It’s a horrible word that defines a horrible situation: Demagoguery. It is today alive in America: and it ain’t because of Donald Trump!

Let’s just consider Webster’s definition of the word, and YOU decide how applicable it is for insertion into the U.S. political system:

“Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people. Demagoguery isn’t based on reason, issues, and doing the right thing; it’s based on stirring up fear and hatred to control people.”

In 2019, Demagoguery is rampant throughout the political landscape. Honestly, it’s been alive in D.C. for decades or more. But politicians have been effective at keeping its identity hidden with political platitudes and verbiage to which Americans have become accustomed. We were pretty much lulled to sleep. But then came Donald Trump.

It is certainly true that the President is verbose, often crude, and self confident that borders on narcissism, but NO ONE who knows Donald Trump on a personal level can truthfully claim he is a Demagogue — thought Democrats try.

The Making of A Demagogue

Demagogues in politics are abundant. We’ll talk in a few minutes about the ones making headlines right now. But if a person wants a career in politics, creating just the right public perception is mandatory. And that perception is often created by leaders of whichever party he or she embraces. And that perception/persona is created and perpetuated for a specific political identity — one that will smoothe the path for campaign contributions and harvest votes for those candidates and other members of their party.

The authenticity of identity gets tossed into the Potomac to be replaced by the “Identity of the Day, Month, or Year” the party agenda ala carte dictates.

And if any politician wishes to win the White House, the best way is to make the most noise, be the loudest, and convince Americans they need that politician in charge. In most cases, however, the Demagoguery comes LATER — after a political leader has amassed enormous power, has passed out political favor and the perks that go with it, and learns that he or she who knows where all the skeletons are buried has virtually uncontrollable power. And they act that way. They become Demagogues.

Some would say that Donald Trump is a Demagogue. And they would be wrong. By its definition, Trump is anything but that. He is too pro-American, too into the American people, and too uninterested in assuming any control over people. He shows that over and over again. In the Mueller probe, he ordered everyone in his Administration to testify when asked, turnover every document when subpoenaed, and to fully cooperate with the Special Counsel. Certainly, his predecessor would have interrupted if not interfered with the process as he did in other investigations to thwart those conducting them. Not Trump.

But there are Demagogues in D.C. Nancy Pelosi’s name comes to power along with that of Chuck Schumer. Pelosi made a mad tour to Europe to meet with European leaders not long ago. In those meetings, she told those with whom she met that she as Speaker of the House had equal power with the President. In fact, she told them that the House now under Democrat control– her control — means she and the House are MORE powerful than this president. Chuck Schumer runs the minority in the Senate with a whip and his demeaning conversations. It is obvious he hates everyone in D.C. that doesn’t answer to him and is a government control freak. And he deplores the President.

And then there’s “The Media.” Let’s face it: today’s mainstream media no longer present actual news — political policy partisanship is what we see and hear in every news story. Truth is immaterial, facts no longer matter, and who’s in charge of what to report and what to keep hidden is no longer even kept secret. And there are Demagogues in the media. Bill O’Reilly was shot down at FOX News in spite of his massive audience and revenue generation for FOX. His Achilles heel apparently were the ladies. And Bill apparently felt he was too important, too famous, and too good at netting his boss big advertising dollars to be replaced. FOX proved him wrong. Bill had become a Demagogue in conservative television talk.

Across the aisle in media, there are plenty of examples of Demagoguery. Rachel Maddow has become the goddess of MSNBC. Commentators on the View act on-air like none of their guests have a clue about anything and work diligently on every show to prove that fact to those who dare show up. The two divas there are Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar who no one messes with. No one on television is more controlling and manipulative than those two.

Demagogues Under attack

The benign permission for Demagoguery that has existed in D.C. that no one there even tries to hide anymore is under an onslaught today. That onslaught is led actually by Mr. Trump. His primary tool is this: confrontation using the truth. And his doing so has rocked Washington. And they simply don’t know how to respond. Trump attacks all the ridiculousness in governing head-on. He understands the elitism that actually fuels Demagoguery there and he laughs at it — and the Demagogues that he faces. He lives as Achilles lived — at least the way Brad Pitt did in that role in the movie Troy — taking his enemies down one at a time, never bowing and never giving up. Achilles fought face-to-face with his foes, never shying or looking away, always keeping his eye on his enemy. So does Trump.

There’s a new group of Demagogues in D.C. that Trump is taking on right now. He’s appointed an Attorney General who is a no-nonsense lawman who ignores the verbal abuse from the Demagogues in D.C. and from their minions and is steadily just pushing forward with his job of being the chief law enforcer in the nation. The Demagogues have started whining, shouting, and frankly, are crying because their Demagoguery suddenly has been exposed. And they don’t know how to handle. it.

The Mueller Probe was a ruse — a “witchhunt” as the President calls it. It should have never happened, was politically motivated, initiated by a political power push from Demagogues, and its roots have been exposed and are being pulled up one at a time. When AG Barr announced the appointment of John Durham, it was the first spear in the sides of the Demagogues. And they are howling about it. Why? Because they are scared to death.

From our research, we have a list of those — most of which are political Demagogues — who were key “bad” players in the coup attempt to overthrow a president. The net of exposure of involvement has been cast wide by Barr. And it’s covering a bunch of them.

Before we give you the names of those on the list, here’s how this investigation will go: Durham and Barr will start low with those lower in the political pecking order. Durham will determine who were directly involved, exactly how, what they actually did, and who they answered to. Then they will try to parlay that information to obtain information from those people regarding the involvement of those a level higher than they in the government. The Barr/Durham task process is really no different that a local district attorney busting a drug user, then squeezing the drug user to get his supplier, his supplier to get his distributor, and the distributor to get his international drug trafficker.

So let’s look at those involved starting from those low who will likely “give-up” those above them:

Department of Justice (Non-FBI):

  • John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division – announced resignation on September 27, 2016, after filing the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on September 26, 2016. The filing does not disclose known FISA Abuses. Carlin is aware NSA Rogers is conducting a compliance review which will uncover the FISA Abuse. Trump surveillance originated under Carlin’s tenure.
  • Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General (replacing Loretta Lynch – 10 days) – fired January 30, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Mary McCord, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division (replacing John Carlin) – announced resignation on April 17, 2017 – Left on May 11, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Bruce Ohr – Associate Deputy Attorney General – demoted twice. Stripped of Associate Deputy Attorney General title on December 6, 2017. Removed as head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force January 8, 2018. Unofficial liaison between Fusion GPS and FBI/DOJ. Wife worked at Fusion. Long-standing ties to both Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.
  • David Laufman, DOJ National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence – resigned on February 7, 2018. Laufman “played a leading role in the Clinton email server and Russian hacking investigations.”
  • Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General – number three official behind Deputy AG Rosenstein – resigned February 9, 2018. Takes top legal position at Walmart. Brand “played a critical role in Congress’ re-authorization” of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  • Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned)
  • Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  • Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
  • Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. attorneys)
  • Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  • Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)


  • James Comey, FBI Director – fired May 9, 2017. Oversaw all FBI operations – including exoneration of Clinton and Trump-Russia Investigation. Reported to AG Lynch.
  • Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of FBI’s Counterintelligence – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to FBI’s Human Resources. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Strzok involved in all facets of Clinton exoneration. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Strozk was fired August 13, 2018.
  • Lisa Page, FBI/DOJ Lawyer – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to parts unknown. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Baker, FBI General Counsel – demoted and reassigned on December 20, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Senior-most legal counsel at FBI. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Rybicki, Chief of Staff to FBI Director James Comey & successor Chris Wray – resigned/forced out January 23, 2018. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group.
  • Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI Director – on December 23, 2017, announced retirement effective March 22, 2018. Forced to resign on January 29, 2018. Involved in all aspects. Reported to Comey.
  • Josh Campbell – Special Assistant to James Comey – resigned on February 2, 2018. Writes an op-ed in New York Times on why he is leaving but does not disclose in the op-ed that he was Special Assistant to Comey – or that he had been offered lucrative CNN job. Takes a job with CNN on February 5, 2018.
  • Michael Kortan, FBI Asst. Director of Public Affairs – resigned on February 8, 2018 – effective February 15, 2018. Kortan served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access.
  • Bill Priestap, Assistant Director – Head of FBI Counterintelligence – Holds the same position. Strzok’s former boss – reported directly to McCabe.
  • Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  • Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)

CIA: John Brennan

Several Obama holdovers in Intelligence very loudly began attacking those in the Trump Campaign shortly after the 2016 election. Those comments by people with access to intelligence were shameful. But the most sinister of all is John Brennan, who used his authority as former CIA director to suggest that Trump was a traitor and a compromised Russian asset. After Trump’s Helsinki summit, Brennan declared “he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.” When challenged by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Brennan stood by his assessment. “I called [Trump’s] behavior treasonous, which is to betray one’s trust and aid and abet the enemy, and I stand very much by that claim.” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell told Brennan this investigation was “developing while you were still on the job” and asked, “Did you see enough at that stage to believe . . . that would result in indictments?” Brennan replied, “I thought at the time there was going to be individuals who were going to have issues with the Department of Justice. Yes.” In a New York Times op-ed, he wrote that “Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.” Now, Brennan feigns contrition. “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” he said, adding, “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”

DNI: James Clapper

Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said from the very beginning of the “discussions” in the press about Russian collusion ties to the Trump Campaign “there is a there-there.” To CNN’s Erin Burnett, Clapper said, “My understanding is back in the summer of ’16, this all started with questions about financial dealings of trump associates,” Clapper told Burnett. “That’s how this all began.

“It appears to have come, again, with what’s been out in the media – sort of come full circle now. But I don’t see how you exclude or insulate financial dealings here from the investigation.”

The Breakup

James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now feeling the heat and are desperately into attack mode, pointing fingers at each other. This is an example of just how this Demagoguery has already begun to unwind. Listen or watch what Catherine Herridge of FOX News presented earlier this week:


These are just a few of the Demagogues in this whole matter. We didn’t mention Hillary Clinton, those in the Obama White House like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, UN Ambassador Samantha Power, Bill Clinton, and the person who is most likely to either give federal attorney Durham information regarding Obama or face jail. This person’s  involvement was almost certainly criminal. Rather than be prosecuted for at least Obstruction of Justice: this person will surely turn — former National Security Advisor Susan Rice. And we are fairly certain that Ms. Rice is already prepared to sing to save her own skin. Who knows just how far up in the White House implication will go before this matter is done. The uncovering up the coverup which is certainly many layers deep and many players wide has just begun.

The rats are scurrying about, as the ship of deep state appears to be scuttled. This will be a lot of fun to watch. The tables appear to be turning.



Why Single-Parent Homes?

We have been inundated for decades about single-family homes, absent father, welfare, and about all those who fall into these categories. And, quite honestly, most of those conversations include characterizations about welfare recipients that are not very flattering. Stories about minority Americans filling a grocery basket with ribeye steaks, wine, beer, and high dollar snacks then paying for them with food stamps and driving away in a luxury car. I’m not certain about the truth of such stories but I AM certain about negative characterizations of single moms and others who receive government assistance.

Make no mistake: there are those who take advantage of the welfare system. Abuse occurs in every government program in which someone receives benefits there certainly is abuse here. But the fundamental premise of this system is to provide to those who find themselves in dire situations in which suffering without help is real assistance to provide for needs while that person or persons get through their crisis. That’s what Americans do: help each other.

What is also true is that single-parent homes in the U.S. are rapidly climbing in numbers. And with that comes much talk, finger-pointing, and blame.

Before we launch into our investigation of this system, let me make one statement: there are far more Caucasian people that are recipients of welfare and other government assistance than there are African-Americans. Needing and receiving government assistance is NOT color specific: it impacts all races, ethnicities, religions, and those from multiple places of origin. What IS common among them is “need.” That need is why welfare was established and why it has been updated and even expanded over the last decades. Does it need changes? Is there abuse? These are things that need to examined and constantly monitored.

Let’s look at the big picture of this process, get some facts, and objectively begin to understand what those who find themselves receiving government assistance are going through. There’s not wrong with facts to be able to make reasoning decisions!

Truths of the Story

CNN’s Don Lemon says more than 72% of African-American births are out of wedlock. Here’s a look at the numbers Lemon’s uses to support that statement:

Race/Ethnic Group                         Percentage Single-parent

Non-Hispanic Whites                                            25%

Hispanics                                                                   42%

American Indian/Alaskans                                    53%

African-Americans                                                   67%

There has been no significant increase in the number of married-couple families with children in the U.S. since 1965. By contrast, the number of single-parent families with children has skyrocketed by nearly 10 million, rising from 3.3 million in 1965 to 13.2 million in 2012. Since single-parent families are roughly four times more likely to lack self-sufficiency (and be officially poor), this unraveling of family structure has exerted a powerful downward pull against self-sufficiency and substantially boosted the official child poverty rate. When the War on Poverty began, 36 percent of poor families with children were headed by single parents. Today, the figure is 68 percent.

Since the inception of the War on Poverty in 1964, the welfare state has promoted single parenthood in two ways. First, means-tested welfare programs financially enable single parenthood. It is difficult for single mothers with a high school degree or less to support children without the aid of another parent. Means-tested welfare programs substantially reduce this difficulty by providing extensive support to single parents. Welfare thereby reduces the financial need for marriage. Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, less-educated mothers have increasingly become married to the welfare state and to the U.S. taxpayer rather than to the fathers of their children. As means-tested benefits expanded, welfare began to serve as a substitute for a husband in the home, and low-income marriage began to disappear. As husbands left the home, the need for more welfare to support single mothers increased. The War on Poverty created a destructive feedback loop: Welfare promoted the decline of marriage, which generated a need for more welfare.

A second major problem is that the means-tested welfare system actively penalizes low-income parents who do marry. All means-tested welfare programs are designed so that a family’s benefits are reduced as earnings rise. In practice, this means that, if a low-income single mother marries an employed father, her welfare benefits will generally be substantially reduced. The mother can maximize welfare by remaining unmarried and keeping the father’s income “off the books.” For example, a single mother with two children who earns $15,000 per year would generally receive around $5,200 per year of food stamp benefits. However, if she marries a father with the same earnings level, her food stamps would be cut to zero. A single mother receiving benefits from Section 8 or public housing would receive a subsidy worth on average around $11,000 per year if she was not employed, but if she marries a man earning $20,000 per year, these benefits would be cut nearly in half. Both food stamps and housing programs provide very real financial incentives for couples to remain unmarried.

There are so many stories about the Welfare System: who benefits from its use, the dangers, the abuses, and the dollars involved. We thought it best to go back and look at its history in the modern world. Bill Clinton took the bull by the horns in his second term and Congress on his watch made the last significant changes in the system. Let’s take a look back so we can (with an educated and factual perspective) know exactly where the U.S. Welfare System is today in the U.S.

Welfare in 21st Century America

April McCray thought she had finally caught a break in late 2005. That’s when the state of Louisiana granted cash assistance to the single mother through the Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF) program. (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) It was her first experience with America’s welfare program.

McCray, who had been in and out of work, struggled to make ends meet. This, she hoped, would at least help soften the burden.

But a month later, the state stripped her of the benefits without a clear explanation, she said. Since then, she says Louisiana, which controls state and federally allocated TANF dollars, has denied her requests for assistance several times.

“It gets depressing,” said McCray, who in 2019, was still struggling. With three kids and rarely more than a part-time job, she says she needs help she can’t seem to get from a welfare system that was overhauled 20 years ago.

Overhauling welfare was a hallmark of then-President Bill Clinton’s time in office. When he signed welfare reform into law on Aug. 22, 1996, he declared at a ceremony in the White House’s Rose Garden that it would “end welfare as we know it.”

Twenty years later, few would dispute the accuracy of that prediction. Welfare is, and has been, a vastly different system than it was prior to the law, which gave states wide control over their own welfare programs by allocating to them block grants.

So, two decades-plus later, are those changes working? It depends whom you ask.

TANF’s legacy has divided policy experts, with supporters saying it put an emphasis on work and increased employment among single mothers in the process while also reducing poverty overall. The program’s critics say it tore a hole in the safety net for people who remained in poverty and couldn’t find steady work, like McCray.

“(TANF) did shift the emphasis toward work. I think that is something where there has been a lot of agreement,” said Heather Hahn, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. “… As far as whether people are better off, I do think they are, in some cases, worse off.”

What America’s welfare system used to be

Welfare didn’t exist in America before the Great Depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. It officially came into being as a rule under the Social Security Act in 1935, offering aid to families with dependent children (AFDC).

In establishing the program, the federal government, for the first time, took responsibility for helping children with a parent who was dead, gone or otherwise incapacitated. Previously, those children most likely would have been institutionalized.

Over several decades, AFDC went through several changes and revisions, perhaps most notably in 1961 when it expanded its definition of a “deprived child” to include one who had an unemployed parent. And, though the benefits were small, many families did end up dependent — and the criticism poured in.

The program was blamed for encouraging unwed mothers, and for discouraging work. It included phaseout rates, meaning that dollars earned meant less dollars in assistance.

Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan chipped away at changes, instituting job training and work requirements for AFDC participants. But by the 1990s, calls were clearly pouring in for change.

Enter Bill Clinton, who championed the most radical overhaul of America’s welfare system to date. Clinton, amid a re-election campaign, made reforming the program part of his bid to win back the White House.

When TANF became a law, a lot changed

The newly minted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) put an emphasis on getting people out of poverty and to work.

Under TANF, recipients in most cases are required to participate in work activities for 30 hours a week. Combined with expansions to the Earned Income Tax Credit, a tax credit for people with low- to-moderate-income jobs, TANF succeeded in getting people to work, especially during Clinton’s presidency.

From 1996 to 2000, employment rates among never-married mothers shot from 63% to 76%, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Additionally, both poverty rates among families with single mothers and overall poverty rates dropped.

“The welfare reform legislation moved us in the right direction by being much more aggressive about employment for the single mother population,” said Robert Doar, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who was formerly the commissioner of welfare in New York City.

Employment and poverty rates have leveled off in the long term, which has resulted in disagreement among policy experts about just how effective TANF has been in increasing employment, though most agree that it at least helped move the needle.

Where the law has failed, experts say, is by leaving behind those at the very bottom — the group of people in deep poverty who typically haven’t been able to find work, like McCray.

Studies have found that since TANF was instituted, deep or extreme poverty has increased. A 2011 study by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center found that families living on less than $2 per person a day more than doubled from 1996 to 2011.

Block grants: The good and the bad

Hahn of the Urban Institute and Liz Schott of the CBPP each attribute the rise in deep poverty largely to TANF. They pointed to three main flaws with the legislation: the block grants don’t adjust for inflation; states have often spent large portions of their TANF dollars on things other than basic assistance; and states sometimes have incentives to cut needy recipients loose from the program.

Since TANF became law, states have received fixed block grants from the federal government. When lawmakers were constructing TANF, Democrats in Congress wanted to include an inflation adjustment for the grants, said Ron Haskins, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who helped draft welfare reform as a staff member on the House Committee on Ways and Means.

An inflation adjustment would have enabled the amount of the block grants to increase along with inflation. But the law passed through a Republican-held Congress without one.

“Remember, in 1996 we were in midst of a huge budget fight, and Republicans were trying to balance the budget and savings were a huge deal,” said Haskins, who considers the reform mostly a success.

Not adjusting for inflation has caused the block grants to erode by about a third since 1996, according to the CBPP. That has essentially reduced the benefits states can give out, as well as the number of families that receive benefits, even as the number of needy families hasn’t been going down.

In addition, states have great flexibility in how they can spend their block grants. The money spent must fit into one of TANF’s four main purposes: assisting needy families; promoting work and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancy; and increasing two-parent families.

States have wide discretion in determining what falls under those broad purposes, and that has led to significant spending on things other than core welfare services.

That’s a problem, Hahn said, because providing families with cash or helping parents find jobs are the two most effective ways to lift families out of poverty, since both provide them with incomes. In the most recent data available, 26% of national TANF spending went toward cash welfare, while only 8% went to work programs, according to the CBPP.

“It doesn’t always have to be about cash, but it should be about getting people to work,” Schott said.


Donald Trump didn’t often discuss welfare reform or TANF during his presidential campaign or so far in his presidency. But in his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, Trump praised welfare reform for emphasizing work and said other welfare programs should follow the same approach.

While discussing welfare in an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity, though, Trump said people need even more of an incentive to work — which he would seek to create.

“Right now, they have a disincentive,” he said in the interview. “They have an incentive not to work.”

The Trump Administration has paid an enormous amount of time in examination of the U.S. social safety environment. They have made remarkable changes in areas in which Americans have suffered and seemingly been ignored. It is likely that between today and the day of the 2020 election we will see dramatic and positive moves made by this Administration to improve America’s welfare system.

One thing we know for certain: Mr. Trump cares tremendously for Americans. That’s NOT just true about today. His life before politics was full of stories in which he helped numerous Americans who faced problems of many kinds that were no fault of their own. I imagine he’s still the same man and feels the same about his fellow Americans.


A “One State Solution,” or is it “Two?”

For most of my life, I’ve listened in on the conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews. I specifically entered the world of international politics as a result of the 1967 war between the two. Beginning then — and still to this day — I watch and listen to the ongoing feud between Israel and the Palestinians over a piece of land praying we don’t have another war.

“How could any country — even Israel — take land from another country, hold onto to it, settle it, with no regard for its rightful and native people?” That’s the narrative most often used in discussions about these ongoing conflicts — from the Palestinian perspective. Of course, the Israeli version sounds much different. There are infrequent but deadly skirmishes between the two and much political rhetoric that is really just arguing with everybody claiming “their” land and “their” rights and always at the expense of the other.

So what IS the truth of the matter? Who owns what? Who SHOULD own what? What is the history of all this? How can it be resolved IF it even can be resolved?

When in doubt, it’s always good to get facts. That’s just what we’ve done!

The Nation of Palestine

There is NO nation of Palestine. In fact, there never has been. So where did all this uproar begin and over what? Let’s examine the “modern” history of the two entities.

BIG Shrimp in Kuala Lumpur

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 proposed to divide the geographical region of Palestine into two independent countries: one with a Jewish majority and one with the Arab majority. The leadership of the Jews in the region accepted the plan; the leadership of the Arabs didn’t.

In 1948 the leader of the Jews, David Ben-Gurion, declared an independent Jewish country named Israel according to this plan. The local Arabs, assisted by armies of the neighboring Arab countries, attacked this state, beginning a war called “The War of Independence” in Israel. Israel won, in the sense that it did not succumb and kept its sovereignty within borders that were larger than what the 1947 U.N. plan allotted it. (A large part of the vitriol between the two comes from the United Nations allotment of 1947. I too wonder, “How does the U.N. have the power to determine any nation or nations’ borders? As a matter of international law, THEY DON’T!

When a ceasefire was reached, the northern part of the lands that (according to the U.N. plan) were supposed to become an Arab state (Western Galilee) became Israeli territory and the Arabs who lived there received Israeli citizenship. The central part, known as Judea and Samaria or the West Bank, became part of the Kingdom of Jordan, and the southern part, known as the Gaza strip became part of Egypt. In the process, many Arabs left their homes and became known as the Palestinian refugees.

For the next 19 years, Israel kept developing and absorbed many Jewish refugees from Arab countries. The idea of an Arab state in Palestine was somewhat forgotten, but Israel kept having conflicts with neighboring Arab countries, and the climax of this was the 1967 Six-day War. In the short, but intense, war, the Israeli army occupied all of the West Bank and Gaza. In 1948 these territories were supposed to become an Arab state, but in practice, they were administered by Jordan and Egypt and nobody complained much. After Israel took over, the idea of a Palestinian state was revived and pushed intensely.

In 1988 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared an independent state of Palestine. It didn’t specify the borders, but it did specify that it is an Arab state. This declaration was symbolic because this organization worked in Tunisia and had no effective presence in the land of Palestine.

In 1993 Israel signed the Oslo accords with this organization, establishing the Palestinian National Authority, effectively giving the PLO partial sovereignty in part of the West Bank and Gaza. In Israel, it is frequently called “autonomy” or “authority.” It has its own passport, police, and government. Some countries recognize it as an independent state and call it “State of Palestine,” but this recognition is not universal.

As of 2019, the conflict with Israel continues, because the authority, as well as other Palestinian organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have significant demands, most notably: sovereignty over more land, sovereignty in the city of Jerusalem or at least a part of it, giving Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes, and stopping the enhancement of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank (or destroying them completely). Israel declared several times that it is willing to discuss these things, but it demands from all Palestinian organizations to stop all violent acts against Israel.

So What’s the HubBub?

Palestinians adamantly claim that Israel stole Palestinian land. What do Israeli’s say?

“Israel did not steal Palestinian land. It’s not Palestinians’ land; it’s never been their land. This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator. Despite 27 invasions of Judea and Samaria (called the West Bank), conquests by many, forced conversions, exiles, massive oppression, generations of Diaspora, and cowardly acquiescence by a group of 5th-column Jews themselves, Jews have not only survived in what’s known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael (Israel), but they’ve taken a desert wasteland and turned it into a powerful little democracy, the envy of the world. That cannot be denied.

To her detractors, of whom there are many worldwide, the mantra remains the same, ad nauseam. ‘Israel is complicit in doing this. She omitted doing that.’ ‘We respect Judaism but are against Zionism.’

Attempting to mask anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism, Israel’s enemies continually make accusations in such numbers that much of it sticks.  To cite just a few:

  • Myth: “Israel discriminates against its Arab citizens.” The facts show otherwise. Israel is one of the most open societies in the world. Out of a population of 6.7 million, 1.1 million are Muslims, 130,000 are Christians, and 100,000 are Druze. All have equal voting rights — Israel is one of a very few places where Arab women have the right to vote, and Arabs currently hold 14 seats in the Knesset.
  • Following a five-year trial, in a landmark decision for women’s rights, an Arab judge, Salim Joubran, sentenced the former president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, to seven years in prison for rape. In what Muslim country do Jews have such rights? How many seats do Jews hold in the Saudi government or Jordan? Can anyone recall a Jewish judge sentencing a prominent Arab in Egypt?  More to the point, has anyone ever heard of a Jewish judge in Egypt?


  • Myth: “The Palestinian Authority protects Jewish holy sites.” If so, one important element blocking a sincere peace would be eliminated, but the facts speak otherwise. Just in the years between 1996-2000:
  • In September 1996, Palestinian rioters destroyed a synagogue at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus.
  • Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem has been repeatedly attacked since 1996.
  • In October 2000, Joseph’s Tomb was torched after the Israeli garrison guarding it was temporarily withdrawn.  It was subsequently rebuilt as a mosque.
  • In October 2000, the ancient synagogue in Jericho was destroyed by arson, and a second historic synagogue was damaged.

In textbooks, speech, and daily life, the Palestinians and their supporters deny any Jewish connection at all to these ancient landmarks. This all occurs under nominal Israeli control of these areas.

Why the continuous uproar between Israel and the Palestinians that frequently break out in skirmishes, rocket fire, and deaths in both groups as a result?

The Jews are building settlements on Palestinian land.”

The issue here that started and perpetuates the animus between the two is there is no Palestinian land.  We did extensive research and found no historical evidence of there ever being a Palestinian country with national borders. If there were, when would it have been founded, and by whom?  What would its borders have been, and what about the name of its capital?  What would its major cities have been?  What would have constituted the basis of its economy?  What form of government would it have lived under?

Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? By whom? What was the language of the country called Palestine? What was Palestine’s religion? What was the name of its currency? Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise?

These questions were posed by a Japanese writer, Yashiko Sagamori. Only the most adherent of the Palestinian narrative could even attempt to answer her questions shared above. Pose these same questions regarding Israel and the Jewish connection to this land, each can be answered.

The History

At no time in history has there ever been a nation called Palestine. During the Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 1299-1922, the land dubbed by the Romans as Palestine was controlled by the Turks; there was never an outcry for a Palestinian State then. During the illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan subsequent to the 1949 Armistice and prior to 1967, there was never talk of “occupied territory” or a Palestinian State. Why did the dynamic change subsequent to Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War — a conflict initiated by Palestinians?

Search as you will — throughout the annals of history, Israel is the only nation victorious in war on successive occasions and then expected by the vanquished and the world at large to sue for peace, to cede land she reclaimed that was historically hers, to begin with.

The Jewish people were driven out of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria by the Babylonians. They returned to their homeland and rebuilt the Second Temple only to have it burned again, this time by Romans, and to be once again exiled from their land.

Despite 27 invasions and conquests subsequent to the Grand Monarchy of Kings David and Solomon, Jews have always had a contiguous connection to this land. If not the land of Israel, where are Jews from?  Poland?  Ukraine?  Russia?

Perusing World history, it seems that the Jewish people have a legitimate claim moreso than any other to their historic homeland, and certainly more so than the Palestinian Arabs do.

But it is obvious that Palestinians do NOT agree with that statement. They have fought to the death in the past to show their disagreement. And unless somehow a mutual agreement is reached, they certainly will fight and die again.

The “Two-State” Solution

The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River. The boundary between the two states is still subject to dispute and negotiation, with Palestinian and Arab leadership insisting on the “1967 borders,” which is not accepted by Israel. The territory of the former Mandate Palestine (including Jerusalem) would continue to be part of Israel.

In 1974, a UN resolution on the “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” called for “two States, Israel and Palestine … side by side within secure and recognized borders” together with “a just resolution of the refugee question in conformity with UN resolution 194.” The borders of the state of Palestine would be “based on the pre-1967 borders.” The latest resolution, in November 2013, was passed 165 to 6, with 6 abstentions; with Israel and the United States voting against.

The Palestinian leadership has embraced the concept since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez, Morocco. Israel views moves by Palestinian leaders to obtain international recognition of a State of Palestine as being unilateral action by the Palestinians and inconsistent with a negotiated two-state solution.


Why are we at TruthNewsNetwork making such a big deal out 0f the continuing conflict between these two peoples? Simple: it seems that the conflict is escalating. The recent large number of rockets fired into Israel by Palestinians (or maybe from terrorist groups hiding among the Palestinians) may be a message that they are about to mount a push to take territory from Israel. Hamas and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard — recently labeled as a terrorist organization — both have strongholds among the Palestinians. Most people know the hatred held by these and other terrorist organizations for Israel and the Jewish people.

Further escalating U.S. conversation about the issues between Palestinians and Israelis are the very vocal freshmen Congressional members who are Muslim and who do very vocally back the Palestinians in this conflict with Israel: Somali-born Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). Both have since being elected been embroiled in several serious debates for remarks they have made that are very pointed reminders that they do NOT support Israel and both vehemently oppose a Two-state solution. Their many comments primarily from national talk show interviews seem to many to be outward anti-semitism. Regardless of the validity of that, it is obvious of their support for the Palestinian people in this conversation.

So what will happen regarding the possible resolution? Conventional wisdom says Israel and the Palestinians should work out a mutually acceptable solution. That would be wonderful for everyone else in the World! But it is unlikely to happen. Both peoples have repeatedly marked their point in the sand and have dug-in. Both refuse to budge. Sadly, the losers in that political war of words has been and will continue to be the Palestinian people and Israelis who find themselves in the middle of a political conflict of which they play no part.

There is no doubt the U.S. has been a long time and devoted ally of Israel as are almost all democratic countries in the World. Backing the Palestinian efforts are the obvious countries who are primarily Muslim. Several Middle East countries known for their terrorist activities have and probably will continue to play less than desirable roles in this conflict that seems to just keep going.

If it comes down to another armed conflict, the sense is that Israel — sporting the most powerful military in that region — would unleash its might and power against the Palestinians. The West shudders at that thought because almost certainly if that happens, surrounding countries who are pro-Palestinian militant entities will certainly unite in an all-out effort to forcefully take if not all of Israel the portion claimed by the Palestinians.

I hope we don’t see that conflict. I have no idea what countries in the region have in military assets, but I’m certain Israel has more. And Israel has nuclear weapons — that’s a scary thought!

Maybe that conflict between the two has already been named. I hope not! The conflict I’m thinking of is the Last Battle on Earth, known as Armageddon.

I’d rather not go down that road.


The Evil Among Us

Evil is everywhere, in everything, and spreading.

Let’s be clear: in this conversation, we are NOT speaking of “Evil” in the “axe murderer” connotation. We are speaking of evil that not only is a principle in lawbreaking but the evil that people make part of their minds and hearts which result in their acting-out on that evil — actually committing evil acts.

Example: in the Mueller Report, it is stated that President Trump reportedly called his White House Attorney Don McGhan and told him to call then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and tell Sessions that Mueller has serious conflicts of interest. Because those conflicts disqualified Mueller to serve as Special Counsel in the Russian Collusion investigation, Sessions should fire Mueller. Evil was NOT in that phone call. The evil was in the REPORTING of details of that phone call. Let me explain:

The President was angry because of the mistreatment he was receiving in what has proven to be a devious investigation based on totally false information disguised as “factual evidence.” (But that’s another story) In anger, he did NOT tell McGhan his attorney to fire Mueller as Democrats and the Leftist Media stated over and over, he told McGhan to tell Sessions to do so. The President followed protocol: Sessions as the Attorney General was who should take such action if necessary. But MUELLER WAS NEVER FIRED! And even if he had been fired by the President or his Attorney General, President Trump has the Constitutional power to do just that.

So where’s the evil? That evil lies specifically in the hearts of those Democrats and members of the Media who hold such hatred for Mr. Trump they would parse their reporting to make the President appear evil and that he obstructed justice in that incident. No crime was committed; there was no evil act on the part of the President. Yet many in America believe there was simply because of lies given in the Media. That’s evil.

By the way: there is NO federal statute that states if someone in anger tells another to tell someone else to fire someone, in doing that alone is NOT obstruction of justice.

Evil Itself

Evil is not just present in mass shootings, racial crimes, sexual assaults, barbarism, or financial crimes. Evil lives among all of us. Every human being deals with evil, often without recognizing it or understanding it. But it’s there. For Christians, evil’s product is sin. What is sin? There are 10 basic “Thou Shalt/Thou Shalt Not” sins in the Bible: the Ten Commandments. But the evil in sin far surpasses those ten. The determination of the ten from the Bible is pretty easy. Figuring out all the others can be a job. But make no mistake: by the time little boys learn what little girls are, they know the difference between right and wrong. The same holds true for those little girls.

For this conversation, let’s exclude the discussion of the really evil things most can agree are sins: murder, rape, theft, etc. Most will accept those as sin. Let’s talk about those other evil acts, like “little white lies.” You know: those whispers when the phone rings and your kid answers it and you whisper, “tell them I’m not here” because you don’t want to talk to whoever called. Maybe stealing a candy bar from a convenience store, or faking a business deduction on your tax return to get that extra couple of hundred dollars in your refund. The problem is, telling those “little white lies” is lying. Lies are a product of evil, and therefore sin.

In America today because of the internet and satellite television, Americans are inundated with lies all day every day. We hear lies from politicians. We see lies in television ads. “Lose 15 pounds in 5 days, guaranteed,” and “Buy this watch and get the look of a Rolex, not for $25,000, but for only $200!” We hear so many lies we have become de-sensitized to lies of all kinds — except to those with which we object. And that is where the evil lies.

We are accustomed to hearing, repeating, or originating lies that fit our narrative, no matter the subject. And for those subjects that do not directly impact us or our narrative, we simply ignore them. That dismissing of those lies, in essence, legitimizes the lies themselves, but more importantly legitimizes our doing so again and again which numbs us to lying and says “Lying is not evil — especially when it fits MY narrative or that of those who I determine to be allowed to lie.” Examples?

Barack Obama when “selling” Obamacare: “If you like your doctor, under this plan you can keep your doctor.” “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.” “Premiums for the average family will decrease by $2500 per year.” “It will not add to the nation’s deficit.”

Congressman Anthony Weiner when confronting with sexting: “This was a hoax. It was committed on me, it was a prank, it was a relatively easy one to do, making fun of my name.”

President Bill Clinton: “I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.”

Today’s political news is overrun with lies — far too many to chronicle here. But we don’t need to: everyone sees and hears them over and over again. And that’s part of the problem! Lies are so common we have become desensitized to them. They’ve become part of life and are acceptable to most people — just like those “little white lies.” They may be little and seem inconsequential, but all lies are evil and erode at the fabric of truth and the established principles in the U.S. and in our homes.

Although evil has been alive and thriving since recorded history began, we are witnessing a gush of evil in this century and this decade never-before-seen in the U.S. Evil deeds seem to be steadily climbing in number, increasing in their perverseness, and are certainly being reported breathlessly by a press that (for the purposes of advertising dollars) cannot find a single evil act too nasty to blast across the nation. Evil among us is degrading even the most precious and historically sacred pieces of our life. What has caused this to happen and dramatically increase in number and severity?

  • What possesses a young man to viciously open fire on defenseless movie-goers in Aurora, Colorado? Why did James Holmes intentionally create a bloodbath of horror, killing twelve people and injuring scores of others? Would anyone in his right mind do that?
  • What possesses an old football coach at Penn State University to sexually molest grade school boys? Why did Jerry Sandusky recruit fatherless children through a foundation promising to help them and then abuse them?

We are perplexed about motivation. We’d like some kind of explanation. Is it insanity? Demon possession? Drug addiction? Is it brainwashing from watching violent video games or graphic pornography? What’s prompts people to perform such horrendous deeds?

What’s Going On?

Our society is dying. Infected by a plague that is making our once proud and God-fearing nation a soulless pit; the slow decay of our collective sense of evil and good is affecting every one of us. Many speak of how our country is divided between liberals and conservatives. The truth is that this division represents those that are awake and aware of what is occurring and those that for whatever reason have allowed the temptation of the easy path to blind them to the evils of going down that road. Whether an individual is clueless in his defense of evil or simply chooses to remain silent is irrelevant, failure to speak out against it is aiding in its advancement.

There are also those that believe that attaching a physical object to evil is a way to rid the world of it, as if removing a gun from an honest person’s hand will change the heart of those who are intent on committing murder because their heart has been infected by this sickness; this inability to be able to discern right from wrong — not because there is something wrong with an individual who can no longer make this distinction, but because right and wrong have become nothing but concepts with no absolute values assigned to their definitions. Right and wrong have been erased from the consciousness of millions as the very idea of something being right and something being wrong has come to be considered offensive, and an obstacle to the quest for total equality. In short; moral relativity has destroyed us.

In early August of 2013, in Oklahoma, a man was gunned down by three attackers whose only reason for committing such a heinous crime was because they were bored and thought killing a man would be fun. This story was being reported on all local media outlets, and because it was in a rural part of the state it was just assumed that the three teenagers were white kids. Honestly, no one even cares about the race of these kids. It was just a cold and heartless act driven by the fact that society had failed to instill the value of human life in them. These kids are just as much victims as is the man they killed; victims of a race-baiting machine that places no value on human life but rather hustles race issues for money while teaching it is okay to hate a certain kind of person, to blame a certain kind of person for all of your problems. That’s right, these kids were black, and they murdered a white man because they thought it would be fun.

Recently in Georgia, a public school in Newton County allowed one of its students to hang a poster they had made declaring that God is dead. We all know full well that if it was a poster praising Christianity, it would have been banned. When are we going to make the necessary connections and see that the further our nation strays from the God our founders referenced and called on repeatedly in prayer, the darker our days become? How on earth can we value life if we no longer value the reason we are living? This is what happens when the philosophies of Marx and Darwin infect society’s conscious. How could anyone hold any value for life when life itself has no meaning because we are just an accident of evolution needing to be controlled by an all-powerful state for own good? This is the sickness that is consuming our society, and it is being done on purpose by those craving power and control.

Oh, don’t forget about Washington D.C. If we tried to list all the evil committed in U.S. politics daily and who the perpetrators are, we’d never stop writing. It happens so frequently that all those who are part of the political process in Washington have become so numb to it those acts are just accepted as a regular part of operating the political process.

Remember all the prayers, all the references to God in documents, “In God We Trust” on all our currency, the Ten Commandments blazoned across walls in halls of government, and “One Nation Under God…?”

Remember the swearing-in of witnesses who are testifying before trial judges and juries? “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God?”

Even that phrase is being pushed out of our government.

Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), just days ago swore-in several witnesses prior to a U.S. House Subcommittee meeting. He “forgot” to include the last line of the oath that has been used for several hundred years, “So help me God.” Watch and listen as our good friend Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) questions Cohen and suggested repeating the swearing-in but using “So help me God” in doing so. Notice that Cohen and Jerald Nadler (D-NY) poo-pah Johnson’s idea. I wonder why?

In truth I have no authority to claim that Cohen and/or Nadler are evil. But what CAN be said is it becomes more and more obvious that evil is stealthily finding its way into every crevice of the government process in Washington D.C. And it finds a home more and more often in the U.S. Congress. These are the people we elect, empower, and pay dearly to operate “Government OF the People, FOR the People, and BY the People.” If members of Congress were committed to adherence to their oaths of office and not so committed to propping up their party’s political narrative at all costs, they would be leading in honesty rather than in an evil atmosphere driven soley by what’s best for US and not THEM.

Do you know what else is happening and about to get crazier? Our sources have confirmed that  a few current and many former government officials are about to receive subpoenas and even some arrested through indictments already issued. Those should occur before June 15, 2019.

But that’s really NOT news. What IS news is what is about to happen RIGHT NOW. Listen closely:

  • We know the Left have gone all-in to get rid of Donald Trump, and nothing else matters;
  • We know that even with the completion of the Mueller Report and that its findings show no direct or even indirect illegalities on the part of the President or members of his campaign staff, those Leftists have amped up THEIR investigation. And in doing so, they’re gasping for air. What is their purpose?

Here’s today’s SUMMARY in answer to that question:

The Left is throwing absolutely as much as they can up in the air. They’re calling in all their cards and obligations from the Media lapdogs to help establish and build the furor in the Media against President Trump. They KNOW that truth and justice for them are both on the horizon. They know they will NO LONGER be able to hide the evil that has permeated their actions in D.C. since the beginning of the 2016 campaign season. That evil includes all types of lies, committing of felonies, violations of classified materials laws, and even possibly treason! In short, they are facing the death of the Democrat Party. And its death is coming at the hands of the confrontation between the forces of good and the forces of evil. And we’re not talking about Superman, Wonder Woman, or the Justice League!

Their rhetoric, as loud and consistent as it has been, will become deafening. It will ALL be aimed at Donald Trump with continuous cries about all those previously claimed illegal acts allegedly committed by the Trump Campaign, but will be joined by new and more outrageous attacks that will become increasingly more vile and more in number.

Why are they going to do all this, especially when no one can even now believe how ridiculous their screams against this president are? One and only one reason: Their only hope is to make so much noise and so many allegations against Donald Trump et al, their screaming will deafen American voters so as for those voters to ignore those scurulous charges against them! And the American Media will come willingly to the fray, joining their now very public partners in Wasington: the Democrat Party.

“Evil will be revealed and Truth will out.”

In fact, they’ve all been given opportunities to come clean, but all have declined. In fact, many believe their own lives and ignore their own evil!

But, “Be sure your sins will find you out.” The bright light of Truth will take care of that for all Americans.

It’s about time somebody kicked Evil’s butt in Washington!




For The Greater Good?

It is common knowledge that the Left in America feel the country is in a downward spin socially, economically, environmentally, in healthcare, immigration, and foreign policy in the Trump Administration. It is also common knowledge that the Left in America is beyond absolute certainty that “They” have all the answers for any and all of the absurd policies thrust on Americans by the Trump Administration.

But who is to determine if The Trump Administration is correct or is the Left?

Great news: IT’S US!

As of this moment, we have not seen any solution from the Left to right the great ship America which, by their definition, is sinking with Donald Trump at the helm. And the Left demands a new captain. Right now there are 20 Leftists who each feel they are the best “hire” to replace the guy now in charge. But, as of today, not one of the 20 has offered any tangible package of proposed solutions to “fix” all those horrible Trump policies. But they claim their’s —whatever they are — will make America the great ship she once was and they think should be once more. AND, they each claim they are the best qualified to bring to Americans all the “things” that are “For The Greater Good.”

So, Let’s look closer.

Economically: Tax Cuts

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of all Americans received a tax cut under TCJA, averaging approximately $2,200. Tax rates are lower at every single income level, especially those at low-to-middle income levels, with 80.4 percent earners receiving a tax cut––including 91.3 percent of the middle class–– while only 4.8 percent of the population saw their taxes go up, most of which are higher-income earners living in high-tax states.

In addition to the analysis from the Tax Policy Center, H&R Block recently reported that the average taxpayer saved roughly 25 percent on their tax bill and that refunds are up 1.4 percent compared to last year. These savings happened because the TCJA let families keep more of their money through a doubled child tax credit, doubled the standard deduction, and lower rates across the board. Those changes combined with bold pro-growth cuts to the corporate tax rate, estate tax or “death tax”, alternative minimum tax, and creation of a new 20% small business deduction have increased take-home pay for families and improved the economy.

BUT….Take what then-House Minority Leader now Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicted about TCJA when she said passage would mean “Armageddon” for America and that the bill “is probably one of the worst bills in the history of the United States of America.” Or when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman guaranteed a “global recession, with no end in sight.”  The unrepentant gaslighting that has taken place over tax reform is rooted in dividing Americans for political gain or more clicks, rather than reporting facts.

Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and former VP Joe Biden want to dump the Trump tax cuts. In fact, Kamala Harris said she would repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “on day one.”

Harris said:  “On day one, we gonna repeal that tax bill that benefited the top one percent and the biggest corporations in this country. Get rid of the whole thing,” Harris said.

Economically: “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

Remember James Carville making the above statement during Bill Clinton’s campaign for his second term? He was asked if the Clinton impeachment would be THE reason voters rejected Mr. Clinton. In response, he made his famous statement above. And Clinton won re-election.

Those 20 Dem candidates are wanting to replace the Trump Economic Agenda. Hmm…..

As of 4/30/2019, The U.S. has:

  • lowest African American unemployment in history.
  • The lowest unemployment among Women.
  • The overall US unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent in April 2019 from 3.8 percent in the previous month, below market expectations of 3.8 percent. It was the lowest jobless rate since December 1969.
  • Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates declined in April for adult men (3.4 percent), adult women (3.1 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Asians (2.2 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent). The jobless rates for teenagers (13.0 percent) and Blacks (6.7 percent) showed little or no change. Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 186,000 over the month to 2.7 million.
  • Hourly wages increased 3.2 percent over April of 2018.
  • Gross Domestic Product in the first quarter of 2019 blew the doors off expectations: 3.2% was well ahead of the consensus 2.3% estimated, which itself had been cranked up from the sub-1% expectations many analysts had been expecting prior to Q1 earnings season. 2019’s First Quarter GDP was the strongest Q1 read since the 3.3% we saw in 2015.

Healthcare: “Medicare For All”

The President in the 2017 Congress backed the repeal and replacement of Obamacare — the current healthcare FINANCE plan that has cripple American healthcare. One last-minute vote by former Arizona Senator John McCain prevented the House-passed version to go the Senate floor for debate. The House bill (and the President’s promise to voters during the 2016 campaign) was dead at the hands of a few Republicans. However, as the cost to Americans of Obamacare continue to skyrocket, a conservative healthcare plan is set to be rolled out after the 2020 election if not sooner. In the meantime, 2020 candidates are pushing hard for the largest and many say the most egregious legislative item in U.S. History: Medicare for All. The cost of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-VT) bill? $32 Trillion over 10 years. (Sanders proposed the plan years before did Alexandria Ocasio Cortez)

First, the plan. Just a few bullet point mentions of what we KNOW Medicare for All would do:

  • Rationed Healthcare for All. An immediate shortage of physicians would occur because of the massive reductions in payments for services by doctors, who would run for the exit to new careers. Just like as in the U.K and Canada, patients would find themselves waiting for months for a heart procedure, knee replacement, or eye surgeries. Though U.S. Leftists rail against claims of a “Death Panel” that might be installed in such a plan, that would probably occur. There would be (because of healthcare finance reductions) unelected bureaucrats — not patients with their doctors as is the practice today — determining which patients should receive certain procedures, including some life-and-death procedures.
  • Costs. The unbelievable costs for such a plan would be astronomical. All Americans would be covered with medical costs being paid by the government. Where does the government get that money? Higher taxes. Tax revenue in our government would have to be more than doubled to pay for healthcare costs. That means the average American taxpayer would see their federal income tax bill increase by approximately 150%. That’s above the astronomical premium increases under Obamacare — sometimes doubled — when Obama promised the average premium cost per U.S. family would be reduced by $2500 per year.

There is no doubt there needs to be financial changes in our healthcare system — but not at the expense of destroying American healthcare.


”We HAVE a crisis at the southern border.” President Trump

We are on track to the apprehension of more than 1 million illegals this year crossing our southern border. Add that to whatever the number of those who Border Patrol agents do NOT apprehend that get in! Imagine what that number is. But……

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro doubts there’s a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border so much he’s calling it “B.S.” When asked about the growing situation of immigrants trying to enter to the U.S. illegally and the president mulling closing the southern border temporarily, Castro tossed it aside.

“I don’t believe their narrative,” he said. “I don’t believe the B.S. that women and children who are fleeing dangerous circumstances present a national security threat to this country.”

Who knows for certain how many illegals are in the U.S. today? Estimates range from 10 to 60 million. Either number would be a travesty. Regardless of what you hear, the drain on the entire U.S. national infrastructure is happening at a far too rapid pace just because of massively increased numbers drawing from those resources. Public schools, criminal justice, subsidized food, healthcare, and housing, cost the U.S. today billions of dollars. Our social system is stretched to the max.

But then there’s the obvious thought: “Aren’t those who cross into our country illegal breaking the law?” 


Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated factually that the World as we know would be over in 12 years unless we immediately initiated plans to do away with all fossil fuels, make every building in the U.S. green efficient, do away with cars, airplanes, and jets, and find ways to stop cows from farting. 19 of the Democrat candidates for President have signed-on to that deal. AOC’s Green New Deal is being touted as the only solution to emissions problems for the U.S. and that they’re fatal.

Then there’s this: the U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are at their lowest levels since 1950. 2017 U.S. per capita CO2 emissions were 15.8 metric tons per person, their lowest levels in 67 years. Overall U.S. carbon emissions are at their lowest levels since 1992 and have declined 13 percent since 2005.

But according to the Green New Deal’s author, we are all to become extinct in 12 years without the deal. It’s cost? $72 Trillion.

Where do the candidates stand?

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted “I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal proposal. We must address the existential crisis of planetary climate change.”
  • Sen. Cory Booker likened the GND to fighting Nazis and going to the Moon.
  • Sen. Kamala Harris, via C-SPAN: “We have to have goals. It’s a resolution that requires us to have goals and think about what we can achieve and put metrics on it.”
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that she is “excited” to back the GND after initially saying she backed the general “idea” of it.
  • Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “I see it as aspirational, I see it as a jump-start. So I would vote yes, but I would also if it got down to the nitty-gritty of actual legislation as opposed to, ‘Oh, here are some goals we have,’ that would be different for me.”
  • Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand: “It’s got this aspirational goal of net zero carbon emissions in ten years.”

Foreign Policy

Trump’s shortlist of Foreign Policy achievements:

  • Leaving or announcing intention to leave globalist agreements, including the UN Population Fund, Global Compact on Migration, Paris climate agreement, and UNESCO.
  • Reducing U.S. contributions to the UN and challenging other NATO states to increase their contributions.
  • Reversing the Obama Administration’s lenient Cuba policy.
  • Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
  • Leaving or announcing intention to leave the United Nations Human Rights Council, Global Compact for Refugees, Iran nuclear deal, and the Universal Postal Union, and taking a tough stance against the International Criminal Court.
  • Giving another strong pro-sovereignty speech at the UN General Assembly.
  • Taking steps to reduce foreign aid when not in U.S. interests, such as to Pakistan and the PLO.
  • Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  • Taking an increasingly tough stance on China, criticizing South Africa’s leftist land policy, and promoting ties with Latin America’s conservative leaders.
  • Created a coalition which has all but eliminated ISIS.

For The Greater Good?

Tax Cuts. Do they really want to repeal those tax cuts that have put more money back in the pockets of Americans and increased wages 3.2%? Yes, they do.

Employment. Do they really want to do away with the Trump policies that have dropped unemployment to historical lows and put more Americans in the workforce than ever before in history? Yes, they do.

Immigration. Do they really want to abolish ICE, do away with border patrol, and allow the continued massive increases in illegals coming into the U.S. costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year? Do they really want open borders which effectively is no borders? Yes, they do.

Healthcare. Do they really want Medicare for All which will result in certain rationed care, long waits for things as simple as X-rays and heart caths, sometimes as long as 1 year and cost $32 Trillion? Yes, they do.

Environment. Do they really want the Green New Deal at the price of $72 Trillion that will take away all cars and airplanes, all fossil fuels, mandate 100% clean energy-efficient buildings throughout the U.S. and create massive tax increases on all Americans? Yes, they do.

Foreign Policy. Do they really want the amazing foreign relationships Trump has rebuilt with the numerous American allies that under Obama had been destroyed to be eliminated to be replaced by the Obama “American Apology Policy” with no trust in the U.S.? Yes, they do.


Each of the Left’s announced candidates promises to (if elected) overturn each of the policies implemented in the Trump presidency. Why? Doing so — according to each of them — would be better for every American than those in place today.

“For The Greater Good” is a phrase that Gellert Grindelwald used to justify his horrific actions in the 1940s global wizarding war and it was engraved over the entrance of Nurmengard, the prison he constructed to house those who opposed him. The Leftist candidates claim that doing away with each of those Trump policies would be “For the Greater Good.”

It sounds like Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, California Rep. Eric Swalwell, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Kamala Harris, ex-San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. John Delaney, Miramar, Fla., Mayor Wayne Messam, author Marianne Williamson, and former tech executive Andrew Yang, might all be taking a page from Gellert Grindelwald’s playbook.

In the hearts and minds of most Americans, making such a change would NOT be “For The Greater Good.”

What do I say? In Louisiana we have a special way of responding to that: we say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”


Liberals Outnumber Conservatives in Only 6 States, Down From 9

Do you ever wonder — based on all you hear from your friends, business associates and even family members — why you never hear anything from the media that could possibly be construed as “complementary” about the current conditions of anything and everything in the U.S. as it pertains to government actions?

Today, I heard Democrat FOX News contributor Juan Williams say, “Republicans have pinned their hopes on the re-election of Donald Trump in 2020. Those hopes are unrealistic in light of the fact that “most” Americans HATE Donald Trump!” You know what the reality is? As of today — May 10, 2019 — 50% of all American adults approve of President Trump’s presidency. In comparison, Barack Obama on the same day of his first term in the White House had an approval rating of 48%. (both are from Gallup) Does that mean “most Americans HATED Barack Obama?”

But it gets even better. Everyone knows that the “left” coast is really “Left” — politically, as it the upper East Coast. And according to political national newsprint and broadcast organizations, American turned “Blue” in 2018’s midterm election. Granted, Democrats won control of the U.S. House of Representatives. But votes counted in Congressional races are NOT national votes: they’re state-by-state. Of course, California and New York contain 60 million Americans or more than 20% of the U.S. population. So it should not be surprising to know that almost all of the national political news emanates from California and New York, with Illinois and Massachusettes jumping in classified as Blue states.

Just because the news reports it doesn’t mean it’s true! And, Mr. Williams, it should come as no surprise that America is really turning Red.

Take for instance these latest numbers by State from 2018:

  • The number of states where liberals outnumber conservatives has dropped more than 30 percent, with just six now in that category: Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Washington, New York, and New Hampshire.
  • According to the latest Gallup survey, in every other state but California, where conservatives and liberals split 29 percent to 29 percent, conservatives lead.
  • Nationally, those who identify themselves conservative hold a nine-point lead.

Hmm….we may be onto some “new” news here.

If you’re interested in a state-by-state analysis, take a look at the map below. (Please note the map’s explanation of the colors)



Here’s a state breakdown by percentages identifying (state-by-state) Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, and Conservative Advantage:

Screen Shot 2019-02-22 at 11.00.45 AM.png


The bottom line is this: there are far more Conservatives in the U.S. than the U.S. media lead us to believe.

“So why did so many Democrats get elected to the House of Representatives in 2018?” you ask. That’s simple: Congressional races are NOT national elections and not even “State” elections. They’re Congressional District elections. For instance: no one in Texas could vote for or against Nancy Pelosi who ran in her San Francisco district. That fact deeply impacts the mix by ideology in EVERY Congressional race every two years.

The daily travesty in all this is — just as did Juan Williams — Leftist members of media skew their reporting demonstrably toward anti-conservative news and news results: especially poll numbers.

The REAL problem in all this is that conservatives, (in spite of the Leftist characterization of all conservatives as stupid and mind-numbed) are more knowledgeable about current important political issues than are Democrat and other left-leaning Americans. And those media partisans know that and take advantage of it.

There’s much more going on regarding this issue that needs to be fleshed out. To that end, we are over the next few days publishing the answers to some heretofore unanswered questions asked regarding exactly what the Left is specifically complaining about in America today and their plans for the replacement of after the 2020 elections. You will be shocked while at the same time being enlightened with what you see.

Stay Close!

All Alone

Normally we tackle the negativity and ridiculousness of the muck in Washington D.C. in American politics. We do so at the expense of some of the most costic, bombastic, and self-centered Americans in politics who have no real concept of what Nationalism and the Rule of Law really are. The U.S. Constitution? They “say” they love it, but their actions say differently. But today we are taking a different path. We’re not even going to talk about politics. We’re today having a conversation about “real” life.

There’s pretty much no worse feeling than to find oneself totally alone. Whether you’re a soldier who is part of a platoon on a combat mission who finds himself separated from his unit, or a single mother who daily faces the choices of not eating herself just to be able to feed her babies, being alone is usually very frightening.

Those instances in which we find ourselves alone often result in the feeling of loneliness. Loneliness is a complex and usually unpleasant emotional response to isolation. Loneliness typically includes anxious feelings about a lack of connection or communication with others. Loneliness often is heightened by fears of solitude extending into the future.

Research has shown that loneliness is common throughout society, including for people in marriages, relationships, families, veterans, and those with successful careers. It has been a long explored theme in the literature of human beings since classical antiquity. Loneliness has also been described as social pain—a psychological function meant to motivate an individual to seek social connections. Let’s face it: when a person is alone — especially for quite a while and with few or no connections with others — the results are seldom positive and often morph into unpleasant happenings.

Here’s a thought: are those who seem to have everything going their way — a great family, good job, wide circle of wonderful friends — ever susceptible to loneliness?

Gustavo Paez

Gustavo is the pastor of a large and thriving church in Central America. He is an amazing pastor, his congregation is large and growing rapidly every day, and he is a prophet and evangelist in great demand throughout the world — but especially in the United States. As great a minister and pastor as he is, he is a greater husband and father. Yet he too battles loneliness.

I was with him yesterday in the midst of a meeting with hundreds of Americans who were hanging on his every word. He speaks with knowledge of how tough life can and often is, and also how to beat life’s foes while simply being human and fighting for survival each and every day.

Yet late in his message, he stated this: “Sometimes when I speak to thousands of people and see dramatic changes and results in their lives from what I am able to share with them, I find myself — even though they hang on every word and shout and applaud and want to know more and more —  later alone in my hotel room wishing I could just have a hug.”

We see and here story after story about famous folks who end up dying alone, victims of self-inflicted drug overdoses or other suicides. But we’re not speaking today about that type of loneliness. We’re talking about situations in which people get stuck, and those dire circumstances come directly from choices in which they have no or very little responsibility.

Folks Alone

I wrote a column in my college newspaper: the Tech Talk. I think the best one I wrote in my years there was titled “Alone: All, All, Alone.” Why was it “good?” Not because of the writer, believe me! It was so right-on and representative of those situations of being alone that are not the direct results of OUR actions. Maybe they’re the result of some action or inaction of another. In my case, it came as the result of the nasty divorce of my parents and the quick and horrible results for me from that. I’ll give you the “10,000-foot perspective” of it, just to build the basis this specific perspective of loneliness.

I was 16 at the time. We lived in a small town in south Louisiana. My Dad was the pastor of a small church that couldn’t pay him a fulltime salary. So he worked in construction about 45 miles away, commuting daily. Times were tough financially, but — from a kid’s perspective — things were good…until December 22, 1969. Dad left that day.

I had listened over the past months to Mom and Dad argue. I never saw any verbal or physical abuse. I never thought my Dad was involved with another. I thought those arguments came from the fact that Dad was holding down two jobs, driving to one at 5 AM Monday through Friday, getting home at 9 PM daily, and pastoring a church of 50 people at the same time. Certainly, those factors weighed heavily. But for whatever reason or reasons, Mom and I spent Christmas Day in 1969 alone.

Things went downhill from there. Mom had a nervous breakdown; I couldn’t take the stress and left home and moved to a friend’s garage apartment in the town in which I grew up, 45-miles away. I finished my junior year in high school while working parttime at a radio station.

Things changed dramatically that Spring. (That’s another story worthy of not just a TNN column, but a book! We’ll share that in the future) But the next Fall found me as a freshman at Louisiana Tech University, the home of the “Tech Talk.”

In the 20-months between Christmas 1969 and late August 1971, I discovered what REAL, “non-self-inflicted” loneliness was all about. I will say this: God miraculously intervened in my life in the interim. My story would well have ended tragically if He hadn’t. In fact, circumstances were amazing for me, and those circumstances kept me alive and moving forward.

But what those wonderful occurrences could NOT do was change the fact that I had lost my family as a result of decisions made by two others in which I had no input, that changed the course of my lifetime. That’s not even mentioning that the relationships I had with my mother and father were permanently altered. I found myself on a university campus in Ruston, Louisiana having no idea what life ahead could possibly be. I was alone.

Just Getting-By

For most of that almost 2 years, I tried my best to just make it. I was just a kid. I had no idea what life objectives even looked like. Moms and Dads — especially when kids are in high school — usually give kids some life templates from which to choose about this time. I simply struggled to put the pieces of life together that I found each day popping up AS they popped up. Thankfully God put people in my life that were there for me! Things would probably have gone unimaginably wrong without them. Yet that emptiness and hollowness that resulted from my loneliness showed up every day. And I had to deal with it every day.

I guess my youth, already-present entrepreneurial spirit, and the love of an unofficially adopted family factored heavily in keeping me on the road to successful real life, thank God! And things turned out really good. I’ve had 65 pretty good years, have a great immediate family and a wonderful extended family. But in all that, I’ve never been able to totally eliminate thoughts of that dark, hollow, achy, and gut-wrenching loneliness — especially as it hit home for the first time about 8 AM, December 22, 1969.

So what’s it all about?

People are simply not made to be alone — PERIOD. Human beings are social beings. And even though — social experimentation being what it is — people attempt the manufacturing of social scenarios in which Superman doesn’t need Superwoman or Super Kids or Super Friends, or anyone at all; that “all I need is ME” to live a happy, fulfilled, and contented life, that doesn’t work. PEOPLE NEED PEOPLE!


No, I am not a Shrink: I have NO psychological or psychiatric expertise or training. And I am NOT trying to give any psychological advice to anyone, or at least advice to do anything specific in or because of life circumstances. I am simply pointing out that sometimes, life is not fair. Sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances not of our own making that are horrendus, and that come with loneliness as a great part. What I am saying is that when this loneliness pops-up in our lives and our heads, we MUST find ways to get through them. And we can.

This would normally be the spot where a journalist would make some monumental and impactful suggestions, like “Here are 5 sure ways to guarantee you’ll never be loney,” or “Do you want to know how to always be fulfilled and happy?” I’m not going to do that. I don’t think there’s a magic prescription or pill that takes care of that. There certainly are people who maintain there are such panaceas for loneliness.

But what I WILL say and what I DO know is this: being alone is NOT fun — when it comes from bad circumstances that one inherits from decisions not their own or were not based on their own selfish motives. And loneliness is NOT the kiss of death.

But finding one self alone and its resulting loneliness and staying there almost always results in despair. And despair often initiates drastic measures.

Isn’t it ironic though that when someone as a result of loneliness and resulting despair commits suicide or worse, kills someone else, how many people who really care show-up in the aftermath? It happens a lot.

What if those who enter the picture only at a wake or funeral who weep for the deceased and cry “If only I had known” had been an initiator of helping that person when alive to work-through their loneliness?

A suggestion: Be open to all those in your life. Keep the lines of communication clear. Make certain ALL of those you care for understand that they can speak to you about anything with the certainty there will be no chastisement or disdain on your part for their simply sharing their feelings of loneliness and its results with you.

Most of the time doing so will be costly. Sometimes doing so will even hurt — and hurt deeply. But there’s a truth that makes that process pretty clear. It’s best revealed in the title of a song my brother — my “adopted” brother from the family that took me into their family in 1970 — wrote years ago: “Anything word having is worth hurting for.”

Truer words have never been spoken.

Why not try it: it probably will work. And if your trying doesn’t save a life, it will probably make someone’s life a whole lot better.



Nazism Attacks in U.S. Media

It seems that every time something noteworthy happens that’s good in the Trump Administration, the Mainstream Media call it White Supremacy, Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Islamophobia, or Nazism. Americans have become numb to their doing so in 2.5 years. But wait: there’s far more to it all than just benign name-calling. There’s a REAL threat in this against the fiber of America: The United States Constitution. What is it?

Nazism is real…and it doesn’t come from Donald Trump!

There certainly ARE Nazi sympathizers in America. Mostly they are cloaked in secrecy or deception. Their being secret about their political perspective is one thing. But their deception has led to serious threats to America. Let me explain.

Have you ever heard of ANTIFA? The group’s name is meant to be short for “Anti-Fascism.” The 100+ year old group has become a lightning rod for dissidents on the Left looking for justifications to attack conservatism. But there’s a bit of irony there:

If the group is really against the oppression of Fascism and Nazism that historically work hand in hand, WHY WOULD THEIR RIOTING AND DEMONSTRATIONS WOULD ALL HAVE BEEN AGAINST PROPONENTS OF AND FREE SPEECH SPEAKERS AT COLLEGE UNIVERSITIES? At those events, ANTIFA members fight to STOP those supporting the First Amendment! They just like Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy are actually SUPPORTING TOTALITARIANISM in which no citizen has the freedom to say or think anything THEY don’t want thought or said. That is the very definition of FASCISM AND NAZISM!

Hitler’s Control of Germany’s Media

Propaganda within Nazi Germany was taken to a new and frequently extreme level. Hitler was very aware of the value of good propaganda and he appointed Joseph Goebbels as head of propaganda.

Propaganda is the art of persuasion – persuading others that your ‘side of the story’ is correct. Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular too challenge, etc. In Nazi Germany, Dr. Joseph Goebbels was in charge of propaganda. Goebbel’s official title was Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment.

As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks:

1. To ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party.

2. To ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible.

To ensure success, Goebbels had to work with the SS and Gestapo and Albert Speer. The former hunted out those who might produce articles defamatory to the Nazis and Hitler while Speer helped Goebbels with public displays of propaganda.

To ensure that everybody thought in the correct manner, Goebbels set up the Reich Chamber of Commerce in 1933. This organization dealt with literature, art, music, radio, film, newspapers, etc. To produce anything that was in these groups, you had to be a member of the Reich Chamber. The Nazi Party decided if you had the right credentials to be a member. Any person who was not admitted was not allowed to have any work published or performed. Disobedience brought with it severe punishments. As a result of this policy, Nazi Germany introduced a system of censorship. You could only read, see and hear what the Nazis wanted you to read, see and hear. In this way, if you believed what you were told, the Nazi leaders logically assumed that opposition to their rule would be very small and practiced only by those on the very extreme who would be easy to catch.

The same approach was used in films. The Nazis controlled film production. Films released to the public concentrated on certain issues: the Jews; the greatness of Hitler; the way of life for a true Nazi especially children, and as World War Two approached, how badly Germans who lived in countries in Eastern Europe were treated. Leni Riefenstahl was given a free hand in producing Nazi propaganda films. A young film producer, she had impressed Hitler with her ability. It was Riefenstahl who made “Triumph of Will” – considered one of the greatest of propaganda films despite its contents.

Does any of this sound eerily familiar? No, there is no dictator in power or seeking power in the U.S. today — though we often hear the Media falsely claim that Trump wants to be a dictator or a “lifetime American president.” But there certainly are censorship activities underway in the nation: Facebook, because it is a private and not a government entity, has unilateral power to regulate its content. So do Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. Those entities almost daily reveal just how far they lean left with their political ideas. They do not hesitate to pull the posts of conservatives from their sites, block conservative authors, and do so while “saying” they are “in full support of the First Amendment.” They, of course, are rubbing our faces in their claims of protecting “Free Speech” while restricting the free speech of numerous conservatives. (Actor James Woods has been banished from Twitter and Facebook.)

Hitler and Goebbels couldn’t have enacted German censorship any better than these American social networks.

In America, it all began with Donald Trump inventing and calling out “Fake News.”

The Price of “Fake News”

Donald Trump as “Candidate Trump” made famous the term “Fake News.” Of course, every American who heard him say that knew exactly what and who his references were made about. For a very long time, every major media news outlet in the nation has made it quite clear to its audience which side of the political spectrum they lean toward. And for just as long, Americans have known for certain who fits in which mold: Liberal-leaning or Conservative-leaning.

As the media heat quickly came to a boil in 2016, one could almost watch (literally) as every major news organization made it instantly clear (if they had not already) which was Conservative and which was Liberal: pro-Hillary or pro-Trump. And there weren’t many Conservative outlets — and still, aren’t.

And the “Leftist” media outlets have been (and are still) paying a deep price for their reporting — not so much for their news “content,” but rather for their “Leftist mantra.” Let’s define that — better yet, let’s use an example to identify that “mantra:”

“CNN on Friday corrected an erroneous report that Donald Trump Jr. had received advance notice from the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks about a trove of hacked documents that it planned to release during last year’s presidential campaign. In fact, the email to Mr. Trump was sent a day after the documents, stolen from the Democratic National Committee, were made available to the general public.”

One more example of Leftist “mantra:”

“The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump’s recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.

The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year’s 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.

Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.

We could spend all day looking at example after example of the thousands of attacks on conservatives from the Left by today’s media. Of course, there are conservative stories which contain inaccurate stories. Some of those are too “fake” by design. But many times more come from the Left.

The Leftist media inaccuracies are plentiful and mind-boggling — especially because many are unnecessary and so ridiculous that the only reasoning for their issuance MUST be for partisan purposes.

Journalism really IS dying. I can remember a time when a national newspaper printed a story with an error or two the nation was shocked. Of course that newspaper immediately printed a story to either retract the original or correct the record. Not so today.

Sadly though, as this practice of releasing incorrect news stories increases in number, Leftist news outlets themselves have in increasing numbers implemented attacks against — not conservative individuals or groups, but — news outlets that have adopted the practice of reporting from either the center or center-right political perspective. That’s scary! And it’s even getting scarier.

Attacks against Conservative Internet: Staggering

Poynter, the journalism institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online. The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for a journalism organization funded by prominent liberal billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.

Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”

Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.” That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites —  Breitbart,, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.

These sites stood next to conservative organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented baker Jack Phillips in the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. While the ADF is not a news site, it was likely targeted because Golding works for the SPLC. The ADF is considered a “hate group” by the SPLC and is marked on the “hate map.” The Washington Post even questioned SPLC’s “political activism” and “bias.”

SPLC has been dropped by Twitter from its Trust and Safety Council and slammed by the mainstream media after multiple scandals rocked the organization. Its hate map even helped shooter Floyd Lee Corkins find the location of the Family Research Council, where he shot and wounded one person.

Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, liberal billionaire George Soros’ massive foundations, as well as the Omidyar Network. The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.” Funds were sent to Poynter specifically to establish the International Fact-Checking Network. The ‘UnNews’ list was started to help fact-checking organizations determine what was “unreliable.”

That anti-conservative mindset was apparent throughout the incoherent and inconsistent report. Conservative organizations were included throughout but liberal groups rarely were. The National Review and Heritage were removed from the list but Heritage’s Daily Signal was on it. That combined to create a shameless double-standard. It specifically targeted conservative media watchdog groups and didn’t include liberal ones.

The goal of the report is clear. Poynter is recommending that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list. It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete. Golding wrote that, “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”

Poynter has a longstanding history as an anchor in the journalism business. Its board of trustees includes  execs from The New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC, and The Washington Post. Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its fact-checking programs.    


It’s here, folks! Nazism is alive and thriving in the U.S. Poynter in their publishing of the “undesirable” list of news outlets is a recommendation for readers/listeners to NOT support those news outlets its managers have determined are not worthy.

Let’s assume that Facebook, Twitter, Poynter, and the home of “Fake News” — CNN — with their censorship are honestly doing so for the best interest of Americans. Censoring News, literature, books, etc. because of censoring content IS AN ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! And many Americans today (just like in Hitler’s Germany) are blind to it happening right in front of them.

We encourage you to speak up. There are millions of Americans who have swallowed the Leftist propaganda and really do believe these lies. The fact that Poynter would even contemplate publishing such a list proves that there are journalist and editors who either ignore what their acts are actually doing or are really Nazis trying to imitate the Third Reich in World War II.

It can’t be by chance. It’s for either of the reasons above. OR IT MAY BE BOTH! But it certainly is real….and dangerous.


The Truth About All-Things Congressional

You must believe me when I say it seems that everything being done in Washington in and by this Congress is a mess. The House Democrat freshmen members are steadily pulling the Democrat Party farther and farther to the Left while Senate Democrats have joined with House Democrat leaders to spurn the exhaustive Mueller Report and replaced it with their incessant demands for testimony before their committees regarding anything and everything to do with Donald Trump. They simply refuse to accept the fact that Mueller and his 20 Democrat attorneys who all despise this president in 2.5 years could not find anything on which Congress can use to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump. And they are going nuts.

TruthNewsNetwork turned to Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) to get some answers. He paused to answer some of our questions and share his thoughts on all of these and other critical issues.

Congressman Johnson is in his second term in the House. He’s heavily involved in the legislative process, details of which you are about to hear, and serves on several House committees that each have critical roles they play in government. Two of those committees are knee-deep in two of the greatest political issues of the day that dominate the news 24/7. Those committees are the House Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. It is safe to say Congressman Johnson sees in a bit more detail than we when looking into those committee’s two critical issues: the Mueller Investigation and Illegal Immigration.

We pause here but will be back with Congressman Mike Johnson in a few minutes at Truth News Network.

(The balance of today’s offering is in our interview of Congressman Johnson. Please join us on the Podcast for that conversation.)


The Barr Explosion

The guy (whose picture is to the left) is under a most vicious attack by Senate Democrats. Attorney General Barr testified for several hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He faced a barrage of professional and personal insults and verbal assaults from Democrat Committee members. The attacks and insults were no surprise at all. It was all a setup. The setup culprit? The Washington Post.

“Mueller complained to Barr about the memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative of the March 24 letter and Barr’s public explanation made it clear: he had NO intent to summarize the Mueller Report at that time — he couldn’t in a simple statement or letter. But Barr wanted to get the Report released publicly ASAP: which he did.

It comes as no surprise that the day before the Attorney General is to testify, the Washington Post would invite reporters to come to their offices to “read” Mueller’s letter. They wouldn’t send reporters away with a copy of the letter! Why? It’s our opinion that The Post editorial staff was thinking ahead about possible prosecution for “leaking” classified documents to the media. 

Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s 400+ pages – the “nature and substance” of the report. Barr explained publicly why he COULD NOT in a summary discuss the report — THE REPORT IS TOO LARGE! And to that end, Barr (though he didn’t have to) released the full report just hours after that press statement to the public, as he promised.

This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. Here’s Mueller’s letter:

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel’s report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release—a process that our Office is working with you to complete—that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of the investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. 609(c) (“the Attorney General may determine that public release” of congressional notifications “would be in the public interest”).

Sincerely Yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

What is the Hoo-Ha From Democrats against Barr?

That question can best be answered by former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy who stated:

“The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public.

Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line:

‘When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.’

So even Mueller conceded, through gritted teeth, that Barr’s letter was accurate. The diva was just worried about the media coverage.”

A Mueller Question or Two

  • Have you heard anyone state who actually wrote the Mueller Report? Certainly, the Special Counsel was involved in its preparation. But there is far too much political angling in it for it to be penned by him. Though as of today I have no evidence to confirm my thoughts on that, the Mueller Report seems eerily similar to the past writings of one of the worst federal prosecutors in U.S. History. Who is that? Andrew Weismann. Weismann is known to be a proverbial bulldog that will do anything to find justification for prosecution and conviction of everyone involved in every case on which he works. Not only does the verbiage and structure of the report reek of his methods, the pre-dawn raids with armed FBI SWAT agents at Manaforte and Roger Stone’s homes were certainly orchestrated by Weismann. Who is he?
  • Andrew Weismann, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissmann shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined. Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi. Additionally, Weissmann has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election- night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weismann was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans. Weismann was hired by Mueller — even with that shady history — to be the “aggressive” investigator/ prosecutor on his team. I guarantee he not only wrote the Mueller Report, but he also penned the Mueller letter we’re discussing today AND leaked it to the Washington Post THE NIGHT BEFORE BARR’S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS! TruthNewsNetwork researchers will NOT rest until we get firm answers to the question: who edited (if not wrote) both the Mueller Report and the final Mueller letter to Barr. Certainly, we will share out findings. I doubt we’ll be able to confirm who leaked it to the Washington Post.

It Gets Wilder!

Do Democrats really care about the truth, facts, and the 2-year, $25 million Mueller Investigation and its findings? That report in its classified and unredacted form that includes ALL that Democrats demanded from Mueller has been in a secure room in the Senate available for any member of Congress to examine in its entirety. There are 535 members of the House and Senate. Do you know how many have gone to that room and read the unredacted report? TWO! AND BOTH WERE REPUBLICANS! Can anyone say, “HYPOCRISY?’

Let’s just face facts: Congressional Democrats have NO regard for anyone who stands in support of this president — it’s that simple. Further, they have no regard for an Attorney General (or a Special Counsel, for that matter) who stands in support, not of a president, but “The Rule of Law.” That was best illustrated in that committee hearing by Hawaii’s U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono. We are showing the agonizing 7 minutes of her “questioning” of the A.G. in its entirety. The word “questioning” is in quotation marks because Hirono absolutely did NOT ask Mr. Barr any questions — she simply insulted his professional and personal integrity and his capability and qualifications to serve as Attorney General:

The Senator from Hawaii illustrated my reasoning for the first sentence of this story today. Further, the 3 Democrat 2020 presidential candidates on the committee did themselves NO favors with their questioning. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Corey Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris (D-CA) embarrassed the citizens of their respective states with their obviously coordinated drilling of the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, I was embarrassed for the citizens of Minnesota, New Jersey, and California. The very carefully coordinated questions asked by those 3 showed how desperate Democrats are to take this president down. And, also, that hearing was another bit of confirmation for what we have stated again and again at TruthNewsNetwork: Congressional Democrats are dead-set on the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

No matter that Special Counsel Mueller found no Russian collusion and no specific grounds of Obstruction of Justice against President Trump. The truth, facts, evidence (or lack of), and the Rule of Law are lost on Senate Democrats.

I am ashamed at what we watched play out on national television as probably the smartest person in the hearing room embarrassed those Leftist Democrats with his answers in which he held close to facts and the Law. Isn’t it ironic that any American citizen — Me — would even have a thought that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would literally bend the truth, ignore facts, demean a career federal attorney now Attorney General simply because he works for Donald Trump — a president that each of those Senators hates?


Our final thoughts today are concise and very simple: It is obvious that Democrats in Congress are certainly headed for House Impeachment proceedings. There is NO doubt they are petrified of a Donald Trump second term as President. But it became very clear in that hearing that Congressional Democrats — at least Senate Democrats — are all-in for getting rid of Attorney General William Barr!

Think about that: he served once before as Attorney General. He is known by thousands of attorneys and judges through the U.S. — especially judges — as one of the top legal minds in U.S. Law. And he is a brilliant Constitutionalist. His record is impeccable. Yet a dozen or so Democrat Senators spent hours on Wednesday saying the vilest things making continual vicious unfounded allegations against Mr. Barr.

How did he respond? He NEVER raises his voice; he NEVER impugned any Senators for their questions, their attitudes, or their reasoning for their vitriolic demeanor during the hearing. I could never be as civil, controlled, and certainly compliant with their questioning under those circumstances.

Donald Trump made a brilliant move by appointing William Barr as Attorney General. And one thing more: certainly you have heard this, “The hen that clucks the loudest is almost always the one that lays the egg?” Based on the limited facts in the public about this AND what America saw and heard in that Senate Judiciary hearing, I would not be surprised if several of those Senators sitting on the Left side of that hearing table are the subject of several of those 70,000+ sealed federal indictments that many are waiting to watch start being executed.

Do you think maybe there was some “hen-clucking” going on in Congress during that hearing?