California Death Penalty: Gone

California’s governor has given life to more than 700 inmates already convicted for TAKING the lives of innocent Californians. Gov. Gavin Newsom took that action using executive action. In doing so, he spared the lives of a quarter of ALL the death row inmates in the United States. Let’s be clear here: the governor’s stay of execution for those approximate 700 death row inmates is NOT necessarily permanent. These are not pardons. The stay is technically good only during HIS tenure as governor.
But here’s the important point of this story that most will miss: His action thwarts the will of California voters who 3 years ago rejected an initiative to end the death penalty. But Californians did NOT stop there: they passed a measure to speed up executions!
The governor’s justification for taking this action? Newsom claims the death penalty system in his state has discriminated against “people of color and mentally ill defendants.” He then throws in the claim ALL death penalty opponents use as their principle excuse for banning the process, that death sentences and the process waste taxpayer money.
(Click on the link for news report about Gavin’s actions)
But HERE is what has really happened as a result of the California governor’s unilateral action regarding death sentences:
  1. He’s ignored the will of California voters;
  2. He’s superseded the California legislators who passed laws implementing and maintaining the death penalty;
  3. He’s spit in the faces of the family members of the victims of those 700 “excused” murderers;
  4. He’s laughed at the Rule of Law in his own state.

All that sounds like just another day at the California governor’s mansion in Sacramento!

At first blush, many will be tempted to say the very good looking and young newly-elected California governor is just testing his authority early in his administration. Others might say he’s from the “new” school of liberal American voters who simply don’t know better. But anyone saying either of those would be sadly mistaken. Gavin Newsom although young, is a very smart young man, especially in “all things Californian.” But who is Gavin Newsom?

Gavin Newsom’s Connections

The Governor is no political newbie. He is the 40th governor of California. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 49th lieutenant governor of California from 2011 to 2019 and as the 42nd mayor of San Francisco.

He attended high school in Marin County — just north of the Golden Gate Bridge outside San Francisco and a very expensive zip code. He graduated from Santa Clara College.

In 2003, Newsom was elected the 42nd mayor of San Francisco, becoming the city’s youngest mayor in a century. Newsom was re-elected in 2007 with 72 percent of the vote. He was elected Lieutenant Governor of California in 2010 as the running mate of Jerry Brown and was re-elected in 2014. In February 2015, Newsom announced his candidacy for Governor of California in the 2018 election. On June 5, 2018, he finished in the top two of the non-partisan blanket primary. Newsom defeated Republican John H. Cox in the general election on November 6.

You just received the “short version” of Newsom’s story. He since birth has actually been part of an unofficial “power group” comprised of 4 California families: the Newsom, Getty, Pelosi, and Brown families. They are all very wealthy, heavy political hitters, and VERY liberal.

Newsom’s parents divorced when he was young. He lived with his Mom who was a working-class Californian. His father was wealthy himself, and though Gavin did not live with him, he opened all the important California political doors for his son.

Gavin was the “unofficial” adopted son of the Getty’s (yes, J. Paul Getty, claimed by many as the richest American in history), and Pat Brown and his son Jerry (both past governors) were part of that circle. Speaker Pelosi’s husband was equal in the power group — and still is. Politics for them all is just a natural part of who they are. And, of course, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! But even more than money, what so visibly consumed (and still does) every member of that political clan is power. They more than most fully understand that with power, comes everything one desires. The Gettys, Browns, Newsoms, and Pelosi’s have made the accumulation and maintenance of as much power in as many different areas of life — not just politics — their #1 objective. And they have done that and still are.

(as an aside, Governor Gavin Newsom was married for several years to another Californian who shared a lot of camera and microphone time: Kimberly Guilfoyle. Kimberly you may remember was a regular at FOX News and before that Court TV. She left FOX in 2017 to assume a so-far unnamed position in the Trump Re-election Campaign. And she is dating Donald Trump, Jr.)

Newsom Politically

Most American may be familiar with the Newsom name, but few know much about the Governor. Politically, it is safe to say he is hard-core Leftist. Newsom was a major proponent of Proposition 64, the 2016 measure that legalized recreational sales and use of marijuana in California. He characterized it as primarily a social justice issue, arguing drug charges lead disproportionately to the incarceration of poor people and minorities.

“I believe in second chances. I believe that people have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and grow and, in many respects, become better people,” Newsom said. “I like to think I’m a better person, and I like to think that a lot of people have made mistakes, we just don’t read about them,” he said.

He didn’t stop there. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first act as governor was to propose state-funded health coverage for 138,000 young people in the country illegally and a reinstatement of a mandate that everyone buys insurance or face fines.

He also proposed giving subsidies to middle-class families that make too much to qualify them under former President Barack Obama’s health care law. He signed an order giving the state more bargaining power in negotiating prescription drug prices and sent a letter to President Donald Trump and congressional leaders seeking more authority over federal health care dollars.

Healthcare was his fundamental campaign project. Giving state-funded healthcare coverage to those illegal young people mentioned above is just the beginning of his socialistic style economic policies.

Many are confident that Newsom is simply running a “pre-campaign” for a presidential campaign in 2024. Pundits feel strongly that he is diligently working to position himself somewhere to the left of the currently declared Democrat Party candidates. It’s hard to believe there’s even any room left of Bernie and Elizabeth Warren! But apparently, Newsom feels there is and that he fits in that spot.

Campaign Philosophy

Certainly, if Newsom’s target is the presidency, his history of the family and business close ties with wealthy people inside and outside of California is important for him. And the typical organizations and individuals supported “candidate” Newsom in a big way.

  • Labor unions, housing developers and wealthy entrepreneurs are among the thousands of people and groups who gave money to help elect Newsom, according to the final disclosure reports filed by his campaign. Labor unions spent millions on independent efforts supporting Newsom, allowing them to avoid donation limits as long as they didn’t coordinate with his campaign. More than two dozen representing a range of professions – from health care workers to construction crews – also gave the legal maximum amount of $58,400 directly to Newsom’s campaign.
  • Various branches of the Service Employees International Union spent more than $2.7 million. The union has applauded Newsom’s efforts to boost funding for the state’s early education programs and his proposal to expand paid family leave, policies the union says will help working families.
  • The California Correctional Peace Officers Association also spent big to help elect Newsom, dropping $2.8 million.
  • The California Nurses Association spent more than $700,000 on independent efforts to elect Newsom and gave the maximum contribution allowed to his campaign. The group wants Newsom and the Legislature to create a government-funded universal health care system, often called a “single-payer” system. But the health care groups backing Newsom don’t all agree on what they want. Private health insurance companies, which could cease to exist under a single-payer system, generally oppose the idea. Blue Shield of California, for example, spent about $1 million supporting Newsom. The group was one of the insurers who opposed a bill in the Legislature’s last session that would have created a single-payer system in California.
  • California teachers unions spent more than $1.3 million supporting Newsom and gave the most they could directly to his campaign. They’ve applauded his commitment to making charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run, more transparent about how they spend their money and his call for more state oversight.
  • Newsom also became the preferred candidate for some prominent charter school backers, who often oppose the teacher’s unions in California politics. Charter schools, for example, were a major point of contention during the teacher’s strike last month in Los Angeles. As part of the deal to end the strike, the school district agreed to the union’s demand to consider a cap on charters.

Summary

Gavin Newsom is the cookie-cutter version of the perfect Leftist in today’s U.S. political landscape. He believes and supports all the standard causes of the left: gun control, marijuana legalization, open borders, free healthcare for all, massive tax increases, free college tuition, and everything and everyone who is anti-conservative. His personal history is one of entitlement, even though his single mother basically raised him in a working-class home. But he always had connections with the rich and famous and used them all from a very young age. He knows how to run successfully for office — at least in California.

How will he govern? His administration is just several months old, so it’s hard to judge at this point. But, so far, he has governed exactly as he ran for governor.

Most Americans struggle to comprehend the mindset of today’s far-left Democrat Party: increased abortion options, massive gun control, runaway taxes linked with runaway government spending, free everything, and open borders. And now Newsom with impunity has thumbed his nose at California law while ignoring those who were killed — in many cases actually slaughtered — by 700 individuals who under California law were found guilty for first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Death sentence haters are actually questioning that the Governor did not simply go ahead and pardon those people. I wonder the same thing myself. Actually, I think he probably wanted to do that very thing but was advised by those who have his ear that doing so would certainly alienate Middle America voters in a run for the White House.

I am glad he did not use the power of the pardon. But in typical Leftist fashion, he apparently ignored his conscience regarding the unfairness of the death penalty instead pulling lever B: “Do everything you do in office to smooth any potential ripples that might appear in your “next” run for your “next” office.

Look for Gavin Newsom to turn harder and harder and further Left. After all, he’s in California. And for everything in California regarding politics to be successful, the purveyor MUST bow before the god of Liberalism in every policy decision they make.

And one more thing: you can bet Gavin Newsom has his sights set on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We just don’t know how long he’ll wait.

Play

The AOC Report

The Lightning Rod in American politics is at it again. Let’s face it: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) never STOPS being “at it again.” Since she in the New York primary upset Congressman Joe Crowley — the 3rd most powerful “former” member of the U.S. House of Representatives — she gives the world at least one good laugh every day: especially conservative reporters and talk show hosts.

The battle between AOC and Speaker Pelosi is over, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won the title of “All-Time Favorite Dem of the GOP in Congress.” By dethroning Pelosi, AOC has put herself in the Republican crosshairs of the entire GOP population in the U.S. A political news report can rarely escape without some new raucous statement by the former bartender-turned-rookie Congresswoman.

We don’t want you to miss a single one. So here’s the plan:

When we started www.TruthNewsNet.org, we had a weekly feature in which we collected and presented to you a few jokes and/or funny stories that we collected during the week. We found out very quickly you all love good humor. And, boy, we received a ton of jokes! But because of all that was happening in the runup to the 2016 elections, copy space dictated we put that comedy feature to the side. It’s time we bring it back!

Every week we will collect and compile as complete a list as possible of all of AOC’s “funny” statements and conversation elements we can find from her that are out in the public forum. We may miss some, so feel free if we do to let us know. A good laugh does us all a lot of good.

Let’s Get Started: AOC at her best

  • “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.”
  • “Unemployment is low because people are working 80 hours a week.”
  • “Any 17-year-old can walk into a gun store and purchase an assault weapon.”
  • “If you think the GOP is terrified of my politics now, just wait until they find out about public libraries.”
  • “Bernie Sanders is old news in the communist Democrat party now. He’s considered too ‘right-wing’ for some because he hasn’t publicly stated he wants to abolish ICE.”
  • “Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it okay to still have children?”
  • “I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II.” 
  • ”What we really need is that, should we, and if we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress, uh rather all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House in 2020.”
  • “I’d feel safer in a bathroom with a trans woman than a powerful male executive any day of the week.”

As you dance through your day today, why not turn the volume up on your laptop, desktop, or earbuds while you dance along with AOC and fellow college classmates in the video below.

Just think: she’s one of the 435 people out of 330 million Americans to make every federal law by which we must abide. Don’t forget that those 435 — including AOC — decide together how $3.4 Trillion of our tax dollars are spent.

That thought gives me a warm and fuzzy!

 

American Government: Who’s In Control?

When we watch, listen, or read the national news, there’s really NO way to tell who is actually running the U.S. Government. Traditionally it has always been the President in conjunction with the other two branches of government: Legislative and Judiciary. But to most Americans, who is the “Boss” is unclear.

The uncertainty of who is in charge has created certain chaos in the U.S. This generation has only the tragedy of 9/11 to point to as a traumatic national event around which those in government rallied all Americans. And that was almost two decades ago. Those memories are growing dim. Replacing that spirit of unity has so far proven to be unachievable. But, that failure is not a product of lack of effort.

There are many who have stepped to the “Boss” podium who each have claimed power and control of U.S. Government. Each has been met with one common thing, and that is NOT compliance or acceptance. It has been chaos. Division among Americans has reached a fever pitch. And try as they might, failure to gain the support of the American masses sufficient to quell the waves of chaos has swamped each.

Ronald Reagan was the last U.S. President to rally Americans to the drumbeat of unity. Reagan’s government was certainly divided, but the Gipper had the ability to cross the “difference” lines sufficient to draw enough people together to create visible progress in most areas of American life. How could he do that? Maybe it was his successful acting career. Maybe it was that after acting he segued into politics as California’s governor. In that role, he certainly had sufficient communication experience from acting that better prepared him to relate to different groups of people.

Reagan’s VP briefly replaced him in the White House. Bush ’41 was a classic politician. That persona branded him and virtually banished him to just one term. Clinton brought charisma back to D.C. He too as was Reagan was a great communicator with the ability to cross ethnic and social barriers among Americans that resulted in two terms as president. Though his tenure was marred with controversy, he left the White House as (and remains) one of the most popular U.S. presidents.

Bush ’43’s election marked the beginning of the “New” era of American politics. This new era was birthed from the innovation of satellite television, widespread cell phone and internet access for most Americans, and the creation of a new environment which adopted (in large part) the “title” of news organizations that were really just entertainment sources disguised as news. And it has taken almost two decades for Americans to fully realize that.

Obama was the first U.S. president to lead the nation from this new 24/7 information environment. It perfectly complemented his personality and extensive communication skills. No one can reasonably argue that he was NOT a master of messaging in public. Regardless of the accuracy of many things he said when he spoke he easily related to many in his audience. He amassed a strong following in spite of some of his divisive political policies.

And then there’s Donald Trump. His entire political career at age two can be illustrated best — even with his significant governing accomplishments — as “chaotic.” We will not delve into the Trump “detail” in governing that result in egregious responses from his opponents. Those are very obvious and well known. But it is important to point out that in these two short years of his administration, a new syndrome among Americans has been created: the “Chaos Syndrome.”

The “Chaos Syndrome”

Trump didn’t cause the chaos. The chaos caused Trump. What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Chaos Syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s fundamentals. That weakening began when presidential leadership in the U.S. slowly began a slide in its structure. Simultaneously, the U.S. Congress apparently took note and joined in that slide into the abyss called Chaos Syndrome.

It began with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

The Founders knew all too well about chaos. It was the condition that brought them together in 1787 under the Articles of Confederation. The central government had too few powers and powers of the wrong kinds, so they gave it more powers, and also multiple power centers. The core idea of the Constitution was to restrain ambition and excess by forcing competing powers and factions to bargain and compromise.

The Framers worried about demagogic excess and populist constant changes, so they created buffers and gatekeepers between voters and the government. Only one chamber, the House of Representatives, would be directly elected. A radical who wanted to get into the Senate would need to get past the state legislature, which selected senators; a power-junkie who wanted to seize the presidency would need to get past the Electoral College, a convocation of elders who chose the president; and so on.

So the chaos in government that daily plays out on a national stage is NOT the fault of the U.S. founders. Whose fault is it?

American voters. We elect them. They make and execute every law and policy. And it’s not just whoever serves as President. It’s Congress, too.

The “Terrible Twosome”

Paul Ryan didn’t have a chance. He didn’t want the House Speaker’s job: he was pushed unwillingly into it. And it showed.

But Nancy Pelosi sure did relish reclaiming the Speaker’s gavel after the 2018 midterm election in which Democrats won back the House. Everyone knew what to expect. She had a lot of experience in wielding the power of that position.

Across the hall, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was set to join Nancy in the starting blocks. No, he wasn’t in control of the Senate. But the pair of Pelosi/Schumer knew from experience the havoc that could give to Republicans with their political might and leverage. And they have not disappointed their base in the short time the twosome has been back in those positions. And they’ve only had a few months! They could hardly wait for some time to elapse so they could find devious ways to obstruct the Trump agenda and thwart Republican legislation at every turn. There have been NO two better at that job in Congressional history. They have been the Democrats long sought-after “Terrible Twosome” and the power they masterfully use on behalf of the Democrat Party’s agenda. “They’re Baaack………..!”

Not So Fast

There are some new kids in town! Nancy and Chuck have seemingly met their matches. The 2018 Freshman Class in the House of Representatives has thrown a monkey-wrench into the Pelosi/Schumer plan — especially three of those rookies: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). They are dynamite — they’re explosive — and they have already become the darlings of the “Millennial-Left!” And Nancy and Chuck are beside themselves.

FOX News published a story describing what the three have already done to hijack the power couple and wrest control of the Democrat Party platform from Pelosi and Schumer.

Freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Twitter bio declares her the “Unbossed Congresswoman” for Michigan’s 13th District. While the moniker has roots in Shirley Chisholm’s successful campaign to become the first black congresswoman, nowadays it also could be seen as a blunt message to Democratic leadership: Nobody is bossing around the class of 2019.

And that’s a problem for party bosses.

On everything from the Green New Deal to impeachment to criticism of Israel, a squad of first-year congresswomen are flexing their muscle and posing an implicit challenge to Democratic honchos like Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Their stridently liberal agenda – and power to steer the national conversation via social media and press attention – has fueled tensions inside the party tent that in turn are testing leadership’s control while stirring political concerns going into 2020.

“All of our problems are caused by three people,” one senior House Democrat lamented.

That would be New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Tlaib – all freshmen, and all uniquely unencumbered by things like decorum or deference to party elders.

Ocasio-Cortez recently made waves by appearing to warn Democrats who vote with Republicans that they’re “putting themselves on a list” of possible primary targets (though she later denied she intended such a threat).

Tlaib famously made headlines upon taking office by vowing they’d “impeach the motherf—er,” in reference to President Trump. Pelosi this week tried to rein in the impeachment chatter, taking a firm public stance against that route. Yet in the immediate aftermath of Tlaib’s vow, Pelosi downplayed the hubbub, saying she wouldn’t use that language but it’s nothing worse than Trump has said.

Fast-forward to this month, and Pelosi faced another discipline problem – concerning Omar.

Fresh off a dispute that saw Pelosi and fellow Democratic leaders condemn the Minnesota congresswoman for suggesting American allies of Israel were financially motivated, Omar riled party leaders again after suggesting Israel supporters expect or seek “allegiance” to the Jewish state. The statement was widely condemned, including among senior Democrats, as echoing the age-old “dual loyalties” smear against Jewish politicians.

Leaders hastily prepared a resolution to push back on anti-Semitism. Yet after Pelosi faced a rebellion in the ranks amid concerns the measure would unfairly single out Omar, a Muslim, and increase security threats against her (she was recently the subject of an inflammatory poster at the West Virginia capitol falsely tying her to the 9/11 attacks), the resolution was overhauled.

The sequence of events only fed the narrative that party leaders are struggling to rein in freshman lawmakers who are pulling Democrats off message at a critical time, with the 2020 presidential campaign season getting underway.

Tlaib and Omar already have signed a pledge to impeach Trump. And, around the same time anti-Trump protesters were arrested outside Pelosi’s office last week, Tlaib assured them she’ll introduce a resolution this month urging the Judiciary Committee to proceed with impeachment.

Looking ahead, some Democrats stress that it’s critical for the party to maintain focus.

“There’s always going to be distractions. It’s 435 people who are really their own boss, and they’re able to say whatever they want,” freshman Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., told “Fox News Sunday,” with regard to recent controversies in the caucus. “So, I think what we have to figure out what to do is to say, okay, this isn’t the views of everybody in Congress … but how do we maintain focus on our agenda as a whole?”

And that’s the million dollar question. None of the Democrat Party leaders in Congress or at the party level have any idea of how to control these three rookies. And the “New Kids” have taken over the Party!

What does that mean?

  • Honor for longtime Congressional leaders in their party is gone;
  • Respect for their party platforms, carefully crafted political measures and the timing for their actions is gone;
  • Democrat tradition developed over decades is gone;
  • Willingness to work with the other party (if there ever WAS any willingness at all) is gone;
  • The ability and desire to reason with dissenters as part of the political process — and not just Republicans — is gone;
  • Basing proposed legislation and party positions on agreed-to thoughts and ideas is gone;
  • Civility in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is gone!

What are Democrats Going to Do?

If wasn’t so comical it’d be funny!

Seriously, it IS comical to watch Nancy Pelosi struggle to find reasonable answers to the obvious questions from the media about that very thing: “What are Democrats going to do?” You can bet Nancy and Chuck stay huddled up somewhere regularly to collude with each other scratching for answers. And just as quickly as they find one, the “New Kids” step up to the microphone and make another outlandish Democrat policy statement that sounds as if it originated from the backside of Mars!

Like:

  1. The “Green New Deal.” Along with that brainstorm came the prophecy that the World will end in 12 years if we don’t implement the plan — for the low, low price of $72 Trillion over 10 years;
  2. “Free College For All.” The “New Kids” all signed onto Bernie Sanders plan or something equivalent that is estimated to cost $95 Billion a year. But we all know that if it’s free, far more students would take advantage of it. What’s $115-125 extra each Billion a year?
  3. Forgive all College Debt. At the start of 2019, 58 million Americans owe a total of $1.56 Trillion in college tuition debt. To forgive that, the Federal Government would have to tax increase Americans tax bill 50% for one year to pay for it. And, by the way, the government would have to somehow raise (through increased taxes) that additional $115-$125 Billion each year to pay for that newly added cost of “Free College for All.”
  4. Raise Taxes: No big deal. The “New Kids” have that problem worked out. How? Simply change the marginal tax rate on America’s rich to 70%. By the way: she just floated a proposed 90% tax rate for American corporations!
  5. It will take every bit of that to pay for the “New Kids” ideas floated above. But we left one out: “Medicare for All.” It is not original with the three — Bernie Sanders floated it first. The “New Kids” love the idea, so it’s a done deal! The cost? $32 Trillion over 10 years.

By the way: economists have analyzed the 70% proposed tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans. You will be excited to know that with that new rate AND the “New Kids” programs listed above, the additional tax revenue would almost cover their costs. It would take care of all but 99% of them!

Summary

In one way it’s scary to believe that power in our government could possibly be controlled by any more wicked than House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer. But in this case, I am scared! We didn’t even mention the problems with those three other than their economic ideas. On social and political levels, they are each off the charts. They make Pelosi, Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and even David Duke look like Saints!

But you know what is really scary? Many young Americans love the trio. And they love their “progressive” ideas. Never mind the inability to pay for them. Never mind the dismantling of the free market and launching a Socialist nation in its place. Never mind the ridiculousness of trying to implement even one of the above ideas and watching the titans of industry immediately shutter dozens of major corporations putting millions of American workers on the street without work. That doesn’t matter: they’re such good ideas!

“Symbolism Over Substance” is the mantra of the “New Kids.” No, they’re not the ones using that. But Americans who ARErealists, who read and listen, who ask questions and get answers, and who expect reality from their elected representatives understand there is NO THERE THERE — NO SUBSTANCE!

You know what else is good? These three are members of the House of Representatives and not the Senate. That means they can be removed and replaced by voters in less than two years — IF THEIR VOTING CONSTITUENTS ARE PAYING ATTENTION!

 

Play

Trump Investigation: Part II

House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed in 2017 he had “factual evidence” that proved collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. (That evidence has never appeared)

Then Sunday, March 10, 2019, on CBS Schiff claimed “There is ‘direct evidence’ of Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. He stated it this way:

“I think there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“They offer that dirt. There is an acceptance of that offer in writing from the president’s son, Don Jr., and there are overt acts and furtherance of that,” he added. “That to me is direct evidence,” Schiff said. “But there’s also abundant circumstantial evidence.”

And then there’s Senator Mark Warner from that same Committee:

Given “the litany of what we know,” Warner said, “the ongoing negotiations about Trump Tower, well into the campaign, I believe the fact that Mr. Trump knew about the dump of the Wikileaks material, the fact that clearly the meeting at Trump Tower which was not described appropriately, in terms of offering dirt are examples. To me, that’s all evidence,” he said. “There’s no one that could factually say there’s not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians.”

I’m a simple American. But even in my small, trite world, when someone feels that something is illegal, you go get facts. Democrats did that: They saw to the appointment of an Independent Special Counsel — Robert Mueller. Special Counsel Mueller is 2 years and a reported $25 million into extensive investigations based on exactly what Schiff and Warner “claim” is “evidence.”

Definition of evidence: an outward sign; indication; something that furnishes proof — testimony; specifically; something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.

Two years and $25 million — WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller

The Mueller Probe has been going strong for two years. “Anonymous sources” (there they are again) say that probe is wrapping up and to expect the report from Mueller on his investigation of the Trump Gang any day now. With the “leaks environment” in Washington, conventional wisdom maintains that because there have been no reports of pending charges against the President or anyone in the Campaign regarding Russian collusion, there will be no smoking gun in the Mueller report. Finally: we’re getting through with investigations and now we can just get on with governing!

Of course, that’s not so. Congressman Schiff and fellow Democrats apparently are simply going to ditch Mueller’s findings, even though we don’t officially know they will even exonerate the President. But they simply cannot let sleeping dogs lie. That’s how we are now on the front-porch of Part II of the Trump Investigation. They’re never going to give up. Democrats are convinced there’s something in the Trump camp that is going to kick Donald Trump out of the White House.

And Adam Schiff shows up one more time with “news:”

“Within our committee, we certainly have a compelling interest in making sure that U.S. policy … is not driven by leverage that the Russians have over the president,” Schiff said. “There have been credible allegations that the Russians may have laundered money through the Trump organization, and if that’s the case, then we need to be able to look into it and be able to tell the country, ‘Yes, this is true,’ or ‘No, this is not.’ But I think it would be negligent not to find out.”

“It’s going to be important for Congress to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is being driven by U.S. national interests and not by Trump family finances,” Schiff said, in reference to the president’s business ties to Saudi Arabia and his pro-Saudi policies, such as backing the kingdom in its confrontation with neighboring Qatar. “The president has not truly divested his family’s interests or been the least bit transparent about it,” the congressman said, and lawmakers need to “make sure we’re protecting the country.”

Americans knew full well that with Democrats in the 2018 midterm taking control of the House of Representatives, investigations regardless of Mueller’s findings would definitely be the Democrat Party agenda for the next two years. And that certainly appears to be true. But there are a few things that may throw a wrench into Democrats’ plans.

Department of Justice Investigations

While the Democrat parade is ramping up, the Department of Justice continues its behind-the-scenes investigations of which very little is known. Many remember the comment former AG Jeff Sessions made to Congressman Goodlatte about the AG’s instructions to restart the investigation into the Uranium One transaction AND Hillary Clinton. Months later when asked about that investigation, a DOJ official stated there was NO such letter or authorization by Sessions to do so.

After it claimed no such document existed, the Justice Department just unearthed a letter Matt Whitaker (when Session’s chief of staff) delivered to the Utah U.S. attorney directing a review of how the department handled the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One issues.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote the letter on Nov. 22, 2017, for Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber. Matt Whitaker emailed the letter to Huber that day, writing, “As we discussed.” He also sent Huber a copy of a letter the Justice Department’s Congressional affairs chief sent to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 13 of that year.

The existence of a letter documenting Sessions’ directive that the DOJ revisit probes of Trump’s top political foe is a surprise because a department lawyer said in court last year that senior officials insisted it didn’t exist. The liberal nonprofit American Oversight obtained the letter through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request they filed on Nov. 22, 2017––the same day Whitaker emailed Sessions’ letter to Huber.

The request asked for documentation of the directions Sessions gave Huber about the review of the Clinton investigations. After DOJ failed to produce any written directions, American Oversight sued.

And on Nov. 16, 2018, Senior Counsel in the Office of Information Policy Vanessa Brinkmann, who handles FOIA Requests, said a lawyer in Sessions’ office told her no such letter existed. That lawyer spoke with Huber and Whitaker, she said in a declaration filed in federal court, and then told her that “when the Attorney General directed Mr. Huber to evaluate these matters, no written guidance or directives were issued to Mr. Huber in connection with this directive, either by the Attorney General, or by other senior leadership office staff.”

That wasn’t correct. On Wednesday of last week (March 6, 2019), a DOJ lawyer told American Oversight that they had found the document that kicked off Huber’s work.

The letter is consistent with what the DOJ’s chief of legislative affairs has told Congress: that Huber is scrutinizing the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company with interests in the United States to Rosatom, a Russian state-owned company. Republicans have long alleged that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to oppose the deal because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The DOJ hasn’t brought any charges related to the foundation or the transaction. Some Hill Republicans and conservative media commentators have long argued this is because the Department hasn’t sufficiently investigated it. They have called for the appointment of a special counsel to scrutinize the transaction. Sessions didn’t bite.

Some Republicans say Huber’s work is too little, too late. Democrats, to no one’s surprise, argue it’s evidence of the Trump administration weaponizing law enforcement to target its political rivals.

Is Something Besides Mueller’s Report Imminent?

Hardly any of the media are talking about the publicly available list of 82,000 sealed federal indictments that have all been issued since the week after the instructions to Utah Federal Attorney Huber to reopen Clinton and Uranium One investigations. Every federal district court in the United States has issued several of those sealed indictments. The feds AND the media are strangely quiet about even speculating on the nature of those indictments.

What’s staggering about that is their number. For the previous decade, the total average number of sealed federal indictments issued by all federal district courts combined is 1077 — that’s for each year. These have all been created since October of 2017 — about 16 months.

Speculations of novices and political pundits are that at least some of those indictments are for those involved in human and sex trafficking. Another speculation exists that some may be for some current and past elected and appointed federal officials caught-up in various kinds of wrongdoing. No matter who or what they are for, when the veil of secrecy is pulled back there certainly will be some surprises, especially if any have to do with members of the Trump Administration, Hillary Clinton or her former staff, and even of those from the Obama Administration.

Subpoenas of 81 Trump Associates

House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Jerold Nadler (D-NY) announcing the committee’s subpoena of 81 Trump associates was no surprise. His explanation for doing so simply plays into the Congressional Democrat plan to go after the President.

Nadler has made numerous claims that he “knows” Trump colluded with Russia and/or has obstructed justice:

”It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice,” Nadler told ABC News on Sunday, March 10, 2019.

“It’s very clear,” he explained, “1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt, he tried to have Mueller fired — he tried to protect Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired Comey in order to stop the Russian thing, as he told NBC News. He — he’s dangled pardons — he’s threat(end) — he’s intimidated, witnesses, in public.”

But Nadler, his committee, and other Democrats may face an obstacle they did not expect in their serving subpoenas wholesale to the host of Trump associates they plan to intimidate into relaying something incriminating about the President. Doing so may be illegal: The attempted harassment of President Trump (as it appears to be too many), especially after two years of the Mueller probe, may be unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a case that has direct implications for what Democrats are doing right now.

Watkins v. the United States

John Thomas Watkins, a labor union official from Rock Island, Illinois, was convicted of contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor under 2 U.S.C. § 192, for failing to answer questions posed by members of Congress during a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities on April 29, 1954. Watkins was asked to name people he knew to be members of the Communist Party. Watkins told the subcommittee that he did not wish to answer such questions and that they were outside the scope of the subjects on which he was summoned to testify and of the committee’s jurisdiction. He said:

“I am not going to plead the fifth amendment, but I refuse to answer certain questions that I believe are outside the proper scope of your committee’s activities. I will answer any questions which this committee puts to me about myself. I will also answer questions about those persons whom I knew to be members of the Communist Party and whom I believe still are. I will not, however, answer any questions with respect to others with whom I associated in the past. I do not believe that any law in this country requires me to testify about persons who may in the past have been Communist Party members or otherwise engaged in Communist Party activity but who to my best knowledge and belief have long since removed themselves from the Communist movement.

I do not believe that such questions are relevant to the work of this committee nor do I believe that this committee has the right to undertake the public exposure of persons because of their past activities. I may be wrong, and the committee may have this power, but until and unless a court of law so holds and directs me to answer, I most firmly refuse to discuss the political activities of my past associates.”

His conviction carried a fine of $100 and a one-year suspended prison sentence. Watkins first won a 3–2 decision on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but then lost, 6–2, when that court heard the case en banc. The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 7, 1957, and announced its decision on June 17, 1957.

The Supreme Court decided 6–1 to overturn Watkins’ conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority. Warren noted that it is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer any question “pertinent to the question under inquiry” in testifying before a Congressional committee, but he wrote that the Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision:

There are several sources that can outline the “question under inquiry” in such a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied. The authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves, might sometimes make the topic clear. This case demonstrates, however, that these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt.

The New York Times commented: “The Supreme Court has placed fundamental restrictions on a Congressional investigatory power that in recent years has been asserted as all but limitless.”

Senators James Eastland and William E. Jenner, who played principal roles in investigating left-wing activities, issued a statement accusing the Court of contributing to “the trend of the past year of undermining our existent barriers against Communist subversion.”

One can easily make a case that current House Democrats and their various committees that have started burying the White House with new investigations of these old allegations against the President are committing the same acts that resulted in the Watkins conviction being overturned by SCOTUS.

How would that Court finding apply to what’s underway now in D.C.? The exact same thing: “The Court was unable to ascertain the nature of the Congressional inquiry with reasonable precision.”

The difference now is that (as many have maintained since the inception of the Mueller probe) in normal investigations, the investigation begins because of specific wrongdoing and is to find the evidence sufficient to prove who is guilty of wrongdoing. This Congressional witchhunt is based on wrongdoing that hasn’t been proven to even exist!

Summary

Congressional Democrats are afraid. The leadership of the Democrat Party is afraid. What can they possibly be afraid of?

  • Not only the contents of the 82,000 sealed federal indictments but the results of the prosecution of those federal indictments as they are unsealed and executed;
  • President Trump really may NOT be guilty of anything sufficient to run him out of office one way or the other;
  • Extreme wrongdoing — both criminal and simply reprehensible — on their part may be exposed;
  • All of the above may result in their loss of political might and standing and even expulsion from their positions and status;
  • The Democrat Party totally imploding;
  • President Trump’s agenda actually succeeding.

I know there’s a lot in this discussion for us to chew on. It has become extremely difficult to get a fix on what is truthful and what is not, what is applicable to the President, members of Congress, and those from the Department of Justice. But there’s a worn out adage that I believe is appropriate here: “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” I think it’s safe to say that so far in the exhaustive investigation of this president, his staff, family members, and even his friends, there may not even be smoke. To borrow a phrase from the President, this could all simply be more “Fake News.”

Whether you are a Democrat, a Socialist, a RINO, a Trump supporter, it is probably accurate to say you want this resolved. There may be an argument on the actual resolution you desire, getting this all done and getting the U.S. on the road to what’s ahead without further distractions is really all that matters. But it certainly is time to get this out of the way.

Play

Medicare For All: FRAUD!

It certainly sounds good: get all your healthcare that comes with 100% coverage for everyone. There are NO pre-existing condition exclusions, no deductibles, no co-pays, covers in-hospital treatments, out-patient treatments, dental, vision, and even covers pharmacy. That sounds too good to be true. 

Momma always said: “If it sounds too good to be true, it isn’t true.” All of the “hooey” above IS NOT true. “Medicare For All” is a FRAUD!

The “Real” Story

The United Kingdom has had national healthcare for as long as most remember. Heck, I’m 65 and I cannot remember a time when they didn’t have it. Proponents for “socialized healthcare” or “Medicare For All” as it has been called in the U.S. point to the U.K. and their National Health System. It technically is “single-payer” healthcare in which the government pays the tab.

Their system is failing. We’ll get into exhaustive details of the imminent demise of their system in a minute. First, let’s talk about the healthcare systems — Medicare specifically — that the U.S. has now.

In his 2016 bid for the Democrat Party’s nomination for president, Bernie Sanders (D-VT) rolled out his “Medicare For All” plan as being free for Americans. How so? Eliminate private insurance:

What Americans need to understand is that under our current system, healthcare coverage is NOT Free! What Bernie proposes is outlawing private insurance (premiums are now paid by the insured or their employers), BUT states under his plan, Americans save millions because they only have to pay for government healthcare premiums.

Medicare is NOT free. I hate it when in money discussions, members of Congress in interviews say, “We must cut entitlements!” Most Americans when the word “entitlements” is used think of government handouts: Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Of those, Medicare is the one that is NOT free for its recipients. Medicare recipients pay for their Medicare coverage in 4 different ways.

First, from every paycheck received from an employer throughout one’s professional career, a small percentage is deducted and paid to the Federal government (with an employer equal matched amount) to “prepay” to partially cover the cost of Medicare when that employee retires.

Secondly, when that person becomes age-eligible and enrolls in Medicare, there is a monthly or quarterly premium that must be paid by the enrollee. The amount of that premium is based on that person’s previous year’s personal income: “means tested.” Currently, the minimum monthly premium is approximately $120.

Thirdly, there is an annual deductible that must be paid by the enrollee before Medicare payments kick-in. It is not excessive, but it still must be paid. Currently, it is approximately $180 annually.

And fourth, under Medicare Part B, (which includes most services other than those received in-patient in a hospital) Medicare only pays 80% of the approved costs of treatment for patients. The 20% leftover amount must be paid by the enrollee, and most purchase a supplemental insurance policy to cover that balance.

The bottom-line is Medicare is NOT free.

We’ll look at the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. But U.S. “Medicare For All” proponents point to European countries as the models for American healthcare that supposedly dwarf the American healthcare system in quality, accessibility, and costs for its citizens. Let’s look at a recent rating of the Top 5 European healthcare systems:

Denmark

Denmark has a universal health care system financed primarily through income taxes. Danish citizens and European Union citizens are eligible to receive free medical treatment in Denmark.

Officials in Denmark have gone through great effort to reduce bureaucracy in their system so that the majority of medical administration is done at the local level. The system is also broken up into two sectors. The primary sector is for those with general health issues, and the hospital sector is for those requiring more specialized care.

Norway

Norway has a mix of public and private health insurance, but the public system is much bigger and a lot more popular. Like many of the of the countries on this list, citizens are entitled to free health care through a system financed through taxes.

All hospitals and health facilities in Norway are owned by the central government and managed on a regional level. As radical of an idea as that may seem to those reading this in the United States, these facilities actually have a great deal of autonomy, so long as they operate within the budgetary restraints imposed on them by the government.

Switzerland

The Swiss have a health care system that is more similar to the American system than the other countries on this list. Their health care in Switzerland is not free. Instead, all residents are required by law to purchase a health insurance policy within three months of arriving in Switzerland.

Insurers in Switzerland sell a standardized form of basic insurance that covers a range of medical services. Companies aren’t allowed to make a profit on selling these plans, but instead, make money selling complimentary insurance that covers more medical services. Swiss health insurance plans also require consumers to pay for at least part of their health costs in the form of a deductible or other fees.

The Netherlands

The Dutch have a form of insurance based on universal health care in their country. Insurers are required by law to offer a basic government-defined health insurance plan to all those who would apply for it.

Typically the plan costs about 100 euros per month, with the insurance company optionally tacking on some extra administrative fees. Those buying Dutch health insurance have the option for extra supplemental insurance to cover more than the basic plan. For this extra insurance, you are required to apply and insurers can deny you for it.

Sweden

Closing out the top five is Sweden. Swedes enjoy a high-quality universal health care system. Their system has a yearly deductible of about $170 for doctors visits and $340 for prescription drugs. Private health insurance does exist in Sweden however it’s not very common.

Health care accounts for 9 percent of Sweden’s GDP, with the state paying for about 97 percent of the cost of health care, with the rest covered through deductibles. Primarily the health care system is financed by the taxpayers.

The UK’s National Health Service: The “MotherShip”

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service, which celebrated its 70th anniversary this year, is imploding. You probably noticed in the European Union’s analysis of Europe’s best health insurance programs, UK’s NHS didn’t crack the top 15. In fact, it’s in the bottom 5.

Why?

Vacancies for doctor and nurse positions have reached all-time highs. Patients are facing unimaginable waits for care as a result. In August of 2018, a record number of Britons suffered more than 12 hours in emergency rooms. In July, the share of cancer patients who waited more than two months to receive treatment soared.

Yet enthusiasm for government-run, single-payer health care continues to build in the United States. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 70% of Americans now support “Medicare for All.” Virtually all the major candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 have come out in favor of banning private insurance coverage and implementing a single-payer system instead.

One look across the Atlantic, to the disaster unfolding in the United Kingdom’s government-run healthcare system, ought to curb that enthusiasm.

The NHS has struggled to fully staff its hospitals and clinics since its inception in 1948. But today, the shortages are growing worse. 9% of physician posts are vacant. That’s a shortfall of nearly 11,500 doctors.

The NHS is also short 42,000 nurses. In the second quarter alone, nurse vacancies increased by 17%. Meanwhile, in the United States, nearly all states will have a surplus of nurses by 2030.

It’s not surprising that people don’t want to work as nurses in Great Britain; it’s a stressful job, with long hours and terrible working conditions. Some NHS nurses are taking positions at supermarkets because stacking shelves comes with better hours, benefits, and pay, according to a report in the London Economic.

Consider one nurse’s letter explaining why she quit the profession. She described horrific working conditions. Medical professionals worked 12-hour shifts with little time for necessities like bathroom breaks or food. Managers felt they couldn’t do anything to change unsafe conditions created by overcrowded hospitals. “You cannot safely practice under such conditions,” she wrote. “Mistakes will be made and people will be harmed, some fatally.”

The shortage of providers has resulted in longer wait times for patients. In May of 2018, 4.3 million people in the United Kingdom were on waiting lists for surgery, a 10-year high. Adjusting for population, that would be like having everyone in the state of Florida on waiting lists. Roughly 3,500 British patients have been on hospital waiting lists for more than a year.

More than one in five British cancer patients waits longer than two months to begin treatment after receiving a referral from a general practitioner. In Scotland, fewer than 80% of patients receive needed diagnostic tests — endoscopies, MRIs, CT, scans and the like — within three months.

These delays are deadly. An analysis that covered just half of England’s hospitals found that almost 30,000 patients died in the past year while waiting for treatment — an increase of 57% compared to 2013.

In some cases, the NHS has refused to provide treatment at all. In June of 2018, NHS England said that it would discontinue coverage of 17 procedures, including tonsillectomies and knee arthroscopies for osteoarthritis patients.

Even when patients receive treatment, the quality of care is poor. Patients in British hospitals are four times more likely to die than in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of outcomes from 2,000 similar surgeries conducted by researchers from University College London and Columbia University in New York. Among the more severely ill patients, the disparity was worse; the sickest Brits were seven times more likely to die.

It’s no wonder that Britons who can afford private health insurance pay for it. About 10% of the population uses private coverage to help cover the cost of care delivered outside the NHS system — sometimes by NHS doctors. (Notice that U.S. Democrat candidates for president in 2020 who have Medicare For All in their campaign commitments ALL demand ALL private insurance in the U.S. be banned)

NHS defenders claim that the system’s poor results are the inevitable result of underfunding. Yet spending on health care in the United Kingdom has more than doubled in the past 18 years, after adjusting for inflation.

The problem is one of supply and demand. Single-payer systems offer “free” care, so patients have no incentive to moderate their demand for care. But government cannot procure enough supply to meet that demand without bankrupting taxpayers. Government officials’ only option is to ration care.

Despite the failings of the NHS, Democrats want to establish a single-payer system in the United States. The “Medicare For All” bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders would outlaw private insurance and funnel nearly all Americans into a one-size-fits-all, government-run health plan. That bill promises comprehensive medical, dental, and even vision care, courtesy of John Q. Taxpayer.

The total bill? A cool $32 trillion over 10 years. Next year, the federal government projects it’ll take in $3.4 trillion in revenue. So “Medicare For All’s” yearly tab is nearly equivalent to the federal government’s entire annual tax take.

Put another way, the feds would have to essentially double tax revenue in order to pay for “Medicare For All.”

And “Medicare For All’s”multitrillion-dollar cost estimate banks on bringing payments for healthcare providers down to the level paid by the existing Medicare program. That would represent a reduction of about 40%, compared to private insurance rates. Such pay cuts are likely to drive providers out of business — or discourage the next generation of doctors and nurses from entering the field.

“Medicare For All’s” proponents say single-payer delivers high-quality, free care to all. Britons stuck on wait lists, unable to secure the care they need, would surely beg to differ.

Before I weigh-in with my two-cents in summary, let’s get a “different” perspective from talk-show host Kennedy:

Summary

This will be brief. When considering “Medicare For All,” ask yourself these questions:

  • Can we trust our government to manage our money? Should we trust our government to financially manage our healthcare system?
  • Can we legitimately expect doctors in a single-pay healthcare system who have their compensation slashed as government employees to provide the same level of care as we currently receive?
  • Do you want a Washington bureaucrat making a decision on your receiving or not receiving a heart by-pass because you are “too old?”
  • Are politicians who rave about the viability of single-payer healthcare really being honest? Why haven’t any of them presented statistical facts as you heard here today to Americans?

There are many more unanswered questions that should be answered, and their answers given to us should be the priority for politicians. Why don’t they do that? Simple: they don’t want Americans to know the truth. They are simply using “Medicare For All” as the “cool” talking point that sounds so good, Americans who are not armed with facts will want to vote them into office for “Free Stuff.”

Do you want facts? We are just now after years of watching our own veterans who each volunteered their lives in combat for us to preserve our freedom, die from the inability of our CURRENT government health program to “get around” to seeing them: V.A. hospitals. The government does so many things better than the private sector, right?

Do you want facts about a plan that will comfortably and cost-effectively plug the holes in our existing government/private healthcare partnership program? On July 19th and 20th of 2017, we published that plan in two parts here at TruthNewsNet.org. Go back and take a look: “The Only Healthcare Plan that Will Work, Part 1 and Part 2.”

“Medicare For All” — especially under THIS government the way it is currently structured — WILL NOT WORK! And if implemented in the U.S. will destroy healthcare. Count on it.

 

Play

Jussie: Guilt or Innocence

Sixteen indictments were issued against Jussie Smollett by a Cook County grand jury on Friday, March 8 — felony indictments. Yes, a person is always (under U.S. law) “Innocent until proven Guilty.” And, no, Jussie has NOT been proven guilty. So why have the lines formed of people who are demonstrably declaring his guilt OR declaring his innocence?

I think it’s because it “appears” to be that Smollett attempted to in some way use the system, his ethnicity, his fame along with his sexual preference to sway the court of public opinion for some personal advantage. That in itself if true is sad on many levels. But there’s more to this story and its ramifications that haven’t been but should be discussed.

If allegations against him contained in these sixteen felony indictments are proven in court and he is found guilty, this case will prove to be just one more blight on today’s international media stage. This case so far has been nothing more than a three-ring circus. Wanna guess what specifically is on display in each of the three circus rings?

Jussie Smollett Is Famous: Ring #1

I’ve always heard: fame comes with a price. Maybe Jussie is finding that out firsthand.

He began his career as a child actor in 1987 acting in films including The Mighty Ducks (1992) and Rob Reiner’s North (1994). In 2015, Smollett attracted attention and received a highly positive critical reception for his portrayal of musician Jamal Lyon in the Fox drama series Empire (2015). Smollett has also appeared in Ridley Scott’s science fiction film Alien: Covenant (2017) as Ricks and in Marshall (2017) as Langston Hughes.

He doesn’t just act. Smollett signed a recording contract with Columbia Records and would be releasing an album in the future. Smollett co-wrote the songs “I Wanna Love You” and “You’re So Beautiful” on the Original Soundtrack from Season 1 of Empire album, which was released in March 2015. In March 2018, Smollett released his debut album, Sum of My Music.

Of course, his “current” fame stems from his starring role in the Series Empire. It has been alleged that part of this “circus” that has consumed his life of late came from his desire to get more fame and subsequent pay increase for his role in that series. “Alleged” is the magic word — nothing is proven yet.

Jussie Smollett is Gay: Ring #2

Smollett came out as gay during a televised interview with Ellen DeGeneres in March 2015.

In a 2016 interview with Out, he clarified his sexual orientation by stating “If I had to label myself, I would label myself as a gay man.” However, he stated his belief that openness to love is more important than gender, revealing that “If I fall in love down the road with a woman, I’m going to love that woman.” When Smollett’s gay character from Empire engaged in a tryst with a female character, Smollett defended the plot development by stating that he and Empire‘s creator Lee Daniels were trying to create a conversation about sexual fluidity in the gay community. Daniels has stated that while he and Smollett are gay, they both occasionally want to have sex with women. Daniels stated that “We’re showing life on Empire,” in that both he and Smollett were incorporating their own sexual fluidity as gay men into the show.

Smollett told his parents he was gay when he was 19.

Jussie Smollett is African American: Ring #3

Smollett grew-up in Santa Rosa, California, a small city in the Wine Country about 50 miles north of San Francisco. He is the third of six children of Janet (née Harris) and Joel Smollett (1956–2014). He has three brothers and two sisters: Jake, Jocqui, Jojo, Jurnee, and Jazz, several of whom are also actors.

Smollett is actually biracial. His mother is African-American and his father was Jewish (his family emigrated from Russia and Poland). He has said that his father would have “killed you if you called him white.”

Jussie Smollett is a Professional Entertainer: Ring #4

Yes, I know this is a “three-ring” circus. But in Jussie’s case, his circus has a fourth. Of course, we’ve all seen in past years the never-ending Hollywood circus. I don’t know exactly why, but it seems that folks who breathe Hollywood air and who work in the entertainment field  (acting, directing, music, etc.) have a propensity to concentrate on self-awareness. Jussie is definitely qualified as a member of that group.

Smollett Support from the Rich and Famous

On January 30, 2019, public figures expressed support for Smollett on social media. Entertainment industry figures, including Shonda Rhimes and Viola Davis, tweeted their outrage over the attack and support for Smollett. Democratic senators and presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Cory Booker both described the attack as an attempted modern-day lynching. Booker urged Congress to pass a federal Anti-Lynching bill co-sponsored by him and Harris. Smollett faced skepticism regarding his claim of being attacked; he responded by saying that he believed that, if he had said his attackers were Mexicans, Muslims, or black people, “the doubters would have supported me much more … And that says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now.”

Entertainment industry figures who worked with Smollett speculated about what may have motivated the actor to stage the hate crime. Some of the cast members of Empire believe that Smollett might have gotten the idea to stage a hate crime after the show’s creator, Lee Daniels, discussed a homophobic assault against his cousin with the show’s cast. Smollett’s co-stars theorized that the actor might have wanted to gain Daniels’ favor and become an “LGBT hero” by staging the attack. Director Lucian Read drew a connection between the hoax and a May 2018 episode of the Epix series America Divided about lynching which he directed; Smollett narrated and appeared in the episode. Epix also released a statement saying “with respect to the sensitivities around recent events…Epix is no longer making available the episode of America Divided featuring Jussie Smollett.”

What Happened to Jussie?

A recent Billboard Magazine article talked about a widespread lack of awareness about the importance of mental health in the jazz/hop Los Angeles music community. Six up-and-coming artists were invited to discuss how they took care of themselves. Among them was Jussie Smollett, who, in addition to his own fledgling solo musical career, played Jamal Lyon, a singer on the hit Fox series Empire. Smollett stressed the importance of honesty in his own internal struggles. “I admit that I’m jealous, I admit that I’m insecure and that I’m not good at certain things,” he said. Then, in a comment that didn’t get any attention at the time, Smollett suggested that these pressures might be catching up to him. “I’m in my 30s and I’m trying my best to learn that I can’t bend anymore,” he said. “I’m about to break.”

Six months later, he may have done just that.

On Jan. 19, 2019, the actor tweeted, “Depression is a real thing Y’all.” Three days later, a threatening letter targeting Smollett arrived at the Empire production offices in Chicago. And a week after that, the actor told Chicago police that two masked assailants had attacked him in a wealthy Chicago neighborhood as he walked home from a Subway at 2 a.m. while he was on the phone with his music manager, Brandon Z. Moore. Because Smollett, who is black and openly gay, identified his attackers as white males who shouted “This is MAGA country” and claimed they hung a noose around his neck, his case was immediately held up as an example of the growing problem of hate crimes in the Trump era. In Hollywood, where the alleged attack played perfectly into the community’s worst fears about prejudice, support for Smollett was strident. Robin Roberts interviewed him sympathetically on Good Morning America. Ellen Page called out the Trump administration for the incident on Colbert.

Synopsis

There are no doctors here at TruthNewsNetwork (TNN). There’s no way for us to draw any meaningful and educated decisions about what has been going on with Smollett and what could lead him down the path on which he finds himself. One would think he has some personal issues that fed this narrative. One can only speculate about what they are. And speculation ran amuck in the early days following the report of the “alleged” hate crime. Speculation like we see and hear in this NBC News report:

I doubt anyone will ever be able to provide an accurate “why” answer for Jussie’s creation of this alleged crime. Certainly, many factors contributed: disdain for President Trump, struggling with mental and professional pressure he felt, whether real or perceived job stress and personal insecurities. Honestly, most every American deals with those issues in their life at some point. And thankfully, most Americans do not find themselves where Smollett is today: career destroyed, dozens if not hundreds of friendships ended because of betrayal, disdain more than ever for being gay, and nowhere to turn for a peaceful way out of this dilemma.

It is a good thing that most Americans have the resources that come through family members, friends, business associates, and medical professionals necessary to successfully work through the issues that apparently drove Smollett to this point in his life. In Jussie’s case, however, it seems that all the things and circumstances that gave him the fame and fortune in which he found himself are actually major contributors — if not THE contributors — to the state of mind that created the Hate-Hoax scenario surrounding Jussie.

We have been accused of being too hard on the media at TruthNewsNetwork. And sometimes, maybe we are. But in this century and in this decade, everyone needs to understand the power of media communication. And those in media of every kind need to understand that with that power comes responsibility.

Jussie himself railed loudly and constantly against President Trump. I doubt Smollett stopped to consider the power of HIS words, of HIS political stances given in public that even though were his opinions, in most instances were swallowed by his followers as factual. Why is that? His fame and his universal support by those in his industry: Entertainment. Unfortunately, success in the U.S. entertainment industry resonates to many who watch and listen-in as integrity, honesty, and they give those stories total acceptance.

Maybe Jussie just flipped out; maybe he really believes the extent of American racism he expressed; maybe he really believes President Trump is a racist, an Islamophobe, and homophobe. If that is true, we could more easily understand his acting on those beliefs in the manner in which he did.

But one thing is certain: the American media fawn over those in Entertainment from Hollywood and Manhattan and elsewhere in the U.S. And it seems to be the same thing in American politics and even professional sports. Heretofore those in the media have rejected any calls for responsibility on their part. In a way, they are justified in doing so. Their reasoning? The media in part are the driving sources for the monumental adoration of Americans for all those in the movies, music, and professional sports. Without their news coverage, they maintain, stars in sports and entertainment would not have anything close to the adoration of adoring fans that they experience. For that, the media have forsaken any responsibility for any Jussie Smollet stories or any others. And there are many.

I’ll close today with a personal story to help explain what, why, and how Jussie Smollett happened. In 2006, I owned a professional arena football team. The availability of a really good quarterback was made known to me by an assistant coach for the Dallas Cowboys. Quincy Carter became available when the Cowboys released him and no other NFL team picked him up. “If he was so good, why did the Cowboys cut him and why did no other NFL team sign him?” I was asked. There’s a reason…or two. Believe me.

Quincy grew up in Georgia. He was a stellar athlete who was pampered because of his outstanding athletic abilities from a very young age. He excelled in football in middle school. He picked apart the defenses of high school football opponents. He rocked the Southeastern Conference playing for the University of Georgia. And he was the first quarterback to take the Dallas Cowboys to the NFL playoffs since Troy Aikman. But Quincy had some issues.

Few knew that he was the victim of Bipolar Disorder. He had dramatic mood swings that were uncontrollable and unavoidable. When diagnosed, the prescribed medication worked well at helping to control his wild swings in temperament and concentration. But he hated taking the medicine. It left him feeling funny. He tried marijuana, and marijuana worked. Quincy while at the University of Georgia began self-medicating with marijuana.

Marijuana was not acceptable, not only in the National Football League but in the Arena Football League as well. Quincy’s professional football career was over in the NFL — unless we could change things. We were called to see if we could work with him in the AFL and get him back to doing the right things medically. We agreed, but with conditions: Quincy had to agree to drug treatment prior to our 2006 season and throughout our season, he had to speak to a chosen (by our team doctors) drug counselor every day — either in person or via telephone when the team was traveling. It went well — at first.

Quincy was a quarterback phenomenon. He comfortably made the transition from outdoor football to indoor and the field half the size as that of an outdoor field. He easily won our starting QB job in training camp. We started our season 5-0, primarily because of Quincy. He was benched for game 6 for “team infractions.” We lost. And then Quincy came back with his head straight and led us to the Conference Championship game against our arch rival, only to lose on a freak play.

During that season, we saw firsthand why the Jussie Smollett’s and Quincy Carter’s and other in similar shoes fought different demons from most of the rest of us. Quincy was a god in Texas. We played against 5 Texas teams in our division. Everytime we played in one of those Texas team stadiums, they sold out. THEIR fans came to the games wearing Quincy Carter Dallas Cowboy jerseys, not those of their home team. And after games, Quincy was flooded with fans getting his autograph and a picture with him. Media interviews had to be closely monitored and scheduled. All through our league, conversations about Quincy were top of the news all season long.

The week after we lost that conference championship game, Quincy was arrested for DWI: marijuana.

We cannot blame that on the media. We cannot blame that on rampant fan support. We cannot blame that on Quincy’s upbringing in Georgia. We cannot even blame that on marijuana. But each one of those “things” in Quincy’s life was a huge contributing factor in the fall of Quincy Carter.

Jussie Smollett just like all of us has a bunch of “stuff” in his closet. Some of it Jussie’s friends and family members know about. There are probably other things Jussie keeps in that closet and with the closet door closed.

So what should Quincy have done about those things? What about Jussie? What about you and me? I’m fairly certain there’s no absolute answer to those questions. But one answer that I DO know for certain: doing NOTHING about them is NEVER the right answer.

So next time we see or hear about the failure of a movie or television star, a college or professional basketball, baseball, football, soccer, or golf star that has failed, let’s think through these and other possible factors that usually together put that person in the position in their life where that failure happened. And while we’re trying to understand, remember this: “But for the grace of God, that could be me.”

 

 

 

Play

What’s Ahead?

You certainly will agree when I say, “It’s been quite an eventful week!” That’s a definite understatement. Actually, the last 2-3 weeks have been eventful. Heck: all of 2019 has been CRAZY!

In some respects, it’s been difficult to cherry-pick the most important issues of our day, bring the analysis of each to you here at TruthNewsNetwork, and do so in the timing and order based on their importance.

One of the difficulties is the “noise” in which you see, hear, and read in the analysis in Mainstream Media and presentation of that analysis. Let’s face it: none of us are exempt from the one-sided, anti-conservative and “Hate Trump” template of news that all of them use for news “reporting.” (That’s a joke. They DON’T report — they Editorialize)

So here’s what we are going to do the next few days: present you our specific (and researched) analysis on the hot-top issues in a specific order, starting Sunday, March 10. And we’re even going to give you a  schedule! Here is what you can expect:

Sunday, March 10, 2019: Jussie Smollett

This will NOT be the same old worn out news. It is an analysis of what and why this all happened and how it was exacerbated. You do NOT want to miss it.

Monday, March 11, 2019: “Medicare For All” Exposed 

Yep: AOC and company along with those “Old Folks” — Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — have sold out to sell Americans single-payer healthcare. You’ve heard all the noise. Wonder what it would actually look like: your healthcare? We’ve got REAL examples and REAL facts about ALL of the issues if the U.S. adopts it — and NOT just the dollars and cents. We will actually expose what it will do about medical care. We have FACTS!

Tuesday, March 12, 2019: Trump Investigation, Part II

Adam Schiff and Jerold Nadler have gone nuts from the smell of the power they now have with a Democrat-controlled House. The 81+ subpoenas Nadler’s committee sent to Trump et al demanding Trump current staffers and family members suspend their lives to provide those committees massive amounts of a bunch of bunk. It’s actually comical! But, guess what: it probably WILL NOT EVEN HAPPEN! You’ll definitely want to look-in Tuesday to see and hear what the courts have to say.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019: Who’s In Control?

Certainly, the Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate. Trump runs the White House. But who really controls the government? You will be surprised that the answer is “none of the above.” Details and proof on Wednesday.

Of course, during these next few days we’ll have another bombshell or two on the national and international stages we’ll be forced to get into. Don’t worry: we can walk and chew gum here! But one thing you can bet on: the upcoming week is going to be blockbuster after blockbuster.

Don’t miss a minute. And to make sure you don’t, if you haven’t already, enroll with your email address below to assure yourself you’ll get a link to every story as they are published in the upcoming week and every day after that. No advertising, no solicitation, and your email stays right here. We don’t want you to miss a thing.

See you Sunday morning!

 

Is It “Socialism” or “Democratic Socialism?”

In 2016, it was Bernie. But after the 2018 midterm election primaries, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) took over Bernie’s mantle of Socialism. And ramping up to 2020, the dozen or so declared Democrat Party presidential candidates are running over each other, each crying for the World to hear, “I’m the bigger Socialist…I’m the biggest Socialist!” 

It’s a bit spooky that the “next” generation of Americans are getting so chummy with Socialism. The reason for the far-too-common use of the term is simple: today’s educators have wrapped their classroom agendas in a cloak of Socialism. And Democrat presidential candidates have done so too with their campaigns. They talk about it like it has brought Nirvana to the countries who have embraced it, and they use that to demonize Capitalism. Educators nor politicians discuss the horrors of Socialism in Germany, China, Venezuela, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and nations who long ago disappeared because Socialism always implodes. All they share with our next generation is this: “Socialism is a political environment in which everyone is guaranteed by the government that all their fundamental needs are going to be met — no matter what.” I’ve not heard of any of these Socialists in their speeches espousing the grandeurs of Socialism even mention that it has never worked in any country on Earth. It seems that would be a pretty important fact to mention, don’t you?

Let’s be honest: who doesn’t like the idea of someone taking care of all our needs and wants? It’s a warm and fuzzy thought — at least initially. Remember when we were kids? We worried only about “important” things, like recess, and a new bicycle. “Where’s my catcher’s mitt?” was about the most serious thing we had to deal with. Fighting with a brother or sister over control of the tv remote finished a close second. We did all that while Dad worked, Mom cooked and cleaned and carpooled, and everyone and everything was peachy. The 60s and 70s families were the U.S. Socialism models that worked — at least that’s what pundits point to today.

What’s so spooky about it is that this utopian promise is based on totally false information. These Socialists and economic elitists are filling the heads and hearts of the next generation of Americans with untruths. And our kids and many adults are swallowing that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

When asked about the history of the universal failure of Socialist nations, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quick to correct that question: “What we need is not the old Socialism. What we need and must have in the U.S. is Democratic Socialism,” says AOC.

So let’s today compare Socialism with Democratic Socialism. We’ll then consider Capitalism and contrast and compare how each has succeeded or failed.

Socialism

Exactly what is Socialism? Webster defines it these two ways:

1.  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. (It requires termination of Capitalism)

2.  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Socialism is almost totally a political system, which does claim to magically solve all problems even though a socialist concept is what creates the problems that result in its inevitable failure. The Soviet Union is a good example. The claim for establishing the socialist Soviet Union was to solve the disparity between rich and poor and assure that everyone will have at least a minimum good life. (“Hey Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: does that sound familiar?”) The reality is, Socialism Soviet-style resulted in making everyone extremely poor and destitute, including people who were not poor before it was instituted.

Democratic Socialism

As compared with “Normal” Socialism, Democratic Socialism means that this political reality—the abolition of capitalism—will be achieved and administered through democratic, as opposed to authoritarian, means.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website explains: “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”

AOC defines Democratic Socialism this way: “So when millennials talk about concepts like Democratic Socialism, we’re not talking about these kinds of ‘Red Scare’ boogeyman,” she said. “We’re talking about countries and systems that already exist that have already been proven to be successful in the modern world.”

Ocasio-Cortez has likened her view of Democratic Socialism to Scandinavian Social Democracy. The congresswoman’s progressive platform consists of a single-payer health care system that covers all forms of health care.

“We’re talking about single-payer health care that has already been successful in many different models, from Finland to Canada to the UK,” she said.

She also believes in tuition-free public colleges and universities. Her platform includes guaranteeing Americans a living wage that maintains “basic levels of dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “That’s what democratic socialism means in 2019, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.”

Capitalism

“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Capitalism has always been the home of true entrepreneurship, encouraging through free market trade the initiative for people to create and develop new technology and continual innovation for improvement and invention. Those who take advantage of the capitalistic environment receive rewards tied directly to their efforts. 

The greatest drawback of Capitalism is corruption that results in individuals and groups from both private and government sectors taking advantage of capitalistic opportunities to garner power and wealth: sometimes illegally and sometimes skirting the law but doing so unethically.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  2. The fifth would pay $1.
  3. The sixth would pay $3.
  4. The seventh would pay $7.
  5. The eighth would pay $12.
  6. The ninth would pay $18.
  7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected: they would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

  1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
  3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
  4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

  1. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
  2. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
  3. “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
  4. “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

Summary

Socialism, whether called simply that or with the word “Democratic” in the front, is nothing new. And there have been those who have tried and tried to get Americans to take more than just a passing glimpse at Socialism to try here. Very smart men and women have spurned the idea for a couple of centuries. They have stood on America’s shores and watched Socialism destroy cultures and societies all around the World. One of them was Ronald Reagan and long before he became President. A half-century ago, “The Gipper” had this to say about Socialism:

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system AND Socialism works. The people who pay the highest taxes today or do the most effort and provide the greatest amount of work in Socialism don’t get any extra benefit from what they bring “to the table.” Like the guys who met for drinks in the bar night after night — especially the guy who made the most money. Tax him too much, attack him for being wealthy, take from him the extra he put into the system, and he just may not show up anymore. In fact, he might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier!

One of our forefathers was asked once why Socialism never lasts anywhere. When does Socialism die? His answer: “It happens every time the country spends all of the ‘other’ guy’s money and there’s none of the ‘other’ guy’s money left.”

Play

The “One That Got Away”

Uncle Ted was a master fisherman. How do I know that? Uncle Ted said so! After retirement, he fished every day except Sundays. Ted always brought home a bunch of fish. And why not? He was a master fisherman. In his eyes that meant that he knew which was the best rod and reel, best lure, best live bait, and, of course, he knew the best fishing holes (which he kept secret) AND the perfect time of day to fish.

No matter that Ted was a master fisherman, there was always “One that Got Away.” As good a fisherman as Ted was, caught and brought home quite a few whoppers most days, and at least once a week there came with that batch of fish a story about the “One that Got Away.” It was the biggest, strongest, most evasive and most beautiful fish he’d ever seen. How big was it? Well, that depended on which week and to whom he told the story. It seemed to everyone in the family that years ago when Ted told us about that fish that got away, it’s MUCH larger today than it was then. 

Every family has an “Uncle Ted.” Most of the time we smile at the stories, knowing that next week’s one that got away was going to be even bigger. We shrug off Ted and his stories and go about our business. That’s just the way one handles stories like that.

The Crabtrap

Have you ever been crabbing? As a South Louisiana boy, I learned about crabbing early on. You bait and use a crab trap. Here’s how it goes:

A crab trap is a box-shaped wire contraption that has a round hole in the top. When it’s time to catch crabs, you put bait inside the trap on the bottom, drop the trap into the water where crabs live, and just wait. After enough time has passed for crabs to discover that feast in that trap and crawl through that hole to munch on that chicken neck you left, you pull the trap out of the water. And if you’re lucky, you’ll find several crabs have taken the bait and are in the trap.

If you step back and watch those crabs for a while, you’ll usually see one that figures out there’s a way to escape their bleak future by getting out of the trap. That crab will crawl up the side of the trap across the wire top to get to that hole he crawled through to begin his trek. But seldom does he make it out of the trap. Why?

Inevitably, one or several of the crabs sharing the trap reaches up with a claw, latch onto the escaping crab, and pull him back to the floor of the trap with them. More often than not, that crab never makes an escape.

81 And Counting

As of yesterday, heads of Democrat-controlled committees in the House of Representatives had notified 81 people via letter and/or subpoena their committees’ demands for either production of specific documents or appearances before committees to give sworn testimony or both.

What are they looking for?

Do you remember March 17, 2017? Almost two years ago, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate Donald Trump and the Trump Campaign. Here’s how (just in case you’ve forgotten):

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600.1 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.”

For two years with the unfettered resources and permissions of every department of the Federal Government and with an unlimited budget, Robert Mueller has exhaustively investigated Donald Trump and the Trump Campaign for alleged collusion with the Russian government to affect the 2016 presidential election in his favor. $25 million or so dollars and two years later, NO COLLUSION. All “leaked” notices from the Mueller camp indicate his wrap-up report of the investigation is imminent and is alleged to contain no damning evidence of collusion and no evidence implicating the President.

In light of the constant badgering by Democrats and even some Republicans threatening President Trump for any interference he might make to fire Mueller, cut funding for the investigation or in any way use his power and authority to impact or stop it, President Trump has made NO efforts to do so. Numerous times in fact he has publicly stated he had NO intentions to intervene in any way. He clearly stated again and again he simply wanted it completed.

In light of all this, why then are those House Committees going after the President, current and past members of his administration, and even his family members?

At TruthNewsNetwork, on numerous occasions we have clearly made the case predicting that when the Mueller probe is completed, IF there is no referral from Mueller that includes evidence sufficient to warrant impeachment proceedings by the House, Democrats will perpetuate investigations in the all things Trump. Their purpose: do anything and everything necessary to 1) impeach Trump and remove him from office; or 2) blanket him and all those working with him in his presidency with subpoenas, hearings, forced testimony, all the while using their weaponized Media partners to perpetuate claims against Mr. Trump that will push him over the edge so as to pressure him to walk away — resign.

Here’s Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY):

Lots of allegations of crimes. Yet Nadler made it clear there is NO evidence of those alleged crimes. Mueller hasn’t found any.

Wasn’t Congressman Nadler one of the loudest Democrats with demands directed at the President to stay clear of interference with Robert Mueller and his investigation? Didn’t he as did so many other Democrats claim numerous times that the President “clearly” obstructed justice and there is “evidence” proving collusion with Russians in the 2016 election?

Nadler along with House Democrats “other” hitman Adam Schiff have made it clear that they know factually President Trump committed criminally impeachable offenses. My question is this: both Nadler and Schiff served on this same committee in the previous House of Representatives when Dems were in the minority. They participated in their committee’s significant investigation into these charges against the President. Schiff and Nadler both have all through the first two years of this Administration claimed to have such evidence of Trump wrongdoing.  So why did they not turn that evidence over to Robert Mueller? Better yet, why did they not turn that evidence over to the leadership of their own committee?

What Are Democrats Up To?

It’s one of two things and may be about both:

  1. Politics and nothing more. Democrats were shocked when Trump beat Hillary in 2016. One can only imagine the plans they had for the continuation of their march to Socialism that began under Obama. They were all given a taste during Obama’s eight years of just what having almost unilateral power over everything and everybody in the federal government could do. And they liked it. They could not wait until they could install “The Clinton Presidency, Part II” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Trump definitely rained on their parade. NONE of their plans carefully crafted for governing in the next eight years could be achieved. They didn’t even have House or Senate control! They had to get it back. And their desperation’s first method was to launch a faux investigation into Trump claiming the Russian collusion. When it became obvious that in spite of the Clinton Campaign’s underwriting that dossier to entice the FBI to go after Mr. Trump, no dirt showed up even if there was any. Their other political ploy was instigated with their midterm election victory to take control of the House. That opened Pandora’s box of investigations: of EVERYTHING Donald Trump.
  2. This second option is the scariest one. Many reading this today are too young to remember Senator Joe McCarthy’s legislative witch-hunt looking for Communists. Dozens of those from Hollywood, New York, and Washington who were “outed” as Communists or Communist sympathizers were ruined professionally and privately by McCarthy’s strongarm tactics. Just like today’s Trump investigations, truth and evidence were NOT necessary elements of McCarthy’s work. Allegations and innuendo were all that were needed at the time. There is NO question in my mind that Schiff, Nadler and Company have examined how McCarthy did it and are using his methods (at least in part) to cut short Trump’s tenure in the White House.

Summary

So what does the story of Uncle Ted and the Crabtrap have to do with today’s narrative above? Simple: Democrats in Trump’s first two years went after him. They at first tried to be subtle. But with each failure by Mueller to uncover Trump wrongdoing, Dems grew angrier and more and more desperate.

To make matters worse for Democrats, Trump’s policies implemented in 2017 and 2018 began to work, and work dramatically. The economy took off in every sector. Unemployment numbers over and over again set historical records. Federal tax receipts zoomed to never before seen numbers — even with across the board tax cuts.

Democrats got scared.

Then when it became obvious to most that the Mueller probe was about finished with no findings of criminality, their heads exploded. They HAD to do something. So they now have literally taken the law into their own hands.

Uncle Ted represents Democrats. And the fish that go away is President Trump. Just like Uncle Ted, Democrats are very upset that their fish apparently escaped when everyone thought Robert Mueller had caught him.

Think about it: how are legal investigations structured and implemented? First, when a crime is committed, law enforcement officials launch, implement, and complete an all-out investigation to pull together evidence that reveals every detail of that crime: the perpetrator, motive, and any involvement by others.

Beginning with the Mueller probe, this investigatory process in place for two centuries was turned upside down!

What crime had been committed sufficient to initiate an investigation? What evidence was there?

The instigation of the Mueller probe (and subsequently this “new” probe) was the anger and hatred Democrats have for Donald Trump. THERE APPARENTLY WAS NO CRIME. This probe should have NEVER been initiated.

The crabtrap?

Sources of the vitriol from Democrats for Mr. Trump are two in number. Obviously, his resounding defeat of Hillary set the fire. But to make matters worse, all of the Trump Administration’s accomplishments have poured gasoline on that fire again and again.

The “crabology” story explains how Democrats have responded. Instead of paying attention to Trump’s reasoning and methodology that together resulted in the tremendous victories for the U.S., they chose to instead of joining the President in crawling out of the trap of high unemployment, massive government deficit spending, shrinking military protection, loss of international credibility, and almost unexplainable gross domestic product soaring growth, Democrats paid no attention to those successes. All they saw was Trump was taking Americans out of the trap with him. They couldn’t let that happen! So they’re doing everything within their power to pull him back to the bottom where THEY are. Sadly, American citizens — if they are successful — will be pulled right down with him, back on their level.

That’s a sad story on many levels. But the most saddening part is that Democrats should be reveling in the amazing progress made under this president in just two years.

What will the results of this all be? Who knows. But at least there are enough knowledgeable and impartial people to keep the truth in the minds of Americans. There are very few of those people in today’s media. But thankfully Americans on the most part are wading through the mud to find the truth in all this. “Truth will out.” And it is happening.

Stay tuned! The “Trump Saga” is just getting started. It still has close to six years to go — I hope!

Civil War: About Race or Something Else?

We are inundated in today’s U.S. about the racial divide that has existed for several hundred years. It is amazing to me that with our living in the greatest country in world history, arguably the most innovative technology in existence (with the exception of maybe China), and without question the best economy on Earth today, we do NOT tackle the problems that go hand in hand with racial divide and racism to finally put this puppy to bed. The most frustrating part of that? “IF” we honestly did address the issues from all sides, Americans could resolve ALL of those differences. But we don’t — and we never have.

Just so you remember, here are a few notes about the Civil War:

The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861.  The war ended in Spring, 1865.  Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865.  The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865.

At the beginning of the war, the Northern states had a combined population of 22 million people. The Southern states had a combined population of about 9 million. This disparity was reflected in the size of the armies in the field. The Union forces outnumbered the Confederates roughly two to one. The “North,” or Union forces, numbered approximately 2.1 million while the “South,” or Confederate forces, numbered approximately  1.08 million.

Approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during the Civil War. This number comes from an 1889 study of the war performed by William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore. Both men fought for the Union. Their estimate is derived from an exhaustive study of the combat and casualty records generated by the armies over five years of fighting.  A recent study puts the number of dead as high as 850,000.

620,000 soldiers died in the Civil War. 644,000 Americans died in all OTHER wars combined. It wasn’t until Vietnam American military war death total numbers passed those lost solely in the Civil War. Needless to say, it was a horror to this nation then and still is. And many Americans still struggle with its aftermath. Those struggles stretch across the entire landscape of the United States and touch every sector of our lives.

The War impacted every American and even those who lived here without citizenship.  With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, African-Americans – both free and runaway slaves – came forward to volunteer for the Union cause in substantial numbers. Beginning in October, approximately 180,000 African-Americans, comprising 163 units, served in the U.S. Army, and 18,000 in the Navy. That month, the 1st Kansas Colored Volunteers repulsed a Confederate attack at Island Mound, Missouri. Men of the U.S.C.T. (United States Colored Troops) units went on to distinguish themselves on battlefields east and west – at Port Hudson, Louisiana; Honey Springs, Oklahoma; Fort Wagner, South Carolina; New Market Heights, Virginia. African Americans constituted 10% of the entire Union Army by the end of the war, and nearly 40,000 died over the course of the war.

Slaves and free blacks were present in the Confederate lines as hand servants and manual laborers. On March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles, with the provision “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which said slaves shall bear toward their owners,” i.e. that black soldiers would still be slaves. On March 14, 1865, the Confederate military issued General Orders No. 14, which provided for the raising of black combat regiments, but there is no official military documentation that indicates these orders were carried out or that any black soldiers were ever properly enlisted in the Confederate army. There are a few photographs of blacks in Confederate uniforms, but these appear to be hoaxes.

So What Started “The War Between the States?”

While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that “The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won the election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries.”

The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.

The agricultural South utilized slaves to tend to its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.

The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery.

States quickly jumped into the fray as well, but not so much about slavery. Seldom discussed in Civil War conversations are the “State issues” of the day. State issues arose from State rights as compared to those of the federal government. Remember: many American settlers fled from Europe less than a century before. They fled to America in large part to get out from under the heavy hand of a government that controlled just about every aspect of their lives. The framers of the Constitution made it clear with the First Ten Amendments — known better as “The Bill of Rights” — that the ONLY rights held by the federal government were those that were specifically given to them by the States. Jefferson and Company were petrified that any United States federal government would as quickly as possible seize control of Americans throughout the New World. They were committed to prevent that from happening. Many leaders in that evolving nation feared the power that the centralized government in the U.S. was spreading itself into. Their fear of a too powerful federal government was a large contributing factor to the Civil War. The southern States were impacted in greater fashion because of slavery.

But were these concerns driven by disdain or hatred for Africans? Was the racial divide that is so powerful today in America a force in the attack on Fort Sumter? And was that racial chasm initiated by hatred for diversity, ethnic origin, religion, and skin color?

To the editorial staff of TruthNewsNetwork, honestly ALL of the above contributed to the deadliest war in U.S. history. Just imagine how much more devastation Americans would have sustained if the armies of the Union and Confederacy had access to weapons as do our current military members!

The “Rest of the Story”

Throughout human history whenever two countries or two factions within a country or MULTIPLE factions determine their differences substantiate going to war, seldom does this happen with just one specific initiating factor. Certainly, slavery was a HUGE factor in the Civil War. Historians have on the most part ignored this in discussions about the reason or reasons for the Civil War — until the 1990s. Then things changed a bit.

One major universal factor in historical wars was almost always economics. Let’s face it: dollars and cents or money in some other form are the energy that drives the growth of all nations in many different ways. The economy in the United States in the run-up to the Civil War was in transition. But until the 1990s, historians pretty much ignored the role that American economics might have played in starting the Civil War. The efforts to explain economic growth and the timing of the United States’ “take-off” into industrialization in the decades leading up to the 1860s, together with extensive research into the “economics” of the slave system of the South and the impact of emancipation, brought economic questions dealing with the Civil War to the front of the line in “causes of the War” discussions.

No one seriously doubts that the enormous economic stake the South had in its slave labor force was a major factor in the disputes that erupted in the middle of the nineteenth century. Remember this: northern states were NOT exempt from slavery. They sooner than southern states took action to move away from slavery, but slavery was not new to those settlers. Slaves and slavery made a huge impact on Americans socially AND economically. And “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Throughout World history, many wars have been fought and millions have died in the name of $$$$.

Historians in the early 1990s took the cue and launched into an analysis of the economic impact of slavery in the South. Here are some of their findings:

  • In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion. In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states.
  • In the cotton regions, the importance of slave labor was even greater. The value of capital invested in slaves roughly equaled the total value of all farmland and farm buildings in the South. Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly.
  • It is hardly surprising that Southern slaveowners in 1860 were optimistic about the economic future of their region. They were, after all, in the middle of an unparalleled rise in the value of their slave assets.
  • A historical economist named Gerald Gunderson unearthed some amazing facts regarding the economics of slavery in the South. In the seven states where most of the cotton was grown, almost one-half the population were slaves, and they accounted for 31 percent of white people’s income; for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites’ income. That explained why Southerners — even those who did not own slaves — viewed any attempt by the federal government to limit the rights of slaveowners over their property as a potentially catastrophic threat to their entire economic system.
  • “Cotton is King” was heard all over the South, but also in the Northern States. The economic impact of cotton exploded in every sector of the U.S. The export of cotton exploded. By the 1850s the large majority of cotton produced in America was shipped to and sold in Great Britain and Europe. The Northern States benefited greatly as cotton drove the economic opportunities in the textile industry and other sectors in the Industrial Revolution. Slaves in the South primarily planted, developed, and harvested cotton that northern textile mills turned much of it into cotton products. The remainder primarily went to Great Brittain or Europe.
  • With so much to lose on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, economic logic suggests that a peaceful solution to the slave issue would have made far more sense than a bloody war. Yet no solution emerged.

Summary

There is no doubt that slavery was the match that lit the fire that consumed the lives of 600,000+ in the Civil War. But was racial animus the cause? Critical thinkers disagree. (Of course they do! They disagree on everything) Those “experts” are actually split right down the middle on that issue. But one thing is certain: money played a significant role. Don’t get me wrong: race did too. But it is time to take a step back and analyze the total story from every side. If one does so, finding that economic factors and the way they played in the U.S. during this piece of the Industrial Revolution probably played an equal role in the Civil War as did slavery. How so?

Southerners did not want to give up their revenue generating platform! Abrahan Lincoln and Republicans were NOT against the wonderful economic achievements directly and indirectly derived from the cotton industry. They were opposed to the ownership of humans by other humans. And, quite honestly, slavery has been the principal contributor to the racial fires that still to this day burn brightly in America.

Is there a way to a resolution on these disagreements?

The discussions of reparations keep coming up again and again and are once again on the minds of Americans, thanks to Democrat 2020 presidential candidates already on the campaign trail. Whether or not reparations are “owed,” are necessary, or even workable is a hypothetical conversation we will NOT undertake at TruthNewsNetwork. It’s tough enough to analyze factual data to reach factual conclusions. Without that data, a reparations conversation is nothing more than more fuel to this raging fire of racial tension and divide.

Unfortunately, the political agenda has for 150+ years kept racism around as a convenient tool to use whenever politically appropriate. Doing so is a blight on the political landscape of the U.S. But human nature has always prevailed in this depraved pursuit of a division.

And it’s intentional. Sadly, there are those who surreptitiously find ways to insert racial animus in every political conversation. Their objective for doing so? Division. One would think that after so many years of watching the cyclical rise and fall public outcry against racial issues, America’s political leaders would diligently determine to finally smoke the “peace pipe” of unity and find an effective process to bring Americans back together. Obviously, that has NOT happened. And sadly, I cannot see that happening in the current political atmosphere.

But there’s hope: hope in the fact that this nation is really “One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The critical word of that sentence is “all.”

Who can be the tie that binds? Who can tamp down the massive fires of racism that burn ever so brightly from the West to the East?

I have no idea who that might be. But what I know for absolute certainty is that God opened the door to this nation, has led through a couple of centuries groups of people in leadership in the right direction for the people of the United States, and that He will continue moving us down that path. We’ve made mistakes. But getting and giving forgiveness for those mistakes and making route adjustments is what being human beings that interact with each other is all about.

We’ll get there. Boy, I hope it will happen in my lifetime!

Here’s one factor that will play heavily into the timing of total racial reconciliation in America: when we EACH are willing to say to each other, “Just because I think something is right doesn’t automatically make it right. And just because I think something is wrong doesn’t automatically make it wrong.”

You’ve heard that multiple times in our stories. That is a principle that honest Americans must grasp before we will ever achieve racial unity.

I’m positive: I’m certain we can do it!

“Anything worth having is worth hurting for.”

If hurting is necessary for racial harmony, I think Americans have hurt just about enough now!

Let’s take a hint from Larry the Cable Guy, and “Get ‘er Done!”

 

Play