Climate Change: It’s a Religion!

Yep, it certainly is. Originally it was a social and political cause, but no more. It’s a religion.

That shouldn’t surprise you. With the latest numbers showing that a large majority of Americans than ever do not affiliate themselves as religious, it seems only natural they’d replace religion with something that commands as much attention, devotion, and fervor as religion. Enter Climate Change.

Don’t dismiss this premise just yet. NBC has actually set up online a site for those who have “sinned” regarding not initiating or ignoring the climate change “rules” a place for them to chronicle their repentance. Some of the confessions are hilarious:

  • ”I keep my home thermostat at 75 in the Winter and 55 in the Summer. Deal with it, Hippies!”
  • ”I need to recycle more, especially since I drink 40 bottles of water a week. But the recycling truck only comes by my house on the day that I sleep in.”
  • ”I use half a roll of toilet paper when wiping.”
  • ”I run my AC 24/7. I’m not going to sweat to appease this climate religion.”
  • “I don’t do anything for the environment. I don’t care.”

Some of these are hilarious. But I think NBC may have it on something: while religious membership in the U.S. has plummeted, it appears that the religion of Climate Change is growing.

The two have much in common. Most religions are based on unscientific facts. Climate Change advocates although they claim to base each of their claims on specific scientific facts, they too cannot honestly claim so.

There certainly are a large number of scientists who claim to have factual evidence supporting climate change, there are just as many scientists who present a different set of facts disproving what the Climate Change proponents allege.

In the spirit of transparency and in the spirit of many in the U.S. leading Americans down a path of forgetfulness of American history, we have researched to find the truths regarding Climate Change that scientists have offered-up to Americans accompanied by facts that have been debunked in a dramatic way. What’s that “dramatic way?” They did not happen at all. In fact, they’re still waiting on them!

Climate “Doomsday”

Los Angeles Times, 1967

It is already too late for the world to avoid a long period of famine, a Stanford University biologist said Thursday. Paul Ehrlich said the “time of famines” is upon us and will be at its worst and most disastrous by 1975. He said the population of the U.S. is already too big, that birth control may have to be accomplished by making it involuntary and by putting sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water, and the Roman Catholic Church should be pressured into going along with routine measures of population control.

The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970

Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century if the population continues to grow and the Earth’s resources are consumed at the present rate, a pollution expert predicted yesterday. James P. Lodge Jr. also warned that if the current rate of increase in electric power generation continues. The demands for cooling water will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States.

Washington Post, July 9, 1971

Dr. S.I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that “In the next 50 years, the fine dust that Man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. If sustained over several years — five to 10 — such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”

Brown University Dept. of Geological Sciences, Dec. 3, 1972

Letter to the U.S. President: “Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you in the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.”

The Guardian, January 29, 1974

Worldwide and rapid trends towards a mini Ice Age are emerging from the first long term analyses of satellite weather pictures. This appears to be in keeping with other long-term climatic changes, all of which suggest that after reading a climax of warmth between 1935 and 1955 world average temperatures are now falling. But the rate of increase in snow and ice cover is much faster than would be expected from other trends.

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974: “Another Ice Age?”

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in part of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst floodings in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.

The New York Times, July 18, 1976

“The Cooling,” writes Stephen Schneider, a young climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO, reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book ” The Genesis Strategy.” His warning was th.t world food reserves are an insufficient hedge against future famines, has been heard among the scientific community for years. But Schneider had decided to explain the entire problem, as responsibly and accurately as he can, to the general public, and thus has put together a useful and important book.

Bullet Point Timeline Items Alleging U.S. and World Climate Change

  • In 1980, a story titled “Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes” was published in the Noblesville Ledger (Noblesville, IN). But 10 years later, the U.S. government program formed to study acid rain concluded: “Acid rain no environmental crisis.”
  • January 5, 1978, the New York Times published a story titled ‘No End in Sight’ to 30-Year Cooling Trend.
  • James Hansen of NASA in the Miami Herald June 24, 1988, said this: “It is time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here. Our climate model simulations for the late 1980s and the 1990s indicate a tendency for an increase of heatwave drought situations in the Southeast and Midwest United States,” he testified. The last really dry year in the Midwest was 1988, and recent years have been recorded wet.
  • The Canberra Times on September 26, 1988, published this: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover the Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years, according to authorities. The Environmental Affairs Director, Hussein Shihab, said an estimated rise of 30 to 50 centimeters in the next 20 to 40 years could be catastrophic for most of the islands, which were no more than a meter above sea level. “But the end of the Maldives and its 200,000 people could come sooner if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.”

Climate Change in the 2000s

The Guardian February 21, 2004

“Britain will be ‘Siberia’ in less than 20 years.” According to a secret government report, Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine, and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

Associated Press, 2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013

On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Icecap would be completely ice-free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the predictions to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference.

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2016

An ongoing U.S. Department of Energy-backed research project led by a U.S. Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 — 84 years ahead of conventional model projections. The project, based out of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School’s Department of Oceanography, uses complex modeling techniques that make its projections more accurate than others.

May 14, 2014, French Foreign Minister: “500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos”

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, “climate chaos.” Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid “climate chaos.”

2019: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us, are looking up, and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”


Honestly, I could continue to give headline after headline, quote after quote, excerpt after excerpt of the dire predictions of the end of life on Earth as we know it due directly to climate change. “Climate Change” has been known as a new “Ice Age, Earth Scorching, Permanent Flooding, and Armageddon.” You take your pick: they’re all about the same thing.

Yes, scientists are quoted time after time. Yes, they are quick to produce data to back up their claims. But, oddly, there are just as many (if not more) scientists who are just as educated, just as knowledgeable, who have just as much data to support their findings that plainly state the other side’s scientists have it wrong. Who’s right?

I won’t argue that point. But I think there’s one thing we should all mutually agree: though there is science on both sides, there are examples to support allegations of both sides, there are current and past weather occurrences which “should” prove there’s something up. But all that they prove is that weather and climate change — constantly. It further proves that hard, 100% facts do not support an absolute version of those on either side. And to believe the Earth’s about to , Climate Change advocates are forced to rely on one thing and one thing only to support their basis: Faith.

Faith is pretty much a religious term. And as defined in the Bible in the New International Version it states this: Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Climate Change zealots have turned their beliefs into a virtual religion! To commit oneself to it they must go totally all-in. No, they’re not people who believe that pollution is destroying Earth as we know it. Most people on Earth believe that pollution is horrible, takes a horrific toll on our World, and certainly can be if not eliminated, dramatically reduced by people. But that’s not enough for the zealots.

Adherent religious people go all-in on their beliefs. Most people understand and accept that they do that, and most people believe many religious folks take their beliefs too far.

I believe we have climate change all the time and every year. Weather is always unpredictable, can be devastatingly dangerous, and is extremely difficult to predict and deal with in a scientific manner. I believe Climate Change is in that same class.

We must diligently work to reduce our pollution. We must work diligently to develop different types of energy that will allow us to depend less around the World on fossil fuels. But we cannot do that by eliminating the usage of fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is here, it’s created a worldwide industry that supports billions of people and the economies of more than 100 countries. Science has led us through constant innovation to the reduction of pollution from fossil fuel by over 70%. And we can do better.

Solar energy, battery power, wind energy creation are up and coming industries. They’re still in development stages to make commercially viable. We need to keep pushing forward in developing and improving those energy sectors while at the same time finding new alternative energy sources. But while doing so, we cannot and must not destroy the energy platforms we have in place now worldwide. It’s financially and fiscally impossible. And it’s just plain stupid!

Many on the far-left politically have led the U.S. into an all-out war to do away with fossil fuel — not with facts, but with the emotion akin to a religion. That’s dangerous. Why? Not solely because of their purpose — making fuel less dangerous to the environment IS admirable — but because they’re preaching an “all-or-nothing” policy leaving us no real alternatives. And that’s what has happened throughout U.S. history in religion.

The sad thing is that their zealous attitudes and pretentious threats and demands make their idea far less palatable to most Americans. I encourage all to work on becoming more environmentally conscious in everything we do. Promote and support alternative energy research and development as you can. But please stop the demonization of fossil fuel and all who work in the industry and all that use fossil fuel energy. Help us to all amicably work together for the common cause of keeping our environment clean.

And, by the way, Al Gore famously proved to us all that “the World’s gonna end in ten years” proclamation he made more than ten years ago was a bogus fear tactic. We don’t need to go in that direction with predictions. I for one would be more open to hearing a scientist or some scientists create an environmental model to simply clean up our environment. They need to leave off the ending two words they continually slap us in the face with: “Or Else!”


Wrong Message: Wrong Messaging

I must be honest: there’s so much negativity, so many misrepresentations, outright lies and two-sided information coming out of Washington, I’m finding it pretty hard to “shut-down” mentally at the end of each day and get a good night’s sleep. I find myself late at night lying awake and thinking about all the political anguish being dumped on us all non-stop. Every day it seems like there’s a new scandal. What makes all this extra difficult is that as a journalist, I’m charged with ferreting out the truth hidden within every allegation, news story, interview, and press conference. Not getting much sleep has become an everyday event. Take last Tuesday for example.

It was 1:00 AM and I was wide awake. I couldn’t sleep. I had back surgery a couple of weeks ago. I don’t sleep a lot anyway, but in the aftermath of the Doc fishing around in my spine for an hour or so makes sleep a little tougher. What do I do when I can’t sleep? Write or watch a little television. That night I fired-up Netflix. I saw the series of The Andy Griffith Show and thought I’d check out a show or two. I did just that. It was the best decision I’ve made in a long time.

We all remember Andy, Aunt Bea, Opie, Deputy Barney Fife, Otis the drunk, and Miss Ellie. That first season (1967) gave America one of the few television series in memory in which every episode captured an everyday life dilemma for most Americans complete with a simple answer for each of those. It did all that without profanity, sexual innuendo, (certainly no sex on-set) and no blood and guts. It followed an actual small-town sheriff from North Carolina who taught his deputy, his son, all his neighbors in Mayberry and sometimes himself how to successfully puzzle through the common dilemmas they all faced.

I learned a lot. I learned a lot about interfacing with other people in my life: family members, friends, employers, neighbors, members of government, law enforcement members, fellow church associates, and pretty much anyone else I come in contact with. What I learned dealt primarily with creating a method with those groups and individuals with which I desire to communicate to concentrate on the messaging being communicated and not so much on anything to do with my emotions and/or feelings nor theirs. Communication should always concentrate on the content of what message is being handed off. If you don’t believe me, ask Opie Taylor!

“Messaging:” Communicating

Tuesday, September 17, 2019, marked a day that the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee showed all of the U.S. and many other parts of the world that they disagree with my communication assessment detailed above and they certainly feel Opie had no clue about dealing with people in public forums. Of course, House Democrats claim they “own” the knowledge of how and right to do so unilaterally. That hearing was set to question former Trump Campaign Director Corey Lewandowski under oath about his position in any matters after the 2016 election in which he interfaced with President Trump. You may remember, Lewandowski was fired from the campaign months before the 2016 election and never held any position in the Trump Administration or in any capacity at all after leaving the campaign.

I seldom watch Congressional committee hearings. But sometimes they are of significant importance because of the purposes. House Democrats assured us all that this hearing was going to be mighty in content and would prove President Trump obstructed justice after his election. There are even some who — in spite of the Mueller Investigation findings — maintain Trump colluded in the 2016 election with Russia. In fact, in the hearing when Lewandowski in an answer to an asked question by a Republican member responded in part how egregious it is that Democrats though no Russian collusion by any member of the Trump Organization was found by Robert Mueller, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) interrupted to say he still feels today that Trump “was an agent of the Russian government” and that “Trump colluded with Russia to affect the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton and in his personal favor.”

Swalwell and the badgering of Lewandowski by other Democrat members made it clear to the world if anyone still had questions as to Democrats’ direction moving forward: “Get rid of Donald Trump at all costs. Nothing that can aid in that effort is off the table.”

Remember this: Lewandowski was never a White House employee or advisor. He was, however, and still is, a good friend of Mr. Trump. Lewandowski is not a lawyer, and it was clear very early in the questions with which Democrats used they had and have no positive regard for him and their reason for bringing him in was to try and trip him up to provide evidence that would support their last-chance effort to create some real narrative to justify Trump’s impeachment.

We today are discussing the communication that is so important for us to use when speaking to each other. Andy Griffth’s boy Opie received a wonderful lesson from his Dad for doing so. But apparently House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jarold Nadler (D-NY) either didn’t watch those Netflix reruns that I watched or when he did watch, he disagreed with Opie’s methods learned. To give you an example of how NOT to do it when talking with others, here’s Nadler who, as Chairman, asks the first 5 minutes of questions to any witness and did so in that hearing with Lewandowski. It’s a tad over five minutes but will give you the picture of what Democrats were and are really up to:

To illustrate the hypocrisy in this hearing was Democrats revelation of their misunderstanding of effective communication. Surely they did not want for Americans to see their hatred and spite for this President. Yet they showed it all afternoon.

A new rule Democrats passed just for this and other Judiciary hearings let the second round of questioning be handled by Congressional aids or others. For Democrats, Barry Burke — titled as a “staff Democrat attorney” — questioned Lewandowski for 30 minutes. Though Burke is an attorney, he was also a very large Democrat contributor in 2016 and 2018. When Republicans took their turn to ask questions by an  appointed Republican who serves on the committee, Chairman Nadler shot it down and would not allow it saying “Members have already asked their questions.”

In my honest opinion, almost without fail, members of Congress in most of these types of hearings are really terrible communicators. As was proven in the Lewandowski hearing, they all use scripted questions formatted in a way to make the person testifying look bad and inevitably all are attempts to put the President in a bad light. They made it effectively and abundantly clear that they are all set on the task. That task is to impeach President Trump. And they will.

Don’t be shocked: for two years we at TruthNewsNetwork have assured you again and again that impeachment was their ultimate objective for Mr. Trump. It didn’t and doesn’t matter to Democrats that he has achieved amazing results in his first three years as president. They certainly have given him little or no support in his dramatic and nonstop quest to fix so many of the issues that still exist in our nation.


On one of those episodes of The Andy Griffith Show, Opie Taylor showed up one day at the courthouse to see his dad at work. Opie told Andy he was going to pick up his skates. Opie didn’t have any skates and his dad asked how he was going to skate. Opie replied, “I’m gonna have skates because I’m trading my licorice seeds to Jeremy for his pair of skates.” And immediately told Opie “Licorice doesn’t come from seeds!” Opie replied, “I know Dad, but Jeremy doesn’t.”

The moral of the show was the importance of honesty with others and always telling the truth when dealing with others.

“Always telling the truth when dealing with others.” This is so applicable to Congress today. In politics, using a line, a narrative, a policy, or even an opinion, declaring whichever of those you use as a founding reason to justify what you think are certain results is exactly the lesson Opie was about to learn from Andy.

You see, Barney and Andy had committed to sell an old rundown cannon for the town of Mayberry. The cannon was literally a piece of junk. Andy “kinda,” told a potential buyer that the cannon “might” have been pulled by President Teddy Roosevelt when he stormed San Juan Hill. Of course, that was a lie. But Andy felt like it was OK for him to say so because it was for a good cause: to help Mayberry sell that old cannon.

Good causes or not, telling a lie is really a poor way to obtain acceptance in a deal or agreement in a political argument or any argument, for that matter. Certainly, Andy’s cause was a good one. But misrepresentation is never the right way to go.

House Democrats were exposed in that hearing.  That was made clear because various Democrat Representatives pontificated about their desire to “hold the President accountable for his actions” because “no one is above the law — even the president of the United States.”

Even that lie has been exposed. Americans have watched as the single desire of this and other hearings and that of the 2.5 year-long Mueller Investigation: find dirt sufficient to justify the House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment against President Trump.

Andy tried to pull the wool over Opie’s eyes. But, in the end, “the truth will out.” In Mayberry, it certainly did. Andy did sell the cannon, but not for the ridiculous price that was willing to be paid by the collector wanting it because it was pulled up San Juan Hill by Teddy Roosevelt.

As is usual on the Andy Griffith show, it all worked out. The town sold the cannon and Opie told his friend the truth about those licorice seeds. The skates? Opie’s still looking for something to trade with Jeremy for the skates.

Will this impeachment cloud go away? Remember: for three years we have been promising the House will impeach President Trump. We still feel that way. Of course, that could change at any moment. But unless that happens, you can bet they’ll impeach Mr. Trump. I doubt the Senate will confirm whatever measure comes over from the House.  They’ll give it a shot, not for Trump wrongdoing, but for the purpose of fulfilling their promises made to their constituents.


When Babies Survive Abortions

Yes, it’s true. Not all abortions kill the baby. Sometimes they survive the procedure.

Think about that: they “survive.” That means they are born which, according to Pro-Choice advocates’ own definition, means they are alive. If they’re alive, that means they are human beings and have immediate constitutional rights. But are they treated as newborn babies?

I think you know the answer to that question.

Pro-Choice/Pro-Life differences have been the most contentious policies in American politics in my lifetime. It’s difficult to find any American who is not galvanized by one perspective or the other. For this discussion, let’s lay aside our personal opinions about abortion being murder and any action to outlaw abortion would snatch the right for women to control their own bodies.

Let’s talk about a tiny segment of the abortion conversation that has been almost totally overlooked: what happens now and what should happen to a baby — yes “baby” — that lives through an abortion attempt? It happens but certainly is a rarity considering the vast number of abortions performed each year. But there’s something almost never discussed: what happens to the baby that survives an abortion?

Before we discuss that, let’s meet one such adult woman who actually fills the role of an aborted baby who lived.

Meet “Claire”

Mother-of-three Claire Culwell from Austin, Texas, was born to teenager mother Tonya Glasby, who was just 13 when she fell pregnant.

Glasby, now 47, assumed she was pregnant with just one child but doctors found that she had been expecting twins after she continued to feel movement a month after the termination.

Culwell survived the abortion attempt, although she weighed just 3lbs and was born two months’ prematurely with dislocated hips and club feet.

After being adopted at two months’ old by her parents Barbara and Warren Culwell, Culwell began to thrive – although the damage done to her body in the womb ensured health problems throughout her early childhood.

Her parents had adopted her believing that she’d simply been born early to a teenager mother, with no hint of the real story offered to them.

“I weighed just 3lbs at birth, having been born two months early and my hips on both sides were dislocated,” she said. “My feet were both turned in. I was on life support for months.”

After growing up in a happy home, she was always given a positive story about her birth mother, being told frequently by her adoptive parents that she was an always ‘wanted’ baby.

At 20, Culwell decided that she wanted to meet her birth mother and, after several months tracking her down via an adoption agency, the family decided together that they should have a face-to-face reunion – unaware of the dramatic confession about to be made.

In March 2009, Culwell, by now 21, met her mother for the first time at the house of a friend in Texas.

The highly emotional meeting went well, with Culwell sharing photos of her childhood and thanking her for giving birth to her.

She’d written a card to her birth mother in advance, saying: “Thank you for choosing life for me… it’s the greatest gift I’ve ever received.”

After Glasby read the card, she broke down and began to confess the real story of Culwell’s birth, revealing that she was just 13 when she fell pregnant and that, after telling her family, they had decided she must have a termination.

She told the Culwell family that she had been unaware she’d been expecting twins and when the abortion took place at five months, she assumed she was no longer pregnant.

In fact, Culwell’s twin brother had died but Culwell had continued to live on in the womb.

When the teenager realized she was still carrying a baby, she was six months’ pregnant and traveled to a different state to try and have a second abortion – but doctors deemed it too risky and the pregnancy continued to the seventh month when Culwell was born and placed straight on life support.

Of the shock confession, Culwell said she “felt like I was in a movie”…but didn’t hesitate to reassure her birth mother that she had forgiven her already.

The mother and daughter are now still in touch. Glasby said meeting her daughter had been “amazing,” and that “forgiveness is a wonderful thing.”

This is a victorious story that has a happy ending. Sadly, the Culwell story is rare. There are no official numbers kept documenting such good endings. Almost all the time, that baby (or “fetus” as Pro Choicers prefer) is lost.

We cannot end today’s story without hearing from a professional who has faced this dilemma personally. reported this story:

Republican members of Congress held a hearing in September 2019 on the “Born Alive” bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions. During the hearing, nurse Jill Stanek talked about her experience discovering a baby who had survived an abortion procedure.

Stanek was working in a hospital in Chicago at the time when she discovered the newborn infant left to die in a soiled utility room. She conveyed her experience during the testimony portion of that Congressional hearing:

“When I heard Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, describe during an interview the process by which doctors determine to shelve unwanted newborns to die, it hit painfully home to me.

He said, quoting,

‘If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.’

Governor Northam was right. That is exactly what happens.

I know because I cared for a dying baby who was on the other side of that decision. My experience was 20 years ago, but as Governor Northam made clear, it could have happened yesterday.

I was a Registered Nurse at Christ Hospital in Illinois when I learned it committed abortions into the second and third trimesters. The procedure, called induced labor abortion, sometimes resulted in babies being aborted alive. In the event a baby was aborted alive, he or she received no medical assessments or care but was only given what my hospital called“comfort care” — made comfortable, as Governor Northam indicated.

One night, a nursing co-worker was transporting a baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome to our Soiled Utility Room to die –because that’s where survivors were taken. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, so I rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.

He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about the size of my hand. He was too weak to move very much, expending all his energy attempting to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall.

After he was pronounced dead, I folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where we took all our dead patients.

Christ Hospital readily admitted babies there survived abortions. A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times (article submitted with testimony) ‘between 10 percent and 20 percent of aborted babies survive for short periods.’

From what I observed, it was not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. One abortion survivor I was aware of lived for almost eight hours.

Of 16 babies Christ Hospital aborted during the year 2000, four that I knew of were aborted alive. Each of those babies — two boys and two girls — lived between 1-1/2 and 3 hours. One baby was 28 weeks gestation — 7 months old — and weighed two pounds, seven ounces.


In way of a disclaimer, let me make it clear: I am 100% Pro-Life. My perspective on today’s subject is absolute. I am against abortion. Can/is there a justification for even “abortion in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother?” When there are tens of thousands of American couples who cannot have their own children waiting to adopt, I cannot justify terminating a pregnancy. Yes, rape and incest or horrible incidents. But sometimes a product of that wrong is an amazing life that when given can create many good things, “if” those pregnancies were not terminated.

I agree with the premise that when that fetus is created it is alive and therefore deserves every opportunity to live. And I disagree that abortion is a part of “Women’s healthcare.” Babies are not diseases or afflictions or high blood pressure or diabetes. They’re babies.

For a moment, consider my premise is factual. That fact really creates an uncomfortable dilemma for those who are Pro-Choice when in an abortion a baby survives. Why? Babies — any baby — is a human and has each and every right afforded to every person: both socially AND legally.

Those rights include receiving medical care sufficient to as best as possible save that baby’s life: yes, a baby that is alive! We’ll hear about that very thing in detail in a few minutes when Virginia Governor Ralph Northam — a physician himself — outlined what most feel is the policy supported by Pro-Choice advocates.

I’ll close by saying this: Virginia Governor Northam promoted in that televised interview a horrible and life-attacking outcome of some foiled abortions. But his policy was no different than Barack Obama when as an Illinois representative who voted against a bill that would have provided medical care for a baby who survived an abortion.

As Americans — heck, as humans — we should always come down on the side of life. A baby that’s breathing is alive! You may disagree with my anti-abortion position. But denying a baby that is alive medical care allowing it to die simply because it was part of a botched abortion is an atrocity of inhumane proportions. As Americans, we’re better than that.

Just consider this: how will anyone and everyone who has participated in any way in an abortion reconcile what they have done if and when science tells us that life indeed begins at conception. Think of the mental devastation they will feel and the certain nightmares they will have.

Wouldn’t we be better to simply say this: Until we receive definitive proof that life does not begin at conception and that an aborted baby that survives is not yet alive, we will do everything we can to see to it each baby survives and gets the same chance we had at our birth?

What’s to lose? Only the lives of millions of babies killed for the sake of convenience.


2019 Ironies in Bullet Points

Do you ever see or hear something somebody does or says that makes you wanna shake your head and say, ”Huh…how could they do that?” It happens to me a bunch. In 2019 we have seen more of those ironies I think than had ever been seen before. Maybe it’s because of busy-ness, social media, or because 2 billion people have camera phones each linked to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube.

Let’s break from our regular Saturday news headlines and share some of those ironies in Bullet Points!





  • Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words — they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.


  • Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.


  • No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait… there’s more.


  • Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.


  • And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.


  • President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America.


  • We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.


  • They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.


  • 60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.


  • Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated.


  • Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.


  • A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint … Yet!


  • How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?


  • Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.


  • Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.


  • I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America.


  • The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.


  • “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher


  • Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.


  • Trump — “They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way.”

A “New America” is Here

I remained quiet on 9/11: I didn’t do a blog post, didn’t do a podcast, I just watched. I wanted to see if anybody and who would begin a process to alter history. It didn’t take long.

The first time I saw Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) reference the 9/11 attack on New York as “…we know somebody did something…..” was the first time I understood what the word “globalization” meant. It meant that there really are millions of people in this nation who feel like (and prefer others to feel too) that in this modern United States we are no longer citizens of a country, but are citizens of the World. And to that end, our government should not create and implement any policies whatsoever that consider the needs of American citizens over those of other countries — especially for illegal immigrants that want entry into the United States “to be safe.”

Think about it: news headlines on the 18th anniversary of the attack on New York actually stated that the airplanes initiated those attacks: not hijackers after storming plane cockpits — not terrorists, not Islamists, but planes! I a couple of days ago as did millions of others recalled that morning when in 2001 I sat in my office and was informed of the attack of the first plane. I quickly turned on my television and watched in horror as the second plane flew into Tower Two. I remained riveted for hours trying to understand what was happening. That day, I never thought “how could those planes be so evil?” Planes didn’t kill anyone. Terrorists did. No one gave this year’s news headlines a thought on that day in 2001.

Television news coverage in 2001 seemed unified. Flipping from channel to channel and watching reports hoping to hear some “good” news, there was one thing and one thing only that came through on every news report: America was under attack. That day there was no partisanship, no political agendas, no sparring about political policies. The only thing that mattered to every American was our country was under attack.

Facts Remained: News Reporting Did Not

On that day it didn’t matter if you were anchorman Tom Brokaw of NBC News or a rookie reporter at a small-town newspaper, you were faced with a crisis you never before experienced or could have imagined. The decisions that were made in newsrooms across the country have left a lasting change in how the news media covers stories to this day.

Looking back on reporting that and subsequent days, however, something in news reporting began to change: slowly and methodically. And it has continued and has heightened in intensity since. The attacks needed no creative writing to make them appear worse than they already were. However, in the days after the attacks, David Westin, the president of ABC News, ordered that video of the jets hitting the World Trade Center in New York City not be repeated over and over so as not “to disturb viewers, especially children.” That was a landmark decision, considering how many times Americans had been exposed to a video of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion and the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy. Before then, if you had a good video, you usually exploited it. Today, news organizations are re-examining coverage of violent stories, such as mass shootings. Some are deciding that even when a video is available, it is too graphic to put on TV.

In all fairness, many dramatic stories that are important and should make the news, are accompanied by a pretty graphic video. And, in all fairness, many probably are forever sketched into the minds of all those who see them. But should members of the media –especially television — be the sole arbiters of what audiences see and hear? Are Americans so numb in their lives that they all feel life-changing mental anguish when there is a mass shooting, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes when television video shows actual happenings? After all, bad stuff happens almost daily in every city in America.

It began shortly after 9/11 that news editors got more hands-on on news stories reported. Slowly but steadily news reporters and columnists and their political perspectives began to influence the news — not just what was reported but how it was.

It is true that the internet, smartphones and amazingly user-friendly video cameras are in every woman’s purse and man’s pocket that can and do capture almost immediately each such incident. It is true that the ability to transfer through the internet these videos to various news sources gives editors many more story choices with the added video attractions. But is it true that now an overseeing newsgroup takes unilateral control over programming content? I think no one can argue that news editors and publishers pretty much choose what we see and hear based on THEIR needs and desires and not ours. But should it be that way?


Here’s another consideration: Remember the U.S. flag pins that politicians and newscasters began wearing shortly after the attacks? At first, they were seen as a sign that America would stand strong. Before long, critics said they were being used to show political support for the policies of President Bush. Reporters with news organizations that would never take a political stance were faced with a dilemma—keeping the pins on may make it appear that the journalist was supporting a political agenda. Taking them off could look un-American. ABC was one organization with a policy that specifically stated the pins and other symbols could not be worn.

The pin flap has faded, but the patriotism battle continues over a cable TV channel. Al Jazeera English (AJE) presents reports from a Middle East perspective, offering Americans a look at how people in another part of the world views us. Even ten years after 9/11, cable TV companies reportedly worried about a backlash if they offered the channel.

Cultural Perspective

Once the nation saw the faces and read the names of the 9/11 suspects, it became easy to target people of Middle Eastern ancestry or Islamic belief as possible terrorists. News organizations chose to actively fight that stereotyping or saw an opportunity to pander to it. Fox News Channel has been accused of playing to Americans’ fears of Muslims. Others in media are criticized for assuming that all terrorist acts since 9/11 are committed by Muslim extremists. People who do bad things come from many different cultures, religions, ethnicities, and political affiliations. Evil seems to be pretty open to everyone and anyone who wants to join in can take that opportunity.

All of this plays into the changes we’ve seen in a sector of U.S. life that dramatically impacts the lives of every American 24/7. News organizations have major input into not just political, but cultural, economic, and social issues every day. What we see and hear from them impact many decisions we make, which we often did not even consider before.
And the media figures greatly into changes in America. I don’t think anyone can argue that the United States in 2019 is a vastly different country than when that first jet hit Tower One in 2001. In fact, our changes have been, are, and apparently will be more dramatic moving forward. Most notable in these changes is the way our political process is being handled from the top down. It’s new.

“New” Country

There’s a new country under construction. The “old” United States of America has been dismantled piece by piece. No, it didn’t come apart at the hands of a conquering foreign military or of Islamist terrorists hijackers. It did not result from ravaging economic devastation. It came at the hands of a political system that progressively fractured the U.S. piece by piece from within — and at the hands of its own people.

Sadly, that force that split the nation in half resulted from an internal political battle between a large part of a populace who wanted a national government that snatched control of every part of the nation’s existence. Their belief is that a strong and small nucleus of people which control every piece of the government can more effectively and more fairly take care of its citizens than could the previous government that was elected by the people as a whole.

There’s a new culture in America that is steering the country further left than I ever suspected I would see in my lifetime. I don’t think I need to spend much time proving to you that it’s happening. But few (including me) can believe it has happened so quickly and so demonstrably as it has. As this story is prepared, Democrat presidential candidates are on stage in Texas verbally destroying the fundamental constitutional operations of the U.S., the current president, and each other — all on radical, heretofore “other” countries’ political structural ideas. These 10 candidates plus the handful not on-stage are pretty much in lock step on one thing: the “old” version of America is no longer good enough. Instead of constitutionally steadily and thoughtfully proposing and making any changes they want, they demand immediate and drastic changes not done constitutionally.

The U.S. of my childhood apparently went the way of corduroy pants, penny loafers, and overalls. None of them are “applicable” and “appropriate” anymore.


The time left until the 2020 election will determine how America is going to move forward. But, maybe “moving forward” is an oxymoron in this case. Those 20+ want the U.S. to walk away from most of the structure that enabled us to get to where we are. Who can realistically argue that our country looks anything like it did shortly after the surrender of Japan aboard the USS Missouri in the Pacific. America has changed. They and many other Americans expect more and more drastic changes to quickly follow.

In closing let’s remember this: our founding fathers gave us several ways to alter/edit the template used to establish how the United States is governed: the U.S. Constitution. Many of us are wondering why none of these presidential candidates has even floated amending the Constitution as an option. They want radical and immediate change.

Something that none of them and few others of that mindset realize: anything used other than the Constitution cannot happen in the political structure of the United States. The Rule of Law cannot exist in any environment in which a ruling class rejects even part of a set of laws. Without laws and without adherence to the laws agreed to by a majority to rule a country, no such country can exist.

Is that what today’s Democrat Party wants? If so, what specific alternative type of government do they propose? Wouldn’t it be better for Americans to know where we’d be headed with a new president AND a new form of government in 2020?

Don’t be so crass as to answer these questions with, “That could never happen in the United States!” There’s no way two hijacked airlines could take down both of the World Trade Center towers in a space of a couple of hours either.

If enough Americans want a government overhaul, it can possibly happen. But don’t be naive: not a one of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates if elected has even a one percent shot at making changes like it would take for that “overhaul objective” to be even marginally successful.

If something like that happens we will all be a part of the generation that lost the greatest political structure in the greatest nation in World history. Sadly, if that happens, it will happen primarily because a fawning, angry, obstructive, and Democrat-controlled political party (including their media henchmen) will have been successful in the achievement of their one and only objective: to destroy Donald Trump. And it they are successful, all of the U.S. and the World will be forced to acknowledge those to blame for the fall did not attack from other countries. They will have attacked and destroyed a Representative Republic that purportedly is controlled democratically through a 535 member governing body and that Congress allowed it to happen.

God help us.

United States: World Mass Shooting Leader – Or is It?

Every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S., mass media hysteria escalates to deafening levels. They almost in unison scream for gun confiscation, mandatory gun buy-backs, assault weapons bans, repeal of the Second Amendment, and many more demands. But there is one mass shooting story common element we hear every time: “The United States has far more mass shootings than any other country on Earth.” Until recently, Americans had no choice but to accept what the media told us. Why is that? We are pretty certain there are more guns of every kind in the U.S. than in any other country. Because of that and because of the spotlight put on every mass shooting by America’s media, we just have believed it to be true. But is it?

Facts Matter

Every time there’s a shooting, the gun control advocates go nuts. The statistics reports are seen and heard all over the news daily. Make no mistake: any shootings of any kind are horrendous, almost always unnecessary, and always create lifechanging circumstances not just for the shooting victims and the shooter(s), but for family members, friends and relatives, and many in each community in which they occur. To that end, maybe getting flooded with news about these shootings is a good thing. A large number of Americans seek to implement processes — some kind of processes that can effectively stop these travesties. But there are issues in implementing any such process.

First, there is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Referred to in modern times as an individual’s right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 as the “true palladium of liberty.” In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin described as the “last coup de grace” that would enable the states “to thwart and oppose the general government.” Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.

Quite a few federal cases regarding the use of weapons in the context of citizens’ rights under this amendment have worked their way through the federal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. In every such case, the Court has ruled in favor of citizens having an unfettered right to own and bear arms for personal defense. You can see the conundrum gun control advocates face in trying to craft some type of legislation in Congress that could somehow curtail any mass shootings. So far, no such constitutional legislation that would pass muster has been written and passed.

The second huge obstacle in this craziness is that there currently are hundreds of federal and state gun laws implemented to do just that: stop illegal use of guns. Gun advocates have floated the number 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws already in existence. So why should we put any new laws in place?

That number is always thrown into any gun control discussion. But gun-control advocates are trying to undermine that “20,000 gun laws” argument with a new study that casts doubt on the meaning of the “20,000” number. A study from the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy counts only 300 “relevant federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns.” The keyword is “relevant.”

The study does not include a tally of local gun laws. In fact, the authors note that since more than 40 states preempt all or most local gun control laws, there’s no reason to include local laws in a gun-law tally.

For the purpose of today’s discussion, let’s assume the 300 gun law number is accurate. That’s certainly far less than the 20,000 number. But any reasonable person must agree: 300 gun laws throughout the United States that are so comprehensive should certainly curtail if not eliminate any and all mass shootings. However, mass shooting statistics tell a different story. Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place.  Using those numbers, it is virtually impossible to create and make any new gun controls that could possibly pass muster pertaining to the Second Amendment.

“Stopping eighteen percent of mass shootings is worth the hard work necessary to put processes in place to do so,” is trumpeted by gun control groups. Without new laws to stack on top of the 300 such laws already on the books that could be more effective, what can Congress and law enforcement members possibly make happen?

That’s where realistic, comprehensive, and legal gun control discussions reach an impasse.

To make the dilemma even worse is that no one knows for certain how many illegal guns are on U.S. streets today. The percentage of guns that are legally purchased and then used to commit a mass shooting is very low. However, the overwhelming majority of gun-related crimes (including mass shootings and other murders) are committed with guns that have been stolen and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime.

Given that fact, it becomes obvious that no actual count of the number of crimes committed with “illegal guns” is possible. In fact, most gun-related crimes are never solved and are certainly never linked to an individual gun, legally purchased or not.

Wow! Rather than finding answers, the research on this topic instead of revealing solutions reveals multiple new roadblocks in finding available answers to the question: How can a legal process be put in place that will stop mass shootings?

Muddy The Water

The media in America lust for bad news — especially news that includes mass shootings. One need only look at the non-stop furor during and following the recent shootings in an El Paso, Texas Walmart and outside a Dayton, Ohio nightclub. Day after day after day, 24/7 news reports gave Americans every possible perspective on the topic: from interviews with mental health specialists, Constitutional Experts, law enforcement officers, politicians, mass shooting victims and family members of victims, medical officials on each scene, and, of course, Media Gun Control pundits. This in itself did nothing at all to promote solutions to curb any such future shootings, they each almost in total morphed into a specific political narrative. The chief of those is “More Gun Control.” Whether that is called making assault rifles, multiple round gun clips illegal or just more extensive background checks, the media — primarily for ratings — harp on the gun control “story of the day.”

Sadly, Mainstream Media outlets who feed at the advertising trough to perpetuate their vocations find that television and radio ratings and newspaper circulations skyrocket during the days during and following mass shootings. Much of the noise that emanates from these news sources are bloated reports and interviews replete with innuendo and opinion and rarely include factual information.

Let’s ask a simple question: let’s look and listen to the analysis of the “study” created and circulated by a University of Alabama professor who is a self-proclaimed expert on the subject. Then watch and listen as his report — which has been used as the Bible of mass shooting data and statistics — is ripped to shreds regarding the accuracy and even its basis. The question: What’s the truth?

Is it any surprise that Professor Langford’s data that is sourced and that he “verified” is far from accurate? Honestly, if even half of the Americans that have been blanketed by the narcissistic American news media with these bogus facts had seen or heard this simple and brief report would still believe what they have seen on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC News and have read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Huffington Post. None of them have done any real investigation of the Langford report numbers, the report’s authenticity or accuracy, and none have actually spoken to Langford. How can I say that? If they had, the B.S. they put out about gun control would be totally different. Their lack of effort is telling. It proves one piece of factual information that TruthNewsNetwork has given to our members over and over for more than two years: Americans cannot trust that the information received from all of the above media outlets and dozens of others is factual. Realistically, most of what these outlets spew is false.

No wonder President Trump constantly calls primarily the two newspapers above, CNN and MSNBC “Fake News.” Actually, most of their reporting IS fake! To be honest, John Stossel who produced this report of Langford’s report has always been a fair and impartial journalist. For that reason, it’s surprising to me that he now works for CNN, and that CNN let this exposure of Langford and his mass shooting information actually air.

Where Are We Headed?

Honestly, as Congress goes back into session with gun control legislation top-of-mind for most Americans, once again it is doubtful that any meaningful legislation will pass both houses that will be signed into law. The primary reason is the issue of conflict of any such measures with the Second Amendment.

Sadly, the driving reason for any Congressional action regarding new legislation is purely political. With the 2020 election looming in our near future, politicians have jumped all over the gun control topic to further their political careers. We’ll hear debates about it non-stop until November 2020.

There’s a humorous part of this for me: a number of the Democrat 2020 presidential candidates have actually floated gun confiscation as a way to stop mass shootings. Think about that. I doubt anyone has an idea of a real number of privately owned guns in America. But I think it’s safe to say there are several hundred million. Can you picture a scenario in which law enforcement officials would knock on 200 million doors and force their way into those homes to seize those guns? They’d probably try it at a house or two. But they’d find out really quickly how important the Second Amendment is to most Americans. And if they do, they need to rethink starting their seizures in the South!

The saddest part of this entire story is that politic positions have dominated the conversation about reaching a real solution to mass shootings. And they always use such shootings for strictly political purposes. Meanwhile, funerals continue, lives are lost and families are destroyed by these killings.

What’s the answer? Stop the mass shootings! How can we do that? It all begins with everyone who should be a part of such a conversation is included. Then all political posturing has to be drained from the conversation. What must control such a conversation is one thing and one thing only: What do we need to do and what needs to be included in legislation crafted solely to drastically reduce if not eliminate mass shootings? And what such legislation can we put into law that will sustain a Constitutional examination by the U.S. Supreme Court when compared to the Second Amendment?

You know what: I doubt a single meeting or conversation by lawmakers has ever happened based solely on those two things I just mentioned. That’s sad — really sad. What’s sadder is that unless that exact conversation happens and those participating stick it out to the end and reach a consensus, these mass shootings will continue.

Whose and how many kids must die before politicians swallow their political pride and do that?


The Obama “Hush/Slush” Fund

Monday morning, September 9th, 2019, conservative author, writer, and broadcaster Michele Malkin appeared on Fox and Friends to preview her upcoming book Open Borders, Inc. The fundamental premise of her book is that an amazingly large number of dollars that funded the open-borders debacle at the U.S. southern border came from hundreds of U.S. charities. That’s not really a bad thing in that charities exist so as to help poor and indigent people that for any number of reasons find themselves in unimaginable circumstances.

As you probably know, most donations made to any 501C-3 corporations are tax-deductible. That makes those donations federally tax-deductible and in many cases state tax-deductible as well. Congress made this possible years ago to encourage American citizens and commercial corporations to assist such charities to help less fortunate Americans. Individuals and corporations make donations to these charities and get to “write-off” the amounts donated.

However, as you will see here, the old adage “Show me a dollar and I’ll show you a way to cheat to get that dollar” is certainly applicable in a “Hush/Slush Fund” scam perpetrated by President Barack Obama and his Department of Justice.

The “Hush/Slush Fund” of which we reveal details today is the subject of Malkin’s new book. But her revelations are regarding non-profit organizations who receive some of these funds are specifically used to fund illegal immigration operations in egregious ways. Those we discuss below were used during the Obama Administration to — in many cases — help establish and/or prop-up left-leaning not-for-profits to fund other various liberal causes. You’ll cringe when you hear those disclosed below.

Later we will delve into Malkin’s information which is supposed to be exhaustive.

Let’s look at the Obama second term Hush/Slush fund story.


In a little-noticed November 2018 report, Bank of America announced that it had donated more than $60.1 million to various charitable funds and nonprofit groups.

The donations were a good deal for Bank of America. For every dollar the bank gives, an independent monitor for the deal credits the bank with $2 toward the record $16.6 billion settlement with the Justice Department on financial fraud charges it signed in August 2014. To date, the donations have reduced that penalty by $138 million. Ordinarily, this practice would be illegal. Not on the bank’s part, but on the government’s.

Federal law says that any funds obtained by a government official, such as a Justice Department prosecutor, must be deposited with the Treasury Department. Officials cannot instruct anybody making a payment to direct the funds anywhere else, much less offer them a deal if they do. Yet President Obama’s Justice Department found a legal workaround to do just that in two of the biggest financial fraud settlements the government has ever obtained. Left-leaning nonprofit groups who would be eligible for the donations lobbied for this, according to Republican critics.

Before Obama, any funds obtained from federal prosecutions that did go to the third party groups did so only after all matters relating to the people directly injured by the wrongdoing had been addressed. How does the Justice Department do this? By arguing that these are “voluntary” donations by the banks and therefore not funds that would otherwise go to the Treasury. Never mind that the banks would violate their plea agreements with the department if they did not make the payments.

Under the $7 billion settlement, Citigroup signed with the Justice Department in 2014 on financial fraud charges, the bank is obligated to pay at least $10 million in “community relief” to housing-related nonprofit groups from a list the government maintains, many of which are Democrat-friendly. It must also pay $15 million to legal aid funds and $25 million to public or private community development funds. Bank of America must pay at least $20 million to housing groups, $30 million to legal aid groups and $50 million to public or private community development funds. Not only do both banks get double credit toward their overall penalties for each donation, but there is also no explicit cap on the number of credits they can get. They could erase potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in federal penalties in this way. For every dollar Bank of America gives, an independent monitor for the deal credits the bank with $2 toward the record $16.6 billion settlement with the Justice Department.  “The DOJ announces, ‘Oh, we have gotten these multibillion settlements,’ and then you look at the fine print and see the banks get more credit for giving to a slush fund than to the Treasury,” said Ted Frank, founder of the nonprofit Center for Class Action Fairness.

Republicans have fumed. “It appears that DOJ is systematically subverting Congress’s budget authority by using the settlements to funnel money to favored activist groups,” said House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, in a May letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Even the Justice Department has conceded that they are skirting the law on this. In February of 2018, while giving testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Graber said, “This kind of relief could not have been ordered by a court, even if the government had prevailed at trial.”

The Obama Justice Department wasn’t eager to discuss any of this despite having touted both settlements when they were announced in 2014. “We will decline your interview request on money from the financial settlements,” spokesman Patrick Rodenbush told the Washington Examiner.

Who gets that money that is directed from settlements by the DOJ. The DOJ provides a list of “qualified” recipients that can receive those funds. Who are they?

In the case of Citigroup, the list provided by the DOJ was several hundred names long and includes numerous nonpartisan groups like Catholic Charities as well as exclusively local nonprofits. Others are more liberal. Reports by the monitor for the Bank of America settlement show that National Council of La Raza received $1.5 million, the National Urban League received $1.2 million, and New Jersey Citizen Action, a labor-backed activist group received $100,000.

Countrywide Financial Corporation doled out $335 million to settle its discrimination lawsuit with the feds. Under this DOJ agreement, Countrywide’s money was supposed to be distributed to more than 200,000 minority victims who supposedly were charged higher interest rates and fees than white borrowers based on their race, not their credit. Instead, a chunk of the money went to Democrat-tied groups not connected to the lawsuit, including the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the open-borders National Council of La Raza (NCLR).

Many of the same groups got more money from a record $16.65 billion settlement with Bank of America. It’s a “historic resolution,” according to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, “and the money will help make amends to borrowers and communities that were negatively affected by the bank’s conduct. Besides settling civil penalties at the state and federal level, the billions will bring relief to struggling homeowners and communities by, among other things, offering new loans and providing financing for affordable rental housing. Delinquent borrowers in Democrat strongholds like Chicago, Oakland and Detroit will also benefit from debt forgiveness.”

Leftover funds were to go to politically-connected community groups—like the NCLR, Operation Hope and National Community Reinvestment Coalition—that intimidate banks into qualifying more minorities for home loans, even if they really can’t afford it. This part of the deal is conveniently buried in an annex to the 37-page DOJ agreement, but a publication dedicated to covering business, finance, and economics draws attention to it in a scathing editorial that refers to the arrangement as extortion. (click on the link “editorial” to see that arrangement)

This was not only a federal tool and used not only by Democrats. As a U.S. attorney in 2005, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie used a deferred prosecution agreement against drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb to get it to send funds to his alma mater, Seton Hall University School of Law. The funds were used to endow a professorship in ethics.


Have you wondered how ANTIFA has been funded? What about the “real” White Supremacist groups that have conducted protests that resulted in violence. Billionaire Trump-hater George Soros is known to have funded hundreds of small politically active leftist not-for-profits. It is certain that some of those millions of Soros dollars have ended up supporting these organizations.

Then there’s the Obama White House. Folks, BILLIONS of dollars in fines and penalties for major banks and other financial institutions, EPA violators caught and fined, and other major corporate offenders have been paid. If you thought the “pay-for-play” operations of the Clinton Foundation were bad, think about what Obama did and what people like Soros are doing today: billions of dollars that are supposed to be paid to the U.S. Treasury — taxpayer-owned — for the use of House of Representatives for the funding of various needs of the federal government were diverted by Obama to hand-picked not-for-profits to spend “as they saw fit.” Most if not all of those diverted funds have ended up in Democrat activist groups’ coffers.

Adding insult to injury, the Obama DOJ short-circuited the law to give those stupid discounts to offenders to entice the gifting to Democrat-aligned groups — sometimes 50 percent of the amount of fines and penalties they owe — to instead of those billions going to the U.S. Treasury to instead go as “donations” to Democrat non-profits!

House Democrats pontificate in outrage against any actions that are attempted by the White House to address Americans’ needs which the Democrat-led House of Representatives continually ignore therefore offering no funding for Americans’ issues like law-breaking at the southern border and the horrendous treatment of illegal immigrants because of the lack of authorized Congressional funding.

What’s going on? This process was put in place long ago. Its purpose is to allow powerful Congressional leaders to manipulate the system in coordination with Democrat “fellow law-breakers” to grow the Democrat Party!

The long-term goal: build and perpetuate a permanent Democrat voting majority. To achieve that goal requires a president that is complicit in signing bills that prop-up these Democrat tactics. A populist president like Donald Trump has totally obliterated the previous success of Leftist activists necessary to achieve this goal!

It’s happening, folks. And it has been doing well and diverting billions of taxpayer dollars away from the Treasury and to these leftist non-profits for more than a decade. Donald Trump may be the last great hope for Americans to preserve our nation of laws, freedoms, and certainly the balance of power between the three co-equal branches of government.

I’ll close by asking this question: If any issues like this were uncovered in the Donald Trump Administration, what would be happening right now? While you think of an answer to that, let me remind you, this story was uncovered and revealed to the general public in 2018. Where were CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post?

And they expect Americans to believe and respect what they report, what they say, and information they give us.




The Washington Examiner and Judicial Watch contributed to this story.



Republicans and Other Conservatives are Illiterate

Is that really true? Of course, the claim is false. But there are many on the Left who think it is true and share it with everyone they can. “Certainly no one of importance in the Democrat Party thinks that about Conservatives.” If you have ever said something like that, you’re wrong. They really do!

Don’t believe me. Why not take a listen to one of the most powerful members in the Senate, Sen. Hirono (D-HI)?:

Though you just heard her, let me reiterate what the Senator from Hawaii actually said:

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said Democrats have a difficult time “connecting” with voters because of “how smart we are” that “we know so much.” Hirono was interviewed by journalist Dahlia Lithwick at the ‘Bend Towards Justice’ conference in Washington, D.C. recently.

“We’re really good at shoving out all the information that touch people here (points to head) but not here (points to heart),” Hirono said of Democrats.

“I’ve been saying it at all of our Senate Democratic retreats that we need to speak to the heart not in a manipulative way, not in a way that brings forth everybody’s fears and resentments but truly to speak to the hearts so that people know that we’re actually on their side,” the Senator said.

“We have a really hard time doing that,” Hirono lamented, “and one of the reasons it was told to me at one of our retreats was that we Democrats know so much, that is true. And we have kind of have to tell everyone how smart we are and so we have a tendency to be very left brain.”

Left brain, right brain: who’s keeping score? I must be honest and say this: no one is keeping score — even Senator Hirono. Democrats (on the most part) think conservatives are if not illiterate, very close to it. And watching and listening everyday to political discourse, it’s made very obvious that the Left hate the Right. And it seems to be never ending.

Not long ago we published this statement here:

“How could anyone — especially leaders in Washington charged with shaping every segment of America and supposedly doing so at the will of Americans — be so consumed with hatred for one man they would abandon the foundation of the U.S. and all it stands for, the millions who have lived fruitful and constructive lives here through several centuries and who have done the same for millions of those overseas, and launch some campaign to destroy this one man!”

Of course we were referencing the disdain the Left holds for President Donald Trump. Originally it seemed that such disdain for President Trump was held at the top of the Democrat Party heap. And maybe it was. But since the run-up to the 2016 election, it has permeated American Democrats and even those further left than Dems. And it’s no longer just disdain. They hold hatred — vitriolic hatred — for Republicans and other Conservatives.

When violence occurs at political events, news of those actions are blasted across television and computer screens and newspapers and radio shows IF the perpetrator is a conservative. What do they do when it’s a Democrat? I’ll answer that question this way: of what party affiliation was the Dayton, Ohio shooter several weeks ago? What was the party affiliation of the shooter at that Congressional G.O.P. baseball practice two years ago? Both were Democrats — die-hard  Democrats who were out to kill Republicans. Did you hear much about those shootings? Did you hear much about the shooters? The answer to both is “little or nothing at all.” Why is that? The Leftist communication arm — the Mainstream Media — make it a regular practice to play-down in reporting of catastrophes committed by Democrat hardliners. It would not play into the hands of Democrats for Americans to know that people like those two shooters and even members of hate group like ANTIFA are Leftists. So the Media simply do not say anything. They could do like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) did when speaking about the twin towers falling in New York: “Somebody did something bad….”

Here’s the ammunition in the 2020 Democrat Party plan to reach across the aisle for uneducated and helpless Republicans that (according to Hirono) are incapable of understanding what Democrats are up to and why: conservatives are too stupid to understand without Democrats dumbing it down so they can. That’s really the way they feel. But they are really in a hole they dug for themselves.

Few know that despite the plethora of young and impressionable Americans that for more than a decade have been fed the liberal fodder regarding the need for bigger government, federally controlled healthcare, free college and community college, and global warming, Democrat Party membership has fallen. Their membership has dwindled to the point where they are frantically trying to sustain existing memberships while attracting new ones. What can they do?

They have a plan:

  1. Entice and even force existing party members to stick to the Democrat talking points. After all, Democrat leaders like Hirono have been successful at convincing Americans that Dems know what’s best for us all. We need to just pay most of our income to them and “they’ll take care of us.” But even with that continuous hard push their numbers are falling.
  2. Why do you think they refuse to work with Republicans to close the southern border and change immigration laws sufficient to stop illegal crossings? It’s because they have been successful at selling many Americans and certainly those from abroad that Democrats are the ones that support illegal immigrants and will continue to support them once they get across the border. That way, everyone that falls into that category is obligated to vote for members of the party that stands for them and stands against those evil conservatives.
  3. And the final plank in their plan is to launch full-speed into the procedure revealed above by Senator Hirono: convince conservatives that Democrats are far better for Americans than Republicans. To do that, because Conservatives are so dim witted, Democrats must stop talking to non-Democrats using their brains (or “facts”) and communicate instead with their hearts. Dumb conservatives are more prone to feel good when Democrats send them “love” instead of honesty. Conservatives are too “simple” to understand the hypocrisy in that.


If you’re conservative, you are labeled by Democrats and other Leftist organizations and individuals as “less-than” those on the Left when it comes to knowing what’s best for you and the country. If you don’t believe that, take a stroll through the Facebook settings and profile of you on your Facebook page. Look down the page of categories Facebook’s algorithim has you shoved into. If you’ve posted anything conservative, spent any time looking at conservative stories or ads, or subscribed through Facebook to any conservative news source or have skimmed conservative news sites, they have you marked as “Conservative.” You’re branded!

Using Facebook is free. Yet Facebook is worth billions of dollars. How could that be? From what is that value derived? Simple: Facebook monetizes everything it publishes and everyone who is a member. Your name and information about you (like just mentioned above) are sold to entities all over the world who use YOUR information to send you ads specific to the “conservative” moniker given you from which they derive income. It’s pretty easy for Facebook, Google, Apple and others to take advantage of you. And you never knew that! Why? Because you’re too “slow.” You’re a conservative.

I’ll end with this: I find it the height of pomposity for Democrats to adopt the attitude exposed by Hirono. But though egregious that members of one of the two major political parties in our nation not only feel that way, but actually promote the righteousness of doing so!

More than once we at TruthNewsNetwork have told you that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that when conservatives disagree with your political beliefs, they may despise your beliefs, but it ends there. When liberals disagree with your political beliefs, they certainly despise your beliefs, but they hate you! They think you’re ignorant or stupid, unable to reason for yourself, and unable to determine who should live in the White House and who represents you and other conservatives in Congress. So they’ll do it for you.

This mindset is not new and it’s not exclusive to Hirono. Remember Hillary Clinton’s statement:

It’s not exclusive to Hillary, either.

Just stay your course. Truth will take care of itself. Yes, there are a number of deplorable who are probably lost in all this, many simply because their lives are too busy or those who cannot stand politics and choose to simply stay out.

But there’s good news in all this. It’s always better to know who you struggle against and exactly what their plan is they use against you. Now you know.

They spread the venom of their message using their political arm and mouthpiece, the Mainstream Media. Conservatives only have their own communication abilities to share their thoughts and the real truth. And it is unfortunate that conservatives cannot rely solely on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News to get that message and truth to everyone.

Interface yourself. I certainly know you’re smart enough.


Bullet Points August 7, 2019

This is our regular Saturday feature in which we bring you bullet points of the top happenings of the last few days. Feel free to read the short summary. Following each is a link to a complete story expanding the short summary. Feel free to click on the link if you wish more detailed information.

  • Hurricane Dorian is still bashing the U.S. east coast after days of blasting the coasts of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina and has set its sights on New York and up the coast of Maine. Left in its waste is devastation in the Bahamas that has left several islands looking like the remnants of an atomic bomb. Abaco from the air looks like a war zone. For more click here:
  • North Carolina took a big shot from Dorian this past week. Flooding was the main culprit for sending Carolinians packing. Barely one year ago these same coastal areas dealt with massive floods with subsequent damages and have just now finished remodeling, repairs, and rebuilding. Some of the same areas received even worse damages than Hurricane Florence left in its way in 2018. For more click here:
  • On Friday jobs numbers were released for the month of July. It was odd that even news outlets like FOX News expressed caution regarding the economy, even though 100,000+ jobs were created in the month. And African American unemployment has fallen to an all-time low for the month of August. For more click here:
  • Many in American healthcare warned with the institution of Obamacare that increasing government control of the industry would certainly create a horrendous shortage of physicians who would flee the vocation as healthcare payers reimbursement would decline rapidly and drastically. Factor that together with the growing segment of elder Americans and that problem is now looking even more traumatic. For more click here:
  • By now all have seen the “new” way to assist those wishing to quit smoking with those new electronic cigarettes. It’s call “vaping.” Vaping has been touted to offer the same things that attract smokers to that smoking experience without the horrors of smoking that have been directly tied to cancer and several different critical respiratory diseases. Even Sean Hannity of FOX News promotes vaping he used to assist him in eliminating his cigar smoking habit. But this past week doctors have released information that attacks the goodness of vaping. And nationwide, serious illnesses plus one death have been attributed to vaping. For more details click here:
  • One of the greatest fears of 21st century Americans about travel is how easy it must be for someone to do something to commercial planes that would cause an in-air incident that could bring a plane own. Who can forget 9/11 and the television pictures of two airliners flying into the World Trade Towers in New York killing 3000 Americans. This past week an American Airlines mechanic was caught sabotaging a plane by messing with its electronics before its schedule flight departure from Miami, Florida. During takeoff an alert pilot notice an irregularity in cockpit instruments and aborted the flight. For more details click here:
  • Just 20 years ago no one thought there was any realistic chance that a single website would play a serious everyday role in the lives of several billion humans living in every country on Earth. With the advent of social media — especially Facebook — it came to past. And with that fulfillment of one man’s dreams comes the recent realization that Facebook and Google and Twitter have quietly found ways to dominate through various types of influence in the lives of their members. In the last presidential election Facebook by itself stealthily impacted the voting decisions of millions of voters. The Federal Government and now state governments have begun preparations to look into potentially illegal actions of these social media giants. For more details click here:

Enjoy your Saturday morning coffee by catching up with the news stories that interest you. We do this every Saturday.

Have a great weekend!