  Another provision of the Constitution (Article IV, section 4), commonly known as the Guarantee Clause, requires the United States to protect “each” State “against Invasion.” 


According to an editorial of the Wall Street Journal on November 1, there were 734 bills passed by the House and pending in the Senate. (As of July, there had been 569; 404 of these had at least one co-sponsor from each party.) I do not know the number of bills passed by the Senate and pending in the House. How many of these bills passed by one chamber can be, and should be, passed by the second chamber before the new Congress convenes in January? 


Following the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, the Democrats and liberals are suggesting that Congress add two seats to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two can play this game. President Trump could encourage all federal judges, at both trial and appellate levels, over a certain age to resign or, if eligible for “senior status” (roughly, on the bench for 15 years and over age 65), to assume senior status—to take effect on the date that their successor is confirmed. This would enable the President to replace older judges with younger ones. This would not be packing “the Court” but packing all the federal courts.

He could encourage judges in stages, for example, by age (starting with age 75, and moving to age 70) or by geography (starting with certain courts). And he could publicize his plan as leverage to obtain some other big goal, such as money for a border wall, or repeal of ObamaCare.  


In February 2008, during the campaign of her husband for president, Michelle Obama declared, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." One would think that she was referring to a comeback from eight years of President George W. Bush, 2000-2008. But she didn’t say that. Instead, she referred to her “adult life” which extended back to 1982 when she turned 18. So, her statement implied that there was no hope achieved during the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, 1992-2000, even though he was characterized as “the first black President” and he called himself “the man from hope,” Hope, Arkansas. 

When I consider the difficulties of African Americans, so grave they feel compelled to make claims like Michelle Obama did in 2008 or to kneel during the National Anthem, I think of the Tuskegee Airmen. The last surviving member was Willie Rogers, who died on November 18, 2016, at age 101. The Airmen are heroes in my book on two counts: their valor in combat, and their endurance of racial discrimination by their countrymen before, during and after their service. 

Mrs. Obama is on tour with a memoir. She wrote that Donald Trump, before he entered politics, had demanded proof that Barack Obama prove his citizenship with the release of his birth certificate (the long form). And that this demand made her family unsafe because of all the “crazies” out there.

So, according to her, it’s not okay to question, hard and often and publicly, the place of birth which is a requirement for election as president under Article II, section 1, of the Constitution, but implicitly okay to pillory Trump for not disclosing his tax returns which it not required by the Constitution or any law. Disclosure is simply customary. I will hear the Democrats’ concerns when, as a Party, they require any candidate running for president, to make public their birth certificates and their tax returns as a condition for appearing on a primary ballot. 

Furthermore, the Democrats, liberals and media call Trump racist, anti-Semitic, white supremacist, etc. Mrs. Obama ignores how those slurs make the President and his family, and officials like McConnell, Cruz, Bondi, and Nielsen unsafe. 

Mrs. Obama also wrote: “I will always wonder about what led so many, women in particular, to reject an exceptionally qualified female candidate and instead choose a misogynist as their president.” Mrs. Obama, you don’t need to wonder at all. You should not want all women as women to overlook information that was widely known: Hillary was an Enabler-in-Chief and criminally corrupt. Marta H. Mossburg has, on these pages, given a full statement on this subject


In 2010, California adopted “the jungle primary” that allows the top two vote-getters in a primary, no matter their party, to compete in the general election. See Luis Gomez, “What Is the California ‘Jungle Primary’ and How Did It Change State Elections?, The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 31, 2018.  And so it is, that incumbent U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (“Di-Fi”) ran against another Democrat, Kevin De Leon, in the general election for U.S. senator from California. 

Given Feinstein’s duplicity during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, California voters had the opportunity for a win-win. They could get a Democrat in the U.S. Senate without voting for Feinstein. Nonetheless, over four million Californians voted for Di-Fi and she won.

How corrupt does a Democratic candidate have to be to get rejected by the voters?

The incumbent corrupt Senator Menendez received 1.6 million votes from New Jersey residents (beating Republican Hugin who received 1.3 million). The Democrats, liberals and media continue to argue for the popular election of presidents and they use the number of popular votes for Hillary over President Trump to support their position. But I want to use those numbers, 66 million for Hillary, to support my position, namely, the voters, especially Democratic voters, have a very high (too high) threshold for corruption.


The campaign for our election results to reflect the popular vote (and this means a simple majority) has now expanded from an attack on the Electoral College, as constituted, by Article II, section 1, of the Constitution, to that of the Senate, as constituted by Article I, section 3, of the Constitution. 

Exhibit 1: A front page article in the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2018, arguing that “If they win all three uncalled races, Republicans will end up with 54 seats and only 48% of the votes.” How did the Post calculate the “48% of the votes”? “Population share calculated by crediting half of each state’s population to each senator, by party.” 

Exhibit 2: Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2018: Rick Noack, “How to Explain to Someone Living Abroad that Democrats Can Have Over 10 Million More Senate Votes and Still Lose.”  

Exhibit 3: New York Times, Nov. 8, 2018: Paul Krugman, “Real America Versus Senate America.” 

On these pages, Caleb Howe has declared the “Senate Popular Vote” to be “fake news.”  
The Democrats believe they have the unfettered right to win. If they don’t win, they steal. See the litany of elections stolen by Democrats provided on these pages by Dov Fischer. It’s actually easier to change the rules rather than steal an election since changing rules doesn’t put you in legal jeopardy. Let me remind you of how Massachusetts changed its rules on making appointments to fill vacancies in the Senate twice, in 2004 and 2009. Bob Salsberg, “Change in Senate Vacancy Law Led to Mass. Elections,” Jan. 20, 2013.

Let’s face it. The Democrats, the liberals, the media don’t really like living under the Constitution. Is there any provision of the Constitution which does not grate them?

I have a different take than the wild-eyed, extremist Democrats and their academic and media lackeys. Virtually anything wrong with this country is due to the Democrats. Jeffrey Lord on these pages has recounted the Democratic Party’s (the Slave Party’s) history of support of slavery, history of support for 100 years of Jim Crow segregation, and the history of their votes against Civil Rights legislation. Let me add one example. Gerrymandering began with the Democrats in 1812. The term gerrymander reflects the election redistricting done by Massachusetts (ah, yes, Massachusetts) Governor Elbridge Gerry, a “Democratic-Republican.” One of the districts looked like a salamander. The Democrats had 50 years to get good at gerrymandering before the Republican Party even made its debut. 


Before she lost re-election as a U.S. Senator from North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp explained that a principal reason she voted against the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was because her mother had been the victim, as a teenager, of a sexual assault.  Kyle Swenson, “Heidi Heitkamp Talks to North Dakotans About Her No Vote on Kavanaugh,” Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2018.

In the confirmation hearings of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee have, over and over again, asked the nominees if they can be empathetic to the “little guys” that appear before them. They ask if they can put aside their lives of privilege, such as attending elite schools, to render justice. In the case of Heidi Heitkamp we have a person who could not put aside her personal life story to vote in the best interests of the United States. She could not make a rational examination, as Senator Susan Collins did, of the allegations of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh. She was a sucker for unsubstantiated claims made by Dr. Ford, the same type of unsubstantiated claims made in connection with the University of Virginia fraternity and the Duke Lacrosse team.

How many women, who themselves had been victims of sexual assault or whose family members or friends had been, voted to re-elect that woman-killer at Chappaquiddick, that “lion” of the Senate, Ted Kennedy. I’ll give you the appalling numbers:

  • 1970: 1.2 million (men and women)
  • 1976 primary: 534,000 (men and women)
  • 1976: 1.7 million (men and women)
  • 1982: 1.2 million (men and women)
  • 1988: 1.7 million (men and women) 
  • 1994 primary: 392,000 (men and women)
  • 1994: 1.2 million (men and women)
  • 2000 primary: 237,000 (men and women)
  • 2000: 1.9 million (men and women)
  • 2006: 1.5 million (men and women)

Heidi Heitkamp is a woman who practiced law and served as Attorney General of her state. We Americans are forewarned that she should never be made a judge. 


Elizabeth Warren became a member of the faculty of Harvard Law School in 1995. She was a Republican until 1996.

Senator Warren, did you vote for Ted Kennedy in 2000 or 2006?

If she answers yes, she’s not a supporter of women. If she answers no, she’s not a Democrat. 

Oh, she might try to wriggle out of the question by saying she never voted in 2000 or 2006, or she never voted for the office of U.S. Senator, or she can’t remember how she voted, or she sometimes voted for Kennedy and sometimes not.


Kellyanne Conway serves as a Counselor to President Trump. I am in awe at how she handles interviews. She actually answers the questions. While doing so, she is quick (but slow enough for listeners to hear everything she has to say) and sound. She invariably makes her boss look good – which is the mark of any good agent for his/her principal.

Enter, from stage right, one George Conway, a lawyer and her husband. He co-authored a piece in a major newspaper making legal arguments against the President’s appointment of the Acting Attorney General. The piece may not have made the light of day were it not for his wife’s position. And it was announced November 14 that he and 13 conservative and libertarian lawyers have formed a group called “Checks and Balances” to criticize the Trump Administration. So, he is exploiting his wife’s position. But is it to his gain? Maybe it is to his gain if he wishes to seek public office. It is not to his gain if he wishes to retain current or prospective clients. What client would retain a man, or woman, who goes public in criticizing a spouse’s boss? George Conway has embarrassed himself.

Spero News James Thunder is an attorney who also writes for the American Spectator.



Remains of WW2 pilot found on the bottom of Pacific Ocean

U.S. Navy personnel have discovered the remains of an American aviator who was shot down in combat over the Pacific Ocean in 1944. A team aboard USNS ...


Short Link
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not of Spero News.

Do you like what you just read?

Back our investigations with an immediate financial contribution. Spero News operates on the financial support from you and people like you who believe in media independence and free speech.