Today was the day Part III — the finale — of our bringing you the truth of where the Democrat Party is desperately working to take our nation. We are having to delay that finale one day.
As some know, Tuesday after our show “TNN Live” I rushed to the hospital for a scheduled back surgery. Everything went well! I appreciate the prayers from all of you who knew about it.
Because we did not want to cancel our Tuesday show so we scheduled it at noon. Problems with a surgery patient in front of me prevented my action for 3 hours. That resulted in my surgery not happening until late yesterday.
Again, it went really well! Unfortunately, it prevented the final production of Part III of our revelation.
Our story and our live program “TNN Live” will NOT be published or broadcasted today.
I apologize for the 24-hour delay, especially in light of this process we began on Monday of this week. But please know, our commitment has NOT changed nor will it: we give you the truth in all those things important to you — REAL truth. And we continue that in this case one day later. The finale of this will be published tomorrow, Thursday, August 20, 2020. And we’ll be back with “TNN Live” as well tomorrow at 9:00-11:00 AM Central.
Thanks for being a part of TruthNewsNetwork. And thank you for letting my 67-year-old body take an extra day to allow back surgery to release me to get back in the saddle!
That’s something that makes everyone utter one unison, “Hmmm……”
What the heck does that mean?
Yesterday we began a series for this week of revealing “The Plan” of the Democrat Party for this presidential election and beyond. Yesterday we opened the door of understanding by introducing to all just how political is Sen. Kamala Harris. Today, we are getting a closer look at the exact role Harris plays in this Democrat Party epic and historical moment in U.S. history.
I watched a movie over the weekend — one I’ve watched several times previously: “The Manchurian Candidate.” I’m pretty sure most people have either watched it or, at least, know what it’s about. (The one I watched was the 21st-century version. Frank Sinatra starred in the original movie) But for those who haven’t or for others who have forgotten, here’s the short synopsis of the movie “The Manchurian Candidate:”
It stars Liev Schrieber as Raymond Prentiss Shaw. Shaw is the son of an extremely powerful mother played by Meryl Streep who pretty much controls her son’s entire life. His father was a U.S. Senator who died and was replaced by Raymond’s mother.
Denzel Washington plays the role of Major Ben Marco. Marco and young Shaw served together in the Middle East in a combat situation. They were both severely injured in combat for which they each were decorated.
Shaw went into politics while Marco remained in the military. Both dealt with medical, emotional, and mental problems as the results of their military combat.
The summary of the movie is that Shaw’s mother has him pointed to becoming the next Vice President. She uses her considerable political might to position him at the last moment to replace the existing VP candidate during the campaign for President/Vice President. Polls show Shaw’s ticket is going to win.
There’s a parallel storyline that involves strange dreams on the part of Marco AND Shaw and another GI who served with those two and was severely injured in the same war incident. He too has the same dreams. The dreams are vivid visions of each doing horrible things while under control of a drug or some mind-altering medical process.
Marco seeks-out Shaw on the campaign trail to compare notes on their dreams. Shaw keeps Marco away for a while. But it wasn’t long until Shaw’s dreams became more and more serious: serious enough to personally result in his murdering another powerful Senator who was trying to block Shaw’s VP chances. In that murder scene, Shaw also murdered the Senator’s daughter, who Shaw had dated seriously years earlier.
The “End of the Beginning”
As is appropriate in such a movie, all of these heretofore random coincidences concluded. The conclusion came shortly after the revelation that Shaw, Marco, and the other former soldier who shared those horrid dreams were each desperate to get some relief. Marco was fearful that Shaw was being used for sinister political objectives by his mother. And at a campaign appearance, Major Marco determined to assassinate Shaw. Shaw, somehow knew it was coming and inwardly welcomed it.
While on stage at a nationally televised event the night of the election in which Shaw and his now President buddy were accepting their victory, Marco hid in a balcony with a rifle. Shaw saw where Marco was hiding. At the exact moment Shaw expected the rifle shot, he pulled his mother close while they were in a victory dance. Both were killed instantly with one shot.
The “Beginning of the End”
“That’s 500 words of meaningless drivel,” you might say. It simply sets the stage in a very elementary way to demonstrate what is happening in the Biden/Harris/Democrat Party faux election scheme. Let’s get to the explanation.
First, let’s start with Joe Biden. Significantly more than half of Americans say they do NOT feel that Joe Biden — after a win against Donald Trump in November — will last physically and mentally through four years. In fact, many think it’s questionable that he would make it through one year. Why would the Democrat Party then put Joe on the top of the Democrat ticket?
“That’s why they chose Kamala Harris as his running mate. She’s young and vibrant. She could easily step in and take the reins from Joe.”
Many Americans believe that. But probably just as many think Joe will actually be capable of carrying the load that any U.S. President must carry.
I’m here today to tell you that neither of these thoughts truly represents the reason why Joe is running to be President nor the reason Kamala is running to be Vice President.
They each are running as “space holders:” two people who were chosen to serve a specific cause for a specific period of time.
“Uh Oh! Dan’s gone over the Conspiracy Theory Hill!” No, nothing could be further from the Truth. Let’s break this down:
The Democrat Party has some of the smartest leaders their party has ever had. I know: Nancy Pelosi is evil and devious, but one thing she is NOT is stupid. Everything she says or does in politics fits a particular purpose in a particular plan. She is brilliant at analyzing the hand in front of her. But she’s MORE adept at analyzing the hand she is certain her OPPONENT has. She is certainly working this election using those skills.
As I said yesterday, Democrats NEVER play the “short game.” They are in every battle to not just win “it.” They use every battle victory as a notch on their march to their ultimate goal: “To Win the War!” This Biden/Harris combination is the Democrat Party team Pelosi and Co. will use to win their first battle: the elimination of Donald Trump.
Biden is necessary because Democrat leaders understand America is not ready to digest a full-blown Socialist society. To be successful, that must happen in stages. Going straight to Kamala Harris for President would destroy their plan. They must take baby steps. Joe certainly has, in his lengthy history, a record of supporting conservative Democrat Party issues through decades. And he’s a much easier sell to Americans than any other candidate that was in this race — including Harris herself.
Biden is the tip of the battle sword; Harris is the sword handle. She is a prolific one-on-one politician, speaks well, can be forceful when needed but tender and affable also. She’s tough, she’s determined, and she’s a true Progressive in the truly “Liberal” sense of the word. In other words, she has the eyes and ears of Millenials who spurn this administration comprised of old white guys. If given a chance, they will in locked-step march over a cliff to embrace all those issues that AOC has been touting for the last two years. Harris can work in both Moderate and Progressive worlds.
Democrat Party leadership prefers a Biden win with a really strong campaign out-front presence of Harris for her communication skills and the fact she is an American woman of color who relates well to younger voters. In other words, Biden opens the election door, and Harris brings in the tiebreakers in the Progressive wing of the Democrat Party.
Biden will NOT last through a first term — if he wins at all. Kamala Harris is the right “interim” plan for the Democrat Party.
For all the reasons listed above, she is a much more formidable Democrat for moving the party to the next level. And that level will no longer be propped up the likes of Joe, Nancy, Chuck, or even Barack Obama! All those folks are simply too old and “so yesterday” to the 35-year-old and younger Americans. She will make the transition to the “Next” Democrat Party objective.
What’s that objective?
Tomorrow in our final segment of this story, you will see and hear a 25-minute documented and vetted presentation that will explain what the “long-game” is for Democrats. When complete, you will no doubt know for certain exactly why all this stuff is happening. “All this stuff” is comprised of every one of these: the Mueller Investigation, the Ukraine investigation, President Trump’s impeachment, the COVID-19 pandemic, the racial unrest that resulted in continuing protests, demonstrations, rioting and looting all across America, and the insistence by Democrat leaders for a 100% mail-in voting system operated totally by the Federal Government, taking control of elections away from our 50 states.
All of these have happened at specific times for specific “interim” reasons — “interim” because they all are little more than planks in the foundation of the Master Plan of today’s Democrat Party.
One final note today: as we conclude this tomorrow, all the pieces will fit together—most if not all of your why questions will be answered. You’ll be elated but at the same time afraid. But for sure, we will all know what has been happening in D.C. for so long that we simply could not understand. Additionally, we will know the purpose for all, not just for today but for years to come, long after most of us will be gone.
What About the Manchurian Candidate?
In case you didn’t put today’s characters names on the roles of the actors in that movie, the actual candidate played by Liev Schrieber is Joe Biden. His powerful mother who is a Senator is the Democrat Party. The politician who replaces Biden is, of course, Kamala Harris.
So who is the shooter, the one who takes out with one shot both Biden and the Democrat Party? Tune in for that answer tomorrow!
Don’t miss TNN Live at 9:00 AM Central today and every weekday. It two-hours of conservative streaming talk radio complete with call-ins so that you can share in the program yourself. I’m going to cheat and make joining the show every day simple. Just copy the following link. Why not paste it somewhere so that you can keep it handy permanently. It is the direct link to our radio streaming broadcast. At a few minutes before 9:00 Central, click on this link, and you will go straight to our show media player. Just click on the arrow to immediately join our show. Here’s that TNN Live link: https://www.elasticplayer.xyz/truthnews/
Don’t forget our conclusion to this series will be published worldwide at 1:45 AM Central Wednesday morning. Don’t you dare miss it!
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was a surprise pick to be Joe Biden’s running mate. Why so? Biden has, for decades, been the “poster boy” for the Moderate wing of the Democrat Party. Going into his presidential bid this year, he has painted himself as a consummate Moderate. But Americans have watched as the former Moderate has allowed the far-left of his party to pull him away from the neighborhood of Mr. Rogers to the neighborhood of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Waren. He had to get their support.
There’s a problem: Democrat Party leadership is uncertain any far-left Democrat can win the White House right now. So what do they do? They prop-up the picture of Uncle Joe as the “forever-Moderate” to sell to the American people. And they think they can.
But this Democrat Party is anything BUT Moderate.
“If Democrats are no longer Moderate, what are they?” The Democrat Party is running quietly yet as fast as possible to the Far Left in American politics.
“Americans are not ready for the Truth.” That’s where this Democrat Party is in their thinking. Their conundrum in looking at this election cycle caused them to make some hard choices: how to retake full government party control by making voters think Democrats are all Moderates without letting voters know they aren’t.
Democrat Party leadership is not playing a “short game:” they are playing the long game.” The game is called “Who will control the World politically.” It’s not just the United States.
What does that mean?
In the next few days, TruthNewsNetwork will unfold a bit at a time the plan of the Democrat Party in tandem with others to control World Politics.
We’re NOT going to give you any conspiracy theories. We’re not going to play a blame game. We’re going to present to you facts through documents, audio files, video files, the words of particular people that support every bit of information we give to you. And it starts right now.
Yes, it Begins with Kamala Harris
I dropped my glass when I heard ABC’s George Stephanopolous portray Kamala Harris as a “Moderate.” Any American who pays any attention at all knows she’s is certainly not that.
We’re not drawing broad and unsupported conclusions. We are basing those statements on facts: facts of her legislation and political history. Let’s take a look at just a few of her legislative “offerings.”
Democratic running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is one of the busier senators when it comes to introducing congressional legislation. Her 54 bills introduced in 2019 tied for 19th-most among all 100 senators, while her 52 bills introduced in 2017–18 put her in the top third among senators.
The Senate has been controlled by Republicans for all of Harris’s tenure, limiting her legislation’s odds of passage significantly. Still, four of her 131 bills were enacted into law — that’s good for a first-term Democratic senator. Let’s look at a handful of the bills she introduced to see what her legislation looks like, especially given the methodology ranking her as the most left-leaning senator in 2019, one spot above even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
COUNT Victims Act
After the category 5 Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in September 2017, the death count was originally listed as 64. Yet a George Washington University study from September 2018, by researchers at the school’s Milken Institute School of Public Health, estimated the actual death count as 2,975.
The significantly higher number was determined in part by including deaths determined to be indirectly caused by the hurricane but occurring up to five months later. The Puerto Rican government requested the study and officially accepted its revised death count, but the federal government did not.
Introduced in 2018, Sen. Harris’s Counting Our Unexpected Natural Tragedies’ Victims Act requested that the federal government conduct a study of how best to fully count the total number of victims from natural disasters. The provision attracted eight Democratic co-sponsors and was ultimately incorporated into the broader 462-page FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which was signed into law. However, the study doesn’t guarantee the federal government will adopt the new counting method.
“Whether it be Hurricane Maria or another natural disaster to come, the accuracy of the death toll has a direct impact on an area’s recovery,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “We cannot allow our government’s failed response in Puerto Rico ever to happen again. The ability to accurately count victims of natural disasters will give accurate information to grieving communities, and help us understand how we can mitigate the damage of future disasters.”
Disaster Victims Passport and ID Relief Act
After 2017 wildfires and floods in Harris’s home state of California, some individuals had to pay to replace governmental identification documents, including $110 for a passport book or $455 for a green card for permanent residents.
Introduced in June 2018, Sen. Harris’s Disaster Victims Passport and ID Relief Act provides a waiver from replacement fees for six types of identification: a U.S. Passport, visa, green card, Declaration of Intention form, naturalization or citizenship form, and employment authorization form.
Despite attracting no co-sponsors, the bill was ultimately incorporated into the broader 462-page FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which was signed into law.
“Victims of natural disasters are forced to reconstruct their lives, and too often face high levels of financial stress,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “We must do what we can to ease that burden including waiving fees associated with the replacement of critical documents and ensuring child care facilities have the funding they need so families can get back on their feet.”
Justice for Victims of Lynching Act
Lynching is considered one of the most gruesome ways to kill somebody, primarily associated with racially-motivating killings by white people against Black people in the antebellum and Jim Crow-era South. Even though the last documented lynching in America occurred in 1981 — or perhaps because of it — the act was never officially made a federal crime. Introduced in June 2018, Sen. Harris’s Justice for Victims of Lynching Act would have done just that.
The bill attracted 39 cosponsors — 28 Democrats, nine Republicans, and two independents — and passed the Senate in mid-December 2018 on a voice vote, a procedure used for relatively noncontroversial legislation without significant opposition. However, the bill never received a House vote, possibly due to there being less than two weeks in the session of Congress.
Sen. Harris reintroduced it in February 2019, where it attracted 47 co-sponsors — 29 Democrats, 16 Republicans, and two independents — and again passed on a voice vote. The identical House version was introduced by Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) and has attracted 14 co-sponsors, 12 Democrats and two Republicans.
In February 2020, the House instead voted on the similar — but not identical — Emmett Till Antilynching Act, introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL). The vote was 410–4, with Democrats unanimously supporting 222–0 and Republicans mostly supporting 188–3. Now to become law, either the Senate will have to vote on the House-passed version or vice versa.
That’s hardly guaranteed. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has blocked a potential Senate vote on the House version, arguing that the existing language is too broad. “The bill as written would allow altercations resulting in a cut, abrasion, bruise, or any other injury no matter how temporary to be subject to a 10-year penalty,” Sen. Paul said. “My amendment would simply apply a serious bodily injury standard, which would ensure crimes resulting in a substantial risk of death and extreme physical pain be prosecuted as a lynching.”
Sen. Harris disagrees. “Lynching is a dark, despicable part of our history, and we must acknowledge that, lest we repeat it,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “From 1882 to 1986 there have been 200 attempts that have failed to get Congress to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. It’s time for that to change.”
Marijuana is currently classified on a federal level as a Schedule 1 drug, the strictest classification alongside other drugs such as heroin and meth, and higher than Schedule 2 drugs including cocaine.
Introduced in July 2019, Sen. Harris’s Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act would legalize the drug federally, expunge certain past marijuana-related offenses from people’s criminal records, and introduce a 5 percent federal tax on marijuana.
The bill has attracted five Democratic co-sponsors but has not yet received a vote in the Senate Finance Committee. A House version introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has attracted 81 cosponsors, 80 Democrats plus Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). It was approved by the House Judiciary Committee in November 2019 and awaits a potential full vote in the chamber.
“Times have changed — marijuana should not be a crime,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “We need to start regulating marijuana, and expunge marijuana convictions from the records of millions of Americans so they can get on with their lives. As marijuana becomes legal across the country, we must make sure everyone — especially communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs — has a real opportunity to participate in this growing industry.
(Harris said in a 2019 interview that she had smoked marijuana in college while listening to music from Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg, even though both of their debut albums came out after Harris attended college.)
Rent Relief Act
Renters currently comprise the highest percentage of households at any time in the past 50 years. This occurs as wages have remained largely stagnant, making rent harder to afford. More than 11 million Americans pay more than half their income to rent.
Introduced in July 2018, Sen. Harris’s Rent Relief Act would give a tax credit to anybody who spends more than 30 percent of their income on rent plus utilities, so long as they make less than $125,000.
The bill attracted five Democratic co-sponsors, but never received a vote in the Senate Finance Committee. In April 2019, Sen. Harris reintroduced the bill, where it has attracted three Democratic cosponsors but again not yet received a vote in the Senate Finance Committee. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) signed onto the previous version, but not yet the current version.
A House version introduced by Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) has attracted 10 Democratic cosponsors and awaits a potential vote in the House Ways and Means Committee.
“America’s affordable housing crisis has left too many families behind who struggle each month to keep a roof over their head,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “This bill will ensure no family is priced out of the basic security of a place to live. Bolstering the economic security of working families would strengthen our country and increase opportunity.”
ENOUGH Act / SHIELD Act
The Ending Nonconsensual Online User Graphic Harassment (ENOUGH) Act would federally ban “revenge porn,” or posting explicit pictures of somebody else — often an ex — without their consent. Almost every state banned the practice during the 2010s, but there is no federal ban.
Sen. Harris introduced the bill In November 2017, with one Republican and one Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), and future presidential campaign rival Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). It never received a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Perpetrators of exploitation who seek to humiliate and shame their victims must be held accountable,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “It is long past time for the federal government to take action to give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on these crimes.”
Harris introduced it again in the current Congress, in July 2019, as the renamed Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution (SHIELD) Act. It’s again attracted one Republican and one Democratic co-sponsor, still Sens. Burr and Klobuchar, but has not yet received a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A House version introduced by Harris’s fellow Californian Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA14) has attracted 87 Democratic and four Republican co-sponsors and awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
Shirley Chisholm statue
One of the major news stories of 2020 has been the debate over controversial statues, from Confederate generals and politicians to Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson — including in the U.S. Capitol Building.
In February 2018, Sen. Harris introduced a bill to include a statue of Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress and the first Black woman to run for president in 1972, in the Capitol Building. It attracted 16 co-sponsors, 15 Democrats and one independent, but never received a vote in the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
“Shirley Chisholm created a path for me and the 40 Black women members of Congress who have served after her,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “While there is still work to be done for equal representation, we must also stand back and celebrate our triumphs along the way. Shirley’s legacy is one that encourages us to keep up the fight for our most voiceless and vulnerable, and deserves to be cemented in the United States Capitol.”
Sen. Harris reintroduced it again in the current Congress, in March 2019. It’s attracted 17 co-sponsors, 16 Democrats and one independent, but again has not yet received a vote in the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
A House version introduced by Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) has attracted 70 Democratic co-sponsors, and awaits a potential vote in the House Administration Committee.
Census Equality Act
Gallup estimates that 4.5 percent of the U.S. population identified as LGBT — lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender — in 2017, a number rising every single year since they started the survey in 2012, because the stigma keeps lessening. But what is America’s LGBT population exactly?
Introduced in July 2018, Sen. Harris’s Census Equality Act would include a question on the decennial Census asking respondents about their sexual orientation and gender identity, starting in 2030. The idea is that America could get a precise count of that group’s population.
The bill attracted 21 Democratic co-sponsors, but never received a vote in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In June 2019, the similar LGBTQ Data Inclusion Act was introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), with Sen. Harris signing on as one of the 18 Democratic co-sponsors, though it has again not yet received a vote in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
A House version introduced by Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) has attracted 142 Democratic co-sponsors and awaits a potential vote in the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
“The spirit of the Census is that no one should go uncounted and no one should be invisible,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “We must expand data collections efforts to ensure the LGBTQ community is not only seen, but fully accounted for in terms of government resources provided. This information can also provide us with better tools to enforce civil rights protections for a community that is too often discriminated against.”
Family Friendly Schools Act
Some schools get out as early as 2 P.M., even though the standard workday goes until 5 P.M. or 6 P.M., putting pressure on many working parents, particularly parents of elementary school-aged children.
Introduced in November 2019, Sen. Harris’s Family Friendly Schools Act would establish a grant program to keep 500 elementary schools open until at least 6 P.M. on weekdays. After five years, the Education Department would be required to produce a study about whether this model could or should be expanded nationwide.
The bill has attracted five Democratic co-sponsors but has not yet received a vote in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
“My mother raised my sister and me while working demanding, long hours,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “So I know firsthand that, for many working parents, juggling between school schedules and work schedules is a common cause of stress and financial hardship. But this does not have to be the case. My bill provides an innovative solution that will help reduce the burden of child care on working families. It is time we modernize the school schedule to better meet the needs of our students and their families.”
Access to Counsel Act
After her election in 2016, Harris’s first-ever bill in February 2017 would have clarified under federal law that undocumented immigrants held or detained have the right to a lawyer during their legal proceedings.
The bill attracted seven Democratic co-sponsors — including presidential campaign rivals Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — but never received a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Detention without access to representation goes against the basic values of our judicial system,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “Refugees, immigrants, students, and tourists all deserve to be able to access their lawyer in legal proceedings that could change the course of their lives, whether they enter the country at an airport or come across the border. Interactions with immigration enforcement officials are often confusing and disorienting, and no one should be exploited because of their lack of knowledge of our legal system.”
Sen. Harris also re-introduced the bill in the current Congress, in July 2019. It’s attracted six Democratic co-sponsors, but again has not yet received a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Six co-sponsors are the same as the seven who signed on the previous Congress, but Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware hasn’t co-sponsored this new version.
In July 2020, the House passed the Access to Counsel Act as an amendment to another bill, voting 231–184, with Democrats unanimously in favor and Republicans unanimously opposed.
Aretha Franklin Congressional Gold Medal Act
The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest civilian honor that Congress can bestow, awarded to 19 people from arts and entertainment throughout American history, including Walt Disney, actor John Wayne, singer Frank Sinatra, and Peanuts illustrator Charles M. Schulz.
In August 2018, Sen. Harris proposed the late singer and civil rights activist Aretha Franklin, a mere five days after Franklin’s death. The bill attracted 41 co-sponsors — 35 Democrats, five Republicans, and one independent — but never received a vote in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
In February 2019, Sen. Harris reintroduced it with a smaller 25 co-sponsors to date: 23 Democrats and two Republicans. Again, it has not yet received a vote in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
A House version introduced by Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) has attracted 68 co-sponsors, 64 Democrats and four Republicans, and awaits a potential vote in either the House Administration or Financial Services Committee.
“From listening to Mary Don’t You Weep, to standing in the living room dancing to Rock Steady over and over again, to hearing from the Queen herself how lucky I was to be young, gifted and Black — Aretha’s songs were the soundtrack of my childhood,” Sen. Harris said in a press release. “Aretha was simply a legend. Her work and impact will be felt for generations to come, and it’s long past time Congress honor her with the Congressional Gold Medal.”
I know: you probably skimmed this entire list of Harris legislation or simply quit. But to understand the importance of what Americans each are facing in this election, one must have a good understanding of who are the players, where did they originate, and where each is headed.
These bills introduced by Sen. Harris may appear to be little more than a freshman Senator spreading her “legislative” wings, but they are far more than just that. She, in being so aggressive as a young Senator, showed all the political heavyweights looking-in that she is ready to become a “player” in important politics — the type of politics that are now in full swing in our country. She wants to be on stage and not sitting in the back.
That’s important to understand. It will help explain what shows up tomorrow about the California Senator, her role in the “Big Game,” and how today’s Democrat Party have surreptitiously been initiating their plan for us all while we were busy watching Russia-Gate, Ukraine-Gate, Impeachment, COVID-19 Pandemic, and Racial Anarchy during the last four years.
You don’t want to miss a day of this! Day by day, chapter, by chapter, the future of our nation as Democrats hope to see it play out is unfolding before your eyes.
Another week! Not just any week: one far crazier than last week.
Do you think that in YOUR busy week you might have missed something? You probably did. But TruthNewsNetwork is here to fill you in on the 10 most important stories of the week with our bullet points.
In each bullet point, we’ll give you a sentence or two revealing the “meat” in each story. If you are intrigued and want the details, just click on the link and read an entire story with details. If our description is good enough, just move on to the next.
It’s our way to keep your Saturday mornings casual while giving you the important stuff you probably missed — well, at least some of it. Relax over coffee and take a walk through “Saturday Bullet Points!”
Election day is about 80 days away. And many Americans are petrified about going to vote. After all, COVID-19 has us all scared to death. While Democrats continue to demand mail-in voting to save us all from viral death, the Champion of the Left, Dr. Anthony Fauci, stepped up on Friday and saved us all! He announced that NO ONE needs to fear going to vote on November 3rd. For complete details, click on this link:
With the announcement of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as Joe Biden’s running mate, speculation abounds: can Biden make it physically? Will it make it through two terms as president? Wait: how about just ONE term? Speculation is that there is a real possibility he would NOT make it even to the election! Obviously, if that happened, the responsibility would fall on the shoulders of the Vice President (or the person running as his VP partner) to step in and fill the shoes. But if that happened, who would replace Kamala as Vice President? A famous former senator stepped up and threw “HER” hat into the ring. For complete details, click on this link:
It’s taken over a year, but Federal Attorney John Durham, who was tasked to undertake an investigation of members of the Obama Administration for wrongdoing in the Russia Collusion case, on Friday rolled out his first federal criminal indictment in the case. Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith was indicted for criminally changing an email that was used in a FISA warrant application that authorized spying on a member of the Trump Campaign. For complete details, click on this link:
Sadly, America’s mainstream media almost totally ignored what may be the most important agreement signed between three Middle East countries in the last century! President Trump quietly brought together two former bitter enemies who signed a peace deal that no one on Earth anticipated. The United Arab Emirates and Israel signed a deal that experts agree will alter the course of pretty much everything between the two countries. For complete details, click on this link:
In several parts of the country, public and private schools alike have already welcomed students back to school: IN PERSON! Many other schools have already (or are in the planning stages) of conducting all or part of class studies online. Sadly, some schools have decided to close for the school year. But educators and healthcare officials are adamant: “Our kids need to get back to school.” For complete details, click on this link:
Many on the political left are rabidly pushing in some of the nation’s largest cities for the defunding of the police. But most Americans when polled are horrified at the thought: Who would stop crime? Who would we see show up when we call 911? Would ANYONE show up when we call 911? For complete details, click on this link:
Despite what Sleepy Joe has been telling the nation for a year, things “ain’t so rosy” between the president-wannabe and his former boss. Even though former President Obama endorsed Biden for the top spot, he has throughout this year had serious problems with his former VP. For more details click on this link:
Several states have joined the five other states who have been voting totally by mail for some years in planning on voting entirely by mail on November 3rd. But there’s a problem: several are swing states. And officials are warning that in some of these swing states, their ballots may not arrive in time to be counted! For complete details, click on this link:
Well, guess what? The USPS has warned states from coast to coast, every state that plans to use mail-in ballots may find THEIR ballots do not reach offices of voter registrars in time to be counted! This news came out late Friday. Just imagine how frantic will be those Democrat Party leaders that have so vehemently demanded mail-in voting. For complete details, click on this link:
Here’s a story that I’m certain you missed and one that is really surprising. President Vladimir Putin on Friday called on the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany to convene an emergency Iran summit to avoid an escalation of tensions in the Gulf. For complete details, click on this link:
Let me make one thing clear: there is a vast gulf between the social and political organization “Black Lives Matter” and someone — ANYONE — saying, “black lives matter.” Both versions of the word are important. And we all need to stop weaponizing each.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a social justice organization that got its start in Ferguson, Missouri, in the wake of the outrage in the African American community following the police shooting death of Michael Brown. It turned into a national civil rights organization that has expanded across the nation. Because of Ferguson, Black Lives Matter’s focus has been on the killings of young African Americans at the hands of police from every level of law enforcement: federal, state, and local.
Additionally, BLM sponsored a number of demonstrations in several of the largest U.S. cities in protest to police shootings, some of which resulted in the death of blacks. In almost every one of the rallies or demonstrations, violence breaks out. In fact, many have begun to compare Black Lives Matters with ANTIFA, who seem to target rallies and meetings initiated as Free Speech rallies or conferences. Just take a look at what’s happened almost nightly in major cities across America like Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City. It seems that in each city in each protest/demonstration/riot, the anger and furor escalates and turns into more and more aggressive actions in each.
ANTIFA is another story we’ve previously written about but are not the focus of this conversation. Please know, however, it seems to many BLM takes much of their demonstration and even violence planning from ANTIFA. (Or maybe it’s the other way around)
In our summary, we will address the fact that these and other far-left political groups seem to focus most of their attention on those from ethnic communities who are involved in incidents that are often racial and often end in the death of someone. They discovered that such violent acts are magnets for news coverage. Violent death makes for a good news story!
Instead of just throwing up our hands saying, “It doesn’t matter what we do or so, these people are going to harp on this claim: ‘police target blacks in almost all incidents that include some type of serious crime in which an African American is shot. They do so for purely racist and political purposes.'”
That’s been the police shooting story since half-way through Barack Obama’s first term as president. BLM supporters have built that into a narrative that accompanies every news story at every network, newspaper, and national television show when such killings are reported to Americans. Facts prove otherwise, which many minority Americans refuse to accept. This brings us today to ask not, “Is the storyline that police are responsible for most deaths in the African American community true?” What needs to be asked and answered instead is this:
Does the truth matter?
Evidently, not to groups like Black Lives Matter. That’s tragic for many reasons, not the least of which is that black lives are being lost as a result. When it comes to the subject of American police, blacks, and the deadly use of force, here is what we know:
A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 of officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.
Does the truth matter?
An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops. But isn’t it a sign of bias that blacks make up 26 percent of police-shooting victims, but only 13 percent of the national population?
It is not, and common sense suggests why. Police shootings occur more frequently where officers confront armed or violently resisting suspects. Those suspects are disproportionately black.
According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals. In 2014, over 6,000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. In fact, a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. If the police ended all use of lethal force tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on the black death-by-homicide rate. In Chicago, through just the first six-and-a-half months of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot. That’s a shooting an hour during some weekends. The vast majority of the victims were black. During this same period, the Chicago police shot 12 people, all armed and dangerous. That’s one half of one percent of all shootings.
Does the truth matter?
If it does, here’s a truth worth pondering: There is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. The proactive policing revolution that began in the mid-1990s has dramatically brought down the inner-city murder rate and saved tens of thousands of black lives. Unfortunately, that crime decline is now in jeopardy.
Police officers are backing off of proactive policing in black neighborhoods, thanks to the false narrative that police officers are infected with homicidal bias. As a result, violent crime is going up. In cities with large black populations, homicides in the last two years rose anywhere from 54 percent in Washington D.C. to 90 percent in Cleveland. Overall, in the nation’s 56 largest cities, homicides rose 17 percent, a nearly unprecedented spike. Many law-abiding residents of high-crime areas beg the police to maintain order — precisely the type of policing that the ACLU, progressive politicians, BLM, and some in Congress denounce as racist. This is tragic because when the police refrain from proactive policing, black lives are lost—lost because of a myth.
The rancor escalated to never-before-seen heights with the death of Michael Floyd in Minneapolis. Since that day, the fires of anger and bitterness have stoked fires of division across the nation. Almost without fail, peaceful protests become peaceful demonstrations and marches. But almost without fail, those morph into violence, rioting, and looting.
It is uncontroverted that there are instances of white cops killing blacks — far more than we would hope would ever happen. Thankfully they are not in the numbers most in the public feel are certain. But the problem here is even though the best research and data conclude that there is no evidence that police are killing blacks just because they are black. Exclusively such incidents occur as a result of severe law-breaking acts and acts of violence.
OK, we’ve examined the statistics. They originate from very authentic and credible sources. And they’re quite conclusive in the finding that disproves the almost universal perception that police “in general” are killing blacks because they are blacks. But those statistics beg for answers to a question not part of the first segment of this conversation: What is the REAL reason for this conversation that is so necessary yet so damaging?
There’s a simple answer: No one yet has, on a national scale, offered a plausible solution. Find a peaceful way to resolve these differences is — and always has been — a monumental task which no one has completed. Many have tried, several have gotten started, but none so far have seen success.
Here’s the fearful part of where we find us today: those actively involved in these conversations have become so polarized, so far apart, it often seems a solution will NEVER be found. And even if a solution is identified, it is doubtful all sides in this crisis will agree. I think there is a group of people who are the loudest and most demanding in this that don’t even want resolution. They feed on the anger and hatred, the fear and the violence, the infliction of pain for which they know there’s no real price they will be forced to pay.
What we need is a “new” Martin Luther King, Jr. who could draw people of all races and backgrounds to him for a conversation. He taught that communication is the necessary element to begin resolution. When people speak “to” each other and not yell “at” each other, it’s much easier to finish a conversation and have substance to show for the labor.
It would help, too, if we didn’t have an industry that relies on conflict, confusion, and violence to self-perpetuate a need for their existence: the Media.
As we find ourselves inside of 90-days until an election, it would be wise for every American to pause just a moment and consider where they WANT to go in the near future. Then choose the best way under the best circumstances to get there. Open those conversations with others that live within your circle of influence. Challenge everyone to THINK instead of just ACTING.
We MUST find a way through this. And we can…I’m certain of that.
Irony after irony: after all, it’s election season!
Remember all that finger-pointing between Republicans and Democrats about which socialist/communist country like Hillary, which preferred Trump, and which loved them both? I always wondered why those “experts” that made those outlandish claims discovered a way to read the minds of some of the evilest and most unreasonable totalitarian leaders on the Planet. But don’t you dare question the experts: they KNOW! At least, that’s what they told us — again, and again, and again. (Maybe these are the same experts that repeatedly for the last five months have told us COVID-19 absolutes that change 48 hours later and then change again)
Now we face another election. This election includes one of the same people that ran in 2016 and another who ran and won as part of the presidential ticket the previous two elections: President Trump and Vice President Biden. Of course, the experts emerged from their closets in which they supernaturally communicate with the leaders of multiple socialist countries who never tell any lies to any American! The nation awaits their daily and weekly trips to the closet so they can educate the underclass of Americans with who needs to be watched because “China wants Trump to win,” and “Russia wants Biden to Win” — or is it the other way around?
“China Joe” and “Beijing Biden” could be more than nicknames Trumpers throw at the Democrats’ nominee. It turns out there is some evidence behind the gamesmanship. A new national intelligence report says foreign adversaries have their presidential preferences and are trying to tilt our election. Among the findings, China and Iran want Biden in the White House while Russia favors the incumbent.
Guess which part of those findings is getting most of the media coverage. Hint: You don’t need a sign.
Dems and their media minions can’t quit their passion for picturing President Trump as a Russian agent. The New York Times and Speaker Nancy Pelosi insist that the Russian role is so much more significant and more effective than that of either China or Iran. How would they know? Why, naturally, anonymous sources, those “officials briefed on the intelligence,” according to the Times in its latest effort to carry water for the anti-Trump Deep State.
Both also question the accuracy of the Biden findings, with the Times suggesting, without evidence, that the push for Biden was included as a political stand-in to Trump. Pelosi told Fox News that the analysts “try to blanket it with the Chinese, they said, prefer Biden — we don’t know that, but that’s what they’re saying, but they’re not getting involved in the presidential election.”
Wow, remember when Trump was excoriated for doubting the intelligence agencies? Remember Chuck Schumer’s warning to Trump in January 2017 when he said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you?”
But now it’s hunky-dory to dump on the spooks. It’s the First Law of Politics: Anything that can be twisted to make Trump look bad will be twisted.
The double standards shout to the high heavens, especially when you consider what the FBI did in 2016. Based mainly on the unverified Steele dossier, financed by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, and the tall tale about Russians having Clinton’s emails that involved George Papadopoulos, the FBI opened “Crossfire Hurricane” and spied on the Trump campaign. It turned out to be the biggest nothing burger in American history — but by the time special counsel Robert Mueller and his band of Democrat sycophants finally admitted in 2019 there was no campaign collusion, the media had worked with Dems and investigators to severely damage the new administration and the lives of many innocent people.
Pelosi certainly owes her party’s victory in the 2018 midterms to the “Russia, Russia, Russia” hysteria. And there would have been no Ukraine impeachment had Pelosi not been running the House.
In short, the world changed because of the false accusations against Trump and others. Yet, now that the intelligence agencies say Biden is preferred by two major adversaries, the story comes and goes over a late summer weekend.
Before the dirt settles on the grave, it’s worth looking at the findings with some foreign-policy perspective.
November’s winner will face significant challenges with all three countries. But the truth is that Trump has been tougher on all three than the Obama-Biden administration ever was. He has used sanctions against individuals and organizations in ways that the previous White House rejected. Trump has been especially hard on Iran and China, giving both significant reasons for wanting to get rid of him and bring back Biden — the VP in an administration that bowed and buckled before them.
The Iran nuclear pact, for example, was so lopsided toward the mad mullahs, and dangerous to Israel and the rest of the world, that even Schumer opposed it. Trump kept his campaign promise to ditch it and levy harsh penalties that have helped to cripple Iran’s economy.
(Exhibit A of the First Law of Politics: Schumer switched sides after Trump took office, saying the new president should have kept the Iran deal!)
Trump also ordered the airstrike last January that took out Qasem Soleimani, the murderous Iranian commander, in an act that demonstrated the president’s willingness to confront Iran’s aggression in Iraq and throughout the region.
Biden, on the other hand, said he would not have approved the mission and predicted it would lead to further war. He was wrong on both counts. The Democrat also is making noises about trying to rejoin the nuclear deal, so it’s no surprise that Iran wants him back in the White House. The mullahs might even be gracious enough to accept another planeload of fresh American cash as a down payment on Biden’s friendly intentions.
The China preference for Biden also makes perfect sense. During his long career in Washington, Biden was the sort of Washington man China could count on to support its goal of becoming an economic power. He endorsed virtually every trade deal with China that hollowed out American manufacturing — the same deals that Trump campaigned against and has been revamping. In July alone, Trump sanctioned Chinese leaders for abusing human rights, arrested alleged spies, and ended special privileges for Hong Kong.
There’s no reason to believe Biden would have done any of that. His team is suggesting he wants to get the relationship back on an even keel. In reality, that means back to where China was ripping us off. Moreover, the Obama-Biden administration was shockingly passive as China expanded its military aggression in the region. The talk of a “pivot” toward Asia was never more than talk.
Then there’s the smelly deal Hunter Biden made with a Chinese firm connected to the government, and, of course, connected to the Communist Party. Expect to see Trump ads featuring pictures of Hunter getting off Air Force Two, traveling with his father to pad his own pocket.
Joe Biden was only the vice president then. Imagine the big bucks Hunter could make in China with Daddy sitting in the Oval Office.
Everyone has heard: former Presidential Candidate and now Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) has joined Joe Biden on the Democrat Party ticket as the vice-presidential candidate. Most had Biden’s VP-choice narrowed to Harris and former UN Ambassador and Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Months ago, TruthNewsNetwork predicted that Sen. Kamala Harris would win the Democrat Party presidential nomination. We missed it — by one spot!
What does Harris mean for the Democrat Party? What does her joining Joe Biden on the ticket mean for Democrat voters? Does Harris bring anything to the table to help Biden win the election?
All of these and other matters will be discussed extensively and consistently over the next few days. But by next Monday, Harris will be little more in the public eye than Biden’s VP pick. So let’s get to know Kamala Harris.
We are not going to dive into the minutia of her history. Instead, we will detail elements of her public service, conversations, interactions with others in the public sphere, and where her specific political stances on various issues related to the American electorate stand on multiple issues. After all, even though she’s been in public service, most Americans know little about her politics.
We’ll begin with some bullet-points that include multiple situations in which the Senator has made several personal political perspectives known. There are far more points than just these listed below. But this a point for all to understand where and on what issues Sen. Harris stands. After all, she, as all other Vice Presidents would, if the Biden ticket is chosen in the election, will be at all times just one heartbeat away from holding the highest office in the U.S. Let’s get started.
Let’s Bullet-Point ten things you may or may not know about the Senator
1. As both a district attorney and state attorney general, Harris pushed for a new statewide law that lets prosecutors charge parents with misdemeanors if their children are chronically truant. “We are putting parents on notice,” she declared. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”
3. Harris also has been a strong advocate of civil asset forfeiture. She supported a bill in California that would have allowed prosecutors to seize assets beforeinitiating criminal proceedings — a power now available only at the federal level — if there were a “substantial probability” they would eventually initiate such actions. Besides cases involving violent crimes, the legislation allowed seizures in cases involving such crimes as bribery, gambling, and trafficking endangered species. Harris endorsed the bill after then-attorney general Eric Holder sharply limited civil asset forfeiture among federal prosecutors. She argued that the practice gave local and state law-enforcement officials “more tools to target the illicit profits [of transnational criminal groups] and dismantle these dangerous organizations.”
4. As San Francisco district attorney, Harris created “Back on Track,” an anti-recidivism program that she expanded as state attorney general. The program received $750,000 in federal funding and quite a bit of praise from crime-policy experts. But it faced criticism early in its history, when illegal immigrant Alexander Izaguirre, who had pleaded guilty to selling drugs, was selected and graduated, only to grab a woman’s purse later and run her down in an SUV, severely injuring her.
As the Los Angeles Times put it, “Harris’ office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.” Harris said she had been unaware that Back on Track had been training illegal immigrants and that they would no longer be eligible for the program.
5. In 2012, Harris submitted a brief supporting an illegal immigrant’s application for a law license. In 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled in the immigrant’s favor, even though the California State Bar’s rules state that it is disqualifying professional misconduct to commit a criminal act.
6. In her first speech on the Senate floor, Harris declared, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” She later avowed the belief that illegal immigration is “a civil violation, not a crime.”
This classification applies to only a portion of those in the country without permission. First, entering the country illegally has criminal penalties. Overstaying a visa is considered a civil violation, not a criminal one, with deportation as the appropriate penalty. But reentry without permission after deportation is a crime, as is, in most cases, working in the United States without legal residency, since it almost always involves some falsification of documents or lying on work forms under penalty of perjury.
7. Harris’s reputation as a tough prosecutor has played a key part in her political rise, and she continues to tout the high rate of felony convictions on her watch. But in 2010, SF Weekly reviewed the work of her office and concluded that “felony convictions for cases that go to trial and reach a jury verdict — a comparatively small group that nevertheless includes some of a district attorney’s most violent and emotionally charged cases — have declined significantly over the past two years.” The review found that in 2009, San Francisco prosecutors “won a lower percentage of their felony jury trials than their counterparts at district attorneys’ offices covering the 10 largest cities in California,” and San Francisco’s rate dropped further in the first quarter of 2010. Harris’s 71 percent conviction rate on felony cases had been boosted by a significant increase in pre-trial plea agreements.
8. In October 2017, Harris declared that she would rather shut down the government than vote for a spending bill that did not address the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and ensure those covered by the program would not be deported. “I will not vote for an end-of-year spending bill until we are clear about what we are going to do to protect and take care of our DACA young people in this country,” she said. And she has kept her word, at least so far.
9. In April 2018, Harris urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to “reduce funding for beds in the federal immigration system,” reject calls to hire more Border Patrol personnel, and “reduce funding for the administration’s reckless immigration enforcement operations.”
10. In 2010, a California Superior Court judge declared that as San Francisco district attorney, Harris had violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug-lab technician and was indifferent to demands that the lab account for its failings. The crime-lab technician had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2008; district attorneys are obligated to hand over to the defense information about prosecution witnesses that could be used to challenge their credibility. Prosecutors’ failure to disclose the information about the technician led to the dismissal of more than 600 drug cases.
11. Before she was serving the people of California as a senator, Harris served as the state’s attorney general. As attorney general, Harris had to enforce California’s laws as written, but she also used her position to advocate for policies she felt would keep her constituents safe.
12. Formerly as California’s Attorney General she supported immigration laws that though controversial had to be enforced — even that which required the reporting of illegal juveniles to ICE, which flies in the face of sanctuary cities. As a presidential candidate, her story changed. She encouraged all federal, state, and law enforcement members to NOT cooperate with ICE on anything that goes against the concept of sanctuary cities and supports deportation of illegals — a “Switch-A-Rooskie.”
Then during a radio interview with “The Breakfast Club,” Harris claimed that she smoked pot when she was younger and that any claim that she opposes full marijuana legalization is “not true.” But, in her 2014 campaign, her Republican opponent for attorney general, Ron Gold, was very public about his support for full legalization of pot. Harris was not on the same page. When she was asked about legalization by KCRA in 2014, she laughed at Gold’s stance and said he was entitled to his opinion. Her presidential campaign may have been pro-pot, but her time as attorney general certainly wasn’t.
13. During an interview with CNN shortly after her presidential announcement, Harris told host Jake Tapper that America should “eliminate” the private healthcare system. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said of the private health insurance industry. “Let’s move on.” BUT, according to CNN, “as the furor grew” toward her plan to ban private healthcare, her team announced that she is open to keeping a market system.
Harris has also done the old “Switch-A-Rooskie” on a required investigation of cops involved in killings and on mass incarceration.
14. As U.S.Senator for California, in a confirmation hearing of one federal judge, Harris delved into religious matters. Harris, in her questions to the nominee, called the Knights of Columbus “an all-male society” and asked the Nebraska lawyer if he was aware that the group was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage when he joined. The California senator also referenced Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson’s statement that abortion amounted to “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with the statement. Buescher responded that his involvement in the group consisted mostly of charitable work and community events at his local Catholic parish. He indicated he would abide by judicial precedent regarding abortion.
Today, Sen. Harris needs NO ONE to answer questions for her about anything in her public record. Facts speak for themselves. And in the weeks to come, Americans will see and hear her on a number of issues important to each of us. And each American who votes will decide if she and her running mate are the match that can and will be best to lead the nation.
What shocked me when this decision was announced is my realization of just how far Left the Biden/Harris ticket will be for the Democrat Party. Think about it: less than a year ago, Joe Biden was considered among all of those 24 Democrat Party presidential candidates as the lone representative of the moderate center of the Party. Now, with Biden’s embrace of the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all, free college tuition along with the cancellation of student debt and a strong move back into international agreements with Iran and the Paris Accords, the selection of Harris to reinforce the ticket proves Joe Biden is no longer a moderate in any way. He has joined the ranks of Leftists with Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
It’s going to be interesting (and I think it’ll be fun) for the next 80 days or so to watch Democrats with faux glee try to get everyone excited about “their” ticket. It probably will be hilarious to hear the things they allege about the good Biden and Harris will do for the nation after the pair is inaugurated.
The Democrats only hope now is to get their party members out to vote. In this pandemic, that’s going to be hard to do. So they’ll resort to the worst possible political tactics: they’ll everyday present the vilest and nastiest campaign attacks possible directly at President Trump. And specifically for that purpose, their VP pick is a perfect choice. If you don’t think so, just go to YouTube and watch some of her viciousness in Senate Judiciary hearings as she grills Attorney General Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
I think two things are certain: the anti-Trump attacks, which have never gone away, will only amplify from the Media talking-heads and intensify daily. Harris and Biden will just add their two-cents to the media rhetoric on cue. President Trump must tamp-down his rage and furor and refuse to fight back.
Of those two things, I doubt the second is even possible!
But one thing of which I’m pretty certain: Kamala will do her best to irritate the President daily by making continual outlandish allegations. The Biden media lapdogs will follow her around and give her 24/7 camera time. For that reason, she was the correct VP pick over Susan Rice. Rice isn’t a fighter. Harris is not just a fighter, she’s a fighter who cannot stand to lose and seldom does lose.
My pick about the fight result? She won’t be the fight loser: Trump will be the winner ,and Biden will go back to the basement.
There is no greater injustice on Earth than some human actually owning another human. Yet, it happens every day in every country. It’s not just adults that are bought and sold. In fact, human trafficking happens mostly to children.
To get a grip on the problem of human trafficking, it is important to understand the definition of the term. It is recognized today there are three types of human trafficking: labor, sex, and war slavery. In the US, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Victim Protection Act features the following definition of human trafficking:
Sex trafficking where a commercial sex act is mandated by force, fraud or coercion, or where the person is forced to perform the act is not at least 18 years old; or
The harboring, recruitment, transportation, provision, or obtaining an individual for labor or services through using fraud, force, or coercion for the purpose to subject the individual to involuntary solitude, debt bondage, slavery or peonage.
Human trafficking is a global problem that can possibly be solved through hard work through stakeholders in government, nonprofits, and in communities around the country and world.
Getting a grip on the size of the human trafficking problem is challenging; it is difficult to collect statistics due to the fact of slavery being done in secret, and there is a good deal of discrepancy between the figures available. But there is a report that claims up to 27 million people live in some type of modern-day slavery throughout the world. According to the International Labour Office, there are 21 million victims of human trafficking across the globe. In the US, it is estimated that 17,000 people are put into some form of slavery every year.
How prevalent is trafficking? Looking at the top 50 states ranked by per capita of proven trafficking cases, no state ranks higher than Nevada with 5.6 cases per one hundred thousand citizens. But the number one ranked entity in the U.S. or trafficking cases is NOT a state: it is Washington D.C. with 6.1 cases per one hundred thousand citizens.
Why would Washington D.C. be ranked so high? Think about it: the answer will come to you in a moment.
For the purposes of this story, we’ll concentrate on just one segment of the Human Trafficking that has consumed our country and the Earth: Child Sex Trafficking.
Child Sex Trafficking
You might say, “I thought traffickers buy and sell humans primarily for prostitution.” That certainly is true in large. But most Americans associate “prostitution” with adult women. The case is that hundreds of thousands of children around the world are trafficked for prostitution as well. And it is far more prevalent than most Americans can even imagine.
182,771 sealed indictments being “Unsealed”
Democratic Illinois State Representative, Keith Farnham, has resigned and was charged with possession of child pornography and has been accused of bragging at an online site about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl.
A democratic spokesperson for the Arkansas Democratic Party, Harold Moody, Jr, was charged with distribution and possession of child pornography.
A Democratic Radnor Township Board of Commissioners member, Philip Ahr, resigned from his position after being charged with possession of child pornography and abusing children between 2 and 6 years-old.
Democratic activist and BLM organizer, Charles Wade, was arrested and charged with human trafficking and underage prostitution.
Democratic Texas attorney and activist, Mark Benavides, was charged with having sex with a minor, inducing a child under 18 to have sex and compelling prostitution of at least nine legal clients and possession of child pornography. He was found guilty on six counts of sex trafficking.
Democratic Virginia Delegate, Joe Morrissey, was indicted on charges connected to his relationship with a 17-year-old girl and was charged with supervisory indecent liberties with a minor, electronic solicitation of a minor, possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography.
Democratic Massachusetts Congressman, Gerry Studds, was censured by the House of Representatives after he admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page.
Democratic Former Mayor of Stillwater, New York, Rick Nelson pleaded guilty to five counts of possession of child pornography of children less than 16 years of age.
Democratic Former Mayor of Clayton, New York, Dale Kenyon, was indicted for sexual acts against a teenager.
Democratic Former Mayor of Hubbard, Ohio, Richard Keenan, was given a life sentence in jail for raping a 4-year-old girl.
Democratic Former Mayor of Winston, Oregon, Kenneth Barrett, was arrested for setting up a meeting to have sex with a 14-year-old girl who turned out to be a police officer.
Democratic Former Mayor of Randolph, Nebraska, Dwayne L. Schutt, was arrested and charged with four counts of felony third-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of intentional child abuse.
Democratic Former Mayor of Dawson, Georgia, Christopher Wright, was indicted on the charges of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, rape, child molestation and statutory rape of an 11-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl.
Democratic Former Mayor of Stockton, California, Anthony Silva, was charged with providing alcohol to young adults during a game of strip poker that included a 16-year-old boy at a camp for underprivileged children run by the mayor.
Democratic Former Mayor of Millbrook, New York, Donald Briggs, was arrested and charged with inappropriate sexual contact with a person younger than 17.
Democratic party leader for Victoria County, Texas, Stephen Jabbour, plead guilty to possession and receiving over half a million child pornographic images.
Democratic activist and fundraiser, Terrence Bean, was arrested on charges of sodomy and sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy and when the alleged victim declined to testify, and the judge dismissed the case.
Democratic Party Chairman for Davidson County, Tennessee, Rodney Mullin, resigned amid child pornography allegations.
Democratic activist, Andrew Douglas Reed, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor for producing child pornography.
A democratic official from Terre Haute, Indiana, David Roberts was sentenced to federal prison for producing and possessing child pornography including placing hidden cameras in the bedrooms and bathrooms at a home he shared with two minor female victims.
Democratic California Congressman, Tony Cárdenas, is being sued in LA County for allegedly sexually abused a 16-year-old girl.
A democratic aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, Jeff Rosato, plead guilty to charges of trading in child pornography.
Democratic Alaskan State Representative, Dean Westlake, resigned from his seat after the media published a report alleging he fathered a child with a 16-year-old girl when he was 28.
Democratic New Jersey State Assemblyman, Neil Cohen, was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography.
Republican Tim Nolan, chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in Kentucky, pled guilty to child sex trafficking and on February 11, 2018 he was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison.
Republican state Senator Ralph Shortey was indicted on four counts of human trafficking and child pornography. In November 2017, he pleaded guilty to one count of child sex trafficking in exchange for the dropping of the other charges.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, a notable racist, had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his stepdaughter.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11-year-old girl. Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first-degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl. Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner were convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15-year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Democratic donor and billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein, ran an underage child sex brothel and was convicted of soliciting underage girls for prostitution.
Democratic New York Congressman, Anthony Weiner, plead guilty to transferring obscene material to a minor as part of a plea agreement for sexted and sending Twitter DMs to underage girls as young as 15.
Democratic donor, activist, and Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein is being criminally prosecuted and civilly sued for years of sexual abuse (that was well known “secret” in Hollywood) including underage sexual activities with aspiring female actresses.
Democratic activist and #metoo proponent, Asia Argento, settled a lawsuit for sexual harassment stemming from sexual activities with an underage actor.
Democratic Mayor of Racine, Wisconsin, Gary Becker, was convicted of attempted child seduction, child pornography, and other child sex crimes.
Democratic Seattle Mayor Ed Murray resigned after multiple accusations of child sexual abuse were levied against him including by family members.
Democratic activist and aid to NYC Mayor De Blasio, Jacob Schwartz was arrested on possession of 3,000+ child pornographic images.
Democratic activist and actor, Russell Simmons, was sued based on an allegation of sexual assault where he coerced an underage model for sex.
Democratic Governor of Oregon, Neil Goldschmidt, after being caught by a newspaper, publicly admitted to having a past sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl after the statute of limitations on the rape charges had expired.
Democratic Illinois Congressman, Mel Reynolds resigned from Congress after he was convicted of statutory rape of a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
Democratic New York Congressman, Fred Richmond, was arrested in Washington D.C. for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy.
Democratic activist, donor, and director, Roman Polanski, fled the country after pleading guilty to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. Democrats and Hollywood actors still defend him to this day, including, Whoopi Goldberg, Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton, and Monica Bellucci.
Democratic State Senator from Alaska, George Jacko, was found guilty of sexual harassment of an underage legislative page.
Democratic State Representative candidate for Colorado, Andrew Myers, was convicted for possession of child pornography and enticing children.
Democratic Illinois Congressman, Gus Savage was investigated by the Democrat-controlled House Committee on Ethics for attempting to rape an underage female Peace Corps volunteer in Zaire. The Committee concluded that while the events did occur his apology was sufficient and took no further action.
Democratic activist, donor, and spokesperson for Subway, Jared Fogle, was convicted of distribution and receipt of child pornography and traveling to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor.
Democratic State Department official, Carl Carey, under Hillary Clinton’s state department, was arrested on ten counts of child porn possession.
Democratic Maine Assistant Attorney General, James Cameron, was sentenced to just over 15 years in federal prison for seven counts of child porn possession, receipt and transmission.
Democratic State Department official, Daniel Rosen, under Hillary Clinton’s state department, was arrested and charged with allegedly soliciting sex from a minor over the internet.Democratic State Department official, James Cafferty, pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of child pornography.
Democratic radio host, Bernie Ward, plead guilty to one count of sending child pornography over the Internet. Democratic deputy attorney general from California, Raymond Liddy, was arrested for possession of child pornography.
There’s nothing new about COVID-19 itself. The equally “novel,” equally “infectious” Asian flu of 1957 had similar fatalities in Britain: scaled to equal today’s population, the equivalent of 42,000, while the UK’s COVID death total (untrustworthy death total) now stands at 46,000. Globally, the Asian flu was far more lethal, causing between two and four million deaths. The Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 also killed up to four million people worldwide, including 80,000 Britts. Yet, in both instances, life went on. What is unprecedented: never has a virus been so oversold.
Want a few examples?
In a recent poll, British respondents estimated that nearly 7 percent of the UK population has died from the coronavirus. That would be 4.5 million people.
Scots thought that more than 10 percent of the UK population has died. That would be seven million people.
Americans believed that COVID-19 has killed nine percent of their fellow residents or almost 30 million people! The real US total has crossed the milestone of 150,000, but for pity’s sake, “only” 20 million people died in World War One.
True, your average man and woman are not statistics-wizards. Nevertheless, broadcast news has pounded audiences daily with COVID-19 death totals. And a populace ought to have some idea of their country’s population. So folks convinced that in five short months they’d lost an eighth of their fellow “inhabitants.” But then, the public is never good with zeroes — a “citizenry” characteristic which nations in deficit count on.
Many worldwide “scholarly” writers are not immune to COVID-19 Hyperbole Syndrome. One British national writer stated this virus is “killing millions worldwide.” One would expect a plethora of editors and fact-checkers would have jumped on that claim immediately. But it was published, and millions read it. But the true worldwide death toll at the time was about 650,000.
I’m not one to “excuse” US or British editors for allowing something so ridiculous to scare to death millions of their citizens and millions more around the world. So let’s instead take those exaggerated numbers as proof of a grandly successful propaganda campaign. The UK is just ONE government that has destroyed their country, and need to keep ramping up the hysteria the better to keep destroying it. Honestly, several world leaders are doing a good job.
Do you tire of hearing groans from politicians and media “experts” that “nothing will ever be the same again?” Think about those complaints: have you heard any world leader on a national or international stage say, “COVID-19 is horrible, it is lethal, and it IS killing our citizens. But, if we work together, communicate constantly, and refuse to weaponize this horror for political purposes, we can get to the end of this?” If you have, you’re more fortunate than I.
When I was a kid, there was no MMR (“measles, mumps, rubella”) vaccine, and children were expected to get measles, mumps, chickenpox, and rubella: it was just going to happen. And I did! My parents or teachers never took cover or hid under desks. There were no school or business closings. Every kid I knew and I didn’t think much about it. It was just something that happened to kids. I know NOW that each of these was MUCH more serious than my parents made each appear. Today, things are much different!
Naturally, in my house, we also contracted flu and colds throughout my life (no flu for me, Thank God!) and I’ve been resigned to the fact that these disagreeable ailments were due to contact with other people. Abstractly, I’ve known that other people could also infect me with more deadly pathogens: whooping cough, meningitis, and TB, to name but a few. Yet before COVID-19, it’s never occurred to me that I should, therefore, wrap myself in cling film, tie a sanitary towel across my face and lock myself in a cupboard.
The more relentless these micro-managing policies of “social distancing” (an expression I’ve come to loathe), mandatory masks, continued closures and arbitrarily restored regional lockdowns apparently on the basis of a miserable uptick of 14 extra cases, the more we relocate what had lurked far at the back of our minds to the front: other people are sources of contagion — or so the EXPERTS say. We used to live with that fact. But this on-going risk of mixing with other human beings we’re now, apparently, to find intolerable.
Have you checked on New York’s current COVID-19 status? The medical paranoia is doing live and well at “full throttle,” and social life is nearly nonexistent. In the Big Apple, no one is visiting friends. Everyone is afraid of everyone else. If you see anyone coming out of an office or someone’s home or apartment, you can see the distress of “I may have caught COVID-19 from those in there!” I’d say you could see it on their faces except you cannot see their faces: that sterile-mask, you know. Of course, they grab that hand sanitizer from a pocket or purse and do everything but drink it to kill that crazy COVID-19 virus they picked up! It may not be any different next summer. Google, for example, has already advised its employees to work from home for the next 12 months.
The graph of new cases in the US roughly leveled off through August 9th and has even declined after a peak July 31, 2020, of 290,100 confirmed cases. Daily COVID-19 deaths leveled off on July 23 at just under 10,000 each day. Daily deaths have daily declined since by 50%: 4951 on August 9.
So what should we do knowing all these numbers? Go back to school and work, lockdown once more, or just to “give it a go” being careful with social distancing, masks, and slapping sanitizer on everything around us? Usually, Americans would have been able to just turn to the experts, get the proven best practices to beat this virus, and valiantly go forward. Nope. We can’t do that now. Why? The “experts” agree on VERY little! And even what they all agree on has changed at least once but, in some cases, multiple times.
In trade for this valiant vigilance on our behalf, we merely have to sacrifice: our friends. Any new friends. All live performances — music, plays, restaurants. (ever try to drink wearing a mask?) We’ve lost all occasions, like proper weddings, funerals, birthdays, and extended-family celebrations, travel, and our friends. Any search for love in this environment is little more than Russian Roulette.
Our states have made taboo any moving communal experience, like festivals, sporting events, and church services. Casinos are fine as are marijuana dispensaries and abortion clinics. I almost forgot: Black Lives Matters in New York City have full permission to march, protest, and demonstrate, however, and as much as they wish. Dentistry. Honestly, with just a few exceptions, the bulk of our economy is pretty much at “full-stop.
What scarily remains on our nation table is another total national lockdown. Why on Earth? The one constructive conclusion to draw from this debacle is that extended, indiscriminate national lockdowns to suppress infectious diseases are a catastrophe. Yet the most horrifying consequence of COVID-19 could be that lockdown — which once applied only to prisons — becomes officialdom’s established knee-jerk response to any new contagion.
There will be a new contagion, too, and a new one after that. How many times can you send the national debt soaring, devastate a small business, paralyze government services — including healthcare — and cancel for months on end the civil liberties of an otherwise “free people?” In preference to this repeated carpet-bombing, a literal nuclear option might at least get the agony over pretty quickly.
Have you stopped to consider just how much money the federal government is spread around during the COVID-19 pandemic? Without having the numbers for the “nickel and dime” spending, we’ve “know” about $5-$6 Trillion in direct aid to Americans and American companies. Trying to find an accurate number that the pandemic has cost the nation’s overall economy. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) numbers have not yet been published for the third quarter. So, for the sake of this conversation, let’s assume in dollars and cents COVID-19 has cost American businesses close to $4 Trillion. Let’s be “spending-generous” and add the COVID direct aid of $6 Trillion and the $4 Trillion of business and personal losses and say, just for grins, “COVID-19 has cost American taxpayers $10 Trillion through July 31, 2020.
Stay with me: I am headed down a VERY interesting path here — a really short path!
How many COVID-19 deaths have occurred as of July 31, 2020? 145,425 is the published number. For our purposes today let’s add another 55,000 deaths before we stop this death-spiral. That’s 200,000.
Where are we going with this?
Let’s do some math:
200,000 total U.S. deaths from COVID-19;
$10 Trillion of U.S. taxpayer money spent in COVID-19 relief and stimulus;
If you factor the per/death cost to American taxpayers, the value is mindboggling: $50,000,000!
Think what these numbers do NOT include: the cost of healthcare for the extremely COVID-ill Americans that have fought for days and weeks and finally lost the battle. Hospital bills easily total $150,000 in many of these cases.
“Wait a minute, Dan: are you trying to put a price tag on any of these peoples’ lives to justify physician-assisted suicide somehow?”
I AM NOT!
What’s my purpose for publishing these numbers? I think it’s time for Americans to know EVERYTHING that goes into the costs of operating this country in every area: the REAL costs.
These stimulus and aid packages for Americans are not funded by transferring dollars in some “holding” account owned by the federal government. Two or three or four trillion dollars, when spent by Congress, are funded by little more than pieces of paper. For lack of a better term, we’ll call those pieces of paper “IOUs.” Someone will be required at some point in the future to pay the bill.
I am not a “Debt-Hawk.” I’m just a businessman that knows the trap called “Debt” kills more businesses and people than most diseases. I’m 67 years old. There’s no way in my lifetime I see any scenario in which this country buys back all those IOU’s plus paying the purchasers interest due. The repayment burden then falls to our children and grandchildren, then THEIR children and THEIR grandchildren.
How far will repayment fall? Will it get paid? CAN it get repaid?
All are questions that must be considered in situations where government deficit spending is under consideration for anything at any time.
I’ll finish by saying this one thing: if my Congressman heard that I was diagnosed having COVID-19 and my case worsened to the point of hospital intensive care treatment and called my wife and said, “Mary Ann, the medical professionals have advised us that Dan IS going to die. Did Dan express wishes to you in this case?”
Honestly, my wife already knows my wishes: I don’t want to live in a vegetative state and would instead move on over “to the other side.” I’d rather her hear from the Congressman, “Mary Ann, because Dan said he didn’t want to live in this situation, the government will pay you forty percent of the per person death cost to taxpayers for each COVID-19 death or $20 million.”
I know, I know, that’s REALLY extreme! Let me be clear: I DON’T believe in death panels, I DON’T want anyone to commit suicide. And I certainly don’t want any “Death Panel” empowered to determine when my life “should” be over. That’s not my reference here. What I am pointing out is the outrageous dollars our government has and will spend on COVID-19 in total during this pandemic is FAR beyond any acceptable amount. And there is NO similar historical pandemic in which such drastic financial measures have been taken anywhere on Earth.
I’ll wrap this up by simply saying that somebody needs to be paid a really generous sales commission for successfully foisting the biggest scam in history on the entire Earth. There is no doubt this virus is mysterious and unknown in many ways. It’s deadly and it has killed and will kill millions more. But so has numerous other historical pandemics. And in none of those did any government take actions as has this government during this pandemic.
Who is the “COVID-19 Circus Ringmaster?”
I have no idea. But I guarantee that there is one.
Have you heard any recent information about the status of the John Durham investigation? Durham is the Connecticut Federal Prosecutor named by Attorney General William Barr to delve into any wrongdoing during the Russian Investigation of purported collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia operatives. The Mueller Report failed to offer any confirmations of any such wrongdoing. But formerly classified documents and phone call transcripts have shown some officials from the Obama Administration Intelligence operations were implicated in potential criminal actions.
While much speculation inside the Beltway says U.S. Attorney John Durham will punt the results of his so-called Spygate investigation past the election to avoid charges of political interference, sources who have worked with Durham on past public corruption cases doubt he’ll bend to political pressure — and they expect him to drop bombshells before Labor Day.
Durham’s boss, Attorney General Bill Barr, also pushed back on the notion his hand-picked investigator would defer action. Under Democratic questioning on Capitol Hill two week ago, he refused to rule out a pre-election release.
“Under oath, do you commit to not releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the November election?” Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) asked Barr, citing the longstanding Justice Department policy not to announce new developments in politically sensitive cases before an election.
“No,” the attorney general curtly replied.
Justice Department policy prohibits prosecutors from taking overt steps in politically charged cases typically within 60 days of an election. Accordingly, Durham would have to make a move by the Friday before Labor Day, or Sept. 4.
A low-profile prosecutor, Durham has kept a tight lid on his investigation into the origins of the misleading RussiaGate investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign, leading to rampant speculation about who he might prosecute and whether he would take action ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election.
That could well be of historic consequence, since Durham’s probe involves both the Trump administration and high-level officials in the previous administration, including Trump’s presumptive Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Recently declassified FBI notes show Biden offered input into the investigation of Trump adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017. Another declassified document reveals that Biden was among those who requested Flynn’s identity be “unmasked” in foreign intelligence intercepts around that same time.
If Durham announces criminal indictments or plea agreements involving former officials operating under the Obama-Biden administration or releases a report documenting widespread corruption, independent voters could sour on Biden and sympathize with Trump. On the other hand, kicking the ball past the election would certainly dishearten Trump’s base.
“I would find it hard to believe that he punts under any circumstances,” said former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker, who knows Durham personally and has worked with the hard-nosed prosecutor on prior investigations.
He pointed out that Durham would risk throwing away 16 months of investigative work if he delayed action beyond the election.
“There’s no question that if Biden is elected, everything Durham has done at that point will be canceled out,” Swecker explained, adding that Biden would replace Barr and possibly even Durham. But by putting indictments and reports “into the public arena” before the election, Durham would put a Biden administration in the position of either taking further action or closing down his probe.
“It would make it very difficult for Biden’s appointees to undo his charges or bury the results of his probe,” he said. “John knows this, and I fully expect he will take action before the election.”
Swecker, who’s also a former prosecutor, anticipates Durham will deliver criminal charges, a written report, or some combination of the two around the first week in September, if not sooner. “He must get his work done and out to the public by Labor Day,” he said. “That way he avoids any accusations that he was trying to impact the election.”
Democracy 21, which is a liberal Washington watchdog group, has already cited the department policy in recent complaints to Barr demanding he suspend Durham’s investigation and place on hold any further actions or public comments about it until after the election.
“If Barr allows indictments from the Durham investigation to come out during the presidential election campaign, he would be abandoning longstanding DOJ policy by misusing the department’s prosecutorial power to support Trump’s reelection campaign,” Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer argued.
Swecker, who served 24 years with the FBI before retiring as assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, said he expects Durham to take more action “than just issuing a report” similar to the 500-page document issued in December by Justice’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The IG made criminal referrals to Durham, including against an FBI attorney accused of altering evidence used to support a surveillance warrant on a former Trump adviser.
“I know John Durham. I worked under him on the Whitey Bulger case, which resulted in indictments of corrupt FBI agents,” Swecker said. “I don’t think he’s the least bit squeamish about bringing indictments if there is criminal exposure.”
Swecker says he’s confident Durham has uncovered crimes. “He’s onto something, I’m convinced of it, otherwise he would have folded up his tent by now,” he asserted in a RealClearInvestigations interview.
The lack of media leaks coming from Durham’s office is another sign he is building a serious corruption case. Targets and witnesses have largely been kept in the dark about the scope and direction of his investigation, encouraging cooperation and possible plea deals. And the secrecy of grand jury proceedings has been fiercely protected.
“I’m impressed with the discipline his team has shown,” Swecker said. “There’s been no leaks. Details of the investigation have been very closely-held.”
Durham, a Republican, has been known to threaten to polygraph investigators whenever he suspected a leak.
His team is led by his deputy, Nora Dannehy, who specializes in the prosecution of complex white-collar and public corruption cases. Dannehy is a Democrat with a reputation for integrity. She left a high-paying corporate job to rejoin Durham’s office in March 2019, the month after Barr was confirmed.
Barr officially announced in May 2019 that he had put Durham in charge of looking into what he called the government’s “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016. Was that surveillance justified? Or was it done to smear Trump and sink his campaign — and when that failed, his presidency?
Durham is exploring a host of other questions, including: What role did the CIA play? Did it monitor Trump advisers overseas? Were U.S. laws restricting spying on U.S. citizens broken? Did the spy agency slant U.S. intelligence on Russian election interference to justify the anti-Trump operation?
“As a former CIA analyst, Barr recognized that this is the biggest thing since Watergate in terms of the abuse of the intelligence community,” Swecker said. “This is a huge intelligence scandal.”
Swecker named former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith among officials most vulnerable to possible criminal charges in Durham’s investigation of the investigators. Justice’s watchdog made a criminal referral pertaining to his conduct – specifically, that Clinesmith forged an email in a way that hid the fact that former Trump adviser Carter Page had been a cooperating CIA source on Russia. The information, if disclosed to the FISA court, would have weakened the FBI’s case that Page was a “Russian agent.”
On the other hand, Swecker does not expect Durham to indict former FBI Director James Comey, nor former CIA Director John Brennan or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. None of these central figures in the scandal has been interviewed by Durham’s office, according to recently published reports, though Durham reportedly is working out details with Brennan’s lawyer for a pending interview. Durham’s investigators have already reviewed Brennan’s emails, call logs and other records.
“It’s hard to prove criminal intent at their level, and unless there’s a smoking gun, like an email or text, they’ll probably get off with a damning report about their activities,” Swecker said.
Durham’s portfolio also includes exploring the extent to which Ukraine played a role in the counterintelligence operation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Officials from Kyiv, the Democratic National Committee, and the Obama administration reportedly coordinated efforts to dig up dirt on Trump – and Biden was Obama’s point man in Ukraine at the time.
Though Biden may factor into Durham’s probe, don’t expect him to appear in any pre-election report. Another longtime Durham colleague noted that political candidates cannot be part of indictments or any report on investigative findings, according to Barr’s own rules.
“The policy says you can’t indict political candidates or use overt investigative methods targeting them in the weeks before an election,” said the former federal prosecutor, who requested anonymity.
Barr has publicly acknowledged the policy. “The idea is you don’t go after candidates,” he said in an April radio interview. “You don’t indict candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate within a certain number of days before an election.”
The former prosecutor, who’s worked with Durham, said his old colleague may start revealing developments from his case weeks in advance of the 60-day cut-off, or ideally right after the political conventions. The GOP convention, which follows the Democrats’ gathering, ends Aug. 27.
“They are nervous about affecting the election, so timing is everything,” he said. “It will be tricky.”
At the same time, the former Justice official said Durham could exploit a loophole in the department rule, memorialized in memos dating to 2008, that allows for action closer to the election. It states that “law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission.
The operative phrase – “for the purpose of” – leaves leeway for actions close to an election that aren’t taken “for the purpose” of affecting the election. In other words, Durham wouldn’t necessarily have to lie low for the two months in the run-up to the election.
Testing that loophole with an “October surprise” would almost certainly send Democrats and the Washington media into a high panic. Can you fathom the media insanity that would occur? Democrats would probably storm the Department of Justice!
Some are skeptical Durham will deliver at all, regardless of the deadline, while others question his reputation as a fierce prosecutor. They point to his nearly three-year investigation of CIA officials who destroyed videos of terrorist detainees allegedly being “tortured.” Congress had sought the evidence, but Durham closed the case in 2012 without filing any criminal charges. And his final report about what he found remains classified. In a 2018 criminal case, moreover, he cleared Comey’s general counsel, James Baker, of unauthorized leaks to the media.
The Senate’s top FBI watchdog, Chuck Grassley, has grown frustrated with Durham’s lack of progress. “Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor,” the Iowa Senator stated in a recent tweet.
Swecker attributes the sluggish pace of Durham’s sprawling probe to the COVID-19 health scare, which has restricted travel and grand jury meetings in the D.C. area. Durham’s team of investigators, who include retired FBI agents, has been operating out of his New Haven, Connecticut offices. Besides Washington, they have taken trips abroad. Before the coronavirus outbreak, they interviewed authorities and other sources in Italy, Britain, and Australia.
In addition, Durham’s agents have been slowed by an avalanche of subpoenaed electronic media, including emails, texts, and direct messages, “which are incredibly difficult and time-consuming to sort through,” Swecker said. Such evidence is not limited to FBI, Justice, and CIA officials. Durham also has reportedly obtained, for instance, data and meta-data contained on two BlackBerry cellphones used by Joseph Mifsud, a shadowy Maltese professor who some believe was used by the FBI to create a predicate to open the original case against the Trump campaign.
During that recent House hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), asked Barr if he would be able to “right this wrong” against Trump before the election.
“I really can’t predict that,” the attorney general answered. “John Durham is looking at all these matters. COVID-19 did delay that action for a while. But he’s working very diligently.”
Added Barr: “Justice is not something you can order up on a schedule like you’re ordering a pizza.”
McClintock warned Barr that if he is succeeded by a Biden appointee, Durham’s investigation will simply go away.
“I understand your concern,” Barr sighed.
This summary is easy to put together: 2 + 2 + 2 = 6. That’s NOT claiming there will be six indictments, six people indicted, or six anything. It’s simply stating that whatever John Durham found in this criminal investigation will be put in a template of political crime indictments. And if the numbers he finds add up, he’ll tell American what, if anything, the equation shows criminal prosecution found to be indicated. Durham’s past shows he’s that kind of “cut-and-dry” prosecutor.
Any prediction? Just my gut feeling, but I’m reasonably certain there will be indictments of several individuals. But for the reasons listed above, I am certain there will be damning details confirmed in the Durham Report of wrongdoing by those from the Obama Administration. Which (if any) cry for prosecution in cases like this are always a crap-shoot. But even if Comey, Clapper, and Brennan do not face indictments, it is likely their intelligence and/or political opportunities in U.S. government work are in the past.
I’m confident we’ll know all these answers by Labor Day.