Executive Branch Corruption

Something very strange happened to me several days ago. We regularly receive unsolicited stories, leads, political information and just plain opinion. We don’t take any of these for granted and read them all. But the latest is very troubling. We received an email from an unrecognized email address that strangely ended with a “.gov” address. We all know that is a federal government email.

That was puzzling and a bit scary. We all occasionally receive incoming information from the government, but I’ve never seen any that I knew came from the federal government but could NOT tell from whom.

So I dug in.

Here’s the scary part: It contained a massive amount of information that explained much of the reasoning behind details included in the recent Ukraine president’s phone call with President Trump. It gave reasons for Joe Biden’s conversation with the OLD Ukraine president in which he threatened to withhold a billion dollars in U.S. foreign aid for Ukraine.

In the uproar of pending impeachment of President Trump, many are left with numerous unanswered questions. I am one. And this email answered some of my questions. Here’s my dilemma: we at TruthNewsNetwork have no way to validate its contents — no way to verify its source. (Believe me, we’ve tried) Heretofore we have always complied with our commitment to not publish information we could NOT verify. But we take it one step further: when we give you information, we don’t tell you what to conclude from it, even its truth or falsehood. We trust you to make educated decisions for yourself.

​ I feel obligated to publish this. There’s so much included in the email that explains most of if not all of the reasoning for what transpired in the Ukraine, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and President Trump’s Ukraine interfacing. 

Is the email truthful? Is it part of a right-wing conspiracy? I’ve spent hours reading and thinking it through over and over. I’ve struggled with a need or desire to let you see it. So here goes:

You can read it below. It has been edited, but not to change content. We placed it in bullet format to make it easier to read. Additionally, there were multiple references included as a “bibliography” in the email that sourced much of what is included. Because of names and even some contact information included in it, we did NOT include that bibliography.

I’ve been told by several not to release it. I’ve been advised by others that I have an obligation to do so. But what is really troubling is that it has become abundantly clear that there are those in the proverbial “deep state” who have committed a number of atrocities to protect themselves. I know that publishing this could raise some of those people’s ire. I hope not. 

My final disclaimer:

TruthNewsNetwork does NOT maintain the voracity of factual basis of the contents of this email. Additionally, TruthNewsNetwork does not by its publication urge any action from anyone who chooses to read it. We publish it with a sense of obligation to put as much information on the table for our viewers to use in their own fashion for their own personal purposes. 

That includes any and all who choose to write it off as bunk. Honestly, we cannot say it is or is not bunk!

”The” Email

  • The oligarch who owns the company Hunter Biden worked for was involved in a ponzi scheme through his bank. He loaned money to non-existent “companies” which then laundered the money throughout the world, including in the U.S. through New Hampshire-based entities. 
  • Then the bank filed suit when they didn’t get repaid for the loan. AND THE U.S. TAXPAYER PAYS THE BANK. That’s what these billions of dollars in loan insurance were that Biden was pledged with dispensing and threatened to withhold if the investigator looking into the ponzi scheme was not fired.
  • This was a U.S.-funded ponzi scheme to create a slush fund for political allies outside the U.S. who then OWED political favors, like donating to the Clinton Foundation, leaking claims of Paul Manafort being paid by Russia, and hiding Clinton’s server on Crowdstrike’s Ukrainian servers.
  • All those favors were asked of Ukraine by the DNC. The whole Russian collusion hoax was the baby of Ukrainian allies of the DNC — allies who were bought through U.S. tax dollars in the form of loan insurance for these crooked Ukrainian oligarchs’ banks.
  • Hunter Biden was the beneficiary of nepotism, but in getting rid of the prosecutor, Joe Biden was covering for HIMSELF. The former VP covered the entire group of involved deep state operators because this whole story would expose the deep state techniques to use their positions and taxpayer dollars to get slush money and worldwide political favors.
  • One of those “favors” was a coup against Donald Trump.
  • John Solomon of The Hill on Sean Hannity Thursday night (Sept. 26, 2019) reported that he has a plethora of evidence from official sources, saying that the Ukraine prosecutor Biden demanded to be fired was fired because of Biden’s threat, not because the prosecutor was corrupt. Biden wanted him gone because he was NOT corrupt and would NOT support this ponzi scheme. Once the honest prosecutor was gone, a Biden-appointed prosecutor dropped the investigation of Hunter Biden’s et al ponzi scheme.
  • The new prosecutor (who was appointed when the new president was elected) told Solomon that he was immediately approached by Yovanovitch (the Obama-appointed, Biden-nominated U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) with a list of people the new prosecutor was forbidden to prosecute. He instead gathered evidence of not only the ponzi scheme using U.S. tax dollars, but also of the DNC’s cash-in on political favors to oust Trump.
  • The U.S. State Dept cutoff funding and withheld passports that were necessary to transfer Ukraine’s evidence of U.S. crimes to U.S prosecutors. (This is who Trump referred to in his July call with the Ukraine president as “Bad News.”) Trump’s focus was on the bad people from both Ukraine and the U.S.
  • What we have is evidence of the Deep State’s collusion to bilk U.S. taxpayers for political slush funds while obstructing justice for the perpetrators. The DNC’s collusion with these bought-and-paid-for allies was to commit the treason of asking for foreign interference in the election staging a coup against Trump.
  • The CIA is most likely implicated also because within a month of Trump’s inauguration, the CIA operative who was Mitt Romney’s advisor was appointed to replace Hunter Biden on the board of directors of the Cyprus-based Ukrainian natural gas company owned by Kolomoiski. (The Cyprus companies were where the laundering from these ponzi “loans” was processed.)
  • Discovered also was that the “whistleblower” who offered up hearsay to Adam Schiff was a CIA operative.
  • Kolomoisky hired his own “rightwing” (Nazi) military, which helped him (and still does to this day) to acquire assets. They allegedly storm the asset that he wants and takes it over.
  • The Ukrainian oligarch billionaire arms dealer who supplies that military (Igor Pasternak) is a sugar-daddy for Adam Schiff, holding $2500/plate dinners for Schiff’s campaign funds.

It’s one great big slush fund, funded ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer and enabled by the CIA giving cover to get rid of genuine investigations. And all that was caught just in that one instance of Biden bragging to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Trump stated Biden must have thought that was a “friendly audience” (complicit in the scheme). A large number of Democrats sit on the CFR.

Summary

I’m not trying to steal a tag line from any news organization by saying this:

We provide information — You Decide!

House Intel Adam Schiff Zoo

If you see the Audio Player button here, do NOT listen to this file until the end of today’s story. On some viewer’s browser the Play button is at the end of the story. This short audio file should be listened to last.

That’s exactly what it was. It became apparent in Schiff’s opening statement that reeked of political bias, to fuel Democrat’s Trump impeachment process, but, most importantly, extreme hatred for President Trump. We’ll visit Mr. Schiff’s exposed hatred for the President in an audio file later in this story.

Today’s offering, will not be lengthy, will not (as normal) be an opinion piece. As promised we have released it in bullet point format. I felt going into a weekend, you deserved to receive the truth of this important story but with as little negative perspective as possible.

It was meaningless to listen to any of the Democrat committee members as they questioned the DNI Acting Director Admiral Joseph Maguire who is the former Counter-Terrorism Chief. They all stayed on script, all parroted Schiff’s narcissistic demeanor, and accused Director Maguire continuously of failure to comply with statutes that purportedly require the referral to Congress all Intelligence Agency Whistleblower complaints when the Inspector General finds the allegations credible and “urgent.” Schiff, however, disregarded the details of that statute that require any such referral to Congress to be exclusively for the wrongdoing of someone within the Intelligence agencies. This claim is not about an Intelligence Agency individual. Additionally, Maguire received an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that the complaint does NOT allege wrongdoing on the part of an Intelligence Agency employee and therefore does not fall under the requirement to forward this claim to Congress.

  • Here’s the problem with this: Congress writes ALL federal laws. Congress created the applicable federal statute, including its restrictions. Congress determined the DNI Director had no authority to give Congress that complaint! Maguire basically was “damned if he did-damned if he didn’t” turn it over to Congress. Yet Schiff and his Democrat Intel Committee lapdogs treated Admiral Maguire like a criminal, yet every step of his actions was taken with the complete knowledge and direction of the Department of Justice. The big problem? No such whistleblower in these circumstances had ever in U.S. history happened previously. And Congress did NOT anticipate this type of whistleblower claim.
  • It was obvious throughout the hearing that Democrats had no interest in the facts of the process used by Admiral Maguire, the Inspector General, the counsel of the Department of Justice, the process required to ascertain any conflict regarding Executive Privilege according to the White House Counsel. Intel Committee Democrats continually pushed Acting Director Maguire for his opinions on various issues, many of which did not apply to this particular complaint at all. Adam Schiff continuously twisted the wording of his questions of Maguire to obviously try to elicit a specific response from Maguire.
  • Schiff and others in numerous questions demeaned Maguire, stating that the actions of President Trump in that phone call with Ukraine’s president should have immediately upon Maguire’s decision to not refer the matter to Congress referred it to the FBI for investigation. None would ever allow Director Maguire to answer the question! The Admiral tried to answer to that question asked by at least three Democrats but was shut down. What he tried to tell them is the Justice Department received a criminal referral from the DNI Inspector General regarding the possibility of the Presidents actions in that phone call being a campaign finance violation. the DOJ declined to take action after a review. It was simultaneously referred to the FBI. That referral was determined to not contain valid reasons for any criminal prosecution.
  • The universal thread contained in every question asked by Intel Committee Democrats was the assumption that President Trump was guilty of tampering with another presidential election colluding with a foreign government. That was not a new allegation against Mr. Trump by Democrats. We just completed a three-year, $40 million Mueller investigation of President Trump for alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 election by Mr. Trump and members of his campaign: Deja Vu.

In just a moment I want you to listen to the audio of a phone call between Congressman Schiff and two persons he was told (and he believed) were Russian intelligence agents who had evidence of significant and illegal wrongdoing by Candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign. The specifics of that “evidence” in the call comported with details included in the infamous Steele dossier. At that point — early in the Mueller investigation — Schiff had on numerous occasions on numerous television news shows gleefully proclaimed he possessed factual evidence of collusion with Russia by Mr. Trump to assist his victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The conversation with these two Russians was viewed by Schiff as a way for him to grasp the proof of Trump wrongdoing sufficient to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Little did Mr. Schiff know that the two on that phone call with him were radio announcers that told Schiff’s assistants about the Trump dirt. The call was not just recorded for later dissemination, it was aired live on their radio program. Before you listen to it, know this: this action taken by Schiff was a REAL attempt on his part to illegally use to obtain evidence against Donald Trump. According to his insistent admonition to Admiral Maguire, Schiff himself should have immediately contacted the FBI and referred the matter to investigators. Rather than doing the legal and right thing with an FBI referral, Schiff chose to get the news himself. He envisioned it as his chance to give the world the proof of Trump collusion that he and others (including his fellow California cohort Rep. Eric Swalwell) untruthfully had reported again and again they already possessed!

Late-Breaking News:

Reliable yet anonymous sources have identified who the whistleblower “probably” is. A very reliable source has stated to TruthNewsNetwork the secret Washington whispers heard and fingers point to Edward “Ned” Price as the whistleblower who came forward with the accusation that President Trump “abused his office” during a phone conversation with the Ukrainian president. Edward “Ned” Price (born 1982) is a Fellow at the New America Foundation and a political analyst for NBC News. Price is also a former American intelligence officer who worked at the United States Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 until February 2017. On February 20, 2017, Price published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, outlining his decision to retire from the CIA rather than work in a Donald Trump administration.

Price certainly fits the profile of what has been rumored about the whistleblower: former intelligence officer, supportive of a Trump political rival, etc. But that’s not the half of it, though. Sources also report that Price was not only a CIA deep state agent but was also one of the spies that John Brennan used in the 2016 election to spy on the Trump campaign.

I’ll leave this breaking news segment with this: if the President’s conduct was so egregious, then why on Earth didn’t State Department officials who were privy to the conversation first-hand register a complaint? Price only learned about the incident second- or third-hand!

The Wrap-Up

You know my feelings about Adam Schiff, his role in House leadership and the way he handles himself, and his vitriolic animus for Donald Trump. He in that hearing accused Admiral Maguire of being incompetent, unpatriotic, and incapable of carrying out his role as Acting DNI Director.

Schiff has on many occasions assured American that President Trump was/is a Russian operative with deep ties directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and that Trump’s 2016 actions were actively soliciting and participating with Russian operatives to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Schiff constantly in interviews denigrated Mr. Trump for being so un-American.

We’ll close with this audio of Mr. Schiff in a phone call with whom he thinks are two Russian government operatives who have dirt of various kinds that implicate President Trump directly with illicit and illegal activities in Russia. Schiff did not know they two guys were radio disc jockeys tricking Schiff live on-air to attempt to do exactly what Schiff has continuously accused the president of doing in 2016!

Listen to this phone call by clicking this link. It’s exactly like listening to one of our podcasts. On your browser, it may be located at the top of this page. Click on the audio player in either location you see it to play:

 

Play

“Impeach 45!”

This is the political rally mantra of Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA): “Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Impeach 45!” Those have been her cries since the election of Donald Trump. They initially fell on deaf ears: not so much now. Yes, we’re there!

House Speaker Pelosi announced the House has initiated “a formal Impeachment investigation.”

What is that?

There’s no Constitutional authorization for a “formal Impeachment Investigation,” no House rules allowing a Speaker to unilaterally launch any action involving the entire House. That requires a full vote of the House on the floor. There is no authority for any House Speaker to launch unilaterally a joint investigation using all six of the applicable House committees. Yet Pelosi has done it, all the while obliterating Constitutional instructions for initiating impeachment AND ignoring jointly passed House rules.

Remember this: in this House of Representatives, there have already been two formal votes on motions made to begin “real” impeachment proceedings. Both motions failed miserably in House votes. For that reason, Pelosi decided to ignore the Constitution AND jointly approved House rules. “I’ll just pander to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and ‘The Gang’ and start this thing myself.” So she has!

Here’s how impeachment is supposed to occur:

In The House of Representatives

An impeachment proceeding is a formal process by which a sitting president of the United States may be accused of wrongdoing. The articles of impeachment are the list of charges drafted against the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the U.S. can also face impeachment. The process begins in the U.S. House of Representatives, where any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.

Next, the House Judiciary Committee will investigate; there is no time limit placed on their investigation and a likely public hearing would be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote on the articles of impeachment. A simple majority of the members of the committee would have to vote in favor of approving an article or articles of impeachment in order to proceed to a vote by the full House. The House Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans; 21 votes in favor would be necessary.

In The U.S. Senate

The Senate is tasked with handling the impeachment trial in which there is a higher threshold that must be reached in order for an impeachment to go forward. What that means is that in the Senate, a higher percentage of the body has to vote in favor of conviction than in the House of Representatives. In the House, a simple majority is needed, and in the Senate, they need a two-thirds majority or 67 percent.

If the Senate fails to convict, then the president]will have been impeached but not removed. Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson are examples of this. In neither Clinton nor Johnson’s Senate trials was a two-thirds majority reached. According to the Constitution, at least two-thirds of the Senate have to concur to convict and remove the president from office. Once the president is removed, the vice president typically succeeds him or the normal course of the line of succession will be followed.

While the Senate trial has the power to oust a president from office, it does not have the power to send a president to jail.

Where We Stand Today  Regarding Impeachment

As mentioned above, two House motions have already been voted on in the House, the first in December of 2017. In that vote, an unexpected large number of Democrats voted in favor to launch impeachment proceedings against President Trump, revealing the growing agitation among liberals to remove him from office. The House, however, voted overwhelmingly 364-58 to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) laying out articles of impeachment against Trump, with four Democrats voting “present.” “Tabling” a resolution means simply a vote against the motion.

All Republicans voted with 126 Democrats to defeat the resolution. Those Democrats included Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who announced ahead of the vote they would vote against the effort. They cited the ongoing investigations by congressional committees and the FBI special counsel. “Now is not the time to consider articles of impeachment,” Pelosi and Hoyer said.

The second bill to impeach the President occurred two-and-one-half months later, on January 19, 2018. Every Republican again voted against the bill, but twelve Democrats changed their votes to “Yes.”

Obviously, neither bill passed so no House impeachment process was implemented. If the majority of House members approve the articles of impeachment, those articles will go to the Senate where each article will be considered separately. (In President Clinton’s impeachment, the House considered four charges separately against him. He was impeached based on the agreeing on two of the four: his conviction for lying under oath, and also for witness tampering). At the presentation conclusion, a vote will be taken regarding confirmation of each of the impeachment articles. As mentioned above, two-thirds of the 100 U.S. Senators would have to vote in favor of at least one of the charges against him approved by the House before that would occur. The Senate would then immediately remove the President from office.

How Did We Get Here?

If you’ve been on the back 40, you may think this is all brand new. No way. As shown above, House member Al Green (D-TX) offered a bill to initiate impeachment December 2017. But way before that, Democrats in Congress had already sowed “impeachment seeds” for Trump impeachment. That actually began before Trump was even inaugurated — he wasn’t even President!

That freshman House member just said he would support the impeachment of Donald Trump: that was January 18, 2017 — three days before Donald Trump was even sworn in as President!

There has been an underlying thread through everything the Democrat members of Congress have done since 2016. That thread is to somehow, in some way, use every tool they can find to drive this man they hate from office. They have proven they’ll do anything. And in doing so, at least so far they have been unsuccessful. They ignore the dozens and dozens of accomplishments by this Administration for the sole benefit of Americans. I won’t waste your time by listing them all here. You know what they are: Americans from every economic, social, racial, ethnicity, country of origin and no matter of what age can easily (if they choose) peer through the fog of deceit wafted into the air by angry Democrats to cloud Americans’ vision and see what Donald Trump has accomplished for them, their families, and their fellow Americans. And you know what? Don’t listen to or believe me, find out for yourself. The truth is there. The problem is that most Democrats and others even further left politically don’t want to see or accept that truth. And they don’t want anyone else to see. They want more than anything for Donald Trump to fail — even so desperately that some are publicly sharing their hopes that the economy will crash on Trump’s watch!

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) who filed articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, twice voiced Democrats struggle with “all things Trump” best when he said this: “We cannot beat him at the polls. So we must impeach him!” That statement summarizes the Democrats plans.

The Latest

The telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy has been Democrat’s apparent “final straw” necessary for Speaker Pelosi to give-in to her Socialist mob segment and to start an “official impeachment inquiry.” She announced it in a public appearance stating that contents of that Ukranian telephone conversation made it happen. She did this before anyone — Democrat or Republican — even knew the substance of the call. (You know the whistleblower story and its details regarding the call. We won’t go through it again)

What’s craziest in this bizarre Pelosi action is that the President had stated he would release the transcript of the call the next day so all could know its contents. I find it incomprehensible that Pelosi would put any chance of Democrats winning the White House and even the Senate in 2020 in jeopardy simply to launch her inquiry without first knowing the call’s contents. But she did. The call transcript was released, its contents were benign — nothing like Democrats had demanded would confirm impeachable Trump wrongdoing. Mr. Trump purportedly pressured the Ukrainian President to investigate former VP Biden and his son, all the while holding Congressionally approved financial aid to Ukraine hostage if Zelenskyy did not restart that investigation. The transcript proved those things didn’t happen, no demands of any kind were placed on Zelenskyy, and there was nothing in the call but several company presidential topics the two discussed.

(Here’s the call transcript. Click on the link to download. Feel free to share it)

https://truthnewsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/427409665-Ukraine-Call-Transcript.pdf

Pelosi and Democrats are sunk!

I will stick my neck out here and say that two things are now certain: the House will go through the impeachment process now — they have no other choice. And, Donald Trump — who I think was going to win the 2020 race anyway — will win in a landslide!

Americans see through all this hoo-hah. And the more Democrats scream and holler and blame and allege through “anonymous sources” and “a highly-placed source,” the more Americans who may have been on the fence because of non-stop allegations of Trump wrongdoing are seeing that Democrats are NOT doing what they all promised to do. They are trying to foil the so-far successful attempts of a never-before politician to bring truth, common sense, hard work — without any political perspectives or objectives — to put in place as many (and hopefully all) of the promises to Americans he made in his campaign for which he was elected. Democrats have never seen that before…and they cannot and will not stand for it!

I’ll close with this: “Quid Pro Quo”

We’ve said often at TruthNewsNetwork that very often when any politician screams loudly about something a political opponent is doing, they often are guilty of doing that very same thing themselves. It happens that way more often than not. I have looked closely to find out if there was any quid pro quo going on regarding the Ukraine that could fit into that scenario. And guess what? I found some:

In May of 2018, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

“Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter so it would throw dirt on Trump’s chief presidential 2020 rival!” These three senior Democrat Senators had themselves done exactly what they are accusing Donald Trump of doing!

By the way, the Constitution’s “take care” provision requires the president to ask any foreign government — in this case Ukraine — to investigate potential corruption in their country that may reach into ours. In this case, that would V.P. Biden’s mafia-like withholding of defense dollars unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor investigating Biden’s son’s corrupt energy company.

It’s a long time until the 2020 election. And this bogus impeachment process is intended by Democrats to perpetuate a cloud of question over Donald Trump sufficient to cause former and current Trump supporters to vote for the Democrat 2020 candidate. I’m pretty sure this current tactic will fail. But don’t be tempted to sigh in relief: they never give up and will not here. There are plenty of opportunities for Democrats to toss out more “fake dirt” on Mr. Trump again and again before election day. And I promise you, They Certainly Will!

Play

Climate Change: It’s A HOAX!

Here we go again: Climate Change. One thing we’ve learned since the 2018 mid-term elections if we didn’t already know it: Climate Change concern on the part of most of those on the Left is real — and it’s dramatic. The P.S. to that is that for a generation now, Leftist educators in every country on Earth have been teaching our children that Climate Change is not only real, but that is also an existential threat to the future of all mankind. And our kids believe it!

Where have we been, Mom and Dad? Our kids (and my grandkids) are hearing this everyday from those to whom we have entrusted the hearts and minds of our most prized assets — our children — only to now find out that this religion of Climate Change has been shoved down their throats from those in what was formerly one of the most revered careers any person could choose: Education. We trusted them, and they taught OUR kids what their Mom’s and Dad’s from the 1960s era were taught by radicals that though were few in number, preached a magnetic message. How can we forget the Vietnam War protests, the Free Love movement, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn bombing police stations, sit-ins and the protesters killed by police at Kent State University? Now that it has been exposed to us, it all makes sense. Or does it?

16-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden set the Climate Change world on fire with the anger, certainty, and confidence in her speech to the United Nations. She has in her native Sweden been a climate change activist for some time, missing school on Fridays as her personal protest to attend various climate change events in Sweden.

The 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, who set sail from Plymouth, England, on Aug. 14, was greeted by cheers, chants and singing as her silver sailboat, the Malitzia II, cruised past the Statue of Liberty through choppy waves and rain to drop anchor in Manhattan’s yacht harbor before her UN speech.

Thunberg, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, was named one of Time Magazine’s most influential teens of 2018. She has set the Climate Change world on fire!

But, it’s a hoax!

Hmmm…….

Wait, do I know something that no one else knows? Or are climate change loyalists deluded? Are they going down the wrong path?

Several days ago, TruthNewsNet.org published a list of about 41 climate change predictions made over the past few decades. Every one of those predictions was wrong: not partially wrong, not almost wrong, flat out “wrong.” The truth is, there are far more than those we published. At latest count, 71 climate change predictions were made since the 1960s, and not one of them has come true.

No, we’re not going to exhaust you by listing them all and giving you their details. That’s all immaterial. There are a few “absolutes” that we need to express before moving on.

They shove report after report in our faces that have been prepared by pro-environmental “experts.” Some of those experts are actually scientists, but most of those “experts” are making predictions and conclusions based on “obvious and natural outcomes that we see now and have seen play out in nature,” concluding if those happened then certainly the natural results of the same factors that are only more intense will produce the same results but be worse.

Let me ask an important question: where does all this go in days and years ahead? How serious is it — Climate Change? Should we join-in the movement? And if we do not, what message does that send to our children?

The Truth

Zealots have made Climate Change more than any environmental issue. It’s become environmental, social, political, and economic in nature. Few things in our lives cross such a vast spectrum of life. The zealots know that. They also know that Science is inconclusive at best on the matter, and are using that to drive a primarily political agenda. They are hell-bent on “Power!”

Environmental issues are indeed serious — at least those that we can control. We can certainly control pollution. There are billions of pounds of waste that blot the landscape of the U.S. and other countries around the world that could be prevented, at least in part. We can lessen the impact on the environment of caustic elements and materials that commercial production now spew into the atmosphere 24/7, like factories, mills, and industrial plants. We can continue to find new types of renewable energy, get those online, all to help reduce damage caused by fossil fuel production. We can be successful at all of these and more. But even so, we cannot take control and operate the Earth’s environment. And anyone that says we can is trying to perpetrate a hoax.

The questions that are asked so often by those who are not sold out to Climate Change are “How can we afford the obvious staggering expense necessary to fund real Climate Change? Who can and who is going to take responsibility for that process? Who is going to devise the process? How long will it take? And what are the known expected results?

Let’s try to answer those:

  • Can we afford it? I’m not a scientist, but I something of a business economist. I do not know all of the factors that must go into determining an expense and if it’s affordable. But based on the little we know and that the Climate Change advocates already are certain of, we simply cannot afford the cost. For the U.S., the initial cost estimates are $10 trillion a year — which is three times the U.S. total Gross Domestic Product. In other words, the U.S. would be required to produce the exact same revenue as being produced today and add twice that amount each year, just to pay for Climate Change. That doesn’t include the current normal operating budget of the U.S.
  • Who would take responsibility for the project? Conventional wisdom is the United Nations. God forbid we would empower and trust the UN with so much of American money to spend on this or any other project! The United Nations is perpetually racked with fraudulent financial event after another: graft and corruption are rampant. And the U.S. has very little sayso over what the UN does. That would mean immediate failure.
  • Who will devise the process? Scientists from numerous countries have provided massive amounts of data supporting Climate Change. Of course, there are Scientists from numerous countries that have provided massive amounts of data discounting Climate Change. Who’s right? Who knows! The problem about “process” is that there being no real consensus on whether or not there really is anything we can do that can actually impact Climate Change. At best, no matter what these scientists say, their conclusions are conclusions not made from actual facts but are made from opinions drawn from a certain set of data facts, knowing all the while there are exactly opposite opinions from scientists based on another certain set of data facts. Knowing that, who should be tasked for the job?
  • Finally, there really are not any known expected results. There are hopes and projections made, but there are no known results.

Summary

Knowing all this, how can we launch what would be the most exhaustive, most time consuming, most expensive project in human history? No one knows how long it would take, even if mankind garnered enough proven factual information to justify doing so. And we certainly cannot afford to fund it — at least not in current world economic circumstances.

Let me ask YOU a question: knowing all this, and especially knowing that it would be impossible to do, why do the Climate Change advocates still push forward to initiate it? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking through that, and can only reach one conclusion: to take control of every part of such a process would necessitate controlling the entire political, economic, and industrial sectors of every country involved! Think about it: the necessary resources are not available without a combination of numerous if not every world country to assist in planning, implementing and operating and its funding.

Oh, there would be an absolutely necessary bi-product of this process: Power — total and unilateral power that would be given by all to some ruling entity.

Do you think I’m kidding? Do you think I’m trying to scare you? Nope. Can you think of any other way to get such a monstrosity created and put into operation? There’s never been anything like it. Doing it would require massive power to accomplish.

I’m not the first to think through and reach this result. But here’s the caveat: I’m certain that many of the leaders in Climate Change are way ahead of the majority of world citizens who have signed-on. These leaders know it will never happen; know it’s impossible, and probably know it’s not necessary. It simply will not work.

What happens then? They’ll have power — massive power — and will be in control of multinational economies, politics, government, and social functions. That’s a utopia!

Don’t laugh at me: George Orwell was thought by many to be a blathering idiot when he penned 1984. But much of what he predicted in his novel came true and, in fact, some came true before January 1 of 1984!

Play

????? Gate

You put a name in front of the word “Gate.” We’ve had many since Watergate. There are plenty that have gone on during the Trump presidency. And there’s another one at the top of every news story now. Here’s a quick recap:

  • RussiaGate:  That one began with the infamous Steele dossier that supposedly chronicled salacious activities on the part of then Candidate Trump and others in his campaign that involved working with the Russian government to collude on actions to destroy Hillary Clinton’s chances to win the 2016 presidential election. There were plenty of players in that debacle, most of who were in senior positions in the Obama Department of Justice — specifically the FBI. Then FBI Director James Comey seemed to spearhead the collusion farce in conjunction with former CIA Director John Brennan, DNI Director James Clapper, and a plethora of second-level officials at the FBI and the DOJ.
  • ObstructionGate:  When it became obvious there was no meat on the bone in Trump Campaign collusion with the Russians, Trump-detractors shifted to his actions that were “obvious and blatantly” Obstruction of Justice. Those included Trump’s efforts to remove Special Counsel Robert Mueller who led the charge in the entire post-election investigation which included collusion obstruction, and conspiracy. This investigation is yet complete, not because of loose-ends regarding the President, but because of Inspector General and Federal Attorney investigations of alleged wrongdoing by those who were out to get President Trump and were planting false information regarding Mr. Trump, hoping in doing so to prompt impeachment proceedings.
  • CohenGate:  Michael Cohen — longtime business and personal attorney for President Trump — was caught up in the Mueller investigation and a parallel investigation by the Southern District of New York Federal Attorney’s office. In that investigation, some irregularities were uncovered  Eventually, Cohen was indicted, pleaded guilty in a plea deal, and is now in jail. In open court, Cohen acknowledged that he violated campaign finance laws by paying hush money to two women “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.” That candidate was obviously Mr. Trump. Trump denied the allegations and no evidence was found to corroborate Cohen’s claims. But there’s another part of CohenGate: Buzzfeed News reported that President Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress–under oath–over negotiations with Russia about a Trump Tower project in Moscow during the 2016 campaign. If found to be true, Trump detractors claim his doing so could amount to several obstruction of justice charges.
  • EmolumentGate: This is a tricky legal quagmire that could take years to undo in a court of law (and it bears noting that the standards of evidence in a criminal court vs. a trial in the U.S. Senate are worlds apart), but basically, Trump’s ownership of businesses in foreign countries puts him in violation of a Constitutional clause that prevents him from earning money from foreign sources while he’s President. President Trump obviously owns scads of companies and properties in foreign countries. His opponents claim his being President affords opportunities to parlay his office to intice foreign companies and governments to conduct business with his entities in return for favorable consideration on matters that could directly or indirectly push business activities to his properties. It’s a longshot, but EmolumentGate is one possible allegation for his impeachment from the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” verbiage of the Constitution.
  • SharpieGate:  Yes, this refers to the track of Hurricane Dorian which attacked the southeast and east coast of the United States with torrential rain, flooding, and devastatingly high winds. The Trump controversy in this (SharpieGate) resulted from the President showing in an interview the projected path of Dorian through the southern U.S. that included part of the state of Alabama. Trump haters went nuts. They actually began reporting that in doing so, the President was proving claims of his “likely” mental deficiencies since no official government map of Dorian’s projected paths included such a jaunt through Alabama. However, it came to light later that the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) had actually issued projections of Dorian with a 5% chance Bama would be impacted. The President had seen that projection and included it in his map by marking it with a Sharpie.

We could go on and on listing other examples of ????? Gate claims against President Trump. It’s pretty obvious (at least so far) that Mr. Trump has gotten angry at the non-stop attacks against him, lashed out in anger sometimes when those attacks are made, and as most Queens successful businessmen will do, verbally attacked those who make unverified and unsupported claims against him. But I don’t think his doing so is evidence of “Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which are prerequisites for the impeachment of a President.

So what’s going on?

I think you know: from the top-down of the political class in Washington, almost to a person they hate Donald Trump. Why? Mr. Trump represents in every action he takes, every word he speaks, every rally that he attends, the direct opposite of “quid pro quo” in Washington that has become a society unto itself. And that society has its own sets of rules, regulations, morays, values, and operating procedures which Donald Trump from the beginning of his campaign until today ignored.

This group does not consist of Democrats alone. Among its numbers are a large group of Republicans who have been given a name themselves by Trump’s ardent supporters. They’re called “Never-Trumpers.” These consist of Republican career politicians who have been part of the Washington D.C. societal class for decades. They detest President Trump because Mr. Trump refuses to play the game of D.C. politics by “The Rules.”

“The Rules” are the do’s and don’ts of serving in a national elected office or even in an appointed position in the federal government. Here’s how it is supposed to work:

  1. D.C. is not about which political party is in control. Everyone knows that the White House and Congress will be controlled by one political party in the majority for a while, then the opposing party will win control and maintain it for a while.
  2. That fact dictates that both parties find ways when in the minority to work closely with members of the other party so as to not make waves and anger the opposition. They all know the other party will win control sooner at later: “Quid Pro Quo.” So, they pacify constituents of their own party by offering and sometimes even passing legislation that supports positions of the minority party. “We’re trying, but without control of government we just can’t get legislation passed and signed into law that we want.”
  3. Why do they do that? The most important thing about being a career politician is to understand keeping the status quo the status quo. What’s the meaning of that? Formerly D.C. was all about money. Now it’s all about power. Whoever controls Congress and the White House pretty much has all or most of the political might. Of course, with that, they control federal dollars. But they control so much more.
  4. When those in the majority lose control because they have diligently maintained a balance that carefully “looked” to their constituents that they accomplished some good things did NOT upset the opposition. Then when they become a minority, they’ll be treated the same way.

Summary

Do you think the laundry list above of the “Gates” will be the only ones during the Trump presidency? Absolutely not! The latest was opened up in the last few days by a report from “unnamed sources” (surprise, surprise!) that purports that a federally protected whistleblower from an Intelligence agency filed a claim of wrongdoing against Mr. Trump. The claim is that on a phone call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine, Mr. Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden for his unethically (and illegally) pressuring the Ukrainians for the benefit a company owned in part by Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. And, supposedly, the allegation is that during that phone call, President Trump threatened to withhold foreign aid from the U.S. for Ukraine that had already been approved by Congress. If true, this would be a blatant example of the violation of the office of president and certainly would be sufficient to initiate articles of impeachment by the House.

Since that story first appeared, it, just as has every other previous story of impeachable Trump activities, began unraveling, one layer at a time. At the writing of this story, it has been reported and confirmed the whistleblower was not present on that call and someone just said Mr. Trump had done so. Further, when the claim was made, the Department of Justice in its determination if the DOJ should forward the claim to Congress, the Inspector General when reviewing all of the supporting information said the claim did not “meet the standards required to involve the Congress because there was a lack of evidence.”

I forgot about something: this is another “Gate” claim against Mr. Trump. We’ll call this one “UkraineGate!”

I’ll summarize this quickly: Does anyone believe that these impeachable claims against Donald Trump are over? Don’t be so foolish! As long as he serves in office, whether it’s until January of 2021 or January of 2022, the claims against him will continue. No matter how good is the American economy, no matter the U.S. gets along with its allies around the world, no matter how denuclearization talks with North Korea and Iran go, no matter if the illegal immigration dilemma is or is not resolved, the members of the Establishment Washington D.C. political society will continue to push actions to remove Donald Trump from office. Why is that? He spoiled their gravy train! As long as he is in office, their ability to control the U.S. at every level has been if not removed, seriously diminished. They will not stand for that. Their taste of power in Washington and their all-consuming thirst for it to continue will drive this ship to ultimate victory in which they regain control. Should that not be fulfilled, they will do anything to try to regain it, even at the cost of crashing the ship — the United States of America — on the rocky shores of devastation.

“The State acquires power…and because of its insatiable lust for power, it is incapable of giving up any of it. The State never abdicates.”

That’s sad: the power doesn’t belong to the State or those who serve in it. The power of government in the United States has always, now, and in the future belonged to the People.

Play

How Liberals Do ”It”

I have many Democrat friends. Honestly, seldom do I enter political discussions with any because seldom do those discussions result in any meaningful discourse. More often than not when current events make such conversations appropriate they usually end in anger — not on my part but on theirs.

To be honest, I must admit I usually fuel their fire of anger. How? I always want to know when in those discussions they make “factual” points, what are the facts on which they base their conclusion and if those points really are “factual.” That’s when they erupt. Want an example?

Take “Climate Change.” Here’s a sample of how each of the conversations I’ve had with Democrat friends regarding seem to always sound:

(Friend): “Dan, why don’t you believe in climate change?”

(Me): “I believe that climate conditions change from year to year but not in any major way that impacts the Earth permanently or because of one or several human actions.”

(Friend): “Oh, you don’t believe the Science that proves climate change is real?”

(Me): “I know there are some scientists that claim they have proof. But the proof they present is immediately refuted by data from other scientists that proves the exact opposite and disproves climate change.”

(Friend): “But don’t you see how drastic the weather is around us? Multiple hurricanes in the southeast U.S., fires all over the word, massive changes in temperatures, flooding and famine? That’s proof!”

(Me): “I know those things happen. They always have and they always will. Those only prove one thing: weather changes in patterns that even science cannot define or prove they happen because specific to man made causes. But those do not prove the inevitability of what climate zealots are preaching like ‘The world as we know it will end in 12 years!’”

(Friend): “You simply refuse to accept facts! How can you be so ignorant? There’s no talking to you, you won’t listen to anyone. You’re just like every other Republican!”

(Me): “I’m not a Republican.”

(Friend): “Oh, and you’re not a racist either!”

When emotions takeover, very little can be accomplished by continuing those conversations. But you know what? Liberals think like that! It’s virtually impossible for them with facts to prove most of their positions. So in such conversations, they can escape by simply doing something we all learned as kids: when you are losing a schoolyard verbal back-and-forth, you simply call the other kid a bad name and walk away.

Somewhere in the recent past, liberal leaders felt like their tag of “Liberal” was being thought of as a brand of an illegitimate group, especially politically. So they decided to regain what credibility they owned in the past — they needed to change their name. (note: what they don’t know is they never had any significant credibility!) So someone came up with the idea they decided to morph their political party and its adherents into: Progressives.

They didn’t make a name-change announcement. They didn’t throw a “name reveal” party in which they put balloons in a big box and made a grand announcement releasing the balloons that all had their new name on them. They just quietly switched names thinking no one would catch on. But we did. And when it happened the inquisitive person that I am, I asked a simple question:

Why did liberals change their name from “Liberals” to “Progressives?”

Let’s puzzle through the answer together.

Progressives

They never were very liberal. And the policies of today’s Democrat Party are anything but progressive. I guess what they determined was to “Confuse people as to they you are by naming themselves something they’re really not might work. People will not catch on. They’ll just think you’re who you say you are.” There’s really no other explanation. Does that make any sense?

Let’s take a look.

Definition of liberal: “of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.”

Definition of progressive: “making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.”

  • Is the promotion of a policy of taking away guns from private citizens or abridging what types of guns may be privately owned express support for “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
  • Does government confiscation of Americans’ wealth through 50% to 75% income taxes for the consumption and use by our government express support of “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
  • Does allowing any groups like ANTIFA to run wild, attacking individuals and destroying private and public property at legal and permitted “Free Speech Rallies” OK? ANTIFA is there to stop people from speaking out in support of the First Amendment. Is that an act to express support of “the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties?”
  • Are the non-stop attacks on the Rule of Law in America at local, state, and federal levels “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”
  • Is the demeaning of the President, members of his Cabinet, leaders of ICE and the Border Patrol for their insistence of the enforcement of our borders “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”
  • And what about the liberal/progressive federal judges who make rulings from the bench that stop the Administration’s actions to insure the enforcement of all of our borders and insist on anyone and everyone who comes into this country legally and Constitutionally “advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc?”

There are many more examples of our government — federal AND states — taking steps to ignore the laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law to prevent law enforcement officials from doing their jobs. None of these actions are by their definition “liberal” or “progressive.” These actions could more correctly be called “regressive” and even “totalitarian.”

To be honest, many if those who promote these policies do so militantly are promoting actions of true Facsism!

Summary

We’re seeing more and more former liberals and progressive walkway from their previous political positions. That in itself is not unusual. But what is unusual is that instead of applauding those who do so standing up for their First Amendment rights, those on the Left demean them as traitors and as intellectually deficient. Hollywood is a prime example of that.

Rather than continue down this road here, let’s wrap this up by listening to one such Hollywood elite give us his perspective on the matter. Take a listen to Piers Morgan — a very vocal and demonstrative liberal/progressive — give us his perspective:

I could’t say it better myself!

Play

How Do Members of Congress Get So Rich?

We’ve written before regarding specific “questionable” business deals involving several in Congress, none more obvious and sinister than those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Pelosi’s investments have often been questionable as have her specific political roles in legislative actions involving different entities in California and elsewhere to obtain political favors as well as inside information on pending business deals. Here is the link to the two-part expose’ of Pelosi’s if not illegal, certainly immoral business transactions published July 22nd and 23rd this year: https://truthnewsnet.org/pelosi-family-big-money-corruption/

But that’s just the story of one member of Congress. A recent study showed that 51 of our current 100 Senators are filthy rich. And most were not when they were elected. So how does one explain the ability of those few when working in Washington to parlay through their government jobs amazing financial windfalls?

The Process

Yes, there can certainly be legitimate business opportunities which politicians can take advantage of just as can private citizens. But some of those 51 Senators seem to have found on numerous occasions the “golden goose.” And that goose seldom lives in a pond in their state, unless they’re from California, Arizona, New York, or other heavily populated left-leaning states.

An analysis of personal financial disclosure data as of August 16, 2019, has found that those 51 senators and their spouses have as much as $96m personally invested in corporate stocks in five key sectors: communications/electronics; defense; energy and natural resources; finance, insurance, and real estate; and health.

The majority of these stocks come from public companies, and some are private.

Overall, the senators are invested in 338 companies – including tech firms such as Apple and Microsoft, oil and gas giants including ExxonMobil and Antero Midstream, telecom companies including Verizon, and major defense contractors such as Boeing – in the five sectors looked at closely.

Certainly it is not illegal for members of Congress to invest in companies which they have at some time legislative matters that directly or indirectly impact those companies, even though many citizens feel it should be. But how ironic is it when some of these mentioned financial windfalls result from successes of companies over which these members of Congress process legislation tied directly to some of these companies? That’s where Pelosi got in trouble previously. But few ever get called out for what they’re doing.

Not only are the senators far wealthier than most of their constituents, but they’re in a prime position to increase their wealth via policymaking.

If a representative on the House financial services committee owns hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock in Bank of America, how might this investment affect their questioning of Bank of America’s CEO in a hearing? Could it influence how they legislate and vote on banking issues? It certainly can. Here’s one such example:

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), the ranking member on the Senate energy and natural resources committee, owns between $1m and $5m worth of non-public stock in his family coal business, Enersystems, making him the only Democratic senator who is directly profiting from the environmentally devastating coal business.

Despite pressure from the left, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, made Manchin the ranking member of the committee, and Manchin did not divest his coal holdings.

It is a fact that such investments made by members of Congress are legal on their surface, but it initiates questions from many citizens at how easily these fortunes are made. It seems to many that in big business sectors, there is too much access by elected officials that impact heavily those Congressional decisions — especially in finance, securities and real estate. Ten Senate members of the banking committee own collectively $8 million of stock in those three sectors — and each of those companies have issues and policies that come before that committee.

You know what’s odd about this? Something that can so obviously be labeled “political corruption” or “paybacks” goes virtually unnoticed by government watchdogs and are simply ignored by the Department of Justice. To make matters worse, there is absolutely NO sense of obligation to “shun the very appearance of evil.”

Do you remember the “everybody’s doing it” argument you gave to your Mom when she told you not to go to a good friend’s party? “Everybody’s doing it” was your response. The few times that specific Congressional wrongdoing finds its way into the public’s scrutiny they are simply ignored. When questioned as to why this so often happens, one DOJ investigator responded, “They’re all doing it.”

That doesn’t make any of it right. Call me stupid, but I thought that every member of Congress  is elected to serve the voters and other constituents in their various districts and states — not themselves. There’s nothing in their oaths of office that requires them to decline business opportunities. But there’s something in their commitments to work exclusively for their constituents.

Let’s be fair. Some lawmakers want to do away with these perceived conflicts of interest. Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren has put forth legislation to stop such financial dealings from Congressional members. And not just Congress — also senior congressional staff, Presidential cabinet secretaries, also folks who work at the White House, even federal judges. That legislation would prevent these from owning all kinds of financial assets, like stocks, bonds, and others, while they serve.

Summary

I’m going to get personal here. I find it difficult to accept the claims of federal lawmakers that they cannot afford to live and work there. I know it’s much more expensive to live in D.C. than in Smalltown, America. But they knew that when they ran for office. Have you ever seen the compensation for members of Congress? House members make approximately $170,000 a year, plus expense accounts. With cushy committee assignments and some additional legitimate revenue opportunities like speaking engagements and consulting projects, that number can climb.

$170,000 a year: Nothing to sneeze at

No matter. It IS expensive to lease and furnish a place in Washington. Then there’s the responsibility of financing a family back home. To make it work requires sacrifices from those members of Congress and their families. But in the end, no one said they have to do it — it’s a conscious choice!

Putting aside the certain attractive financial offers these lawmakers receive can be difficult. Americans understand that. Americans also understand that their being lawmakers does not give them free passes to twist the power of the office they hold into financial windfalls. And Americans really hate one thing most about these financial actions: when lawmakers take these questionable financial opportunities, what they are doing is selling the power of the office they hold that voters gave to them. In essence they are selling something they do not own.

Part of the American dream that millions of immigrants flood to the U.S. for is the opportunity for financial freedom that can be gained here by hard work. Many of those in Congress have skillfully skipped over the deliberate steps most have to take for prosperity: diligence, hard work, and self-deprivation. In doing that they thumb their noses at the common American who just works hard to scratch out a good living for their families.

We could detail here elaborate examples of how dozens of members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have achieved great wealth through their positions of power and opportunities. We’ll end with this one example:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who along with husband Richard Blum, an investment banker, is the second most wealthy member of the Senate with up to $7m invested in the five business sectors listed above. Blum’s purchase of as much as $250,000 worth of Facebook stock three months before his wife questioned the Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, came under scrutiny after that trade was reported. He has since sold off the stock, but the couple still owns up to $3.3m worth of communications and electronics sector stock, which is heavily represented their state of California, including between $150,001 and $650,000 invested in Alphabet. Alphabet is the parent company of Google. Does anyone reading this think there just might be some inside information used to make decisions by Feinstein and husband Richard to pull the trigger on those investments?

How does all this happen? First, the salaries and benefits for Congress are set and voted on by those members of Congress — not Voters!

I know of no such arrangement in any large or mid-size company in America. Do you know why? In a capitalistic system, supply and demand and a free market determine the entire financial structure of companies. They’re based on cost and revenue. Congress is NOT a member of a capitalistic system. Congress directs ours. But they base their personal pay with no consideration of what the “company” revenue is — they just pay themselves what they want! The “company” — the United States — is $22 Trillion in debt for money they borrowed and spent. Did they ask you your opinion?

How can this be stopped? I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I think the only way it can is through amending the Constitution. And the process gets more difficult for that to happen with the fact that Congress must get involved in constitutional amendments!

The other way is for states to each call a Constitutional Convention at which each can take actions to regulate the money Congress spends on ALL is operations, including lawmakers own compensation.

It’s highly unlikely either of these will ever happen. Imagine trying to get enough people to agree to doing so. It would be a nightmare.

The final option? Start electing U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators basing support for them on their financial positions on this issue and promises to make it happen.

I don’t know about you, but when you have a man or woman who have unilateral power to determine what they’re going to get paid, the odds are they are going to do O.K.!

I’m talking to my boss about this tomorrow. “If it’s good for the goose…”

I’ll kill the hope we may have created in this story: when they leave Congress, almost all go to work on “K Street” — the epicenter of almost all the lobbying of the U.S. Congress. There they simply parlay their contact lists they compiled while serving into rich contracts with the companies they represented when in Congress. What do they do for those companies? Slap the backs of their former fellow lawmakers while taking them to expensive dinners, vacations, and jobs for relatives, IF they’ll make decisions the “right way” in legislating.

Corruption at the highest level in the country. But right now, it’s legal!

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?”

Summary

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!”

Play

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.

Summary

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.

Play

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.

LifeNews.com 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.

Summary

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.

Play