Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings is the second highest-ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. The mission statement of the committee reads as follows:

We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights.

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. We will work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen-watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy.

Given the very specific mission of holding government accountable to the taxpayers and ‘working in partnership’ with citizen-watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people, one is lead to wonder if Cummings is using his leadership role in the committee to obstruct justice. Rather than seek truth and answers, it seems as though Cummings has attempted at every turn to protect the Democrat party and President Barack Obama from any downfall related to facts discovered in the case of the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups.

In February 2014 , TPNN.com reported that “Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General who authored the scathing report that outlined the campaign of harassment” was under intense attack by Cummings. George was one of the few officials who were forthright in his answers during questioning before the committee. For his cooperation in seeking answers and holding government accountable, he was accused by Cummings of misconduct for agreeing to meet with the GOP without a Democrat in attendance.

The Hill reported at that time on a formal complaint lodged against George.

Two Democratic members of that panel — Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.) and Connolly — lodged a complaint on Wednesday about George’s original report on the IRS targeting last year, questioning his “independence, ethics, competence, and quality control” with an oversight board for inspectors general.

“If you want to connect the dots, a reasonable observer could be expected to conclude that he colluded with Issa’s staff to limit his report and the path of his investigation,” Connolly told The Hill concerning George. 

On March 5, 2014, TPNN.com reported on the hissy fit thrown by Cummings for apparent political theater as well as the history that Rep. Cummings has had with obstruction of justice.

Obama’s time in the White House has been plagued with numerous scandals. From Fast and Furious to the use of the IRS as a weapon to target those seen as enemies to Obama’s agenda to ‘fundamentally transform America’, Cummings has been there to defend and protect Obama, not search for answers. In fact, his protectionist actions are so blatant, that even Democrats have named him as ‘Obama’s biggest defender’. In August 2013, Yahoo News reported on an Op-Ed written by Democrat strategist Robert Weiner, former White House spokesperson and senior staff for three House committees, and Nakia Gladden, a policy and research analyst, in which they discussed Cummings’ emergence as Obama’s biggest defender against Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s search for truth regarding Obama’s overreach and scandals, which Cummings believes to be phony. 

Weiner and Gladden praised Cummings efforts to block the quest for truth by stating, “Without the leadership role that Cummings as Ranking Member is exhibiting, there would be no counter to Issa’s public relations exploitation.  What Cummings has exposed is that the real scandal is Issa’s waste and abuse of his power.” Perhaps they need to review the role of the committee in seeking answers, not covering for corruption. 

Cummings doesn’t want answers. He wants to assist Obama in his fundamental transformation of America. With Fast and Furious, Cummings distorted the reality of the Obama/Holder gun running scandal by erroneously claiming that it actually began during the Bush administration and, even worse, rather than demanding answers, instead demanded gun control in response to Fast and Furious.

Cummings used his power and influence in following the lead of the IRS in bullying, harassing, and intimidating Tea Party groups by doing the same thing to one specific group. In October 2012, Breitbart reported that Texas based True the Vote, headed by Catherine Engelbrecht, was being targeted directly by Elijah Cummings.

Following the outburst and political theater display by Cummings in which he attempted to continue a hearing that had been adjourned, the Democrat party and the typical race-baiter Jesse Jackson accused Issa of racism.  That is the typical Democrat go-to line when they want to shut someone down and shut that person or group up.

On March 7^th, TPNN.com reported on Issa’s response to said accusations on The Kelly File on FOX News.

Issa responded to charges of racism by Jesse Jackson and others as “sad,” and said that the reason Cummings received his committee appointment was because he promised to stifle Issa’s investigations into Obama’s numerous scandals.

Issa went on to say that he simply followed committee rules adding Cummings knew that the hearing was a continuation of a previous hearing. Therefore, Cummings would not be allowed to make a statement.

On Friday, FOX News reported on a letter it obtained from Issa in which he addressed the numerous the rationale laid out by Cummings and his legal experts as to why Lois Lerner, the now retired IRS official at the center of the investigation into the harassment and targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups, could not be held in contempt of court. Rep. Issa did not hold back.

In it, Issa countered, point by point, a series of claims that Cummings and two legal experts made earlier this week about whether former IRS official Lois Lerner could be held in contempt for refusing to testify. 

Issa went further, effectively accusing Cummings of running interference on behalf of his party and the administration. 

“… rather than pursuing the facts where they lead — which is the function of effective congressional oversight — you have made yourself an obstacle  to effective congressional oversight, in effect, a defense counsel for Lerner and others who acted to deprive Americans of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights,” the committee chairman wrote. 

In another verbal sting, he continued: “Even though the White House helped orchestrate your ascension to Ranking Member, I have encouraged, and continue to encourage, you to subordinate your political loyalties to the institutional interests of the Committee and the House, especially in cases like this where obstructing the Committee’s work risks permanently disadvantaging Congress in its interactions with the Executive Branch.” 

Read the full report on the latest exchange in this feud between Issa and Cummings on FOX News.

By Jennifer Burke

According to the Obama government’s own latest numbers, 4.2 million Americans have signed up for Obamacare. And while the Obama regime twists and spins the number as being a great accomplishment, and with the looming deadline to sign up less than two weeks away, just how successful is the number?

Obama said in August of 2009 that there were 46 million uninsured, telling the nation, “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

According to Joseph Curl, writing in The Washington Times, Obama spouted the number as being factual over a dozen times, including in June of 2013, when he tried to guilt the nation into accepting Obamacare by goading, “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.”

Given that the stated goal of Obamacare is to provide health insurance to the uninsured who were in a state of “crisis,” gauging the success of the operation demands that it be judged based upon that goal. Using Obama’s number of 46 million (he wouldn’t lie about that number, would he?), and using the regime’s latest enrollment number of 4.2 million, it means that less than 10% of the uninsured have actually signed up.

Generously disregarding the fact that the regime doesn’t actually know how many of those enrolled have actually paid for their insurance, or that a reported 5 million have had their policies cancelled because of Obamacare, that’s over a 90% failure. And a 90% failure is a failure by anyone’s yardstick.

By Matthew Burke

SCOTTSDALE, AZ – The United States of America was founded by Christians, and its principles of society and governance were based on a bedrock of Christian ideology.

The nation’s Constitution was written, then interpreted by the US Supreme Court for nearly 200 years, in a manner that upheld a perceived Christian belief system, while maintaining a broad enough construction to encompass the mandates and standards of other religions—so long as they were not at odds with the Christian sense of right and wrong.

In recent decades Christianity has suffered a profound setback, in this country and abroad, and fewer people in the US consider themselves Christian while fewer policies and laws are based on Christian principles. In fact, we see God booed at the convention of a major political party, and most of its leadership is made up of people who consider themselves to be agnostic.

In 1990, 86% of Americans identified themselves as Christian, whereas in 2012 the number was down to 73%. Even that number may be overly optimistic.

Abroad, Christianity is all but dying out, being forced into obscurity by the spread of socialism and Islam. For those who roll their eyes at this statement, former bastions of Christianity like Spain and France now have more mosques than Christian churches, and most of the non-Muslims identify themselves as agnostic. The most popular name for male infants in leading European countries is Mohammad.

Christianity vs. Secularism

Most American universities are staffed by people who consider religion the ‘opiate of the masses,’ as expressed by their spiritual father, Karl Marx. Indeed, most university professors are openly hostile to Christianity, and boisterously embrace every movement that chips away at a family oriented, morality based society. These educators openly penalize any students who do not fall into line with their anti-Christian edicts, and reward those who do, causing a chilling effect on open Christian expression.

Most of the media, headed by graduated students of the anti-Christian university system, is likewise hostile toward traditional family and Christian values, flooding the airwaves with anti-family, anti-male, anti-morality, anti-Christian propaganda.

We who are Christian have been slow to recognize some of the main obstacles to the current generation embracing Christianity. To the extent that we have supported socialist political candidates, albeit in the name of compassion and diversity, we have helped to empower the anti-Christian movement. To the extent that we have allowed US citizens to be divided by class and race by these same politicians, we have enabled them. To the extent that we have supported leftist institutions, universities and media outlets, we have embraced our own destruction.

Dogma is Partly to Blame

Ignorance has also condemned Christianity to decline. I’m referring to silly, outdated notions about science; for example, like those who insist that the earth was created in six actual 24-hour periods (‘days,’ before an earth day even existed), and it all happened 6,000 years ago. Without further information, the uninformed misinterpret ancient scripture.

Accepting this fact should not be impossible for modern Christians, whose scriptures merely state that God (Elohim) created (organized) the world in six creative periods, without mention of the length of these creative periods or the amount of passing time between those periods. Although most world religions believe that this creation took place in an instant, something from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), Biblical scholars are hard-pressed to find support for these notions in the original Hebrew text.  The TRUTH is, that the earth was ‘developed’ through a ‘process’ that required a great deal of time–named six creative periods by God. Christians have many dogmas that are difficult if not impossible for educated people to swallow, e.g., transubstantiation, infallibility of leadership, proving faith, indulgences, covering up sin, the trinity, etc. They would be well advised to return to a God-revealed belief base.

Christians aren’t the only ones whose believes are mired in dogma. Scientists who first considered the Big Bang theory of creation were quite reluctant to accept it as a theory because of its close kinship to creatio ex nihilo. According to the standard Big Bang theory, our universe sprang into existence as a ‘singularity’ around 13.7 billion years ago. This implies that a nonexistent universe suddenly and without provocation sprang into existence, growing instantly from a point only a small fraction of the size of an atom to the entire universe filled with all of its mass and matter in mere seconds. Honestly, the faith required to accept such an unsubstantiated, inconceivable theory as a workable model for the creation of the universe is beyond acceptability. The theory continues to experience tweaking and retooling due to incongruity with ‘the math.’ It doesn’t work. To make the math begin to conform to the theory, scientists have constructed a model that requires 95% of the universe to consist of “dark matter” and “dark energy.” In other words, scientists now mock Christians for failure to believe in unseen worlds and forms of existence. Furthermore, any scientist who refuses to subscribe to this dogma is blacklisted, and not allowed to publish or teach.

No matter how dogmatic most of the parties are, Christians must rethink their attitudes toward science and one another if they are to survive in a world hostile toward them. Truth—no matter its source—must be the prize. I advise Christians and their leaders to revisit their prejudices, and to consider anew the original Hebrew scriptures to determine their divine message, and to eliminate many of the dogmas and traditions that are extra-Christian.

I further advise those ‘shepherds’ who are nothing more than hustlers to find new professions. You know who you are; molesters, thieves, indolent and impure in mind and deed. Get out, before God puts you out—forever.

As Christians, we must re-establish ourselves as the true shepherds over this people, and over this nation; not by constraint, but through dedicated service to all of God’s children under our influence and within the sound of our voice.

Let this edict be our standard: “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” Ephesians 4:13

James Thompson is a Christian writer, and holds a Juris Doctor degree. He is Editor-in-Chief of GhostWriter, a leading ghostwriting firm.  Volume One of his new novel series “The Coming Flood” has just been released, titled Enoch in the City of Adam. Visit James Thompson on Facebook

Sen. Harry Reid is the worst living human being on this planet today. I think it’s time that someone finally acknowledges it.

Now, I realize that’s quite a statement to make, given the fact that Robert Mugabe continues to draw breath. Not to mention Kim Jung Un. And yes, you could also make a case that Vlad Putin isn’t one of Earth’s nicer creatures. Still, bear with me for a minute as I lay out some of the evidence.

Let me start with Harry’s most recent example of hideousness. It’s one thing to slander a politician, it’s quite another to defame an innocent private citizen as Reid has been doing lately.

Reid has asserted that the stories of Americans who lost coverage, or had to pay more, or had to find new doctors under the Affordable Care Act are all lies.  Even for Harry Reid, that’s absolutely preposterous. No one has lost coverage, had to pay more or find new doctors under Obamacare? Really?

Harry, it’s been amazingly well documented, even by your allies in the media.

The group Americans For Prosperity, an organization that receives some of their funding from the Charles and David Koch brothers, has been running ads with people adversely affected by Obamacare. By the way, according to Harry Reid, the Koch brothers are apparently evil incarnate for spending money on political ads, but George Soros is a hero. So is Warren Buffet. AFP is a horrific organization, but the Labor Unions, the Tides Foundation and the Center For American Progress are perfect. Just a quick reminder.

Anyway, from the Senate floor, Reid called all of the ads that are being run, lies. Every one of the ads that AFP had run, were lies? Obviously then, not just the Koch brothers you despise, but all of the people in those ads, were liars?

Later that day however, he returned to the floor, and said: “I can’t say that every one of the Koch brothers’ ads are a lie, but I’ll say this … the vast, vast majority of them are.”

OK, you can’t say every one of them, because you had no idea what you were talking about, but you can say, the “vast, vast majority?” Sure, that makes sense, if you’re the worst living human on the planet today.

After walking back his original, ridiculous, comments, Reid focused on one woman’s story in particular.

Julie Boonstra was diagnosed five years ago with leukemia, and was given a 20 percent chance at survival. She found a doctor and a health plan she liked, but was cancelled due to Obamacare. In the ad Julie says that now, the “out-of-pocket” costs are so high, “it’s unaffordable.” She adds that if she can’t get her medication she’ll die.

In attacking this as a lie, Reid is attacking Julie Boonstra. Julie says she believed the President when he said, “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” Not true. She was cancelled, in the midst of a serious health crisis. The last thing in the world she needs now is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader calling her a liar from the Senate floor.

At issue is that her old plan had a higher premium but no out of pocket costs. The Obamacare premiums are significantly lower, but there’s an 80/20 split on out-of-pocket expenses. She had the old premiums budgeted, but the uncertainty of the out-of-pocket costs under the new plan, which could possibly hit all at once, maybe up to $6,300, has her worried that she won’t be able to afford it

Where’s the lie in that story? Does Harry know Julie’s financial and health situation better than she does? Of course not, but he hates the Koch brothers so much, he doesn’t care about the lies he’s telling or the collateral damage being done.

Then there was the Presidential campaign in 2012, and his proven lies and outrageous attacks on Mitt Romney. For the unaware, both Reid and Romney are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (as am I), whose members are commonly referred to as “Mormons” or “LDS.”

After Romney made his infamous 47 percent remark at a private fundraiser, Reid had the giblets to claim that Romney had “sullied” our faith with that remark.

Now, we can debate all over again what Romney meant by all of that, but there’s no point, it’s all been hashed and rehashed. The point is, who is Harry Reid to make such an allegation?

I don’t speak for the Church any more than Harry Reid does, but check the voting records in Utah, along with all the surveys showing just how conservative most Mormons are, and believe me, the vast majority in this faith wonder how Harry Reid can reconcile his ideology with his faith, not Mitt Romney.

Harry Reid is a man who claims to be pro-life, yet in 2001, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2012 he received 100 percent ratings from the radical abortion activist group, NARAL Pro-Choice America. Now, his rating with NARAL has  fluctuated over the years, but that’s at least six years of perfect scores with this fanatical abortion organization.

Now, if you really are pro-life, shouldn’t you always get a zero percent rating from an organization like NARAL? His NARAL rating last year was still a healthy 70 percent. For context, Sen. Dean Heller, also of Nevada and Republican, received a zero percent rating from NARAL.

Also Reid’s last three Planned Parenthood Action Center ratings have been 83, 89 and most recently, 88 percent. Really Harry? You’re pro-life? How is that possible? How can you be pro-life but vote with the interests of those groups so often? And that’s just one issue of concern, there are many.

As for his political attacks on Romney, because he’s the worst living human, he actually insinuated that Romney’s dead father, George, would be ashamed of him.

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said in reference to George Romney’s decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968. I’m sorry, is it fair game now to use the deceased relatives of a political opponent to disparage them? Despicable? You bet.

Mitt Romney had released a few years’ worth of tax returns. Democrats like Reid wanted to see 10 or 20 years’ worth of records so that they could use his wealth to attack him and create more class warfare. Romney knew that, and refused to participate. He had done what the law requires, and more, he wasn’t going to play that game.

But Reid didn’t stop there. Being the worst living person he is, he said that he’d received “a phone call in his office about a month ago, from a person who had invested with Bain Capital.” What did that “Bain Capital investor” have to say?

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”

First of all Harry, did it occur to you that just some investor in Bain wouldn’t have any idea whether Romney had paid his taxes? Did you challenge him about how he knew such a thing? Was that investor also Romney’s tax preparer? Are we still in America, does Mitt Romney have a right to face his accuser? No, here’s how Harry summed up that “conversation.”

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told Huffington Post. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

How would it look? Well, it looks like you are throwing out specious, unsubstantiated charges for political reasons because you’re the worst living human being on this planet, that’s how it looks, Harry.

Politifact took on Reid’s claim and quickly dismissed it as a “pants on fire” lie. The phone call Harry received in his office was garbage. It wasn’t true. Romney paid his taxes. Whether or not someone actually called Harry Reid “in his office,” which I sincerely doubt, doesn’t matter, the story was a lie. But Harry didn’t let that bother him. He took to the Senate floor and doubled down on the lie.

“So, the word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t,” Reid said. “We already know from one partial tax return that he gave us, he has money hidden in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and a Swiss banking account. Mitt Romney makes more money in a single day than the average middle-class family makes in two years or more.”

Wow. What happened Harry? Now, as the worst living human, he favors comprehensive immigration reform which “rewards” illegal aliens with a path to citizenship. He supports amnesty. He favors the “Dream Act,” allowing children of illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition at colleges and universities. He voted “no” on limiting welfare for illegal aliens.

Wait, I thought it was insane to reward that illegal behavior?

In 1995, concerning the Federal Reserve, Harry proclaimed: “I have sponsored legislation every year that would call for an audit of the Federal Reserve system. I offer that amendment every year, every year it gets nowhere.”

Recently, Reid wouldn’t even bring  the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act” up for a vote in the Senate after it sailed through the House. Why? What changed?  Other than the fact that the Federal debt was $4.9  trillion in 1995 and it’s $17.3 trillion today. It must have been more important to audit them when the debt was less that one-third of what it is now?

You might be thinking, “OK Pat, you’ve laid out a pretty compelling case for Harry Reid to be considered the worst living human on this planet, but frankly, aren’t you forgetting about Barack Obama?”

Thank you for asking, but no, no I’m not. Barack Obama grew up with a Communist father, a Communist mentor, Communist professors, a radical, leftist mother and grandparents; Barack Obama didn’t have a chance.

Harry Reid, should know better. Harry Reid, as shown above, has known better. But Harry Reid, through whatever process, has turned to the dark side. He is a man who is said to despise Mitt Romney because he believes Romney has no principles, that he doesn’t stand for anything. If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black, then nothing is.

“Well OK,” you may protest, “but what about some of the people mentioned at the beginning of this article; Robert Mugabe, Kim Jung Un or Vladimir Putin, they’ve actually had people killed, doesn’t that make them worse?”

That’s a good point.  And you’re right, as far as I know, Harry Reid hasn’t actually killed anyone…yet. I could say he has, and then it would be “out there,” for him to prove it didn’t happen. But I won’t do that, I’ll take the high road.

Instead, I’ll stick to the facts. While Harry Reid hasn’t apparently killed anyone, he is doing his best to kill and destroy our country. With his background and knowledge, that’s inexcusable. The heinous crimes of Mugabe, Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin notwithstanding, they are not Americans, working against America and her Constitution from the inside.

Through the actions he has taken, through his willful and wonton lies, deceit and apparent corruption, he is driving a stake through the heart of our nation.

By his own admission, one of his actions alone, would be enough, in his own opinion, to “ruin our country.” And I’ve outlined many of his ruinous actions.

If he and his progressive minions succeed in destroying this nation, how many people would then die? Who would the stand in the way of the brutal dictators, who would feed and finance the planet, who would create and innovate? The death of this nation would be the most catastrophic occurrence in the history of mankind, and Harry Reid has been instrumental in bringing us to the brink of a Constitutional crisis.

Thus, Harry Reid is, the worst living human being on this planet, today. Let him prove that he isn’t.

By Pat Gray

In the heat of the 2012 campaign, during an October presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Obama ridiculed Romney over his concern about Russia as a “geo-political” threat.

Obama attempted to paint Romney as somehow out-of-touch with 21st century geo-politics, suggesting (ironically, as we now know) that al-Qaeda was a bigger threat than Russia. “You said Russia. Not al-Qaeda. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. Then came this snarky blast:

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” – Barack Husein Obama

Setting aside the fact that while Obama suggested that al-Qaeda was the number-one geo-political threat in the world, later claimed that the terrorist group had been “decimated” and was “on the run” only to learn that it is now stronger and controls more territory that at any time in its history, could this snide comment to Romney look any more foolish that it now does?

This is the second time in a week that former Republican candidates — ridiculed at the time for their foreign policy observations — have been proved right about Russia; Sarah Palin predicted in 2008 that under a weak Obama, Russia would be tempted to invade Ukraine.

Incidentally, Palin has been consistently ridiculed for saying “I can see Russia from my house,” which she never said. What a tragedy that, as both Palin and Romney correctly feared, Ukrainians can now see Russians from their homes.

By Mike Miller

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin warned that if Senator Barack Obama were elected president, his “indecision” and “moral equivalence” may encourage Russia’s Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.

Palin said then:

After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.

For those comments, she was mocked by the high-brow Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of Politico magazine.

In light of recent events in Ukraine and concerns that Russia is getting its troops ready to cross the border into the neighboring nation, nobody seems to be laughing at or dismissing those comments now.

Hounshell wrote then that Palin’s comments were “strange” and “this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.”

“And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine’s pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don’t see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel,” Hounshell dismissively wrote.

Palin made her remarks on the stump after Obama’s running mate Joe Biden warned Obama supporters to “gird  your loins” if Obama is elected because international leaders may test or try to take advantage of him.

by Tony Lee

There have been times when the CNN host Piers Morgan didn’t seem to like America very much — and American audiences have been more than willing to return the favor. Three years after taking over for Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors at Fox News and MSNBC.

It’s been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.

CNN’s president, Jeffrey Zucker, has other problems, but none bigger than Mr. Morgan and his plum 9 p.m. time slot. Mr. Morgan said last week that he and Mr. Zucker had been talking about the show’s failure to connect and had decided to pull the plug, probably in March.

Crossing an ocean for a replacement for Larry King, who had ratings problems of his own near the end, was probably not a great idea to begin with. For a cable news station like CNN, major stories are like oxygen. When something important or scary happens in America, many of us have an immediate reflex to turn on CNN. When I find Mr. Morgan telling me what it all means, I have a similar reflex to dismiss what he is saying. It is difficult for him to speak credibly on significant American events because, after all, he just got here.

I received a return call from Mr. Morgan and was prepared for an endless argument over my assumptions. Not so. His show, he conceded, was not performing as he had hoped and was nearing its end.

“It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” he said, adding that although there had been times when the show connected in terms of audience, slow news days were problematic.

“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it,” he said. “That’s run its course and Jeff and I have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.”

Mr. Morgan said that his show, along with much of the rest of CNN, had been imprisoned by the news cycle and that he was interested in doing fewer appearances to greater effect — big, major interviews that would be events in themselves. Although a change has long been rumored, it was the first time that both he, and the CNN executives I talked to, acknowledged that his nightly show was on the way out. Plans for a replacement at the 9 o’clock hour are still underway, but Mr. Morgan and the network are in talks about him remaining at CNN in a different role.

Mr. Zucker, the former chief of NBC, inherited Mr. Morgan from Jonathan Klein, his predecessor, but it is now his problem to fix. In the year he has been there, CNN has introduced promising shows around the edges and will be unveiling documentaries along the lines of the very successful “Blackfish” to run on Thursday in the 10 p.m. hour.

But the chronic troubles of prime-time remain. Sometime before the network “upfront” events in April, when advertisers buy commercial time for the fall season, Mr. Zucker needs to signal how he will fix CNN’s prime-time problem, and that begins with Mr. Morgan, whose contract ends in September.

Mr. Morgan has some significant skills that do translate across platforms and cultures. While working as a newspaper editor and television personality in Britain, he was involved in a number of controversies, but he developed a reputation as a talented, probing interviewer. In his current role, he has shown an ability not only to book big guests — former President Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, the real Wolf of Wall Street among them — but also to dig in once they are on set.

“I think I can credibly do news and the ratings reflect that, but it is not really the show that I set out to do,” he told me. “There are all kinds of people who can do news here. I’d like to do work — interviews with big celebrities and powerful people — that is better suited to what I do well and fit with what Jeff is trying to do with the network.”

Old hands in the television news business suggest that there are two things a presenter cannot have: an accent or a beard. Mr. Morgan is clean shaven and handsome enough, but there are tells in his speech — the way he says the president’s name for one thing (Ob-AA-ma) — that suggest that he is not from around here.

There are other tells as well. On Friday morning, criticizing the decision to dismiss a cricket player, he tweeted, “I’m sure @StuartBroad8 is right and KP’s sacking will ‘improve performance’ of the England team. Look forward to seeing this at T20 WC.” Mr. Morgan might want to lay off the steady cricket references if he is worried about his credibility with American audiences. (His endless trolling of his critics on Twitter did not exactly help, either.)

People might point to Simon Cowell as a man with an accent and a penchant for slashing discourse that Americans loved, but Mr. Cowell is dealing with less-than-spontaneous musical performances, not signal events in the American news narrative. There was, of course, the counterexample of David Frost, who did important work in news, but Mr. Frost did popular special reports and was not a chronic presence in American living rooms.

Mr. Morgan, who was chosen in spite of that fact that he had never done a live show, had the misfortune of sliding into the loafers of Mr. King, who, for all his limitations, was a decent and reliable stand-in for the average Joe.

In a sense, Mr. Morgan is a prisoner of two islands: Britain and Manhattan. While I may share his feelings about the need for additional strictures on guns, having grown up in the Midwest, I know that many people come by their guns honestly and hold onto them dearly for sincere reasons.

Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.

He regrets none of it, but clearly understands his scolding of “stupid” opponents of gun laws was not everyone’s cup of tea.

“I’m in danger of being the guy down at the end of the bar who is always going on about the same thing,” he said. He added that he was sure there were plenty of people in the heartland angry “about this British guy telling them how to lead their lives and what they should do with their guns.”

In the current media age, no one is expected to be a eunuch, without values or beliefs, but Mr. Morgan’s lecturing on the evils of guns have clanked hard against the CNN brand, which, for good or ill, is built on the middle way.

We don’t look for moral leadership from CNN, or from a British host on a rampage. Guns, along with many other great and horrible things, are knit into the fabric of this country. There are folkways peculiar to America that Mr. Morgan is just learning, including the fact that if you want to stick out, you first have to work on fitting in.

By David Carr