When I’m wrong I say I’m wrong. This particular mistake was one that I would kick myself for missing if I were more flexible. Instead, I’ll simply call out my errors and try to set a more accurate perspective.

I missed it completely on President Trump and DACA. It’s arguably the first time I didn’t see the 4D chess at work. Perhaps I was simply being blinded by hope. Before he officially rescinded DACA, I applauded rumors that he would be doing just that. I added emphasis to the opening paragraph of that particular article titled, “Letting DACA lapse would be the President’s best move so far.”

Rumors are flying that President Trump could announce the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), allowing one of his predecessor’s most egregious examples of overreach to fade away into oblivion.

Call it an assumption that he wouldn’t go against one of his most consistent and arguably the most important promise he made to his base. He declared shortly after launching his campaign in 2015 the DREAMers had to go. When asked by Chuck Todd whether he’d split up families, candidate Trump doubled down on the narrative by saying no families would be split up… because he’d deport everyone in the family who wasn’t supposed to be here.

I followed up that article once the official announcement about rescinding it was put forth. Like a silly boy hoping that Santa was real but noticing the handwriting on all the gifts was the same, I suspended my disbelief in the president’s worthiness by posting “Trump to end DACA the right way for the right reasons.”

For President Trump, this is a win-win. He is fulfilling one of his most important campaign promises and setting the stage for the GOP to demonstrate their resolve on the issue. If they do, he wins because the “blame” will be spread throughout the party rather than just focusing on him. If they cave for political expediency and recreate a congressional version of DACA, then President Trump did his part and Congress was the body that changed.

Now I see the light. Many conservatives are upset at the potential for a DACA amnesty that doesn’t include the wall. Even a handful of his Day 1 faithfuls have gone beyond scratching their heads and have graduated into full-blown scorn.

How did I miss it? I’ve been critical of leftist moves from him in the past. Why did I not see the writing on the wall? Perhaps it was his consistent stance on the matter:

DACA will end up being STRONGER once Congress pushes it through as the law of the land rather than an unconstitutional executive order. In fact, had Trump done nothing, the Supreme Court likely would have put a stop to DACA altogether. Oh well. Maybe we’ll get a wall someday. Maybe not.

To answer the first question that pops up in the minds of those reading the headline, I’ve believed since just after Donald Trump won the election that actor George Clooney would be pressed to enter the presidential race, particularly if President Trump has a successful first term. I’ll go into detail about how he’s been preparing himself for such a run shortly, but first let’s look at California itself.

Despite my attempt at predicting the future, it’s a long shot. Assuming Clooney doesn’t run, the more likely and mainstream choice of Senator Kamala Harris is poised to be the nominee. She’ll win California if she’s even a blip on the radar. Her opponents would have to eliminate her from contention altogether for her to lose this state where she is extremely popular.

Unfortunately for other hopefuls, the only way to eliminate her from contention will likely be through scandal because if California’s current plan passes, she’ll only have to go through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. The state is pushing to move their primary to early March, making it the kingmaker it has always wanted to be.

As Politico points out, her opponents would be hard-pressed to mount the fundraising efforts necessary to blitz the most populous state in the nation with enough juice to derail her. That’s not going to happen unless Mark Cuban or some other self-funded billionaire enters the race. Harris will be the Democratic nominee and the DNC will wholeheartedly embrace her as the Trump-slayer.

Back to Clooney. It’s no secret that he’s had political aspirations based his conspicuous half-hearted attempts to deflect the question. In fact, he doesn’t get asked anymore in formal interviews which is a sure sign that his PR team makes the question taboo. He’s the ideal choice for a party that needs star power to trump Trump. Likable, attractive, well-spoken, and inspiring, Clooney has the aura that Ronald Reagan invoked in his early days in politics.

He served as a host multiple times for Democratic donors, giving his time and home over to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. During these gatherings, he gave “subtle but noteworthy” indications that he may have an interest in the future, according to a source who has attended multiple fundraising events with Clooney present.

He has the perfect Democratic candidate’s spouse, the perfect campaigner’s friends, and enough clout in Hollywood to bring the full power of the entertainment world to bear on his behalf. Throw in an experienced political VP (Elizabeth Warren?) and you have the makings for an interesting 2020 Battle of the Stars.

For her part, Harris is extremely formidable on paper. While she hasn’t been impressive as a Senator (she’s actually been quite laughable), her moves have made it clear she’s very interested. She’s the female version of candidate Barack Obama – 1st term Senator with a history in law, minority (daughter of a Tamil Indian mother and an African American father of Jamaican descent), and charming. The difference will become more apparent when she’s actually campaigning, especially during debates. One thing I’ve noticed that she can’t do as well as Obama is rally the crowd. She’s not nearly as flashy as Obama… or Trump. The closest comparison to her lack of passion would be the last Democratic nominee.

California is making its move to be the winner-take-all state in the next presidential election. If it happens, this may be the shortest primary season in modern history.

Reports are coming in from Politico that President Trump will announce a six-month delayed end to the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. The executive order signed by President Obama allowed children brought illegally into the country to apply for work permits. It was universally loved by Democrats and reluctantly protected by a handful of Republicans.

Now, it will go away if the report is accurate. It should and this is the right way to do it.

Complaints are already emerging from both sides of the political aisle. Liberals are outraged, of course, but some conservatives are also voicing concerns. Chief of Staff John Kelly believes Congress should have been prepared with a plan by now. Iowa Representative Steve King believes putting it on the Republican Congress is a bad political move.

To some extent, King is correct. If the GOP Congress puts forth a replacement that does all or part of what the previous lawless president intended with his executive order, all this does is shift ownership. If, on the other hand, the GOP decides to take the political hit and encourage enforcement of the rule of law for our sovereign nation, it’s a win.

King is apparently not very confident his cohorts will take the second path.

For President Trump, this is a win-win. He is fulfilling one of his most important campaign promises and setting the stage for the GOP to demonstrate their resolve on the issue. If they do, he wins because the “blame” will be spread throughout the party rather than just focusing on him. If they cave for political expediency and recreate a congressional version of DACA, then President Trump did his part and Congress was the body that changed.

As critical as I’ve been of the president during his short term, this is one instance where I’m in full agreement. Pulling the rug out from under “Dreamers” may be what most conservatives want, but it would be a poor political move. It’s just an unnecessary burden at this point following a slew of failures from Obamacare to the travel ban. Instead, he’s giving Congress the opportunity to act while still fulfilling his promise. The message to potential illegal immigrants is still clear and effective: this president will not protect you so don’t bother coming over.

We are a sovereign nation. We have a robust legal immigration system that allows opportunities for people to enter the nation the right way. We cannot afford mixed messages making people believe they or their children can stay if they come here illegally. Ending the executive order is a righteous move by the president. Will Congress follow suit?

Rumors are flying that President Trump could announce the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), allowing one of his predecessor’s most egregious examples of overreach to fade away into oblivion.

This spring, the President indicated that he may keep parts of the executive order because he has a “big heart.” It caused many conservatives and federalists to question his resolve on one of the most important issues constantly highlighted during the presidential campaign. If the rumors are true, it will be the best move he’s made so far.

Many would point to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but that wasn’t really much of a decision. Had he nominated a moderate or liberal, it would have been political suicide. Gorsuch (or any other Constitutional conservative judge) was a no-brainer and therefore doesn’t qualify as one of his “best moves.” It was important, but it wasn’t really a tough choice. Letting DACA lapse was a choice and the President is apparently making the right one.

Those who applied for DACA gained two years of deferred action. If President Trump allows it to lapse, it will take effect at the end of each individual’s deferment period.

There will be those who point to this as a heinous move because children or young adults are involved. The leftist mentality is that it’s not their fault their parents brought them here illegally so they shouldn’t be punished. The reality of the situation is this: they aren’t being punished. They’re being put in the same position that others who want to enter the United States are in. They are no longer going to be rewarded for the illegal actions of their parents. There’s nothing unfair about letting DACA lapse.

All too often those with similar opinions to mine are attacked for being heartless. It’s important to note that I have absolutely nothing against legal immigration. In fact, I believe that those who entered the country illegally are getting in the way of those who go through the proper lawful process to immigrate to the United States legally. What’s wrong with expecting people entering our sovereign nation to follow the rule of law? It’s not heartless to demand people not engage in criminal activities as their process to participate in the benefits of being in America.

I’ve been critical of the President, but I’m also fair. If he lets DACA lapse, kudos to him. It’s the right move for America.

Every self-respecting and freedom-loving person on the political right should unequivocally oppose white supremacist groups like the KKK and NeoNazis. We hear this a lot, particularly in the current atmosphere of volatility in America. On the flip side, there should be no support from the political left for groups such as Antifa.

Anyone reading this who disagrees will say that I am equivocating by lumping in Nazis with Antifa. This is the straw man argument that I’ve faced often in recent weeks. It comes from both sides, but mostly from those who want Antifa to somehow be akin to the actual anti-fascist Allied soldiers who fought the original Nazis in WWII. Even those who don’t make that illogical leap will say that what the KKK does is truly bad while what Antifa does is only a little bad.

Here’s the thing. Antifa has been in a constant state of acceleration since they hit the media’s radar. They learned the lesson that every journalist learns in college: if it bleeds it leads. They discovered that the more disruptive, loud, destructive, and violent they are with their protests and counterprotests, the more attention their “movement” will get. We witnessed this yesterday as a surprisingly organized group of “anarchists” made short work of a massive police presence to wreak havoc at a pro-Trump demonstration.

Hundreds of officers tried to maintain calm in and around Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park before the 1 p.m. “No to Marxism in Berkeley” rally, putting up barricades, searching bags and confiscating sticks, masks, pepper spray and even water bottles. The goal was to head off the type of clashes that sprang from similar rallies in the city earlier this year.

But once again, counterdemonstrators frustrated efforts by police, who numbered about 400. As the crowd swelled to several times that size, officers stepped aside and allowed hundreds of people angered by the presence of the right-wing rally to climb over the barriers into the park, said Officer Jennifer Coats, a spokeswoman for Berkeley police.

The masked counterprotesters, often referred to as antifa or antifascists, significantly outnumbered the people who had come for the rally, many of whom wore red clothing indicating support for President Trump. The anarchists chased away the right-wingers, and in one case four or five pummeled a man with fists and sticks before a radio host for Reveal, Al Letson, jumped in to shield the victim. Anarchists also attacked reporters who documented their actions.

This is only going to get worse if it’s not bottled up very soon. The problem isn’t just with the violence. Their targets should worry us all. They’ve broadened their labeling of others to the point that anyone can be a fascist. If anyone can be a fascist, anyone can become their target.

Fascism to Antifa isn’t what most people would call fascism. To Antifa, anyone who is not properly aligned with their ideology is a fascist. They aren’t just going after Nazis. They’re not even simply targeting pro-Trump groups or individuals. They’re targeting conservatives in general. It doesn’t matter if you hate the Nazis and oppose President Trump. If you espouse conservatism, you’re a fascist in their eyes and must be dealt with accordingly.

They must be disavowed by the left. Notice that I’m not just referring to Democratic politicians or community leaders. They need to be disavowed by every left-leaning citizen with the same ferocity that most right-leaning citizen opposes them. They’ve crossed over from being a nuisance yelling at people walking into conservative event venues and embraced a cult-like indoctrination that is approaching domestic terrorism. Some call them terrorists today and by definition, they are. However, my concern is that they won’t be satisfied with sneaking into events and causing chaos. Someday in the not-too-distant future, they will turn to actual terrorist attacks.

Antifa may be the greatest domestic threat to freedom the nation has ever seen. I’m not being overly dramatic when I make this warning. Their anger is clear. Their methods are becoming more sophisticated. Their willingness to destroy property and harm people is expanding. Those on the left must first stop drinking the Kool-Aid and then prevent others from doing the same. Otherwise, they’re going to own this when Antifa ramps up the violence a notch or two. Or ten.

This morning, Dr Starnes at Childrens’ Hospital of Los Angeles walked into the waiting room and told me that the repair done to my 2-month-old son’s heart was a success. He said he should be in great shape for years to come. I’ve documented my feelings about the medical system that has helped my son multiple times in his short life. They deserve blessings and have my complete gratitude.

The events that led to the operation this morning were a bit less mundane than a successful operation. You see, Jacob was lifeless on Sunday.

I was downstairs working in my office when my youngest daughter ran in and said that my wife needed me. I rushed upstairs to find her frantically trying to get Jacob to breath. He had just had a bath and was just getting dressed when she noticed he not only stopped crying but also stopped breathing. By the time I got upstairs, he was starting to turn purple.

We rushed downstairs. My oldest daughter called for an ambulance. It wasn’t going to be fast enough. I ran for the car followed by my wife. She drove as if she’d had EMT driver training, honking her way through intersections while being careful enough to keep us from getting into a collision. Meanwhile, I was with Jacob in the back seat. I checked his breath – nothing. I checked for a pulse – nothing. I reached into his throat and felt no obstructions. His body just stopped.

When I was 16-years-old, my nurse practitioner mother made me take a summer job working at a nursing home. She wanted me to appreciate life and see what it was like at twilight. I learned many valuable lessons as a CNA at two nursing homes in Oklahoma City. One lesson I had never had to apply was CPR. I remember vividly doing chest compressions on plastic figures, including several hours learning how to do it differently on infants. 27-years later, that training came into play.

For four minutes in the back of the vehicle, little Jacob was lifeless. His body was limp. His eyes showed no recognition, no movement. No life. Blow, count, blow, count, chest compression, count, chest compression, count. After the third round of CPR, the most beautiful sound I’d ever heard come painfully through his lips. It was subtle, so quiet I wasn’t sure at first if it was just a result of me pressing on his stomach. He let out a slight whimper. Then another. Then another.

We got to the emergency room. They were waiting for us. My daughter had canceled the ambulance and told them to expect a man with no pants, shoes, or socks running in with her baby brother. They acted quickly and admirably. Within ten minutes the whimpers were replaced by full-throated cries. We answered several questions, got his old doctors connected with his ER doctors, and after about half-an-hour they got me to put on some hospital socks and thin hospital cloth pants.

We’re now at our third hospital in five days. Along the way, the CPR story has made its rounds. That really isn’t the story, though. I know. I was there.

Nothing in my hands or breath brought my son back to from the brink. In God’s plan, Jacob had more to do. How he reached down and made Jacob breath and made his heart beat again is beyond me. It could have been the jolt of a memory to cover his nose and mouth with mine rather than just the mouth as is done with adult CPR. It could have been a driver in a hurry who had a feeling he needed to slow down before entering an intersection that my wife was crossing. It could have been God protecting Jacob’s body from harm I could have brought to him by pushing too hard during compressions.

I don’t know what brought my son back to life. All I know is that it was the will of God. I am humbled and grateful for this blessing that I do not deserve.

It’s all the rage today for Antifa and “tolerance” groups to tear down monuments from our history that depict “known racists.” The majority of these actions have come against Confederate monuments, but even people like Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt have been mentioned as current or future targets.

If that’s the road they want to go down, there’s one more name to add to the list. Planned Parenthood in general and founder Margaret Sanger in particular should be their top target. Why? Because the abortion organization’s founder had a goal of advancing “the better racial elements in our society.”

Many on the right seem to know this. Apparently, Antifa and their cohorts are either ignorant or willfully accepting of an organization that has killed more minorities in recent years than the entire Confederate army.

Glenn Beck agrees:

Daniel Payne at The Federalist agrees:

The racist, eugenicist roots of Planned Parenthood are well-documented,as is the paranoid racial and eugenic visions of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who spoke of her desire to create “a new race with a racial soul” in the United States, once cheerfully spoke before a women’s Klan meetingdesired to “keep the doors of Immigration closed” to those “whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race,” and yearned to accentuate “the better racial elements in our society” so as to erase from the population “defective stocks—those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

If the goal of Antifa is to take on fascism and racism, there’s a perfect living monument for them to try to tear down. I encourage them to join us in defunding this horrible organization.

The last article I posted was June 12. A few days later, I was in the hospital with my 8.5-month pregnant wife. The baby needed to come early, so “baby prep” week was replaced by “baby’s here” week.

As I discussed earlier this year, this particular baby wasn’t going to be a run-of-the-mill delivery. We had three separate teams of doctors and nurses positioned to handle different aspects of the delivery, immediate tests, and transportation directly to the NICCU.  His heart had challenges. There was a hole in the wall separating the ventricles. His aorta and pulmonary artery were transpositioned. We’ve known for months that he may not survive and even if he did, he would always have obstacles.

Our cardiologist was absolutely wonderful. She barely even mentioned abortion and after realizing very quickly that it wasn’t an option, she never mentioned it again. After doing some research, I learned that it’s not uncommon for people to have abortions when their preborn child is faced with the type of circumstance our child faced. Obviously, I’m very opposed to this notion. Who are we to determine whether another human, even a preborn child, should not be allowed to live a life, even a hard one?

The delivery was long and tedious, but once he finally made his appearance everything went into double-time. My wife saw him briefly before the baby and I were whisked away through an underground tunnel to Children’s Hospital of Orange County. He had to be monitored closely, tested profusely, and examined constantly. We needed to make decisions about his immediate future. There were several possible ways to address his heart.

The next day, an unexpected option became available. Dr. Vaughn A. Starnes, made famous for performing the life-saving operation on Jimmy Kimmel’s son, took a look at the test results and accepted our son to get the “all-in-one” operation (my term, as I don’t recall the names of the various procedures performed). This meant that the doctor could fix his valves, the hole in his heart, and switch the aorta and pulmonary artery in one operation. Not only would this allow fewer operations, but would give him the best chance of a relatively “normal” life.

There were major risks. To do the operation, his heart would be stopped, all of the blood would be drained, and his body temperature would need to be dropped to preservation levels. In essence, he would have to be made physically lifeless for hours while repairs were made. Then, he’d have a large hole in his chest that would remain open for a few days while swelling went down.

As a parent, it all sounded extremely terrifying. We discussed it, then prayed, then made our decision. Little Jacob was in a helicopter and on his way to Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles within the hour.

After a month living in East Hollywood tag-teaming it with my wife and the wonderful nursing staff there, we finally brought our son home. He’s like any normal newborn other than the large scar on his chest and an affinity for being held even more than most newborns. We couldn’t be more thankful.

We’re all faced with tough choices when our children are at risk. If they can be saved pain and challenges through abortion, many may see that as sad but better than the alternative. I can tell you from experience that being with little Jacob, watching him smile, and knowing he’s God’s creation affirms our decision. I couldn’t imagine life without him, now. I hope those in similar situations can experience the same blessings we’ve received.

Of all the topics surrounding President Trump, arguably the least important is how he handles himself on Twitter. On the other hand, a different argument could be made that it’s extremely important. I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m not one of those who believes a President should be expressing himself from a policy perspective in 140-characters or less. Some will argue that it’s him being transparent, but it has proven to be little more than a place for him to vent and rally support occasionally. I can understand pushing for support; short tidbits are enough space to call for his base to react. However, the venting has been an issue at times.

One might hear all of this and assume that I don’t want him to Tweet more, but it’s the opposite. I don’t want him to Tweet at all, but if he’s not going to stop, he needs to do it more. Little bits of information here and there are worthless out of context or without explanation. That’s the point of using Twitter, of course. It allows him to express himself quickly and without the ability to elaborate. The press and public can interpret things the way they choose.

I’ve accepted that the President of these United States will not stop Tweeting. Therefore, I humbly request that he Tweets more. Tweet longer. Use Tweetstorms if he has to in order to get the message out. Don’t leave us hanging, guessing, and wondering what’s next. Just let it all out. Craft several Tweets in a row on a regular basis. He’s done this from time to time. He might as well do it all the time.

If we’re to accept that this is the President’s preferred method of communication, so be it. Let’s at least get more information from it. It’s not what I would prefer in an ideal world, but it’s the world we’re in so we might as well get the whole story.

In recent months I’ve held my tongue regarding President Trump’s upcoming proposal for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. While it goes against my firm beliefs in reining in the federal government and reducing budgets rather than increasing them, it’s premature to oppose it wholeheartedly. After all, his promise to make private investments the bulk of the funding may not turn out to be another “Mexico is going to pay for it” moment.

The Democrats aren’t waiting before condemning the initiative. They decided to double it with no pretense of shifting burden away from taxpayers. Their plan calls for $200 billion per year for a decade fully funded by the public.

Few would argue the infrastructure doesn’t need improvement and interstate travel falls squarely in line with the federal mandate which is why I’ve held my opposition to Trump’s proposal until we see it. With that said, I don’t need to see a single detail of the Democrats’ proposal beyond the price tag. $2 trillion is so far west of crazyville it’s insane more conservative blogs aren’t up in arms. Between the Paris accords and the London attack, it’s probably just so far down the news food chain. Besides, they couldn’t pull it off, could they?

Actually, yes. If the economy turns south in the next year, it’s very likely this proposal could become one of the rallying cries the Democrats use to gain control of the House and Senate. Dubbed the “21st Century New Deal for Jobs,” they hope to invoke the huge government expansion of FDR to drive support. Like President Obama’s stimulus, they’ll use it to promote the concept of “shovel-ready jobs” to help put Americans back to work.

Here’s the problem. Americans are going back to work already. The economy is looking so much stronger now than it did just a couple of years ago that the Democrats would have to hope for a near-collapse in order to make their case an important one for the 2018 elections. Granted, the economy isn’t as strong as public numbers show, but more people are working today than they were last year and if the GOP’s agenda pans out as expected, we can expect the jobs numbers to stay strong.

There are still many pitfalls the GOP needs to overcome in order to maintain their majorities. Obamacare repeal and tax reform are right there at the top. Jobs are the perennial concern, so if the GOP delivers, the Democrats will have to try to spook voters instead of winning them over with their New Deal. The further we can push away from FDR’s legacy of expansive government, the better.