Saturday Bullet Points: February, 27, 2021

It’s Saturday morning and time to catch-up on the happenings from the past week, some of which you probably missed. We did NOT miss them. It works very simply: After each bullet point we give you a sentence or two that describes each story. If you want full details, just click on the blue “swoosh” at the end of the description. Go to a story that gives you “the rest of the story.” Dig in!

Bullet Points

  • Connecticut Federal Attorney John Durham announced his resignation on Friday. Before you panic, the ONLY thing he resigned was his position as federal attorney. He will full-time execute the role of Special Prosecutor to continue the investigation into wrongdoing by the Obama/Biden Administration in the Russia Collusion investigation of Candidate and then President Trump. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) gave a dramatic speech at CPAC in Orlando on Friday. He whipped the conservative crowd into a frenzy, especially when he called the #1 nemesis of the U.S. “Chi-merica.” What does that mean? For complete details, click on this link:
  • It certainly comes as no surprise that, with the election of Joe Biden, we have a surging and already-massive illegal immigration problem at the southern border. Just weeks into his presidency, Joe Biden is scrambling as are his immigration and border patrol officials to get their arms around this mass of people flooding to our southern border. The Biden Administration is woefully unprepared. And the entire issue is President Biden’s fault. For complete details, click on this link:
  • It probably comes as no surprise that another major U.S. city that is governed by far left local and state officials is suffering with a massive increase of crime shortly after they made the decision to, and subsequently have, defunded the police. And they have allocated the money saved to black communities. It’s San Francisco. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Have you ever wondered how at Planned Parenthood abortion centers how facilitating and performing the abortions of tens of thousands of American babies impact those in leadership at these clinics? Certainly the constant process of killing babies must take its toll. One former PP clinic insider says it makes her feel like “an administrator at Auschwitz during WWII.” For complete details, click on this link:
  • Great news on Friday! Johnson & Johnson received emergency use approval from the Federal Drug Administration to begin use of the third COVID-19 vaccination. How is it different from those already in use by Moderna and Pfizer? For complete details, click on this link:
  • No one can reasonably maintain that there were not numerous achievements for the American People during the Trump presidency. However, those on the Left are still quick to deny the significant facts that prove the good really happened — or at least the Trump was responsible. At CPAC on Friday, former Rep. Jason Chaffetz blistered Republicans who choose to diminish the results of President Trump, opting instead to judge his White House tenure based solely on their opinions of his personality while ignoring the good he did. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Accusations are flying from numerous Americans at the actions taken this week by the Biden Administration against Syria in a U.S. air strike. It’s reported the attack was retaliation against Iran for allegedly killing several Americans last year. But Biden was nasty in his barrage of insults of President Trump’s for the attack on his watch that took out Iran’s #1 General who had personally ordered the killing of several hundred Americans in the Middle East. For complete details, click on this link:
  • U.S. Intelligence agencies released classified information on Friday that apparently implicates the Saudi Crown Prince in the brutal execution of a Saudi national who worked in the U.S. as a reporter. Saudi Arabia has consistently denied any responsibility. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Even though a $15 per hour minimum wage is to be included in the House version of the COVID-19 stimulus bill, it will not survive in the Senate. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has an idea: why not pass a law requiring big corporations like Amazon and other billion dollar corporation to pay a $15 minimum wage rate? For complete details, click on this link:
  • Of course, CNN showed up at CPAC to “report” on happenings there. Their #1 anti-conservative reporter Jim Acosta was confronted at the conference in Orlando and asked why CNN concentrates on Sen. Ted Cruz dropping his two daughters in Mexico during the Texas freeze but ignores the 10,000 seniors who died at the hands of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. For complete details, click on this link:
  • It comes as no surprise that House Speaker Pelosi uses convenient comparisons to justify doing some of the strangest things in Congress. Pelosi this week in the wake of passing “The Equality Act”likened  the stigma of  Transgenderism to that of AIDS. Sound a bit strange to you? If so, you’re certainly not alone. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Did you know the Olympics are headed to China? Many in the U.S. are NOT happy about that and feel the Olympics should be moved elsewhere. Nikki Haley suggested that having the events in China is a bad idea. Why? According to the former governor, China is just like Nazi Germany was in 1936. For complete details, click on this link:
  • We’ve all heard stories of UFO’s in various settings. But pilots in flight have reported dozens of cases of viewing and even watching for extended periods of time UFO’s in crazy acts in flight most recently. The latest comes from American Airlines pilots in the recent past. For complete details, click on this link:

Time For Some Constitutional Amendments: But How?

Let’s face it: Congress when it comes to legislation “for the People” is virtually incapable of passing any. Sure, they pass a bunch of bills. But they are seldom “for the People” — they’re “for the Political Party.” And does anyone think this Congress could successfully present, debate, and pass a Constitutional Amendment, even if they wanted to do so? No way! How else could it be done?

There is a way.

State legislatures should require Congress to call a “convention of the states.” Article V of the Constitution empowers such a convention to propose constitutional amendments to correct federal dysfunction. And there’s plenty of that “dysfunction” floating around in the Capitol! Any proposals would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 of 50).

The Constitution’s framers added the convention mechanism to allow states to bypass Congress and amend the Constitution if the federal government abused or exceeded its powers. I don’t know about you, but I’m “all-in” for the belief that Congress both abuses AND exceeds its powers.

Opponents of our Constitution have perpetrated a mass of lies about the document—for example, the charge that it discriminated against women. But none are as widespread as falsehoods about the amendment process.

This is no accident: A disinformation campaign began in the 1960s and continues to the present day. Liberal commentators initiated the campaign to frighten the public against a convention. They feared that it might propose amendments to overturn liberal Supreme Court decisions or require a balanced federal budget.

Establishment newspapers, among them the Washington Post and the New York Times, aided the campaign. Academics — whose only unifying characteristic is that they have no scholarly publications on the subject — joined the chorus.

This disinformation has been so successful that many Americans have been duped into thinking that the convention procedure is somehow evil. In fact, it is one of the Constitution’s most important checks and balances. Many of our current issues flow directly from our failure to use it.

Convention opponents often claim that constitutional amendments will have no effect. History shows they are flat wrong. Over the past 230 years, amendments have been powerful tools for reform. We obtained our Bill of Rights through amendments. The Civil War did not finally abolish slavery; an amendment did that. Amendments have curbed abuse of minorities, assured women the vote, and limited the president to two terms.

Think about it: Would we be better off without the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech and religion? Would we be better off without the 22nd Amendment’s two-term limit on the president? I’ve never met anyone who believes either of those things. But how many believe we should extend term limits to Congress or the Supreme Court?  Numerous  Americans feel that way.

Why hasn’t it happened? Because Congress refuses to propose a term limits amendment, and we haven’t had the guts to call a convention to propose one.

The Founders created the amendment process for four specific reasons: to resolve disputes over constitutional interpretation, correct defects, respond to changed conditions, and to stop and correct abuses. During the first 15 years of federal operations, the founding generation adopted amendments for all those purposes. Opponents are wrong when they claim that the only reason for the amendment process was to correct drafting errors.

Article V outlines the amendment process, but like any other part of the Constitution, you must read it in its historical context. Every informed student of the Constitution knows that when the document uses specialized phrases, we have to examine the historical record to fill in the details. The Supreme Court recently did just this with the constitutional phrase “trial … by jury.”

Fortunately, the amount of historical and legal clarification we have for Article V is enormous, so when you hear charges that Article V is “vague” or “sketchy,”  they’re dead wrong.

Article V tells us that before the states may ratify an amendment, it first must be formally proposed. It provides four paths to amendment. (Common claims that there are only two methods are also incorrect.) The paths are:

(1) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, followed by ratification by popular conventions in each state. This method was used to adopt the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition.

(2) Proposal by two-thirds of each house of Congress, then ratification by state legislatures. This method was used for the other amendments.

(3) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by popular conventions in each state.

(4) Proposal by a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” then ratification by state legislatures.

A “Convention for proposing Amendments” is simply one kind of convention of the states. There is no serious doubt about this: The historical evidence is massive and includes a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Founders chose the convention-of-states device because it had been widely, and successfully, used. The first meeting of that kind (actually a convention of colonies) had been held in Albany, New York, over a century earlier. There had been about 20 more during the colonial era, and another 10 between 1776 and 1787. Since 1787, they have continued at a slower pace, but they have continued. The latest was held in Phoenix in 2017.

Most interstate conventions have been limited to colonies or states within a particular region. But at least seven have been “general” (national), including the 2017 Phoenix get together.

These gatherings have addressed many kinds of problems. Some early ones coordinated local defense. The 1787 convention proposed the U.S. Constitution. An 1889 convention proposed anti-trust laws. Some 20th century conventions negotiated western water agreements. A few, like the 1861 Washington, D.C. convention, proposed constitutional amendments.

And there’s another common claim — that the 1787 gathering is the only convention precedent — is also untrue.

An early draft of the Constitution would have allowed a convention of states to both propose and ratify amendments. (Opponents’ contention that an amendments convention was merely the framers’ afterthought is likewise false.) In the final draft, either Congress or a convention could propose and only the states could ratify.

When the Constitution became public, many people were concerned that it gave the federal government too much power. The document’s supporters, however, pointed out that the convention mechanism gave the states complete power to amend — even against federal opposition. Without the convention device, the public probably would have rejected the Constitution. Without the threat of an amendments convention, Congress probably never would have proposed the Bill of Rights or the two-term limit on the president.

The convention of states procedure begins with an invitation known as a “call.” For most conventions, a single state can issue it. For example, the state of Virginia called the 1787 Constitutional Convention, set the place and time, and defined the convention’s purpose. (The common story that the Confederation Congress called the convention, which then exceeded its power, is another fable).

But for conventions formally proposing amendments, Article V prescribes a uniform method of call: When two-thirds of the state legislatures (34) adopt “applications” demanding that Congress call a convention on a particular subject, Congress must call. Its call sets forth the place, time, and state-designated subject matter.

Then the legislatures of the participating states either select their convention commissioners (delegates), or designate procedures for doing so. The states give the commissioners their instructions and define their powers (“agree to this, don’t agree to that”). Modern claims that a convention of states is “uncontrollable” are wildly and purposefully untruthful. So also are assumptions that commissioners are popularly elected.

The convention then meets at the prescribed place and time. No state is forced to attend, but if a state does not do so, obviously it cannot vote — although it can refuse to ratify.

Convention-of-states procedures are well established. Each state has as much voting power as any other state. No convention has ever changed this rule. So the common claim that convention voting standards are a “mystery” is likewise wrong. So also is the myth that Congress can control a convention.

The convention next adopts rules, elects officers, and sets up committees. It debates whether to propose amendments within its area of authority. If it decides not to, then it adjourns. If it decides that amendments are warranted, it drafts them, formally proposes them, and adjourns. A convention is, by definition, temporary.

In addition to being constrained by the call and by state instructions, the Constitution limits the assembly to proposing amendments to “this Constitution.” Frantic claims that it’s a “constitutional convention,” or that it can issue a new document or “radically re-write” the existing one, or change the ratification procedure — none of these have any legal or historical basis. They are, in the words of one constitutional scholar, “rhetorical ploys to terrify sensible people.”

After one or more amendments are proposed, the ratification procedure is the same as for any other amendment.

The courts may resolve disputed questions. In fact, there have been nearly 50 reported judicial decisions on Article V from all levels of the judiciary. The first reported case was issued in 1798, the two most recent in 2018. The principles for applying Article V are well established, and rely heavily on historical practice. The common claim that courts do not resolve Article V cases is categorically false.

What kinds of amendments might a modern convention consider? Fifteen state legislatures have adopted applications based on a model proposed by the “Convention of States Project:” a convention limited to proposing (1) term limits for federal officials, (2) fiscal limits on the federal government, and (3) reductions in the size and scope of the federal government. Topics outside those three items would be outside the convention’s scope.

Twenty-eight states have passed applications for a convention limited to a balanced budget amendment. Several states have passed applications for congressional term limits or campaign finance reform.

No significant national group is pressing for a “plenary” or unlimited convention. Unlimited conventions have been rare at the state level and nonexistent at the federal level. And with good reason: A convention is a task force, and when you convene a task force you give it a specific job. You don’t say, “Do whatever you want and propose whatever moves you.” There are multiple enforcement mechanisms to ensure a convention remains within its agenda. Contrast that with the lack of restraint on Congress.

I must say, a constitutional amendment imposing term limits or imposing more limits on Congress would be a good idea. True, some argue that we should continue to rely on remedies like electing good people, lobbying, bringing lawsuits, and public education. I’m in favor of those things, but we’ve been doing those for decades and our country is worse off than ever. Reforms by even the wisest federal officials have proved to be short-lived.

So what remains is the course the Founders themselves prescribed: a convention of states for proposing corrective constitutional amendments.

Summary

Why hasn’t this been called for in this hyper-partisan, logjam era of D.C. politics? There’s a simple answer: The power brokers in Washington are petrified that if a unified convention of the states ever materializes, their unfettered power will be ripped into rags! That’s the BIG reason so much disinformation is floated around the nation to keep Americans in the dark to this legitimate “fix” for our egregiously ineffective current governmental operating system.

Do we really need to go to such an extreme? The status quo certainly isn’t working. Do you realize we have an administration in Washington that is today considering confirming a nominee to serve as Attorney General that will NOT say he believes that “illegal aliens crossing illegally into the United States is illegal and perpetrators should be treated as breaking federal laws passed by Congress and signed into law that state that very thing?”

We’re seeing only the tip of the iceberg. It certainly will get worse before it gets better — IF it ever gets better.

We can’t call for such a convention too soon!

To Download Today’s (Friday, February 26, 2021) “TNN Live” Program, click on this link:

Nancy’s COVID-19 Bill Is Theft From Us All and It’s Racist

Polls show most Americans support the COVID-19 relief bill. But this bill comes with a slap in the face for people who believe in racial equality and want everyone to benefit.

Section 1005 of the bill offers women and minority farm owners total debt forgiveness of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars per farmer. No strings or other requirements. An amazing offer—but white men need not apply.

Newly elected Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, who proposed it, says it’s intended to make up for years of discrimination. Sorry, Senator, but this is discrimination.

There’s more discrimination in the bill’s aid to restaurants, Section 6003. It grants restaurant owners up to $5 million per facility to offset losses during the pandemic. That’s a lifeline for restaurants hanging on week by week, trying to make one more mortgage or rent payment and keep from going out of business.

Here’s the hitch: Only women, minorities, and veterans can apply during the program’s first three weeks. Most white men have to go to the back of the line, even if their losses are larger or their need more pressing.

Treating white male farmers and restaurant owners like second-class citizens violates a fundamental principle that we’re equal under the law—a principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The pandemic is hurting everyone.

Many of New York’s upstate dairy farmers are facing bankruptcy because restaurants accounted for half the demand for their products. Yet, the farm aid in the COVID-19 relief bill is not about helping them get through the pandemic. Most of them won’t be eligible because they’re white men.

The bill looks more like reparations than COVID-19 relief. It says farm aid is being provided “for the purposes of addressing the longstanding and widespread discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers.”

The truth is that farmers have been struggling for a decade, and more than half lose money year after year. Minority-owned farms are generally less in debt than farms owned by whites, though diminished access to credit may be part of the reason. Debt relief is urgently needed by white and minority farmers alike.

Senator Chuck Schumer crisscrossed the state last weekend bragging about his role in the COVID-19 relief bill, and claiming credit for the $25 billion in aid to restaurants. He cautioned that 54 percent of New York restaurant owners won’t be able to survive the next six months without help. “They’re needed because they’re one of the biggest employers in every community in New York, whether it’s urban, suburban-like here in Camillus, or rural.”

That’s the point, Senator. Instead of dwelling on racial or gender equity, the COVID-19 relief bill should focus on ensuring economic survival. All will benefit.

On taking office, President Joe Biden pledged that his “priority will be Black, Latino, Asian and Native-American owned businesses” and “women-owned businesses.” So it’s no surprise that Section 4201 of his COVID-19 relief bill sets aside over $1 billion of loans for women and minority small-business owners only. As if they’re the only ones struggling.

In New York City, 47 percent of small businesses have closed, and those hanging on have incurred a nearly 60 percent drop in revenue, according to TracktheRecovery.org, a Harvard University database. Minority businesses are often hardest hit, but government help should be based on need and viability, not a business owner’s gender or skin color.

It’s what the Constitution requires. When Oregon and Colorado set aside COVID-19 relief funds for minority businesses only, white business owners sued, demanding equal treatment.

If Congress enacts provisions discriminating against white men, the federal government should be sued, too.

As Congress debates the COVID relief bill, Republicans should protest the racist giveaways. They’ve hardly mentioned them, and the public is unaware. More are on the way.

Warnock and four other Democrats, including New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, introduced a bill on Feb. 5 to give 32 million acres of farmland to black farmers over the next 10 years. Reparations without the label. What’s next—tax credits for being black?

Summary

Let’s face facts: Democrat Party Leadership simply ignores rules of the House, requirements regarding processes to crafting bills, due process, and the precedent set in the past. There’s one rule and one only that regulates this House of Representatives: Anything Speaker Pelosi wants, approves, needs, or deems is important can and will be passed. Nothing else matters.

Just nine percent of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 bill has anything to do with COVID-19! 

$153 million in the bill is earmarked to fund the Endowment of the Arts and it’s titled “COVID Relief.” And there are dozens of such ludicrous clauses in the bill.

We posted the entire bill for you to read yesterday here in .pdf format. Have you read it? If you haven’t, you have NO right to complain about anything in it.

I encourage any and all Democrats who read this today to comment telling us the reason you support House members who believe a monstrous piece of legislation like this has any validity sufficient to be passed and signed into law. And to top it all off we find out the bill that belongs to the Party of racial equity, inclusion, diversity, and fairness is a bill that is as racist as any piece of legislation in American history. And Pelosi maintains the racist elements of the bill are necessary to cure racism!

Racism will never cure past racism. It’s not how to unite the nation — as if Democrats really care to unite anyone except Democrats.

To Download Today’s (Thursday, February 25, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

The House $1.9 Trillion COVID-19 Relief Package: “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021”

This bill has been talked about for months. Of course, Democrats did not roll it out to the general public until last Friday. It’s 591 pages long! And we are told they will vote on it “this week.” That means tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday! (Sure: everyone in the House has researched and knows everything inside of it!)

We do. You can download by clicking the link below the 591-page bill and examine its details for yourself.

https://truthnewsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/house-democratic-covid-relief-bill.pdf

Summary

If you don’t have time to digest the 591 pages, we offer below the GOP Summary of the bill. I suggest you start with the summary and go to the “big bill” to get any details on any section mentioned in the 591-pages:

https://truthnewsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/rsc_spending_memo.pdf

Enjoy!

 

 

What’s the Truth About ANTIFA: White Supremacists?

I must be honest: I’m really confused about who are the targets of the Left. I know: everyone who disagrees with them is a target. But in their political narrative spun for everyone in the nation, they until recently used a really broad brush to paint their victims. Those could be members of KKK, other White Supremacist groups, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys, and even Right Wing Militias. But in the practical applications of any of the leftist targets, seldom mentioned (if mentioned at all) are two of the most obvious groups that have wreaked havoc on numerous cities and American individuals and businesses the last year or so: Black Lives Matters (BLM) and ANTIFA.

We have previously here at TruthNewsNetwork investigated and reported the details about BLM from its founders, ideals, and objectives. (Our original detailed story of Black Lives Matter: https://truthnewsnet.org/do-all-black-lives-matter/) But we haven’t touched on ANTIFA. We’ve perpetrated a disservice to you for not reporting about this group. Today, we’ll make-up for our mistake.

ANTIFA

“Anti-Fascist” certainly does NOT describe who are members of Antifa nor their political and social philosophies. In fact, what they stand for is much closer to Fascism than is Democracy! So why do they call themselves “Anti-Fascists?”

That’s simple: they disguise their founding and current principles by using this name that sounds to most Americans as legitimate and certainly represents a group of responsible young Americans who want to help stamp-out any totalitarian political views.

But there’s a problem: the adherents of Antifa do NOT wish to stamp-out totalitarianism, rather they want to stifle and destroy, if possible, the ability of anyone to exercise free speech. Why is doing so important to Antifa? Free speech is THE antithesis to Fascism, which they embrace!

With the current lawless environment in the nation, Antifa has made a major push into the country, especially in the Pacific Northwest. They’ve done so quietly. They don’t have formal groups or listed leaders or offices. This is a purposeful practice that allows them to maintain abilities to “fly below the radar screen.” The only real contact everyday Americans have is within and during the environment that surrounds the rioting and/or looting initiated almost exclusively by Antifa.

Where Did Antifa Originate?

The extremist anarchist-communist group Antifa has been in the headlines because of past violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia. Yet while the organization has been applauded by some left-leaning news outlets for including white nationalists and neo-Nazis in its list of targets, the organization wasn’t always about targeting “fascism,” as it claims.

The organization was initially part of the Soviet Union’s front operations to bring about communist dictatorship in Germany, and it worked to label all rival parties as “fascist.”

The organization can be traced to the “united front” of the Soviet Union’s Communist International (Comintern) during the Third World Congress in Moscow in June and July 1921, according to the German booklet “80 Years of Anti-Fascist Action” by Bernd Langer, published by the Association for the Promotion of Anti-Fascist Culture. Langer is a former member of the Autonome Antifa, formerly one of Germany’s largest Antifa organizations, which disbanded in 2004.

The Soviet Union was among the world’s most violent dictatorships, killing an estimated 20 million people, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” published by Harvard University Press. The Soviet regime is second only to the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong, which killed an estimated 65 million people.

The idea of the united front strategy was to bring together left-wing organizations in order to incite communist revolution. The Soviets believed that following Russia’s revolution in 1917, communism would next spread to Germany, since Germany had the second-largest communist party, the KPD (Communist Party of Germany).

It was at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern in 1922 that the plan took shape. Moscow formed the slogan “To the Masses” for its united front strategy and sought to join together the various communist and workers’ parties of Germany under a single ideological banner that it controlled.

“The ‘unified front’ thus did not mean an equal cooperation between different organizations, but the dominance of the workers’ movement by the communists,” Langer writes.

Benito Mussolini, a Marxist and socialist who had been expelled from Italy’s Socialist Party in 1914 for his support for World War I, later founded the fascist movement as his own political party. He took power through his “March on Rome” in October 1922.

In Germany, Adolf Hitler became head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party) in 1921 and mounted a coup attempt in 1923.

The KPD decided to use the banner of anti-fascism to form a movement. Langer notes, though, that to the KPD, the ideas of “fascism” and “anti-fascism” were “undifferentiated,” and the term “fascism” served merely as rhetoric meant to support their aggressive opposition.

Both the communist and fascist systems were based in collectivism and state-planned economies. Both also proposed systems wherein the individual was heavily controlled by a powerful state, and both were responsible for large-scale atrocities and genocide.

The 2016 annual report by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), notes the same point: From the viewpoint of the “left-wing extremist,” the label of “fascism” as pushed by Antifa often does not refer to actual fascism, but is merely a label assigned to “capitalism.”

While leftist extremists claim to be fighting “fascism” while launching their attacks on other groups, the report states the term “fascism” has a double meaning under the extreme-left ideology, indicating the “fight against the capitalist system.”

This held true from the beginning, according to Langer. For the communists in Germany, “anti-fascism” merely meant “anti-capitalism.” He notes the labels merely served as “battle concepts” under a “political vocabulary.”

A description of Antifa on the BfV website notes that the organization still holds this same basic definition of capitalism as being “fascism.”

“They argue that the capitalist state produces fascism, or at least tolerates it. Therefore, anti-fascism is directed not only against actual or supposed right-wing extremists, but also always against the state and its representatives, in particular members of the security authorities,” it states.

Langer notes that historically, by labeling the anti-capitalist interests of the communist movement as “anti-fascism,” the KPD was able to use this rhetoric to label all other political parties as fascist. Langer states, “According to this, the other parties opposed to the KPD were fascist, especially the SPD [Social Democratic Party of Germany].”

Thus, in what would today be considered ironic, the group that the communist “anti-fascists” most heavily targeted under their new label of “fascism” was the social democrats.

On Aug. 23, 1923, the Politburo of the Communist Party of Russia held a secret meeting, and according to Langer, “all the important officials spoke out for an armed insurrection in Germany.”

The KPD was at the front of this call, launching a movement under the banner of United Front Action and branding its armed “anti-fascist” wing under the name Antifaschistische Aktion (“Antifascist Action”), which Antifa still carries in Germany, and from which the Antifa organizations in other countries are rooted.

At this time, Hitler and his Nazi Party had begun to emerge on the world stage, and the Nazi Party employed a similar group to Antifaschistische Aktion for political violence and intimidation, called the “brownshirts.”

Antifaschistische Aktion, meanwhile, began to attract some members who opposed the arrival of actual fascism in Germany and who did not subscribe to—or were potentially unaware of—the organization’s ties to the Soviet Union.

However, the violence instigated by Antifaschistische Aktion largely had an opposite effect. The ongoing tactics of violence and intimidation of all rival systems under the Antifa movement, along with its violent ideology, drove many people toward fascism.

“The Communists’ violent revolutionary rhetoric, promising the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a Soviet Germany, terrified the country’s middle class, who knew only too well what had happened to their counterparts in Russia after 1918,” writes Richard J. Evans in “The Third Reich in Power.”

“Appalled at the failure of the government to solve the crisis, and frightened into desperation by the rise of the Communists,” he states, “they began to leave the squabbling little factions of the conventional political right and gravitate towards the Nazis instead.”

Langer notes that from the beginning, the KPD was a member of the Comintern, and “within a few years, it became a Stalinist party,” both ideologically and logistically. He states that it even became “financially dependent on the Moscow headquarters.”

Leaders of the KPD, with Antifa as their on-the-ground movement for violence and intimidation of rival political parties, fell under the command of the Soviet apparatus. Many KPD leaders would later become leaders in the communist German Democratic Republic, including of its infamous Ministry for State Security, the Stasi.

As Langer states, “anti-fascism is a strategy rather than an ideology.”

Summary

Any group that distributes hatred and anger delivers through violence is evil. There is NO justifiable reason to do such, especially in the United States of America.

I don’t care what is the cause or justification, goals or objectives, reasons or excuses; taking and using violence as your tool to deliver your message no matter what it might be, doing so besides being unjustifiable is illegal in all fifty states. ANTIFA has taken that to a new low, especially over the past few years in Portland and Seattle.

Few people really understand the group. In fact, THAT is one of their greatest tools. Calling themselves “AntiFascist” is simply a tool for distraction and the confusion of as many people as possible. ANTIFA is a Fascist and espouse ONLY ideas that PROMOTE Fascism! Disguising that is one of their greatest tools.

You didn’t know this? That’s because mainstream media purposely promote and continue the confusion by not reporting the truth of ANTIFA just as they ignore the evil and illegalities that often are perpetrated by Black Lives Matter. They expect that most Americans will simply listen to their “narrative” without proving its accuracy or inaccuracy.

It’s dangerous to simply believe ANYTHING we see and hear from mainstream media!

PLEASE investigate everything you hear and see in the news before you determine to either adopt or ignore it: facts are critical. And one cannot expect to automatically receive facts from ANY news source. The prime example is the mainstream news media perspectives of both of these domestic terrorist groups.

“You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.”

 

To Download Today’s (Wednesday, February 24, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

Why Is The Capitol Locked Down?

Something is going on in D.C. regarding the Capitol Building fencing and lockdown. And don’t forget that we still have thousands of National Guard members in full uniform standing watch 24/7 at the cost of tens of millions of dollars daily to the American taxpayers. Why? Isn’t it reasonable to believe the Capitol Police should be well-trained in taking care of the Capitol, have lots of training and certainly plenty of resources from which to draw, and know the ins and outs of the Capitol grounds far better than any U.S. military arm? Then why are the National Guard still there?

We’ve asked again and again, as have numerous members of Congress: CRICKETS!

Something is going on in D.C.

Think about the following facts:

The Capitol Police have over 2,000 sworn officers. Congress’ private cops are the 19th largest police force in the country. It’s a larger force than the police forces of Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, or Milwaukee, with a massive $460 million budget.

It’s the only legislative federal force in the country that is answerable exclusively to Congress.

While Democrats advocated defunding the police, their private police force budget shot up from $375 million in 2016 to $460 million in 2020. After the Capitol Hill riot, expect it to go higher.

The media claimed that the Capitol Police were overwhelmed by a massive riot. Except that the number of violent rioters was, at most, in the hundreds, while the Capitol Police could deploy a force the size that protects entire cities to protect a few buildings from hundreds of people.

Media narratives have blamed President Trump for not calling out the National Guard. Still, the military should not have been needed to supplement a police force as big as those of Atlanta or Denver but was not tied down with an entire city to police and really only had one simple job.

When Black Lives Matter rioters, incited by Democrats and the media, besieged the White House, 60 members of the Secret Service’s Uniformed Division were injured holding the line. In comparison, President Trump and his family were taken to a bunker. 11 members of the Service were hospitalized due to the BLM riot’s violence that Democrats falsely claimed was peaceful.

Much of the heavy lifting was done by the Park Police, another of the innumerable mini police forces swarming the city, which has only 641 sworn officers spread across three cities. 65 Park Police officers were wounded in the BLM riots, and 11 had to be hospitalized.

This roughly matches the 60 Capitol Police and 58 D.C. cops injured in the Capitol riot.

Attorney General Barr listed a figure of 150 officers injured in total in the BLM riots in D.C. That puts the lie to the false Democrat claim that those riots were peaceful and these weren’t.

The only objective metric for measuring what is and isn’t a riot is the amount of violence involved. Both sets of riots targeted a government center: the White House for BLM and Capitol Hill for the alt-right, and the BLM riot was objectively more destructive.

In the Capitol riot, Brian Sicknick, a pro-Trump veteran, was allegedly struck on the head with a fire extinguisher, suffered a brain clot, and died. That was according to the mainstream media. Weeks later, the Coroner stated Sicknick had NO head trauma but died from a possible reaction to pepper spray. During the BLM riots, law enforcement officers suffered concussions. None died, but that’s a matter of luck, not a restraint on the part of BLM thugs using clubs and bricks.

Despite the heavy toll on the injured officers from the Secret Service and the Park Police, Democrats and the media falsely accused both forces of violently assaulting “peaceful protesters.” Instead of condemning the violence, which included bricks, bottles, fireworks, and bodily fluids being thrown at law enforcement officers, Democrats formed a lynch mob.

Rep. Grijalva demanded that White House fencing come down and that the Park Police head come down to testify. The Park Police were attacked for using tear gas. The Washington Post assailed a Secret Service officer for using mace against a BLM rioter attacking him.

Unlike the Capitol Police, the Park Police and the Secret Service did not kill a single BLM rioter despite provocations and bodily injuries. The same can’t be said of Congress’s keystone cops who managed to kill an unarmed woman who was not physically assaulting them at the time.

During the BLM riots, Democrats and their media considered mace against a violent assailant an overreaction, but think that shooting an unarmed woman who was not attacking anyone to be an underreaction proving that it’s not about policing, but that leftist lives matters, others don’t.

But the tactical question is why the Capitol rioters got into Congress, and the BLM rioters never made it inside the White House. Intruders have gotten into the White House before, but the Secret Service and the Park Police kept the violent racist mob from getting through.

The White House has better security, but the question is, why is Congress’ security so bad — if it really is?

It’s not for lack of money or staffing. The Capitol Police force is ridiculously huge. It has a massive budget. But it also has virtually no oversight except from a corrupt congressional system. The last time anyone paid attention to the Capitol Police, they were bungling the Awan investigation under pressure from Congressional Democrats. But that’s what the ‘Caps’ are for.

The Capitol Police are a patronage force. Things have improved since the days when joining meant knowing the right people. But not by that much. The level of professionalism of the various D.C. forces is fairly low, and the Capitol Police are notorious as the worst of them.

There’s very little oversight of the Capitol Police, whose leadership is notorious for ignoring information requests and complaints. The massive force answers to Congress, and it acts less like a police force than as bodyguards for a fairly corrupt organization with no accountability. But that’s what it is.

When the FBI raided Rep. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson’s office, there was outrage, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi signed a statement demanding that the feds return the papers that they had “unconstitutionally” seized from the corrupt Dem’s office. The issue at stake was the FBI, which answers to the executive branch, was not supposed to operate on Capitol Hill and Pelosi’s turf.

“Not anyone here is above the law,” Pelosi argued. But that was exactly the point. Congress had its own private police, and the FBI was not supposed to set foot in her domain. Now, Pelosi complained that the executive branch didn’t dispatch a force quickly enough to her aid.

Despite false claims by Democrats and the media, President Trump did not tell anyone to attack Congress. Like Pelosi and other Democrats, he supported political protests. The violence began while President Trump was giving his speech and had nothing to do with his words. It was up to Congress and its private police force to secure the premises and stop the violence.

The Capitol Police failed badly where the Secret Service and the Park Police had prevailed against BLM’s attack on the White House. They failed in ways that are baffling and inexcusable.

The most obvious problem is that some Capitol Police appeared to allow many of the protesters inside. Why this happened is a subject of heated debate. Still, the range of possibilities includes an environment where leftist protesters storming and occupying Capitol Hill had been normalized, sympathy by the police, provocation by some higher authority, or miscommunication. All of this reflects badly on Congress and its private police force.

The Capitol Police had the manpower and the budget to secure Congress. And there’s no excuse why Congress could not and should not have been secured. There was no brilliant strategy here. And the Capitol Police, despite being praised as heroes, behaved ineptly and showed no coherent plan, some trying to deescalate, while others lashed out violently.

These mixed messages may have been due to the Black Lives Matter effect, a successor to the Ferguson Effect, which left many police officers afraid to resist criminals for fear of losing their jobs and even going to jail. When the White House came under attack, Attorney General Barr and national security officials rallied law enforcement personnel to make a strong stand.

When Capitol Hill came under siege, there was no congressional leadership in responding to it. Instead of taking command of the situation, House members panicked, squabbled, and let their private police flail with the situation while they hid away. The sharp contrast between President Trump and Attorney General Barr in Lafayette Square and Congress members waiting for their police force to protect them isn’t just ideological. It’s a basic question of crisis leadership.

Democrats and the media falsely claimed that what happened in Lafayette Square was a photo op for which peaceful protesters were gassed, but it’s how you show leadership in a riot.

Congress waited for their private police force to protect them whose members knew that whatever happened, they would be blamed for overreacting or underreacting to the protest by a leadership that doesn’t understand what they do and is sacrificing them to cover its asses.

President Trump, AG Barr, and administration officials gave federal law enforcement clear orders to stand their ground. Administration officials then protected officers from the fallout as the same Democrats howling for the heads of Capitol rioters were howling for the heads of Secret Service and Park Police leaders who were holding back the hordes of racist BLM rioters.

Capitol Police members had no sense that Pelosi or that members of Congress were behind them. They were operating in a BLM-ized law enforcement environment in which violent attacks against police and timid responses to them by the authorities had been normalized. They had no clear orders; they were divided by their own political sympathies and by internal politics.

The Capitol riot should have been just another stressful encounter that would have been contained at the expense of injuring some officers and rioters without breaching Congress.

The media has constructed a false narrative in which the White House overreacted to BLM and underreacted to the Capitol riot. But it wasn’t the White House’s job to protect Congress. That’s why Congress has a force of 2,300 people and a $460 million budget with just one job to do. The question of why it failed at that job ought to be directed to Pelosi and congressional leaders.

The Capitol riot is Pelosi’s disaster, and she’s making the most of it by blaming it on everyone else. Her private police force had the resources and the people to keep out the rioters, never mind a few hundred people, and instead turned what should have been a riot into a disaster.

Whether that was intentional or not is a question for which we may never hear a truthful answer. There IS an obvious answer that many are whispering. But be careful: if that whisper happens to be that someone other than Trump bears responsibility and you’re heard, you’ll certainly be banished to the Capitol dungeon: “How dare you!”

And in the wake of the Capitol Police’s poor protection on Jan. 6, Friday, it was announced that thirty-five U.S. Capitol Police officers are being investigated for their actions during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, and six have been suspended with pay. Does this mean there’s something we’re not being told? There are many unanswered questions.

But there is little question that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have massively profited from their mismanagement, initiating proposals to impeach President Trump, expel legislators, purge Republicans from social media platforms, and cut off corporate donations to them.

While the media propaganda blares non-stop, heads are quietly rolling at the Capitol Police, but don’t expect that to do anything except lower morale and water down the force even further. Meanwhile, the party of police defunding will see to it that the Capitol Police budget tops those of most major cities, that its ranks continue to swell, and that it remains as incompetent as ever.

And then the next disaster in Congress will also be blamed on someone who isn’t in Congress.

Why couldn’t Congress’ private police force of 2,000 protect it from a mob of hundreds? Don’t ask Congress. Just pay the $460 million, cry over the headlines, and keep your mouth shut.

To Listen or download Today’s (Tuesday, Feb. 23rd, 2021) “TNN Live” show, click on this link:

Republicans Excoriated for Voting for Trump Impeachment: Why?

As if there are not really serious considerations, a massive majority of Americans want the Biden Administration members to quickly address, implement fixes for our problems, and get us out of the COVID-19 pandemic and our economy back to roaring as it did under President Trump. There is little doubt that GOP voters across the nation were largely miffed at those Republican senators who voted to convict President Trump in his impeachment trial. And most of those voters were pleased to see the various Republican Party entities censure those seven for their actions. Yet the Mainstream Media is still concentrating on the “pronounced split” in the Republican Party and are doing so for undeniable political purposes. Take this snippet published by TIME:”

A number of Republicans are expressing frustration toward their party for censuring GOP senators who voted to convict former President Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial.

Last week, seven Republican senators joined all Democrats to find the former president guilty of inciting an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol on January 6. They were Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Mitt Romney of Utah, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Each senator has since defended their decision by stating their vote was constitutional and based on significant evidence, but the blowback from breaking with the Republican party has been severe.

Five of those seven lawmakers — all but Collins and Romney — have since faced local censures, or formal rebukes, from GOP groups in the states they represent. Republican officials have condemned the GOP senators by stating that the decision to convict was not representative of the party. Other Republicans, however, have since criticized the party for participating in “cancel culture” and being intolerant of diverse opinions.

Republican Senator John Thune, who voted to acquit Trump, defended his colleagues who sided with Democrats and warned the party against shutting out dissenting voices. “There was a strong case made. People could come to different conclusions. If we’re going to criticize the media and the left for cancel culture, we can’t be doing that ourselves,” Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, told the Associated Press.

Similarly, Quin Hillyer, a former leader of the Louisiana Young Republicans who writes commentaries for the Washington Examiner, criticized the party for discouraging opposing views. “It is incredibly frustrating to me to see both sides of politics these days act as if no dissent is allowed; to act as if anybody that strays on any subject immediately is to be shouted down, or canceled or in this case censured,” Hillyer said. He added, “If we start making every single vote a litmus test, ‘A’ we’re not going to get anywhere practically, but ‘B’ we’re going down the line of extremists’ societies where you have purge, after purge, after purge and not only does nothing get done but it becomes very dangerous and becomes very unstable.” Ya’ think!

In Utah, Republican Senator Mike Lee, who voted to acquit Trump, released a statement saying Romney’s decision to convict was not cause for alarm. “The fact that Senator Romney and I sometimes disagree (either with each other or with most Senate Republicans, or both) is not itself cause for alarm,” Lee said. “To the contrary, it shows that neither one of us blindly defers to anyone. We each do our own homework and then, after conferring with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with each other, we reach our own conclusions.”

The Utah Republican Party echoed that statement by saying the senators’ choice to convict represented “diversity of thought.”

Illinois GOP Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who was censured for voting to impeach Trump in the House of Representatives, took to Twitter to mock the party’s decision to punish dissenting voices by dubbing it a censure frenzy. “Good party, a good #censure-frenzy !!” he tweeted sarcastically.

This or any media outlet has an implicit right to publish what they will, as do those 100 senators have the right to vote as they will. But having the authority to do so is quite different from “should” they have done so. So who should be the person or persons to determine if these seven were right or were wrong? Should it be the GOP National Party, the respective state Republican parties, or the people who voted for these senators?

Political Party Slippery Slope

We not only are getting close to stepping on that proverbial “slippery slope” in this process, but we’re probably past the half-way point to pure chaos. And this dilemma that GOP leaders and voting citizens are facing is one that illustrates best what we and others have pointed to for years as the most dangerous element of American politics. What is that?

Political Parties and their power.

The current ruling two-party system is so global that we take it as a given. We teach the “two-party system” in government classes. Taxpayers pay for their primary elections, but did you know that legally, parties are private associations? We have allowed the two ruling parties to entrench themselves in our political and governing systems. They get preferential ballot access, and legislative committee assignments and campaign finance laws are rigged in their favor. Given their political system domination, one might think that the two-party system comes from our constitutional roots. But in fact, the opposite is the case. Virtually every one of the Founding Fathers hated the idea of political parties and worried what might happen to the country if political parties were to come to dominate the country.

 There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”  -John Adams.

“If I could not go to heaven but with a political party, I would decline to go.” -Thomas Jefferson.

“A man under the tyranny of party spirit is the greatest slave upon the earth.” – Thomas Paine.

Let me now . . . warn you most solemnly against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption; A fire not to quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into flame.” – George Washington.

All of the Founding Fathers — except Washington — ultimately relented to “party spirit.” By the first contested presidential campaign in 1796, the country had divided itself into the Federalist and Democrat-Republican parties. Parties have dominated our politics ever since to a greater or lesser degree.

But the times they are a-changing. Polling shows Americans are dropping party affiliation in droves. Today, barely half the country identifies with either of the parties. In 1950 nearly 85% did. And the trend has recently accelerated.

There is no way to predict how the will of the majority of Americans who have lost faith in the two-party system will be resolved. Perhaps one or both of the parties will begin to moderate. Perhaps a third party will emerge. It has several times in our history. I think we will start electing more independents. As you know, adherence to political party expectations for its members to vote straight party lines prevents voters’ independence.

I hear the growing frustration of this country’s great middle who feel they are unrepresented in today’s hyper-partisan environment. These same long passed-over Americans felt a glimmer of hope with Trump’s four years in office. Unlike most presidents in this and the last generation, he actually fulfilled most of the promises he made to Americans while campaigning. And, surprise, surprise: he actually got them accomplished!

Summary

Many American Republicans’ consternation over those seven GOP senators’ votes to convict Donald Trump illustrates how angry and divided Americans are becoming in their politics. Elections, candidates, and service in office — especially regarding legislation and legal matters — should NEVER be based on a political party’s desires and leaders. That is the very thing that so troubled those Founding Fathers. Remember: they were familiar with political parties from their European countries from which they fled — fled in part because of what that felt was unnecessary consternation, arguing, and division which did back then and still does today rise from political partisanship based on political party affiliation.

Don’t those lawmakers have to follow their consciences when weighing such a heavy matter as removing a sitting President? Of course, that should always be a consideration. But that should NOT be the factor on which they make their final decision on such a critical issue. Their principle commitment in their oath of office requires them to protect the Constitution. There was NO constitutional precedence that evoked justification for those votes.

So why did the seven do so?

I cannot knowledgeably answer that. Only in the case of one of those votes can I surmise a reason with some basis: that of Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy.

Cassidy had supported a motion by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky not to have the trial because there was no Constitutional basis for it!

“Well, obviously Cassidy’s conscience forced him, after hearing the House Manager’s evidence presented, to vote for conviction.” Doing so for that or any other reason has no basis in the Constitution. “Supporting and defending” the U.S. Constitution as they each swore to do means adherence to the laws specifically delineated in that document and to any previous court-allowed precedents involving cases based on the Constitution.

There was NO basis for Cassidy’s decision in law.

Why did he do it? Probably for the same reason(s) as did the other six. Those reasons had to be personal or political: there’s no other reason one could have done so.

That is why the People are so angry about those votes and have and still are demanding the censure of those at the state and national party level.

Here’s a novel thought: wouldn’t it have been prudent for these seven, and all other Senators for that matter, to consult with their voting constituents before purposely making an unconstitutional vote to convict Mr. Trump? Obviously, none did so, or they would have publicly explained their votes using that as their reason for doing so.

Americans don’t elect political party representatives. Americans elect their government representatives. Those elected representatives are duly obligated by their oaths to support the Constitution and represent their districts and states’ people. There is NO other factor that should have weighed on their decision.

The TIME story segment above represents where today’s political parties are operating, and Americans don’t like that. American voters are leaving parties in droves. Registered Independents are becoming more and more “the” voice of American voters. They are fed up and I believe their voice is going to be heard one way or another. In doing so, they will be living up to one of our Founding Fathers’ great aspirations, albeit one they were not able to realize.

To Download today’s (Monday, Feb. 22, 2021) “TNN Live” Radio Program click on this link:

Saturday Bullet Points: February 20, 2021

Boy, this past week was a doozie! Just when you think we’d seen it all, here comes a frigid Arctic storm that sent temperatures in the South to North Pole levels. In fact, in Austin, Texas, the low-temperature Tuesday of this past week was lower than the low in Juneau, Alaska! Figure that one out. But one thing that did not change was the difficulty in ferreting the truth from the bizarre political events that get crazier each day. This week did not disappoint. We get to the top such events in today’s Bullet Points.

Take a look at each bullet point below. They each begin with a short description of a news story. If you want complete details on what the highlights describe, click on the blue “swoosh” and go to a full story. If you’ve already seen the details of the full story, just skip to the next one.

It’s a great way to begin each weekend. Grab a cup of coffee and forget about the newspaper. Relax and catch up on the week in our Saturday Bullet Points!

Bullet Points

  • We haven’t heard much about the investigations in the Capitol craziness from January 6th. We have heard that authorities have identified about 200 “persons of interest” identified for wrongdoing that day through face recognition software. There have been several arrests mentioned, but almost all came with few or no details. But what we DID hear on Friday was 35 Capitol Police have been temporarily suspended while being investigated. For complete details, click on this link:
  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been under constant fire for his role in the deaths of many senior New Yorkers from COVID-19 during the pandemic. His problem is a policy that he unilaterally implemented that demanded any senior taken from a senior residence center to a hospital where if/when tested positive for COVID-19 MUST be immediately returned to the facility from which they came. That needlessly infected thousands of others in that senior center, many of which died. Cuomo’s is in deep trouble! He’s now got Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gunning for him. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Most people know that Governor Cuomo’s brother is an anchor at CNN: Chris Cuomo. In the critical arctic storm aftermath in Texas, many state and local politicians are under fire there for not preparing Texans for the storm results. Chris Cuomo on-air at CNN has not even mentioned the problems allegedly at his brother’s hands in New York. But what Chris did was make fun of a Texas mayor who resigned over the uproar in his city about the severe issues for his constituents during the Texas freeze. Chris is now under the gun himself for snide remarks on-air about that mayor while ignoring his brother’s debacle in New York. For complete details, click on this link:
  • ANTIFA thugs have continuously ripped apart the downtown sections in Portland, Oregon, with rioting and looting for the past year or so. They’ve destroyed buildings, caused businesses to shutter, attacked individuals, and even invaded homes. Police in Portland have done little to stop the continuation of ANTIFA violence. But the state nor the city have taken any steps to designate ANTIFA as a specific entity to be labeled. The state of Montana is not waiting for ANTIFA to come its way with destruction. Their legislature has taken preemptive steps. For complete details, click on this link:
  • It is uncontroverted there were problems in not just the actual election process on November 3, 2020, but also in the vote compilation process in multiple states. We’ll probably never know what the real voting picture was in that election. We haven’t heard of any massive election reform measures at the state level — until today. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has presented to his legislature plans to investigate and overhaul parts of their election process that are suspect. For complete details, click on this link:
  • There are many expectations for many government changes initiated by the Biden Administration. Most of Joe Biden’s campaign promises were simple: “let’s undo every Trump executive order and let’s remove all of the conservative-backed pieces of legislation and replace with Democrat versions. That process has begun in earnest. But there’s one underway that we just uncovered: a plan for banks to refuse banking services to the enemies of Democrats! For complete details, click on this link:
  • It didn’t take long for Joe Biden to fulfill another of his promises: The United States is now back in the Paris Climate Accords. President Trump withdrew our nation from that international agreement that accomplished very little for us while mandating that U.S. tax dollars in the hundreds of billions over the next decade-plus into the Accords while being demanded to take climate actions that will cost billions more. That while China — the largest polluter by far in the Accords — pays only a fraction of the U.S. number and does not have to perform on the reduction of their environmental issues for ten years. For complete details, click on this link:
  • First, it was Al Gore; then it was John Kerry. Each became climate-change specialists for reasons no one can explain: neither are scientists, neither know anything about our climate and certainly neither have no idea about what and how humans can even impact Earth’s environment, even if that’s possible! And now that John Kerry is back in the saddle in the Biden Administration, he’s informed us that we only have nine years before the end of the world because of climate change. For complete details, click on this link:
  • FINALLY: some good news regarding COVID-19 cases. Apparently, the numbers of cases across the nation are steadily declining over the past month or so. But the CNN news model is this: “Never let any good news destroy a good news story.” And that exact thing has happened. CNN issued a warning to Americans that the COVID-19 good news really is NOT good news. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Maybe we finally have some excellent instructions on how to fix all the ailments in our Country. We just thought things were improving significantly during the Trump Administration. If one listens to all those “experts” on the left, things are not only “not so good,” they’re terrible. Maybe we should start fixing our problems by first doing something to put us on the right road: ignore all the left tell us! For complete details, click on this link:
  • Moving the nation to a totally non-fossil fuel energy system certainly sounds good. Oh, doing so would put millions of workers out of jobs, but just think of the great things it will do for our environment! Wait a minute: didn’t Texas and other southern states get in trouble during this deep freeze in part because wind turbines froze and solar panels don’t produce energy from sunlight? Neither has been fruitful in these states the last week or so. Maybe we should just accept facts and change our plans to make the use of fossil fuels even more efficient, and maybe add some more nuclear power plants. For complete details, click on this link:

CPAC: 2009 Keynote Address by Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday, we paid tribute to the #1 talk show host in American history: Rush Limbaugh. We will not today dig deeper into his legacy for us all, nor will we talk about the positive things thousands who took to the airways in the last 24 hours shared about their hero. We also will not give the light of day to the horrific slams made by mostly Leftists against Rush Limbaugh. What we WILL do today is give you the opportunity to listen to one of the greatest speeches ever given by any conservative in our history. And that’s saying a bunch! After all, Limbaugh’s idol was President Ronald Reagan. Rush often played segments of Reagan’s speeches on his show. Most know that in his “first life,” Ronald Reagan was an actor, and was very successful. He knew well how to speak to a crowd. Rush, in my opinion, took that marvelous Reagan art to another level.

CPAC is an annual event at which conservatives from all over the U.S. congregate to listen to great speeches from great people, (not all politicians) and to interface with like-minded individuals to share new ideas about Conservatism and methods of spreading its ideologies outside of the mainstream media.

In 2009, Rush was invited to be their keynote speaker. He was in his element. It was a speech for the ages.

We are bringing it to you in total in a video just below today. I warn you, it is lengthy. But it is well worth your time. Additionally, after the video, we have attached an audio file of the speech as well. I encourage you to download and save the audio file. It will be a speech that you will refer to again and again in your life, especially in times where the political landscape and all that happens discourages you.

NOTE: You may want to start this video today and finish it after our “Saturday Bullet Points” compilation tomorrow!

Here’s the link to the audio version of this same speech by Rush:

 

To Download Today’s (Friday, Feb. 19, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, Click on this link:

“Mega Dittos, Rush…”

In 1989, I moved my family from Louisiana to Indianapolis and become the PM Drive host at WTPI-FM. I loved radio. I fell in love with it at age 16 when my high school Speech teacher — who was a part-time radio News Announcer — suggested I drop by his station in Franklin, Louisiana. I needed a part-time job and he said he thought they “had something.” I assumed I would be doing janitorial work and thought it would be cool to hang out at a real radio station.

I went to interview with the station GM. Imagine my surprise when he walked me down the hall into a production studio, sat me behind a microphone, and handed me a news story to read as they recorded it. Two days after that interview I became an afternoon DJ playing Top-40 hits at KFRA!

I “used” radio throughout my teenage years. It gave me part-time income and some prestige as a “Radio Announcer” with many of my friends. I worked my way through college working full time in Radio while going to school full time, too.

Eventually, after dabbling in a couple of other professions I went back to radio. Thus WTPI called and gave me a dream job. And one of the best parts of that job is an introduction to Rush Limbaugh and his conservative radio talk show. He’s been my “friend” since — until Wednesday. My “friend” and radio hero lost his battle with lung cancer. Rush Limbaugh, dead at 70.

My Parting Memories of Rush Limbaugh You May Have Missed

Rush Limbaugh, the radio host who ripped into liberals, foretold the rise of Donald Trump and laid waste to political correctness with a merry brand of malice that made him one of the most powerful voices on the American right, died Wednesday.

Limbaugh, an outspoken lover of cigars, had been diagnosed with lung cancer. His death was announced on his website.

President Trump, during a State of the Union speech, awarded Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

Unflinchingly conservative, wildly partisan, bombastically self-promoting, and larger than life, Limbaugh galvanized listeners for more than 30 years with his talent for vituperation and sarcasm.

He called himself an entertainer, but his rants during his three-hour weekday radio show broadcast on nearly 600 U.S. stations shaped the national political conversation, swaying ordinary Republicans and the direction of their party.

Blessed with a made-for-broadcasting voice, he delivered his opinions with such certainty that his followers, or “Ditto-heads,” as he dubbed them, took his words as sacred truth.

“In my heart and soul, I know I have become the intellectual engine of the conservative movement,” Limbaugh, with typical immodesty, told author Zev Chafets in the 2010 book “Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One.”

Forbes magazine estimated his 2018 income at $84 million, ranking him behind only Howard Stern among radio personalities.

Limbaugh took as a badge of honor the title “most dangerous man in America.” He said he was the “truth detector,” the “doctor of democracy,” a “lover of mankind,” a “harmless, lovable little fuzz ball” and an “all-around good guy.” He daily stated he had “talent on loan from God.”

Long before Trump’s rise in politics, Limbaugh was pinning insulting names on his enemies and raging against the mainstream media, accusing it of feeding the public lies. He called Democrats and others on the left communists, wackos, feminazis, liberal extremists, faggots and radicals.

Limbaugh often enunciated the Republican platform better and more entertainingly than any party leader, becoming a GOP kingmaker whose endorsement and friendship were sought. Polls consistently found he was regarded as the voice of the party.

His idol, Ronald Reagan, wrote a letter of praise that Limbaugh proudly read on the air in 1992: “You’ve become the number one voice for conservatism.” In 1994, Limbaugh was so widely credited with the first Republican takeover of Congress in 40 years that the GOP made him an honorary member of the new class.

During the 2016 presidential primaries, Limbaugh said he realized early on that Trump would be the nominee, and he likened the candidate’s deep connection with his supporters to his own. In a 2018 interview, he conceded Trump is sometimes rude but said that is because he is “fearless and willing to fight against the things that no Republican has been willing to fight against.”

Trump, for his part, heaped praise on Limbaugh, and they golfed together. (The president’s Mar-a-Lago estate is eight miles down the same Palm Beach boulevard as Limbaugh’s beachfront expanse.) In honoring Limbaugh at the State of the Union, Trump called his friend “a special man beloved by millions.”

Limbaugh influenced the likes of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and countless other conservative commentators who pushed the boundaries of “acceptable public discourse.”

His brand of blunt, no-gray-area debate spread to cable TV, town hall meetings, political rallies, and Congress itself, emerging during the battles over health care and the ascent of the tea party movement.

“What he did was to bring a paranoia and really mean, nasty rhetoric and hyperpartisanship into the mainstream,” said Martin Kaplan, a University of Southern California professor who is an expert on the intersection of politics and entertainment and a frequent critic of Limbaugh. “The kind of antagonism that characterized him instantly became acceptable everywhere.”

His foes accused him of trafficking in half-truths, bias, and outright lies — the very tactics he decried in others. Al Franken, the comedian, and one-time senator came out with a book in 1996 called “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations.”

In 2003, Limbaugh admitted to an addiction to painkillers and went into rehab.

He lost his hearing around that time. He said it was from an autoimmune disorder, while his critics said hearing loss is a known side effect of painkiller abuse. He received cochlear implants, which restored his hearing and saved his career.

A portly, round-faced figure, Limbaugh was divorced three times, after marrying Roxy Maxine McNeely in 1977, Michelle Sixta in 1983, and Marta Fitzgerald in 1994. He married his fourth wife, Kathryn Rogers, in a lavish 2010 ceremony featuring Elton John. He had no children.

Rush Hudson Limbaugh III was born Jan. 12, 1951, in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. His mother was the former Mildred Armstrong, and his father, Rush Limbaugh Jr., was a lawyer.

Rusty, as the younger Limbaugh was known, was chubby and shy, with little interest in school but a passion for broadcasting. He would turn down the radio during St. Louis Cardinals baseball games, offering play-by-play, and gave a running commentary during the evening news. By high school, he had snagged a radio job.

Limbaugh dropped out of Southeast Missouri State University for a string of DJ gigs, from his hometown to McKeesport, Pennsylvania, to Pittsburgh, and then Kansas City. Known as Rusty Sharpe and then Jeff Christie on the air, he mostly spun Top 40 hits and sprinkled in glimpses of his wit and conservatism.

“One of the early reasons radio interested me was that I thought it would make me popular,” he once wrote.

But he didn’t gain the following he craved and gave up on the radio for several years, beginning in 1979, becoming promotions director for baseball’s Kansas City Royals. He ultimately returned to broadcasting, again in Kansas City and then Sacramento, California.

It was there in the early 1980s that Limbaugh really garnered an audience, broadcasting shows dripping with sarcasm and bravado. The stage name was gone.

Limbaugh began broadcasting nationally in 1988 from WABC in New York. While his know-it-all commentary quickly gained traction, he was dismayed by his reception in the big city. He thought he would be welcomed by Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather.

“I came to New York,” he wrote, “and I immediately became a nothing, a zero.”

Ultimately, Limbaugh moved his radio show to Palm Beach and bought his massive estate. Talkers Magazine, which covers the industry, said Limbaugh had the nation’s largest audience in 2019, with 15 million unique listeners each week.

“When Rush wants to talk to America, all he has to do is grab his microphone. He attracts more listeners with just his voice than the rest of us could ever imagine,” Beck wrote in Time magazine in 2009. “He is simply on another level.”

Limbaugh expounded on his world view in the best-selling books “The Way Things Ought to Be” and “See, I Told You So.”

He had a late-night TV show in the 1990s that got decent ratings but lackluster advertising because of his divisive message. When he guest-hosted “The Pat Sajak Show” in 1990, audience members called him a Nazi and repeatedly shouted at him.

He was fired from a short-lived job as an NFL commentator on ESPN in 2003 after he said the media had made a star out of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb because it was “very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” His racial remarks also derailed a 2009 bid to become one of the owners of the NFL’s St. Louis Rams.

“Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night and just think to yourself, `I am just full of hot gas?’” David Letterman asked him in 1993 on “The Late Show.”

“I am a servant of humanity,” Limbaugh replied. “I am in the relentless pursuit of the truth. I actually sit back and think that I’m just so fortunate to have this opportunity to tell people what’s really going on.”

Summary

I never met Rush, but I knew him: every one of his listeners felt they knew him. He was that kind of communicator.

He seldom discussed religion, although it was easy to tell he held a personal relationship with God. Not long after his announcement to the nation he was diagnosed with and fighting lung cancer, Rush began to speak on air about his faith. For me, he just dotted an “i” by talking about his God. I already knew he was a Christian.

Wednesday, my wife met me as I finished my daily talk show, “TNN Live,” with the news of Rush’s passing. I failed to hold back the tears.

I could not control my sadness or the tears as I thought through my 31-year relationship with the nation’s ONLY real Talk Show host. It was as if I lost my biological sibling.

Rush meant much to many people. And in each of us ditto-heads, he filled a different role. But for all those who dared listen objectively to his opinions that were primarily about politics, they each learned much about politics in the U.S. and the World. But they learned much about themselves. Rush forced his listeners to think through numerous principles and ideas that most had never considered. He helped numerous of us to find a grounding in the truth. That was Rush’s gift to us all.

Rush is why this website is named TruthNewsNet.org. He challenged me deeper than almost all others in my life to research, investigate, and dig hard about everything that I deemed important in my life. I learned to never just accept the easy path on fact-finding missions. I learned to hunger to discover “what’s really going on.” More often than not, I DID discover those truths. I never gave up until I “got it.”

I tried a few times to get through on his studio line: _1-800-282-2882.” I never got through because of the millions of ditto-heads that shared Rush with me. That’s OK. The good I received from him and his show wasn’t meant to be from a personal conversation, rather from a charge to me that I heard often from him that gave me a hunger to find facts. Those facts AND the journey to unearth them was what he would have spoken to me about anyway!

Who can take his place? That is really a stupid question — No one ever will. There will be those who try. But anyone who thinks they can equal or beat him had better understand that’s something that no one has ever accomplished. He is gone, but even in his absence, I can honestly say this: Rush Limbaugh is STILL the Number One Talk Show Host in the United States.

So long, my friend. We’ll meet again. I can’t wait to see you face-to-face in the “Heavenly” EIB Studios where I hope to share another golden EIB microphone beside you for a show or two.

RIP.

To Download today’s (Thursday, Feb. 18, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link: