2019 Ironies in Bullet Points

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

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





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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

A “New America” is Here

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

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

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

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

Facts Remained: News Reporting Did Not

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Cultural Perspective

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

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

“New” Country

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God help us.

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

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

Facts Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muddy The Water

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

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

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

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

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

Where Are We Headed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Obama “Hush/Slush” Fund

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




The Washington Examiner and Judicial Watch contributed to this story.



Republicans and Other Conservatives are Illiterate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not long ago we published this statement here:

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

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

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

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

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

They have a plan:

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


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

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

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

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

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

It’s not exclusive to Hillary, either.

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

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

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

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


Bullet Points August 7, 2019

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

  • Hurricane Dorian is still bashing the U.S. east coast after days of blasting the coasts of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina and has set its sights on New York and up the coast of Maine. Left in its waste is devastation in the Bahamas that has left several islands looking like the remnants of an atomic bomb. Abaco from the air looks like a war zone. For more click here: https://apnews.com/b5170a22a8a14bc584c8d6c1a64825cc
  • North Carolina took a big shot from Dorian this past week. Flooding was the main culprit for sending Carolinians packing. Barely one year ago these same coastal areas dealt with massive floods with subsequent damages and have just now finished remodeling, repairs, and rebuilding. Some of the same areas received even worse damages than Hurricane Florence left in its way in 2018. For more click here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/us/dorian-north-carolina-hurricane-victims.html
  • On Friday jobs numbers were released for the month of July. It was odd that even news outlets like FOX News expressed caution regarding the economy, even though 100,000+ jobs were created in the month. And African American unemployment has fallen to an all-time low for the month of August. For more click here: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2019/09/06/black-unemployment-hits-record-low-black-white-unemployment-gap-shrinks-to-smallest-ever
  • Many in American healthcare warned with the institution of Obamacare that increasing government control of the industry would certainly create a horrendous shortage of physicians who would flee the vocation as healthcare payers reimbursement would decline rapidly and drastically. Factor that together with the growing segment of elder Americans and that problem is now looking even more traumatic. For more click here: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/americas-aging-population-is-leading-to-a-doctor-shortage-crisis.html
  • By now all have seen the “new” way to assist those wishing to quit smoking with those new electronic cigarettes. It’s call “vaping.” Vaping has been touted to offer the same things that attract smokers to that smoking experience without the horrors of smoking that have been directly tied to cancer and several different critical respiratory diseases. Even Sean Hannity of FOX News promotes vaping he used to assist him in eliminating his cigar smoking habit. But this past week doctors have released information that attacks the goodness of vaping. And nationwide, serious illnesses plus one death have been attributed to vaping. For more details click here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-from-vaping-in-indiana-california-and-minnesota-more-people-died-at-least-450-illnesses-now-nationwide/
  • One of the greatest fears of 21st century Americans about travel is how easy it must be for someone to do something to commercial planes that would cause an in-air incident that could bring a plane own. Who can forget 9/11 and the television pictures of two airliners flying into the World Trade Towers in New York killing 3000 Americans. This past week an American Airlines mechanic was caught sabotaging a plane by messing with its electronics before its schedule flight departure from Miami, Florida. During takeoff an alert pilot notice an irregularity in cockpit instruments and aborted the flight. For more details click here: https://www.apnews.com/6f03105ca6ff4a36bb728626802565eb
  • Just 20 years ago no one thought there was any realistic chance that a single website would play a serious everyday role in the lives of several billion humans living in every country on Earth. With the advent of social media — especially Facebook — it came to past. And with that fulfillment of one man’s dreams comes the recent realization that Facebook and Google and Twitter have quietly found ways to dominate through various types of influence in the lives of their members. In the last presidential election Facebook by itself stealthily impacted the voting decisions of millions of voters. The Federal Government and now state governments have begun preparations to look into potentially illegal actions of these social media giants. For more details click here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/states-to-launch-google-facebook-antitrust-probes-11567762204

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

Have a great weekend!


“THE” Cure for Mass Shootings: Stricter Background Checks

The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed a gun control bill that tackles holes in existing background checks they say will take care of the problem: “people who shouldn’t have guns shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.”

What brain surgeon said that?

It’s true, though less than 10% of the shooters who each killed 4 or more people in such a shooting failed their background check. Yet, facts no longer matter in political discussions about creating bills in Congress. All that is important is making voters feel like members of Congress really care and can unify around such an important cause to stop mass shootings.

I will not bore you with a list here of the 167 shooters in the last fifty years that have sprayed bullets and killed innocent Americans with guns. What we are doing here today is having a reasonable and factual discussion of how the law does and should play into stopping more of these shootings going forward. And facts do NOT support the Democrat Party premise that more laws — especially stiffer background laws — will save any American lives.

So what can be done?

Before we tackle that, let’s put a bow on the box of increased and more intense background checks on the table in the House right now. Here are some points for your consideration.

  • Several recent mass shooters were given approval to buy guns based on incorrect or missing information from that was used in FBI background checks. Often information in those files is incomplete or incorrect.
  • Criminals don’t buy guns from Walmart or Bubba’s Gun Shop! They either purchase them on the black market or steal them. Few would pass a background check in our current system and certainly would not be cleared in the passed House bill if made law. Those hundreds of Chicagoans slaughtered in the last year by guns were killed by people who easily obtained guns through theft and illegal purchases. Obviously stiffer background checks will not stop even one of those.
  • By the way: I have heard NOTHING about all the African American young people and babies that every week are murdered in Chicago with many more sent to hospitals for serious gun injuries. The Leftist media in America virtually ignore reporting about those. Are their lives not as valuable as white Americans killed in these publicized mass murders? Or is it just that the Democrat media spokesmen don’t see opportunities to score brownie points from those stories when the mass shootings of white people by white people give them more anti-Trump, anti-conservative ammunition with which to attack Second Amendment adherents. Anyway, dead young African Americans killed by other African Americans doesn’t fit the storyline for Chicago, New York, and D.C. national news outlets. Those killings are too routine now. They want “fresh meat.”

Americans understand Congress and know how those 535 men and women operate better than ever before in American’s history. Few actually represent their constituents or those constituents’ ideas. Members of Congress puke their party mantra in press conferences, interviews and press releases — those that are necessary to secure votes in the next election AND to continue the flow of campaign dollars to fight the election battle. Seldom in this process is much thought given to the needs of constituents — especially regarding gun violence and mass murder. Why is that? Heck, there’s no easy way to stop the shootings. It would take actual cooperation with members of their own party and the other party. They’d be forced to actually sit in rooms and find consensus in crafting legislation, selling their legislative ideas to members of their own party and their opponents, AND their constituents at home. None of that should be a problem at all. After all, they’re paid to do that already! And most of their constituents feel certain their Congressional representatives get up every day and strap on the gloves to beat-up on any and all that stand in the way and oppose the repairing of old and crafting new gun laws to stop mass shootings. That only happens in LaLa Land — They NEVER do that

Stopping Mass Shootings Options

Besides beefing up background checks, what options does our government possess that could possibly stop these shootings? There is no single thing that can possibly take care of that. And there’s no single person or group that can possibly do that. It’s going to “Take a Village” (quoting Hillary’s book title) to get that job done. What village could do that? A pretty big one: the United States of America.

There are 333 million Americans. There are at least that many privately owned guns in America. I don’t know about you, but before we reach some tipping point in the mass murder process, shouldn’t we figure out a way to make sure owners of those  hundreds of millions of guns are not going to use them to kill themselves or others? There’s no government program that could possibly confiscate that many guns from that many people. Hey: I live in the South. The common expression among Southerners about that topic is to that famous Charlton Heston quote: “From my cold dead hands!”

What Can We Do?

More detailed and in-depth background checks may help some, but it’s certainly not a solution. However, structuring such checks to identify those with mental illness history, current mental and/or emotional problems, or some anger history that goes beyond reasonableness and somewhere historically has put others in danger could keep firearms out of the hands of those who might in an emotional outburst otherwise use a gun to slaughter someone or some people.

Other than possibly creating a law requiring all gun sales that occur at gun sales and also personal gun sales to go through an eligibility check, additional checks will not move the “mass shooting” meter very far. We certainly cannot legally force surrender of firearms or confiscate firearms. There are far too many Supreme Court decisions that have been handed down on that subject that confirm the legality of firearm ownership by private citizens that would support rescinding Second Amendment rights. A required “gun buy-back” would also not work. Why? How many think that criminals would actually turn-in guns they stole or they purchased from someone knowing they are stolen? None are going to participate in such a program.

You know who would really lose in either of those scenarios? Law-abiding American citizens. They follow the law. They would have turned in or voluntarily participated in either or both of these programs. Criminals would then know the coast is clear — no private citizen would have the ability to protect themselves. Criminality and gun crimes would only quickly escalate in number and severity.

Is there any other possible way to tackle this issue? Yes there is. Take a moment and read of one that has been in effect for years and works dramatically: especially at schools. “Slaughter at School” was published here February 16, 2018. Go to the story page and scroll halfway down the page. It tells the story of how the nation of Israel virtually eliminated ALL mass shootings in their country. How? By arming volunteer teachers and other adults at schools, putting two Israeli military members on each school bus that transport kids, and teaching mandatory courses for gun safety, how to operate handguns, and how to use them. Until that program was initiated, horrible mass shooting plagued schools and other public entities. In the last twenty years since its inception, mass shooting have disappeared! Read that story for yourself.


We don’t know it all. And when it comes to guns, their governance, and American safety in public, politicians have taken over every conversation of how to manage those. Why not do this: let experts craft rules, procedures, and processes that work in other places, tailor those to each of the most obvious locations for shootings to happen, and teach Americans what to do and how to do it. And there’s one more thing.

We must arm Americans for security! Don’t panic: it works. Think about this:

  • We must arm Americans. Simply put, most shooters are cowards. And where do most mass shootings happen? Where shooters are fairly certain no one will have a gun to shoot back. Why else would most American mass shootings happen in gun-free zones? Because shooters know they will face NO opposition! Very seldom are mass shooters at these slaughters planning on getting shot themselves. They want to live. With that in mind, they’d be pretty stupid to go to a school to kill teachers, coaches, administrators, or fellow students if they knew there were some teachers, coaches, administrators and even fellow students who not only are armed, but have intense training on every type of mass shooting and what to do when a shooting begins to happen.
  • In Mobile, Alabama, several fans were killed at a high school football game the end of August. There were no armed guards there. If those who had guns and used them knew there were certainly armed guards on-site that were there strictly for assuring no nut-jobs would start a massacre.
  • What about gun laws? I could go on perpetually on this one thing. Why don’t we enforce existing gun laws? There are more than 100,000 existing gun laws at federal, state, and local levels. There are exhaustive laws governing every thinkable infraction in gun use. I doubt 1% of those gun laws are uniformly enforced. And there are numerous excuses for doing so.


Lawlessness doesn’t just start happening with anyone stating, “Hey, we’re going to stop following the laws.” Historically it has always been a gradual process. And once we get started, we very quickly will find ourselves and our nation on a really slippery slope. What’s at the end of that slope? Lawlessness.

We proudly proclaim to our foreign neighbors near and far that we are “A Nation of Laws.” That for two centuries has been the top American trait we have to confirm all the good things that America is blessed with. Yet politicians at the top of their governments and up and down their political employment ladders we say everyday the unequal use of the law to attack political opponents or to reward people for their actions in support of the politician or a political position — ignoring the law!  They surprisingly in those moments for that promise made during their swearing-in their promises to hold the laws of the institution in which they serve.

Americans in government find ways to establish fundamentals in the office in which they work and then translate those fundamentals  into every other area of their life, From the political structure in which they serve, we at TruthNewsNetwork fear the certain beginning and then rapid slipping into Anarchy in the U.S. And if you stop and think for a few moments, you’ll  recall which of these events that have already happened. Socialism is being pushed down the political throats of Americans. We may already be on that hill.

Let’s find ways to get off that hill!

Obama Lied

Wait a minute: did I just say that the guy who millions feel was the most honest president in U.S. history — Barack Hussein Obama — lied? You heard right. In fact, in numerous stories posted at TruthNewsNetwork over the last two years, we have plainly stated that he lied. Strange thing: the recent Inspector General’s report had an almost hidden footnote that pointed to one almost insignificant story. And that story confirms the dishonesty of President Obama.

What kind of lie did Obama tell? First, let’s remember this: we at TruthNewsNetwork have published several stories exposing the fact that “some” lies are O.K. for most Americans: you know, those “little white lies.” A “little white lie” or “a big fat lie” is nothing BUT a lie. NO lies are acceptable. And accepting any lie is sadly a defect in American life. And it appears Mr. Obama’s lie has been acceptable — to some. But the I.G. report makes it serious, but not to the Media — only to the Department of Justice.

How important was this “Obama lie?”

It was important enough for the Obama White House to shove any importance under the rug. Politico brought it to light before the 2016 Election in the following story:

In a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama did correspond with his secretary of state via her private email address.

“The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade emails with his secretary of state,” Earnest said. “I would not describe the number of emails as large, but they did have the occasion to email each other.”

Earnest’s admission comes after Obama said on CBS on Saturday that he learned about Clinton’s use of a private email and server “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.” According to Earnest, this comment should not be assumed to mean that Obama and Clinton never emailed back and forth.

“The point that the president was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s email address, he did,” Earnest said. “But he was not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act.”

When pressed on whether Obama was aware that Clinton was conducting business over her private email, Earnest responded, “the point is the president did email with Secretary Clinton. I assume that he recognized the email address that he was emailing back to,” before saying that the important issue is whether she complied with the Federal Records Act.

“No Big Deal”

Josh Earnest said Obama communicating with non-secure email to the non-secure Clinton email server was no big deal. After all, the President didn’t know the server to which he was emailing was not secure. I know no other way to say it other than this: that’s B.S.!

All government email addresses are created, registered, and logged as government email addresses to be used in communication with only secure government devices.

“He was just an innocent bystander who wasn’t an IT specialist and didn’t know how all that worked. He was just sending emails to his Secretary of State,” many defenders have maintained. But here’s how all that works:

The White House has the most elaborate and the most secure electronic communications operation on Earth. The security firewalls for incoming and outgoing emails are almost incalculable in number. All of the computers, laptops, computer tablets, and wireless devices including telephones that are used by government employees are secured in the same fashion. Email addresses that they send email to are locked down! Those electronic devices cannot send  or receive emails or texts with any non-secured device (approved by White House IT officials).

What does all that really mean? It’s no big deal, right?

It was a huge deal in regards to security. Not just one or two laws were broken in the process of President Obama using this system to communicate with Secretary Clinton. Multiple laws were broken. Additionally, classified information was available to be stolen by hackers around the world. In fact, James Comey in sworn testimony declared it is known that a bug was planted on the Clinton email server that forwarded every email sent to from the Clinton Foundation email server!  Where did those emails get forwarded to? According to Comey, it was “some to bad actor” — probably one of America’s foreign foes. That foreign foe (according to Comey) was  China!

“Dan, you’re just a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Obama journalist. You’ll say anything to denigrate President Obama or anyone in his administration.” I’ll hear that from more than one responder to today’s story. I thought it timely to bring in an IT expert with practical knowledge of U.S. government setup and operations of servers and email accounts. Here’s an explanation of how security measures are handled by government IT experts:

You heard Huma Abedin’s name mentioned in that report. The FBI recovered Huma Abedin’s laptop that had been used by Abedin to forward ALL of Secretary Clinton’s emails to for “safekeeping.” (Note: Abedin’s ex-husband in the FBI’s investigation recovered his wife’s laptop to see if there were any illegal images kept there. That’s why they had her laptop) When Obama heard of those emails discovered there, he famously asked, “Weren’t those emails classified?” Yes, they were. In fact, any and all communications by a president are classified no matter how they are transmitted or received. He may not have known about his emails showing up on Abedin’s laptop but he certainly knew he had sent and received emails to and from Hillary’s email server.

Why would he not use his official government email address? All official U.S. emails are by law kept on official government devices and are backed-up and retained for the government archives. He obviously (along with Hillary) wished to communicate with each other in a way that would prevent anyone else from knowing about certain communications they wanted to be kept secret.

Just Imagine…..

It’s the summer of 2020 with a crazy presidential election underway after two years of contentious campaigning. That election results move Donald Trump from the White House to be replaced by the “new” President Joe Biden. Shortly after the election it is discovered that Trump for several years was communicating secretly with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, plotting a number of actions in conjunction with foreign governments that were unknown to Congress. Further, Pompeo was consorting with FBI officials to implement plans to illegally move billions of dollars to certain Trump foreign bank accounts to be accessed when Trump leaves office. How would that investigation be handled, covered by media, and the truth when revealed be processed?

  • A media war would immediately begin to obtain exclusives on the initial story and to obtain rights to the story going forward.
  • The DNC would start an immediate nationwide campaign fund drive to raise billions of dollars for 2022 and 2024 candidates to take total control of Congress and the White House, based on not just Trump’s consorting with Pompeo, but that every Republican in office consorted with Trump. Democrats need billions to make certain no such lawbreakers could ever return to U.S. public office.
  • Immediate high-level prosecutions would begin with an intensity never before seen. NO Republican would be exempt from alleged collusion with Trump.
  • Television networks would cover these investigations and subsequent prosecutions 24/7 non-stop.
  • The two-party American political system would immediately die, never to be seen again in the U.S.


If you have not believed the reports about media bias and media collusion with the Democrat Party and the Obama Administration then and now, this should destroy your disbelief. It’s certainly a travesty. But more than that, it’s a tragedy.

The tragedy is that this exact thing happened — at least during 2016-17. And it may have happened before and we simply did not know about it! Certainly, today’s Leftist Media made no effort to give us or report on these.

Think about this: we now know that throughout the Russia collusion story’s life, in each of those news reports EACH network stated this as their disclaimer: “We have learned today from two anonymous sources…..”  Those stories were were actually coordinated with other news companies. Example: MSNBC would make up a story and report it saying that it came from an “anonymous source.” They would pass that story along to ABC who would report the story with a different disclaimer: “ABC received information today from an unnamed source that….“ ABC forwarded the story to CNN. CNN reported it this way: “CNN today received a report confirmed by multiple sources that…..”

Who were CNN’s “confirmed” sources? MSNBC, and ABC! It’s called in media circles “Circle Suicide.” And their listeners/viewers/readers are the ones who get the bullet!

Why would anyone be surprised that these incredibly unprofessional journalists who have zero credibility and integrity would ever report truly about any negative thing that involved Barack Obama? 

They knew about the email server and the transmission of classified information by the Obama Administration. The Obama Department of Justice knew about it. They all received emails from Secretary Clinton sent from that server. Yet knowing that, no one initiated any investigation. No news organization ever reported on it. And when one finally  did — Politico — not a single other news organization picked up the story.

There is no doubt that what happened under Barack Obama was the most corrupt and widespread illegal government operation in United States history.

Will it ever be completely exposed to the World? Will any of these perpetrators ever be held accountable for their actions? Will we ever know the damage regarding U.S. classified information now in the hands of America’s overseas foes? None of these can be answered today. I just pray “the truth will out.” And I don’t care who is exposed. We need it all in the public domain.