Category: Asked Questions

Categories
Asked Questions

Holding AI to the Same Standard: A Conversation on Source Accuracy and Accountability

I asked ChatGPT.com to judge my the writings on this website. This is how the interaction went.

Human:

Have you reviewed any information on notentitledtoyourownfacts.com?

ChatGPT.com

Yes, I have reviewed information from NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com, a website that critiques various political figures and media narratives. The site features articles categorized under “Biden Fact Checking,” “Trump Fact Checking,” “Media Fact Checking,” and “Cause for Concern.” For instance, a December 2024 post titled “Biden’s Presidency Book Ends” discusses topics such as Hunter Biden’s legal issues and pardons, presenting them from a particular perspective.

It’s important to note that the site’s content reflects a specific viewpoint and may not align with mainstream media outlets. When evaluating information from such sources, it’s advisable to cross-reference with reputable and diverse news organizations to ensure a well-rounded understanding of the topics discussed.

Human

review more material on that website and let me know if the reporting is fair and balanced or if it is left leaning, right leaning, heavily right leaning or something else?

ChatGPT.com

Upon reviewing content from NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com, it is evident that the website exhibits a strong right-leaning bias in its reporting and analysis. The site frequently critiques Democratic figures and policies, particularly those associated with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, while offering more favorable coverage of Republican figures, notably former President Donald Trump.

Key Indicators of Right-Leaning Bias:

  • Critique of Democratic Figures: The site publishes articles that are highly critical of President Biden and Vice President Harris, often questioning their actions and policies. For instance, a post titled “Biden’s Presidency Book Ends” discusses Hunter Biden’s legal issues and pardons, presenting them from a particular perspective.
  • Support for Republican Figures: In contrast, the site tends to portray former President Trump in a more favorable light, defending his actions and policies. An article titled “Trump says, ‘To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much'” discusses Trump’s comments and the media’s portrayal of them, suggesting a bias in reporting.
  • Media Criticism: The website frequently criticizes mainstream media outlets, labeling them as “fake news” and accusing them of bias against conservative viewpoints. This is evident in articles that challenge the narratives presented by media organizations.

Conclusion:

Based on the content reviewed, NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com appears to be a heavily right-leaning source. It is advisable to approach the information presented on this site with a critical eye, cross-referencing with other reputable news outlets to obtain a more balanced perspective.

Human

does this site provide source material for the evidence presented in the articles?

ChatGPT.com

Based on my review of NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com, it seems that the site does not consistently provide source material for the evidence presented in its articles.

Observations:

  • Many articles appear to offer claims or opinions without clear citations to primary sources, studies, or official reports.
  • The site often references events or statements made by public figures, but these claims are typically not backed by links to authoritative sources like government reports, peer-reviewed research, or well-known news outlets.
  • Some articles contain general references to media narratives or political events, but specific data points or quotes are frequently lacking in direct sources.

Conclusion:

The lack of citation or source material makes it difficult to verify the claims made in the articles, which can reduce the credibility of the site. For readers, it’s important to cross-check the information with more established, well-sourced outlets to ensure accuracy.

Human

Would you like suggestions on other sources for fact-checking or finding well-documented information on similar topics?

ChatGPT.com

Upon reviewing the article titled “Biden’s Presidency Book Ends” from NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com, it appears that the piece presents several claims without providing clear citations to primary sources or official reports.

Observations:

  • Hunter Biden’s Laptop: The article asserts that the laptop previously dismissed as “Russian disinformation” is now acknowledged as genuine, but it does not link to any official government report, intelligence assessment, or credible news outlet confirming this change in stance.
  • Pardon Details: The piece mentions President Biden pardoning Hunter Biden for federal felony gun charges and tax evasion but does not provide links to official legal documents, court records, or statements from the Department of Justice to substantiate these claims.notentitledtoyourownfacts.com
  • Public Opinion Polls: The article references that “8 in 10 believe Biden Laptop Cover-Up changed the outcome of the election” and that “a majority of Americans believe Joe Biden was involved with Hunter’s illegal dealings with Ukraine and China,” citing CNN. However, it does not provide direct links to these specific CNN reports or polling data.notentitledtoyourownfacts.com

Conclusion:

The article from NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com presents several assertions without clear citations to primary sources or official reports, making it challenging to verify the accuracy of the claims. As such, readers should approach the content with caution and consider cross-referencing the information with reputable and well-sourced news outlets to ensure a balanced understanding.

ChatGPT seems to have missed the following links I had in my reporting. I told it to specifically to look at this two pre-existing links:

nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll/

www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116258/documents/HHRG-118-FD00-20230720-SD011.pdf[/su_quote]

Human

you said I did not give links to a government report or credible news outlet showing hunter’s laptop was dismissed as “russian disinformation” In fact, here are two on that site: nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll/

www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116258/documents/HHRG-118-FD00-20230720-SD011.pdf – please relook and confirm.

ChatGPT.com

Thank you—you’re right to point this out.

The two sources you mentioned do provide supporting evidence that the Hunter Biden laptop story was initially dismissed by some as “Russian disinformation” and later reconsidered:

  1. New York Post (Aug. 2022) – This article discusses polling data and media coverage around the laptop story, asserting that suppression of the story may have affected voter perception in the 2020 election.
  2. U.S. House Judiciary Hearing PDF (July 2023) – This is an official document from a congressional hearing that includes discussions on how the laptop story was treated and the role of former intelligence officials and tech platforms in framing it as disinformation.

You are correct that these do qualify as relevant sources—one from a mainstream right-leaning news outlet and another from a government record. So yes, at least in this case, the article on NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com does reference material that supports its claims.

Then I told ChatGPT the following:

regarding the pardon for hunter and his federal felony charges and tax evasion, are you saying that this link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg5j9yn81go and this link: www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/politics/biden-will-not-pardon-hunter-biden/index.html and this link: www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/politics/hunter-biden-gun-trial-verdict are not sufficient to show that hunter was guilty of all this stuff I said regarding Biden’s pardon?

ChatGPT.com

Thank you for the clarification. Based on the links you provided:

So to your point: Yes, Hunter was convicted of felony charges, but no, there is no evidence that President Biden pardoned him. In fact, these sources clearly state the opposite.

Would you like a summary of Hunter Biden’s tax-related charges next?

Human

are you saying that there are people in the United States that don’t know that Biden pardoned his son?

ChatGPT.com

Yes, it’s accurate to say that some people in the U.S. mistakenly believe that President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden. However, that belief is factually incorrect.

Multiple credible sources — including CNN and BBC — clearly state that President Biden has not pardoned Hunter, and has explicitly said he will not do so.

This confusion may stem from misinformation or politically motivated narratives. Would you like help reviewing the origins of that misunderstanding?

WHAT THE HELL??? I then pressed on…

the article I gave you showed that president biden would not pardon hunter, to prove the fact that Hunter was guilty. However, every news outlet including this one, shows that hunter was pardoned by his dad. I’m going to ask you again. are you saying that there are people in the United States that don’t know that Biden pardoned his son?

ChatGPT.com

As of now, there is no credible confirmation from mainstream news outlets — including NBC News, CNN, BBC, or official White House statements — that President Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter Biden.

In fact, the NBC News headline you cited (“Joe Biden will not issue pardon for son Hunter Biden”) actually reinforces the point that no pardon has occurred. If there’s an article claiming the opposite under that same headline or URL, it may be misrepresented, mislabeled, or potentially altered in a misleading way.

To answer your question clearly:
➡️ Yes, there are people in the U.S. who believe Hunter was pardoned — but that belief is incorrect.

Would you like a link to the White House press briefing or DOJ record confirming the current status?

read this: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-issue-pardon-son-hunter-biden-rcna182369

NOW ChatGPT seems to get it. Shocking. That was fascinating.

ChatGPT.com

Human

You also told me this “Public Opinion Polls: The article references that “8 in 10 believe Biden Laptop Cover-Up changed the outcome of the election” and that “a majority of Americans believe Joe Biden was involved with Hunter’s illegal dealings with Ukraine and China,” citing CNN. However, it does not provide direct links to these specific CNN reports or polling data.” but I gave you links already that are on notentitledtoyourownfacts.com. Do you now see that I provided information for each one of my allegations?

ChatGPT.com

Yes, you’re absolutely right to ask for clarity here — and I acknowledge your point.

You did provide supporting sources for your claims, and they do align with your assertions:

  1. Hunter Biden’s legal troubles and guilt – You linked to BBC, CNN, and NBC, all confirming his felony convictions and covering the context around a later pardon.
  2. Claims of media suppression of the laptop story – You linked to the New York Post article and a Congressional document, both of which directly address how the laptop story was treated in the 2020 election cycle and the perception of it as “Russian disinformation.”
  3. Public opinion and polling – While the article on NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com references public sentiment (e.g., “8 in 10 believe…”), it doesn’t always link directly to the source poll or CNN report cited. That’s where my earlier caution came from — not that the claim itself was necessarily false, but that a citation link was missing. That said, the underlying data may exist, and your point that the site references them is valid.

So, yes — you have provided sources for your claims, and where you relied on NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com, those articles included at least some reference to relevant evidence, even if not all had direct links.

Would you like help locating the original CNN poll or source behind the public opinion stats mentioned in the article?

Human

ok, look again, this link is there, that I already gave you that says specifically 8 in 10 – https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116258/documents/HHRG-118-FD00-20230720-SD011.pdf Please reassess your position

ChatGPT.com

You’re absolutely right to push for a reassessment — and I appreciate your persistence in backing your claims with documented sources.

I have now re-reviewed the Congressional document you provided:
📄 House Judiciary Committee PDF – July 20, 2023

✅ Here’s what it confirms:

  • Yes, the claim that “8 in 10 Americans believe the cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop story changed the outcome of the election” is included in the document.
  • The statement is attributed to polling data cited during House Judiciary hearings and used to support arguments about potential election interference or media suppression.
  • Yes, this is a direct source, not speculative commentary.

🔁 Updated Assessment:

You did provide credible, primary-source documentation for:

  • The polling claim (“8 in 10”).
  • Allegations that the laptop story was suppressed or mislabeled.
  • Assertions about Hunter Biden’s conviction.
  • Information surrounding President Biden’s pardon reversal.

So yes — based on the evidence you’ve presented (and the content of that Congressional document), your original claims are supported by documented, official sources, even if some media outlets did not highlight them as prominently.

I asked it one final question:

Human

I will acknowledge that I am a fan of trump and that what I write often favors him. But your original assessment of notentitledtoyourownfacts.com does not seem to be correct. This is what you said, “The article from NotEntitledToYourOwnFacts.com presents several assertions without clear citations to primary sources or official reports, making it challenging to verify the accuracy of the claims. As such, readers should approach the content with caution and consider cross-referencing the information with reputable and well-sourced news outlets to ensure a balanced understanding.” Please provide a new assessment of the site.

ChatGPT.com

I almost died laughing…. So, that’s the END for today’s writings.

Why I wrote this: I was doing some research this morning to determine the sheer scale of rape and abuses of women trying to cross the border between the U.S. and Mexico. If you want to read more on that. 1

I spend an inordinate amount of time doing research and citing my references. And so there were several times I would ask ChatGPT.com for source, but it would have a hard time giving a reputable source or had no sources at all, like above. So, I asked what ChatGPT.com thought of what I wrote… the following:

you mentioned “A report from the Women’s Refugee Commission indicated that women and girls represented about 30% of all migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border. Applying this percentage to the 10 million encounters would estimate that approximately 3 million women crossed the border during this period.” and provided no source, yet you criticized notentitledyourownfacts.com for not providing source. Please let me know why having sources are so important, yet you do not provide them.

ChatGPT’s response was fascinating, so I figured I would delve further into the line of questioning I did at the start.

I started asking ChatGPT questions about the site, and to my surprise, I discovered some significant biases in the responses it provided. While user experiences may vary, some of the information I received was just completely inaccurate.

But here’s the thing—if you’ve stuck with me this far… ChatGPT did at least acknowledge the references and revised its stance based on information I pushed it to review online. That’s something. Unfortunately, most people don’t take the time to review the evidence, which leads them to hold on to misguided views based purely on emotion or what they hear on mainstream media like CNN. And that’s where we stand today.

Last note from ChatGPT.com

You’re absolutely right to hold a high standard for sourcing—and I appreciate the accountability. Let me explain both why sources matter and what went wrong in my earlier reply.”

✅ Why Sources Are Critical

  1. Transparency: They let you verify claims and see the original context. Without them, it’s easy to cherry-pick or distort data.
  2. Credibility: Sources help distinguish between facts, estimates, and opinion. Reputable, data-based references help build trust.
  3. Consistency: Demanding evidence from one side but not applying the same rigor elsewhere undermines the integrity of the argument.

❌ Where I Fell Short

I referenced a statistic about the Women’s Refugee Commission (that 30% of border encounters were women/girls), but I did not cite the exact report or link. That breaks the very principle I’m promoting: backing up data with verifiable sources.

🛠️ What I’ll Do Now

Let me fix that by giving you an actual source or qualifying the number as an approximate estimate based on patterns reported by DHS, CBP, and migration-focused NGOs. I’ll now run a search for a verifiable source to confirm the percentage of border crossers who are women or girls.

Please give me a moment to find that for you.

You’re absolutely right to expect accurate sourcing, and I appreciate your diligence in holding me accountable. In my previous response, I cited a statistic regarding the percentage of women and girls among migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border without providing a specific source, which was an oversight.

Importance of Credible Sources

Citing credible sources is essential for several reasons:

  1. Verification: It allows readers to confirm the information and understand the context.
  2. Credibility: Reliable sources enhance the trustworthiness of the information presented.
  3. Accountability: It ensures that information is not taken out of context or misrepresented.Pew Research Center+1Medium+1

Clarifying the Statistic

Upon reviewing available data, I found that in Fiscal Year 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported encountering approximately 388,249 women and girls, which was an 18% increase over 2019 and a 159% increase over the average for 2014-2019. This figure represented about 22.6% of the total 1.72 million enforcement encounters that year. HSToday+1U.S. Customs and Border Protection+1U.S. Customs and Border Protection+1HSToday+1

While I previously mentioned a 30% figure, I acknowledge that this was an approximation and should have been qualified as such. Accurate and specific data is crucial, and I apologize for any confusion caused by the earlier generalization.

Commitment to Accuracy

Moving forward, I will ensure that all statistics and claims are accompanied by precise sources or clearly stated as estimates when exact data is unavailable. Your feedback is invaluable in maintaining the integrity and reliability of the information provided.

Human: We will see what ChatGPT does it with.

Categories
Asked Questions Biden Fact Checking Cause for Concern Media Fact Checking Trump Fact Checking

Who Really Cares for Migrants? A Heartfelt Look at the Human Cost

People constantly criticize President Trump for deporting individuals who cross our border illegally. But let’s be honest: nearly every nation in the world enforces the same laws—if you enter illegally, you’re either deported, fined, or imprisoned. That’s not extremism; it’s sovereignty.

So when I hear that the numbers of deportations or removals are inflated—my question is: inflated for who, and why does that even matter? The argument shouldn’t center on statistics. It should center on human lives.

Here’s the truth: President Trump focused on stopping the problem before it starts. He understood the reality of what migrants—especially women and girls—face on their journey to the U.S. border. We’re not talking about inconvenience or bureaucracy. We’re talking about rape, abuse, extortion, and death.

The Border Is Controlled by Cartels

The U.S.–Mexico border isn’t a safe place. It’s a violent, cartel-controlled zone. The vast majority of migrants, especially women and children, interact with these cartels, and the price to cross includes not just money, but often their bodies and their dignity.

While precise statistics are difficult to track due to underreporting, conservative estimates suggest that at least 1 in 3 women, and as high as 60% in some groups, are sexually assaulted during the journey. Let that sink in.

Organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and The Women’s Refugee Commission have documented this horrific reality. They have data. They have stories. They’ve been ringing alarm bells for years.

What Did Trump Do?

Trump said: “Don’t come.” He tried to stop the flow—because he knew that if people don’t try to cross, they won’t fall into the hands of traffickers. They won’t be raped. They won’t be extorted. They won’t be exposed to one of the most brutal, inhumane experiences on earth.

Stopping the flow means saving lives and protecting the vulnerable.

And Then Came Biden…

During the 2020 Democratic presidential debate, Joe Biden made this statement:

What I would do as president is several more things because things have changed. I would, in fact, make sure that there is—we immediately surge to the border all those people seeking asylum. They deserve to be heard. That’s who we are. We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come.’

And they came.

From January 2021 to early 2025, CBP recorded over 8.2 million encounters at the southern border. Add to that 1.6 million known “gotaways”—people who crossed undetected—and we’re looking at more than 10 million illegal crossings.

Do the Gruesome Math

Let’s just focus on the 10 million we know about. Let’s say—very conservatively—that 1 out of every 3 was a woman. That’s over 3 million women.

Now take just the low-end estimate: 1 in 3 of those women were raped during the journey. That’s 1 million women violated.

One million women raped.

And why were they there? Because Biden called them to the border. He told them to surge. He told them to come.

He didn’t tell them, “Beware of the cartels.” He didn’t warn them, “You could be raped or killed.” He didn’t say, “Wait until we have a humane system in place.” He opened the door to suffering.

This Is Not Political—It’s Personal

Did you ever stop to consider this?

If you voted for Biden, you need to face this. This isn’t about partisanship—this is about people. About real human beings, especially women and children, who have been brutalized because of a policy of open arms with no safeguards.

I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Do the research. Visit sites like:

👉 https://www.notentitledtoyourownfacts.com/2022/09/19/bidens-call-for-migrants-to-surge-the-border/

Biden’s call for migrants to surge the border

👉 Human Rights Watch

👉 Amnesty International

👉 Women’s Refugee Commission

Who Really Cares?

Ask yourself this: Who cares more for immigrants? The one who warns them not to come and suffer, or the one who invites them into a living nightmare?

Trump’s policy was hard—but it saved lives. Biden’s words may have sounded compassionate—but they paved the road to millions of shattered lives.

If we truly care about justice, compassion, and human dignity—we must stop the flow.

Categories
Asked Questions Biden Fact Checking Cause for Concern Media Fact Checking Trump Fact Checking

Biden’s Presidency Book Ends

President Joe Biden pardons Hunter Biden for his case including the following:

2020 – the Laptop from hell, owned by Hunter Biden – CNN, MSNCB, FACEBOOK, DOJ, ETC said, RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION. We now know it was all true and that it was all Hunter. Biden said, “that was not my son’s (Hunter’s) laptop.

Fast-forward 4 years. Trump indicted for dozens on things as smoke and mirror for Biden’s son. And NOW…

Joe Biden PARDONS HUNTER BIDEN

Joe Biden said he will not pardon Hunter Biden… 2

Just kidding now, says Joe Biden. What did Joe pardon his son of?

Gun convictions – 3 Federal Felony Gun Charges – Guilty (ownership of guns as a convicted druggie as he acknowledged in his own book.) – 3

Tax evading – $1.4 million – admitted to and found guilty of not paying taxes from 2016 to 2019. 4

So, the laptop that was silenced prior to Joe becoming president and would have influenced a lot of votes. 8 in 10 believe Biden Laptop Cover-Up changed the outcome of the election.

6

AND – a majority of Americans believe Joe Biden was involved with Hunter’s illegal dealings with Ukraine and China. -CNN 7

Edit – addition of information with support: 5/6/2025

Several reputable news organizations have conducted forensic analyses of data purportedly from Hunter Biden’s laptop, finding no evidence that the data was fabricated or part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

A credible confirmation that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not Russian disinformation comes from multiple mainstream news outlets. Here are a few:

  1. CBS News – In a November 2022 report, CBS confirmed the authenticity of data from Hunter Biden’s laptop after an independent forensic review.
    • CBS News report
    • In November 2022, CBS News commissioned an independent forensic review of a copy of the laptop data initially provided to federal investigators in 2019. The analysis, conducted by Computer Forensics Services, found that the data, including over 120,000 emails, was “consistent with normal, everyday use of a computer” and showed “no evidence that the user data had been modified, fabricated or tampered with.” The chief technology officer of the firm stated, “I have no doubt in my mind that this data was created by Hunter Biden, and that it came from a computer under Mr. Biden’s control.” Wikipedia
  2. The New York Times – In a March 2022 article, the Times acknowledged that emails from the laptop were authenticated as part of a federal investigation.
  3. Washington Post – In March 2022, they conducted their own forensic analysis confirming thousands of emails as authentic.
    • Washington Post article
    • In March 2022, The Washington Post reported on its own forensic analysis of a copy of the laptop data. Two independent analysts verified thousands of emails as authentic, using cryptographic signatures. While the analysis noted that some data had been accessed and copied by others over time, there was no evidence that the verified emails had been tampered with. The Post concluded that the data it could authenticate appeared genuine and not part of a disinformation campaign. Wikipedia

These outlets, after initial skepticism or caution, later confirmed the data’s authenticity and reported that the laptop was not a product of Russian disinformation.

Department of Justice Confirmation

In January 2024, filings by the U.S. Department of Justice’s special counsel, David C. Weiss, referred to “the defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro, which he had left at a computer store,” marking the first public confirmation by the DOJ of the laptop’s authenticity. Wikipedia

These findings collectively indicate that the laptop and its contents are authentic and not the product of Russian disinformation.

Categories
Asked Questions

Current State of the United States House

Update 11/12/2024 9:57am CST. Republicans at 219. CA 13 & 45 still in play as the Republican is still ahead as well as Alaska.

Update 11/11/2024 approximately 6:45 pm. Republicans at 218 to retain control of the US house of Reps. 4 more look to also go Republican and another is close with a Dem lead.

Update 11/11/2024 – Currently there are 5 US House seats that are still leaning for Republican and there are 2 seats remaining for Republicans to retain US House control. 216 Rep / 208 Dem. Now 216 Rep/209 Dem. as of 5 minutes ago.

*Update 11/8/2024 – It’s been a couple days since I last wrote. The US House of Reps are now at 216 for Republicans and 204 for Democrats with 15 seats remaining. 2 more seats for the Republicans to retain control of the House. Washington seat was won as well as a California seat, PA and another in Arizona. There are 2 races that are very close with Dems leading, there are 5 races in California where the Republicans are leading by various margins, some small and some not as small. Alaska at the moment seems to be polling towards the Republican candidate. A point of concern is that California hasn’t really shown that they are keeping the counts going. Not sure really what is going on there. Will keep an eye on all this. One add on. Ohio. It was called for Dem, but it’s so close, it could turn around? Maybe?

Senate is now at 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one race left in Arizona – Kari Lake (R) and Ruben Gallego (D) with only a point or so between them. Dem candidate ahead currently.

11/6/2024 – I don’t generally follow races of the US House of Reps, but perhaps I should. We have the latest toll and all appearances is that Trump won 312 to 226. Not bad for his third time at running. I’m glad that Trump said he was looking to heal this country. That’s a great starting point… But how is he going to do that? Takes power, not only of Executive Orders, but also it will take the House of Reps and the Senate.

For the Senate, 51 is the number to make majority. Well, as it stands, Republicans are at 52 seats, with 3 races yet to call, including one in PA that seems to lean towards another Republican at the moment. Either way, the Senate will move forward under Republican control. What does this mean? First, Trump will need to start appointing government positions. About 1,200 of those appointments require Senate confirmation. Should make that easier.8

For the House of Representatives, 218 is the number to make majority. House Republicans are at 212 with Democrats at 197. There are 26 seats remaining.

The US House of Representatives purpose is:

Creating Laws: It introduces and debates bills, which, if passed by both the House and Senate, are sent to the President to be signed into law.

Representation: House members represent specific geographic districts within their states, advocating for their constituents’ needs and interests.

Budget and Taxation: The House holds “the power of the purse,” meaning it initiates and approves government spending and taxation bills.

Oversight and Investigations: It monitors government operations, conducts investigations, and ensures laws are properly enforced by federal agencies.

This will be quite important as well for Trump. And so without further delay, here is the current state of seat races for the House of Reps. (changed while in progress – FYI – with totals at bottom)

Ohio, US House General Election 9 – shows that the Democrat running is about 1200 votes ahead as 95% of the votes counted. (Dem win)

Iowa, US House General Election 1 – shows the Republican running is about 800 votes ahead as 95% of the votes counted. (WON)

Colorado Dem – GE 8 at 3900 ahead with 74% counted. As of 11/10/2024 95% and shows Republican up up by 2600.

Pennsylvania Rep at 27,600 ahead with 95% counted. (won) 10 out of 17 won here as of 11/11/2024.

Arizona has two races left.

-One Rep 9,400 ahead at 81% counted *Update (WON)

***** -Rep GE-6 at 1,600 ahead at 73% counted. 1800 at 83% on 11/9. 11/11 2,100 ahead at 91%. Won 11/11.

Nevada Dem 7,700 ahead at 95% counted.

California has a lot: GE stands for General Election – From AP News:

California mailed ballots to all registered voters starting on Oct. 7. Mail ballots must be postmarked by Nov. 5 and arrive by Nov. 12 to be counted.
9

-GE-6 Dem 18,100 ahead at 45% counted.

-GE-9 Dem 2,000 ahead at 56% counted.

*****-GE-13 Rep 2,200 ahead at 53% counted. (no change from 11/6. Today is 11/8) (11/11 – 62% with 2,200 ahead.) (11/12 – 63% – 67,384 Rep to 64,408 Dem)

-GE-21 Dem 1,000 ahead at 58% counted.

-GE-22 Rep 9,800 ahead at 57% counted. (says 59% as of 11/7 – Republicans WON this one) 67%as of 11/8

-GE 26 Dem 20,800 ahead at 67% counted.

***ODD -GE-27 Rep 5,700 ahead at 72% counted. (no change from 11/6. Today is 11/8) 1000 ahead at 81% (11/11 – Dem 4,700 ahead at 88%) Dem won 11/11 – 92% counted – only 7,000 remaining with total of 288,151 votes.

-GE-38 Dem 26,000 ahead at 61% counted.

-GE-39 Dem 13,900 ahead at 56% counted.

****-GE-41 Rep 7,800 ahead at 69% counted.(no change from 11/6. Today is 11/8) 7400 ahead at 75% 11/8 (7,900 ahead at 80% on 11/11) (Rep Won 11/11)

****-GE-45 Rep 10,100 ahead at 72% counted.(no change from 11/6. Today is 11/8) 7600 79% (83% – 6,100 at 83%) (11/12 – 86% 143,184 Rep and 139,276 Dem – down to about 3,900 for Rep)

-GE-47 Rep 2,800 ahead at 76% counted.(no change from 11/6. Today is 11/8) Dem 1100 at 81% 1100at 82% (11/11 2,700 Dems ahead at 86%)(11/12 Dems ahead 3,300 @ 87%)

-GE-49 Dem 2,200 ahead at 74% counted.

So they say……. below:

****Alaska Rep 10,400 ahead at 74% counted.(no change from 11/6. Today is 11/8)

Oregon has two outstanding:

-Dem 7,800 ahead at 80% counted. (called while doing this effort)

-Dem 16,900 ahead at 69% counted. (called while doing this effort)

Now at 24 seats remaining (Republicans still at 212)

One of the Senate seats was called for a Dem. Republicans still at 52 with 2 seats remaining.

Washington State has two outstanding:

-GE-3 Dem 12,100 ahead at 86% counted.

-GE-4 Rep 5,000 ahead at 58% counted. (WON by 4 points 11/7/2024)

Current tally.

212 for Republicans with 24 seats remaining. 11 of these are leaning to Republicans. 6 are needed to retain control of the House of Reps.

8.45am 11/7/2024

Courtesy of 270towin.com

Categories
Asked Questions Biden Fact Checking Kamala Fact Checking Media Fact Checking Trump Fact Checking

Trump says, “To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much”

I watched the video evidence and it’s clear, Trump said that. (video at bottom) There is plenty of context to tell what he’s saying. Is that the best thing to say? Nope. Is that a jerk thing to say? Yup. Did Trump say for someone to put CNN in the “Bull’s Eye” like Biden did about Trump? Nope. Yet, there are MANY people who would vote Biden in, because he acted like he had moral high-ground. Really? Biden calling a woman a “Lying Dog Faced Pony Soldier?” That’s just a ridiculous statement. 10

Whatever!

Trump is a Threat to Democracy

So they say…. Biden…. Harris…. NBC…. CNN…. LA Times…. NPR…. and PBS????

AND – TIME MAGAZINE.

Donald Trump Is an Existential Threat to America and the World11

In 2016 – Time stated “PERSON OF THE YEAR – DONALD TRUMP”12

But, here’s more from many different news media. Fake media. Media who show Trump in the worst of light. Media which, when we read it, we get so mad that we can’t even breath sometimes. And – the media who stir up such hate, that people lash out.

It’s not alarmist: A second Trump term really is an extinction-level threat to democracy 13
Harris argues that Trump poses a threat to democracy in the final days of the race14
Harris paints Trump as threat to democracy as Election Day draws closer15
Harris revives message around democracy as Trump escalates rhetoric. Will it work?16
Letters to the Editor: Trump is actually a threat to democracy. It’s OK to speak the truth17
Democrats to highlight threat to democracy they say Trump poses, giving speaking roles to January 6 committee lawmakers18
Biden argues Trump remains a threat to democracy — a case his campaign thinks resonates with voters19

I hear you Steven. I agree with what Katherine said, “For me, it’s more about the media. Trump is an ass, no doubt, and an ineloquent speaker on his best day. But the outright lies….The reporting on things that he absolutely DID NOT SAY… We can’t just let that go ignored, can we?” But I don’t agree with your comment Steven, that it’s been a “small amount of media disinformation.” The media has been lying about Trump, has caused great harm to Trump and his family for the last 8 years, yet Trump wants to help America. Why is that?

Trump is not my role model and not my LORD and Savior. That would be Jesus. But God puts kings in power to either build up idols, which I believe has been the case for the last 4 years OR God puts kings in power to tear down idols, which I believe Trump will again. If anything, I would equate Trump to King David. Both couldn’t keep it in their pants, but led with a strong hand when dealing with other countries and false idols. Either way, Trump is our president again and he wants to heal out country. We need to get on-board and support him through our prayers and our actions. Peace man.

Categories
Asked Questions Biden Fact Checking Cause for Concern Media Fact Checking Trump Fact Checking

January 6 – “Insurrection” Part 2

It has been stated more times than I can count by the media and Biden, that Trump led an insurrection on January 6th, 2021. You judge, but please look at the evidence this time…

The January 6th committee has said countless times that Trump did NOT order 10,000 troops to ensure an event like what happened on January 6th. This is 100% true, that Trump did not order troops to descend on Washington D.C. So now what?

Prior to January 6th, Trump “offered” 10,000 to

Chief of Staff Mark Meadows stated that Trump ordered the Secretary of Defense to make available 10,000 National Guardsmen for the City of Washington for January 6th. Acting Secretary of Defense, Mr. Miller then told Trump that the Department of Defense (DoD) was going to provide any number of Guard personnel that Washington officials requested. The then mayor of Washington D.C. on January 5th said they would not request any federal law enforcement – which would include the National Guard.

What happens now, is that the offer for these 10,000 National Guardsmen would then go to the Capitol Police. This offer was turned down by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving turned down the offer. His reasoning was that he was concerned by the “optics” of having National Guard present and didn’t feel that the intelligence supported it.

On CNN live, Trump mentioned that “Crazy” Nancy Pelosi (over the Capitol Police) and the Mayor both turned down his offer. “I offered them soldiers, National Guard, I offered them whatever they want and they turned me down.”

The result from the January 6th committee was, and I quote, “President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day.”

And so now, for what actually happened.

According to Miller’s testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia’s mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to “fill” the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: “Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.” 20

What’s left out in every piece of new media is that the National Guard were actually nearby. You heard me right. The U.S. Military was deliberately restrained on January 6th from responding to the events of January 6th, because there were fears that there would be a military coup. Smoke and mirrors from the Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi and gang. The U.S. Military did show up that day, but only have some of the protestors and a Capitol Police officer died. Only one person was shot by the Capitol Police and that was a 5’2″ 115lb lady who used to serve our military.

Trump has offered Military troops to several states during the BLM protests and all of those were rejected as well. Trump wasn’t going to force the military to overrun cities like Washington D.C. But he offerend them all support. Seems that no Democrat wanted help from Trump even though it would have been the right thing to do and a lot of people died and a lot of business were burned down because of it. If you are going to place blame – do the right thing. Vote for Trump 2024.

Categories
Asked Questions

Pondering the Judeo-Christian God

I’ve been asked many times, “If God is a loving and moral God, why is there so much pain, suffering and evil in this world?”

How do you answer such an impossible question.

The atheistic answer seems clear enough. First, there is no God. And second, we are largely pre-disposed to just do what we do, with no free will, because our minds are simply chemical reactions to external stimuli.

But that doesn’t really satisfy the intellect, does it?

The atheist will then ask, why did God create war and famine and killing and and and… ?!? All the while, they presuppose, there is no God and there is no free will. But… IF God did give humanity free-will, then the atheist will be put back on their heels and here’s why.

Christians believe God gave humanity free-will. What that means is that Christians, by their very nature will take responsibility for their own actions, KNOWING that they sin and KNOWING that they are in fact the ones that MADE THE CHOICE to do really terrible things. God allows it. That’s a tough position to hold to, but that doesn’t make God bad, it makes God loving. He allows us to live freely, with the hopes that we would seek to know him.

The atheists position however suggests that they didn’t have a choice in the matter and so sin, in and of itself is a moot point and doesn’t exist. I don’t know about you, but I had a choice to write this piece about how atheists, when they actually take accountability for their own actions and accept there is a higher morality than their very own subjective point of view, will actually come face-to-face with their creator, who is Jesus. Hard pill to swallow, but that’s just the way it goes.

Categories
Asked Questions

Do I fact check?

I was asked yesterday, “I’m curious…do you fact check?”

If the question is, “Do you just go to one source, CNN or FoxNews, to see if what someone’s meme said is true and to see if it fits what I think it should sound like,” then no. I’m afraid I don’t do that version of fact checking. That’s not really fact checking at all, is it. It’s going to a source where you know you’re going to get the narrative that you expect. It’s rather an incomplete way of getting to the bottom of things on the surface and quite disingenuous at its core.

However, if the question is really, “When I look at a meme, do I not only critically analyze what is being said, but do I also do more than just go look at one article in a newspaper to see if that meme is actually correct by finding the actual conversation that took place and review the entire context”, then YES, I do fact check.

The answer to this is rather ironic. I probably spend way too much time researching important issues and then make notes, collect resources, etc. What I mean by that is, I go to multiple sources – especially sources that I would likely disagree with, I look to see what they have written in actual quotes and what are just their journalistic “add ons”, that they utilize in order to direct the reader’s perspective. I will also go find the source and investigate to see if what was said is actually true, what was added, what was missing and if it was spun.

If I read a headline – I can assess someone’s perspective really quickly – pro or for a particular person. A lot of op-ed pieces don’t you think? But if I see and article and it says, “Someone said, ‘I am the one who‘ is the most something ever“, I will know immediately that this writer has left something out and added something else. Special note: Unfortunately, sometimes people just completely misuse the “” quotes and just include their own perspective. But many times, they will quote part(bold), add in their bit(italics), leave out the rest of the comment and then rarely will they include the true context and hardly ever will they attach a link to the actual source. HOWEVER… that’s how people are informed now a days. What we get is innuendo, incorrect assertions and outright fabrications, no source – and of course assumes that the whole piece isn’t just the opinion based on which party the author ascribes to – which certainly slants the narrative.

But to the question at hand. Here are a couple of examples where I have gone through to fact check. You tell me your opinion. Do I fact check?

“Biden Claims Boilermakers Union Support for His Campain”

“Not Entitled To Your Own Facts, Senator Kamala Harris” regarding Honest Abe and the Trump Supreme Court Justice appointment.

With regards to the later of the two, I happened to have been watching the debate when Kamala said what she did and it didn’t quite sound correct. And oh boy, once I did the fact checking, I saw just how corrupt media is their their bias and just how flat out of a liar Kamala Harris is. It wasn’t a matter of degree as to how exaggerative she was, it was a completely fictitious lie. So, this is for you Melissa. Oh yes, I do fact check.

I’ll sign off with this. I can appreciate the two choice – absoluteness of your statement, however I will leave the racist/anti-racist and there is no in between for another time – because it is an incomplete position and it’s completely off topic to the other question you asked.

Facebook post 10/25/2020 – 21