Socialism Chile Style!

Socialism has been mortally discredited on economic grounds, thanks to history. But for many people, it has not been discredited on moral grounds. You can tell this by how often people say that while socialism doesn’t work in practice, it is good in theory. That’s a strange notion — that a theory that doesn’t work in the world can somehow still be good. Where else is it to be judged? One would think that a theory whose consistent realization requires concentration or re-education camps and secret police would be morally disqualified even if it “worked.”

I guess the people who say socialism is good in theory really mean they regret that it doesn’t work without the unpleasantness that accompanies it. Why should that be regrettable? The typical answer is that, in socialist theory, people are not materialistic or self-regarding; they are more concerned about others. The regret about socialism turns out to be regret about human nature.

Leaving aside the fact that the taint on self-interest is assumed not established and that one prospers under capitalism by competitively attending to others, is this a valid statement about socialism? Originally socialism promised a superabundance of goods — so much of everything that no one would have to do without anything. Sharing would be unnecessary because scarcity would be abolished. Wasn’t that an appeal to materialism, even gluttony? To be sure, socialism’s miserable record has compelled its advocates lately to discover the “age of limits,” but that is only to make a virtue of necessity.

Socialism, of course, did promise to reconstruct humanity, but the message was always mixed. It promised to subordinate the individual to society while liberating him to be fully himself — free of the necessity to make a living. Leon Trotsky wrote that “Communist man . . . will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx.” But the nice Bolshevik also said, “In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”

Was the new Socialist Man to be a self-centered achiever or group-centered worker bee? It was never clear how both could be accomplished.

Maybe all that people mean when they sadly point to socialism’s impracticality is that the theory held out hope for ending material inequality. It didn’t exactly do that. Marx promised only “to each according to his needs.” He never said we all have the same needs. Besides, it is capitalism, not socialism, that has achieved essential material equality.

The ugliness of socialist theory now comes into focus. Under individualist and capitalist theory (and practice), each person is free to determine his own needs and, through the division of labor and voluntary exchange, to produce what’s required to satisfy them. (As the old Spanish proverb puts it, “Take what you want and pay for it.”) Under the socialist theory, the individual’s needs are determined and satisfied collectively. Dissent and venturing out on one’s own are not options. As Trotsky acknowledged, everyone is an employee and tenant of the collective — that is, the state. In our case, that would be the federal government.

It’s a mystery why anyone would find that theory beautiful or regret that it doesn’t work in practice. It hasn’t worked over time in ANY country.

Take as an example, the nation of Chile. Chile went, rather than from capitalism to socialism, from socialism to capitalism rather than the “other” way!

The Chilean Experiment

Back in the 1970s, the nation of Chile embarked on one of the boldest sets of free-market economic reforms in history. The government called in the Chicago Boys, as they were called, led by Milton Friedman and other University of Chicago free-market economists. They were given a free hand to redesign the Chilean economic system with property rights, a low flat tax, privatization of the Social Security system, and industry deregulation. In 1991, Friedman wrote that Chile now “has all three things: political freedom, human freedom, and economic freedom. Chile will continue to be an interesting experiment to watch to see whether it can keep all three.”

For four decades, the experiment worked better than anyone could have imagined. According to a study by economist Axel Kaiser for the Cato Institute: “Between 1975 and 2015 per capita income in Chile quadrupled to $23,000, the highest rate in Latin America. As a result, from the early 1980s to 2014, poverty fell from 45 percent to 8 percent.” Chile became one of the wealthiest nations in South America. And it happened in three decades, an eye blink of history.

The Marxists and intellectual class of Latin America always hated the free-market reforms. They disparaged the Chicago Boys as “fascists.” They spent decades attacking the policies (with the stooges in the American media echoing their protests), even as Chile became the jewel of South America. The Marxists invented a narrative of “inequality:” “The rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting poorer, and capitalism is evil.” They infiltrated all of Chile’s cultural institutions: the media, the schools, the universities, the Catholic Church, the arts, the unions, and even the corporate boardrooms. They spread their poisonous creed of collectivism to the populace.

Is any of this sounding familiar to our situation today?

Eventually, the leftists pulled off a political coup. In 2013, the left won the Chilean presidency. The free-market reforms were systematically replaced with “spread the wealth” platitudes. In October 2020, voters approved a rewrite of the constitution, and now property rights and the rule of law are in danger. Chile is now in economic free fall. The poor are getting crushed. The rich are pulling their money out of the country. They have arrived at “equality:” Nearly everyone is suffering.

Meanwhile, back in America, we have an economic transformation of our own going on. The Biden administration promises to help the middle class by handing out trillions of dollars of free money to citizens and paying people more money for not working than working. We will borrow trillions of dollars and pray that the Chinese continue to buy up our bonds and that our currency holds up.

Many of our constitutional protections and congressional rules of behavior, such as the filibuster, which protects the rights of the minority, may be headed to the shredder. The election laws are getting rewritten to benefit, significantly, the party now in power — the Democrats. The House has passed a bill requiring millions of working-class people to join unions and pay dues. The left is saying, don’t worry, this compulsion is going to help the working class. Sure.

A sock-it-to-the-rich tax increase is coming that will make the productive class and the job creators pay their “fair share” with tax rates of 50 percent, 60 percent, and 70 percent.

Will this story have a happy ending?

The answer to that question might be contained in the frightening example of what happened in Chile. It is what our children and college students should be learning in the classrooms — fat chance. The left runs our schools now, too.


It’s easy to write the summary on these two stories placed side-by-side: one fails miserably; the latter transforms from the former to the latter, and in every aspect of life for Chile’s citizens, it’s impossible to even measure the unfathomable massive changes for every person in every aspect of life.

Watching this unfold from North America may seem too far away to be applicable for the U.S. After all, Americans are the “enlightened” citizens of the Western Hemisphere. We can perceive far more than any other fellow Western citizens what’s best for us and best for everyone else, for that matter. Our “enlightened” ones feel we must, on a large scale, increase the scope and size of our government to assure that ALL the needs of every American are determined, defined, and controlled to be equally fulfilled by the enlightened ones.

In that scenario, who needs capitalism? Let’s move quickly to the left and join our governing Leftists, who are already there! Who needs to work hard to accomplish anything? After all, if we were a socialist nation, we could take it easy, cut back our work hours, enjoy our leisure time, and allow someone “lesser” than us to do the work necessary to feed, clothe, medicate, educate, and provide for all that we could ever want. Why not?

“No other country has ever done that successfully. What makes you think WE can?”

“We’re the United States of America. We can do anything on which we set our minds. We should get this socialism thing licked in a year or two — no problem!”

“Hey, do you know where I can get some toilet paper and a toothbrush?”

 To Download Today’s (Wednesday, March 31, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

Do You Need Forgiveness From Someone?

I heard from a close friend a while ago: someone who I’ve known for years as a solid, “I’ve got it all together” friend. The call was to tell me that the “all together” thing was not necessarily true. The report was an adulterous failure in a longtime marriage. It was devastating, to say the least. The call was to ask forgiveness –from Me! There was no violation of trust, nothing directly failed me. But this person felt my trust was also violated, not just that of the partner. Of course I stated that, accepted the apology, though I made it clear that I needed no apology.

That phone call sent me back looking through the multiple TruthNewsNet stories I began to find one I started months ago but never finished or published.

I think the phone call was a sign telling me I needed to finish.

I added this “forward,” completed it, and publish it today for you and anyone else that might need to consider forgiveness. Believe it or not, we all do!

Forgiveness: the toughest thing to give OR receive

There are NO shortcuts. Whenever someone hurts or takes advantage of someone else, if the desire is to reach resolution, both parties to the conflict must take definitive actions. It never works if just one party to the problem refuses to engage in the reconciliation process. There’s NO peace without unified agreement.

“Dan, what the heck are you talking about this for? This story is not about politics. This is getting in a fight with your wife or husband and trying to make peace when one of the two lie to the other!”

Seriously, the lack of forgiveness has become what a majority of psychological experts feel is the most serious mental and emotional problem among adults. So if you have watched the American landscape as I have, you’ve watched as not only has the level of animus among Americans increased dramatically, but Americans have in great numbers stopped asking for and/or giving others forgiveness when wrongs occur. The issues in question can be everything from fighting over a dent to new car, who stole money from Mom’s purse, who broke the tv remote, or cheating with a secretary or boss at work. There are plenty of examples of ugly things that happen that scream for forgiveness.

But how does one get started in that process?


Uh-oh: that’s going to be a tough one. Being honest and transparent is an easy process to discuss, but it’s often impossible to implement in these situations. What’s the biggest problem with it? Admitting one is wrong!

There is really no need to elaborate on this one. Everyone knows almost every time a conflict arises who is the guilty party or parties to the conflict with mud on their faces. It’s really not difficult to know who is wrong.

Is there a path that can lead us out of the bitterness that makes rapid headway in so many lives? Is there no end to taking offense and forming grudges? Where is this now accepted social standard of getting even taking us? Does resentment build up within us over smaller and smaller things? And for those who have truly been hurt, where over time will their bitterness take them if left unchecked?

Consider an ancient solution — a way through —today’s vengeful cultural climate. Without taking on a preachy tone, and in the hope of sharing some thoughts on a complicated topic, this writer hopes to shed some light on forgiveness, and the inner peace, and the enhanced physical and mental health it can bring to anyone who decides to forgive.

Forgiveness has been explained in many ways, from the ancients to the Bible to scientific journals. Some describe it as the most important contribution one can make to the healing of the world. So let’s define forgiveness as “the active process in which you make a conscious decision to let go of negative feelings, whether the wrongdoer deserves it or not.”

This definition captures an often overlooked quality of forgiveness: it primarily helps the forgiver, usually far more than the forgiven, for the wrong done.

Wrongs that another does to us will almost always cause anger, or stress, or anxiety. This is not always the case, as some people, studies have found, are naturally more forgiving. Life for them, research shows, is much more satisfying, with less depression. Dr. Martin Luther King’s words come to mind: “Forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a constant attitude.”

Overall, those more inclined to forgive will spare themselves the sometimes disabling burden that hurt and disappointment impose. Nelson Mandela, who left behind him almost 30 years of harsh imprisonment for his political activism, shared this about his lack of anger: “Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping that it will kill your enemies.”

Here’s where an interesting, recent survey comes in: performed by the non-profit Fetzer Institute. It shows that 62 percent of Americans say they need more forgiveness in their lives. So forgiveness has come to mean for them a release of anger, and of the resentment and hostility that go with it. In that release, there is then ample room for the feeling of empathy, compassion, and at times affection for the person who wronged you.

For many, calling it a “wrong” is a term that seems to minimize the cause enormous hurt some can cause. In his compelling as well as instructive book, “Why Forgive,” Johann C. Arnold wisely recognizes the near impossibility of forgiving such grim behavior as violent crime, abuse, bigotry, even what happens in war.

But here again, there’s something about forgiveness that the Houston Chronicle, in its review of this book, calls an eye-opening simplicity: forgiveness helps to check a side of our nature that can otherwise devour us.

The ancient, spiritual gift to those who forgive now has science to support it. Johns Hopkins Hospital’s director of their “Mood Disorders Adult Consultation Clinic,” Karen Swartz, MD, reports that a decision to forgive and to keep forgiving lowers the risk of heart attack, improves sleep, even cholesterol levels, and in turn reduces blood pressure and the intensity of anxiety and stress.

Moreover, this forgiveness/health connection, Dr. Swartz tells us, increases with age. Conversely, getting older with continuous unforgiviness through life brings far more harm to us than to the person we need to forgive.

So when wronged, whether it’s a slight of some social sort, or strained family relationships, or gossip that gets back to us, or workplace tensions, or far more serious actions with sometimes even tragic outcomes, that is when we are presented a number of paths.

Some will take the path of adding to their collection of grudges, building upon a catalog of people and things to resent; some will go further, and weigh themselves down with plans on how to get even; some will remember and dwell on the wrong’s tiniest details, letting the bitterness grow over a long period of time; and some will believe, largely from self-pity, that they have been hurt too often or too deeply, so much so in their minds that they are an exception from the need to forgive.

All these paths, for those who choose them, lead to one miserable place – their own self-incarceration.

The path of forgiveness, however, offers recovery from an injury. It’s not based on fairness — fairness has nothing to do with it. Nor does it excuse the pain that is a part of life and relationships, and it’s certainly not forgetting or condoning a wrong.

Forgiving still acknowledges a hurtful act, but we see beyond it. That is the path to a new lease on life, a conscious decision to stop hating, in turn giving rise to a sense of inner peace. When this injury is done to us, we’ll never truly recover until we forgive. And as we have already seen, it is also a path to better health, and quite literally, a way to happiness and joy for those who hurt and those who get hurt.

What seems the most durable aspect of forgiveness is that it invariably proves to be a gift to ourselves. When we move past the resentment, the target of that resentment no longer has influence. It’s the conscious decision to stop hating that frees us from misery. Forgiveness puts in check a consuming side of our nature. And forgiving can be incredibly hard, one of the hardest things a person can do.

So here’s a common sense, step-by-step formula, cobbled together, if you will, from various scientific studies, but, primarily, the Bible.

First, reflect and remember the event, how you reacted, and how it has affected you since. Then decide to forgive, and expect absolutely nothing in return. Even if the offender refuses forgiveness, still offer it unconditionally. And if you cannot tell the person, tell someone else in confidence, or simply write it in a note to yourself.

Set no limits on whom you forgive, or how often in life you will forgive. Expel from your mind any thought of one-upsmanship or getting even. Confucius put it this way: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” His even better point: “To be wronged is nothing, unless you continue to remember it.” And Jesus told us we should forgive “seventy times seventy times,” meaning how often we forgive has no limit.

Forgiveness gives to us a simple, liberating way to live in this fractured world in which fractures grow and seldom stop. To forgive both our enemies and our friends, and to make it our attitude, opens a new world for each of us, and a truly new outlook on life.

Jesus Said…

How many times in your life have you repeated “The Lord’s Prayer?”

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory,
forever and ever.


Jesus instructed us to pray this specifically “when we pray.” One verse in the prayer is the critical one for today’s conversation: “…and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” That seems benign, doesn’t it? It’s anything BUT benign! From the Son of God we have the secret of forgiveness.’

We are actually when praying that we ask God to forgive us AS we forgive others that have wronged us! There’s the secret.

But it gets MORE interesting. When you have prayed that numerous times during your life, you are in essence asking God NOT to forgive you unless you forgive others who have wronged you. “As” means “at the same time, while, or in the same fashion,” as defined in Webster.

There’s no doubt forgiveness is a two-edged sword. It not only impacts the person who commits the wrong but also the person who was wronged — the one who is hurt when the wrong is perpetrated.

In summary, forgiveness is the most important human trait we MUST adopt in our lives to keep us sane.

Maybe this will open a door for you. Maybe it will close other doors that desperately need to do so. If you have been wronged — which I’m certain you have — forgiveness will give you peace. But maybe just as important is the fact that the person YOU have wronged when hearing your request for forgiveness has the ability to obtain peace for themselves if and as they forgive you!

Life is too short to fill it with unnecessary and deadly emotions. Why not empty any anger or hate you hold for somebody that really did you dirty. After all, what could doing so possibly hurt? Nothing. But the good for you and that person that will result will keep the needless angst that goes with unforgiveness out of your life.

And YOU control it!

To Download Today’s (Tuesday, March 30, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

New York Time COVID-19 Statistics Daily Tracking:

Democrat Weapons of War: -Ism’s and -Phobias

There is no credible objection raised to the assertion that politicians have mastered the art of weaponization — the weaponization of any tool with which they can attack their political opponents. The actual weapons change from time to time, but the process is eternal. And that process itself is a very effective tool in their quest for weapons.

Democrats gained virtual control of the entire U.S. government in the 2021 election. That gave them almost unilateral authority to rule the nation. But long before that “Victory” — which will forever be listed in history books followed by an asterisk — Leaders in today’s Democrat Party had gathered into their trove of weapons of war the tools they needed to master their march toward total government control. Worse still is that, during the 2021 election, they proved those already in their armament are really effective. They worked! And Democrats won.

What are the -Ism and -Phobia weapons the Democrat Party has chosen to use in implementing their agenda? Let’s begin:


Some will say that sexism has been around for so long, used so often, and so often misrepresented that it has lost most of its power. Maybe in its purest form that might be true. But used in the context of a perpetual all-out political war, no weapon can be left undeployed.

Sexual Liberation from the 60s and 70s opened the door. Feminism and Lesbianism kicked the door down. Sexism — whether real or perceived — has been an effective tool for decades to use against men. And Democrats have consistently and effectively put it into practice, and still do.

Feminists, when using the term, “assume” its use in context is understood by all who hear. The context referred to is that “All men are evil, domineering, and overpaid chauvinists who want women only as sex partners, mothers/caretakers for their children, and “Suzie Homemakers” whose chief job is to serve men. That mantra includes an assumed “fact” that all men consider women to be less enlightened, less intelligent, less knowledgeable, and less capable in their understanding than are their counterparts: Men.

The obvious response to these assertions is “Poppycock!” But replying with that, “IF” the speaker is a man, proves that men are sexists.

Additionally, don’t ever make the mistake of challenging their sexism dogma in an attempt to present facts to disprove the legitimacy of this weapon. Doing so invites a cornucopia of claims that include every denigrating term one can imagine. Chief among those, of course, is: “Only a Sexist would say such a thing.”


Do NOT ever say (at least not in a public setting), “Homosexuality is a sin,” or “It’s degrading,” or “It’s not real,” or “It’s only in one’s mind.” Certainly NEVER say that it’s a myth because “The plumbing doesn’t work.” Whether or not any or all of these might be factual is immaterial. In amassing the arsenal necessary to defeat their foes, Democrats have masterfully written, edited, revised, and implemented a gameplan in which they have insightfully prepared for EVERY counter to their weapon against Homophobia.

In a subset of this, we must include Transphobia. It matters NOT to Democrats that one’s opinion of their gender doesn’t mean a freaking thing! Science for hundreds of years has shown that chromosomes with which we are born are the sole arbiter of our gender. No matter how loudly or adamantly one argues regarding this fact, those labeled “Transphobic” are marked with a scarlet “T.” It’s just another very effective weapon for Democrats use against their enemies.


Few had heard that term until 9/11. But it didn’t take long to appear and quickly become a weapon for the Left. Forget that 3,000 Americans died with the fall of the Twin Towers. Forget that Muslims flew each of those planes and did so voluntarily with just one mission: destroy the Enemy while dying as a martyr for Allah.

Long after those dark days in the Fall of 2001, that weapon is constantly deployed to attack political leaders who mention banning immigrants from any Islamic countries. President Trump did so. He did NOT ban immigrants or visitors from ALL Islamic countries, just from those which harbor known terrorists or other nations who cannot effectively investigate the backgrounds of wannabe immigrants. ANYONE who speaks of that or supports that practice is labeled as Islamophobic — especially Donald Trump.


Honestly, I can’t think of the name of any person I know that dislikes people who come from other countries just because they’re from a country other than ours’. I also do not understand why any American is against being certain that all who are allowed to enter our country are NOT here to commit illegal acts. Why not make certain they have no serious criminality pending against them in the countries from which they emigrate? But Democrats in large have weaponized that very thing. In fact, it’s become a catch-all to use against anyone who wants any immigrant from any other country to go through just the legal process of United States Immigration that was implemented by the People’s representatives in Congress and then signed into law by the current sitting President. How does one that feels just that be labeled as a “Xenophobe?”

The current immigration crisis faced today is the direct result of this Democrat President’s actions, which unlocked our border, should give every American pause and justifiable outrage. Be careful: if one expresses those feelings too loudly and Leftists in earshot know it was said and by whom, the “X” tag is applied instantly.


Racism is the most egregious of Democrats’ weaponry. Seldom is it used to address a legitimate case of racism. No matter; it’s a great weapon. There’s no de-bunking it when applied.

Calling someone a racist is a parallel to, in a crowd, shouting to a friend or acquaintance across a bunch of other people, “Hey, Bill. Did you ever stop beating your wife?” It’s irrelevant whether Bill actually DID  beat his wife or if he STOPPED beating his wife. All that matters in these cases is that the allegation was made, people heard it, and each of those listeners must process it without using the prism of facts that instigated this allegation.

Often, claims against racism are unfounded. The Left frequently uses the label to make a sweeping claim against, not individuals but systems, companies, and even churches and events.

Their most outrageous claims are those leveled at institutions or even segments of our society, blaming those for  being “Systemic racist.” As outrageous as these blanket allegations are, they are often VERY successful when made. Why? Because there’s NO way to rebut these claims, no matter how ridiculous they may be.

Think about it: how can any system, group, entity, company, church, or school be racist? None of these mentioned are able to contain a human trait: they’re each inanimate and without feelings, emotions, or even thoughts. They are not alive nor able to consciously “do” or “be” expressive of anything requiring mental capacity.

Does that mean there cannot be racism IN any of these? Certainly there can be racism of every construct in each, but it’s not the entity itself. It’s people. “Things” are not racist. People are racist. People who operate within these institutions can “choose” to be racist. But the systems are not guilty. Those people are.


The mastery of this art did NOT just happen. For it to rise to the level in which it exists today was a planned and implemented process. No one can truthfully allege that the Democrat Party is inept at finding ways to self-preserve in the midst of the most chaotic environment in U.S. political history.

Why do they operate in this fashion? Most Americans know that those allegations are most often inaccurate and unwarranted. Yet Democrats — especially leaders in the Party — are quick to grab one of these many weapons to inflict grievous injuries to their foes.

Why? When facts do not support one’s objectives, one must find ways and weapons to use against foes sufficient to win each battle. 

This explains each of these:

  • Every time there is a situation that appears to be negative for Dems, they lash out against opponents rather than find ways of reconciliation;
  • Regarding issues with which conflicts are present, Democrats seldom, if ever, admit the opposite of their position could possibly be correct;
  • The “truth card” played in battle is often not the truth — and they don’t care;
  •  They seldom if ever apologize;
  • They NEVER admit being wrong on any issue;
  • Every weapon they use always exceeds (when enacted) levels needed to just win that battle: they must obliterate their opponents;
  • “When all else fails because of lack of substance, play the Race card!”

“Aren’t Americans smart enough to understand this process?”

Being smart enough is not the issue. The issue is finding facts on each issue and then initiating responses sufficient to overcome those offensive weapons engaged by Democrats.

Remember this: Democrats are almost always more and more united in their battles than are Republicans and other Conservatives. That by itself is often all that is necessary to determine who wins and who loses. But when their unity falls short, they have learned which ones and how to put the weapons necessary for victory on the line.

Unless Conservatives find ways to turn these weapons used by Democrats against Democrats, this war will continue in perpetuity. And conservative Americans will always be underdogs, no matter the truth of any conflict. Remember the underlying thread that permeates all of this process: It’s always “Symbolism over Substance.” And in that world, truth is irrelevant.

To Download Today’s (Monday, March 29, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

Saturday Bullet Points: March 27, 2021

Here you go! Catch up on the news of the week you may have missed. Try out “Bullet Points.” Click on the first bullet point and read the several sentences explaining the story. If you want more details, click on the blue arrow at the end. It will take you to a full story that contains ALL the details of the story you may have missed. If you don’t need full details, just click on the next Bullet Point.

Enjoy your Saturday and Sunday. We’ll see you Monday morning at 9 AM Central on “TNN Live!”

Bullet Points

  • Eighteen U.S. Senators on Thursday night went to the southern border of Texas to get firsthand information on what’s happening there. In a post-visit press meeting Friday afternoon, each of the eighteen spoke. Each went nuts on the President and his Administration for the deplorable conditions across the board for those illegals in those “detention centers” that are supposed to be well organized, plenty of room, great conditions. There’s no way to put honestly what’s happening there without saying it definitely is not just a crisis, but a Humanitarian crisis. Here’s a video report on the details there with FOX News. It’s nine minutes long but well worth the watch:
  • Uh-Oh: we got some BAD information from the White House. We thought President Biden put VP Kamala Harris in charge of immigration matters at the Southern Border. Nope. Kamala made it crystal clear: she ain’t touching the border horrors! She’s only responsible for “Diplomatic issues.” Yeah, like there’s diplomacy necessary for the Vice President to interact with the Coyotes, Drug Cartels, and human traffickers! For complete details, click on this link: 
  • The Mayor of Oakland, California has a novel idea that she’s about to roll out: giving poor families a guaranteed monthly amount to help them with their basic family needs. It seems to be a really good idea, “taking care of the poorest among us,” right? At second glance, however, the program excludes white families who are also poor. For complete details, click on this link:
  • The Mainstream Media made it perfectly clear for us all: Trump supporters that included White Supremacists, KKK, and Proud Boys stormed the nation’s Capitol on January 6. And their doing so shocked everyone, right? Not right. Social media platform Parler released information showing they gave information — specifics — more than 50 times to the FBI alerting that there would be violence on that day. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Everyone knows that the last segment of 2020 with President Donald Trump at the helm was certainly an economic disaster to the nation. After all, the populist President with his wild ideas to give power back to the American people and put more money in the pockets of Americans devastated us economically. Guess what: it wasn’t so! Even with COVID-19 and egregious lockdowns, our economy soared! For complete details, click on this link:
  • Friday on “TNN Live” we gave our listeners our analysis of that horrendous first press conference for President Biden. It was bad, really bad. We step back this weekend to let the national political “experts” and pundits give us their two-cents about the get-together. As one can expect, the leftist media outlets placed their grades for the President somewhere between an A and a B. None had much of anything negative to say. Today, we hear that one independent journalist a little different view. For complete details, click on this link:
  • It was refreshing to hear an actual “real” reporter write something about our government that was NOT based on political party affiliation. There are numerous things to which we can point that loudly proclaim a reporter’s political appetite and bias. But looking back at this past week, we thought we’d share with you one journalist’s personal experiences in swimming upstream through “political hackery.” To take a look at it all, click on this link:
  • We all know China and the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) are committed to overthrowing the United States to assume the title of the planet’s greatest nation. We have watched as the Chinese have infiltrated virtually every American institution from top to bottom. But what we DID NOT know is that they have an in-depth prepared and already-implemented plan to do just that. And, of course, it includes the infiltration of our election systems. For complete details, click on this link:
  • We’ve always been told that everything and everybody in Washington D.C. in our government is for sale. Regarding members of Congress, the alleged holdouts to being bought are few in number. One such Senator is known to be one of those lawmakers: independent, driven to vote on issues in the manner his constituents want, and to often cross party lines in doing so: W. Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. It probably comes as no surprise that President Biden offered Manchin’s wife a prestigious committee appointment in the Biden Administration. Hmmm…”Quid Pro Quo?” For complete details, click on this link:
  • Maybe it’s just because the Spring Break gang was shutout in 2020 by COVID-19, but the 2021 Spring Breakers have gone nuts in south Florida. Last weekend saw all types of violence and illegal activities across Miami. Beachgoers and Miami merchants and law enforcement folks are bracing themselves for a tumultuous weekend, preparing for the worst. For complete details, click on this link:
  • South Florida is not the only place that expects huge numbers of U.S. college students to show up for the annual Spring getaway. Cancun, Mexico, is the most popular place for most American college students to head IF they don’t go to Florida. And Mexicans tied to their tourist industry — especially in Cancun — are making a decision in their ramp-up to handle the influx of these young Americans. They’re choosing dollars-and-cents over their own health. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Dominion Voting Systems — the international company that was the epicenter of all those allegations of November election fraud — has picked another entity to file a lawsuit against. This time it’s FOX News, which Dominion states in a desperate effort to salvage its plummeting ratings manufactured stories about alleged Dominion voting fraud. And the case is a BIG one! For complete details, click on this link:
  • A shocking development happened on Friday. Former presidential candidate and current U.S. Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, received a prestigious national award. It shocking many. Why? The award was presented to Romney for his tremendous courage in bucking political partisanship and voting to convict former President Trump in his impeachment trial. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Have you wondered how the government plans to pay for all the “free money” it’s been passing out the past year or so? After all, the only money the federal government has to spend is the money they “take” from us: tax dollars. In the push by the far left to do away with fossil fuel, as the number of automobiles continues to decline, gas taxes at the pump at federal and state levels are certainly going to open a hole in the federal “piggy bank” — US! How to fill it? Why not tax Americans “by-the-mile” for their miles behind the wheels of their cars, whether fossil-fueled or electric? It’s in the works! For complete details, click on this link:
  • Are you looking for a new place with warm ocean breezes and sand to squish between your toes? The old destinations are facing either COVID-lockdowns are fewer tourists because of economic issues or fear of traveling during the pandemic. Here’s a novel idea: why not try Hawaii! Wait a minute: you’ve been to Hawaii a bunch of times or it’s too commercialized. If you believe that, you haven’t been to Lanai, Hawaii’s smallest island. It has two newly renovated Four Season resort hotels and only 3,000 residents to bother you! Of course, it offers the necessity for any island paradise: warm ocean breezes, gorgeous sandy beaches, and crystal Pacific water. For complete details, click on this link:

Tired of Fauci and “Fauci-isms?”

If any expert had told you a year ago that people who were fully vaccinated would still have to mask up and avoid human contact whenever possible, that would’ve been considered absolutely nuts.

But here we are, and the bureaucratic COVID tyranny rages on.

Dr. Fauci, our number one public health Stalinist, has shifted the goalposts yet again. The official guidance — from the same lab-coat tyrants at the NIAID and CDC who’ve helped bring you “stand here” footprints in elevators and “mask up between bites” guidance for restaurants — is that you must act like an unvaccinated person even after you’ve been vaccinated or recovered naturally from the disease.

This is neither rational nor acceptable. They say it’s for safety, but mostly it’s for control.

As always, Fauci and his fan club of lockdown enthusiasts claim this is about “the science.” But that’s just propaganda. We aren’t talking about the temperature at which water boils or the products of photosynthesis.

Fauci, the CDC, and their ilk are making enormously consequential policy decisions based on the excuse of objective scientific truth. What they are effectively arguing for is the right to determine — without any meaningful public debate — when it’s “safe” for people to start living their lives normally again.

Is it reasonable to expect people — who by the CDC’s own statistics have a better than 99% chance of surviving a COVID infection, and on top of that have received a 95% effective vaccination — to refrain from living their lives? Are they really supposed to avoid their relatives for another three months, maybe six: who knows, it could even be another year?

The officials and talking heads who push this madness rarely subject themselves to meaningful debates on any of it. There’s just a committee of advisors or experts who gather behind closed doors at public health agencies, and then their pronouncements are treated as gospel by the lockdowners and mask maniacs.

Elected officials (mostly Democrats) then enforce the dictates as though it’s out of their hands. It all feels very Soviet.

One notable exception to this unaccountable power grab came last week up on Capitol Hill. Dr. Fauci appeared before a congressional committee to discuss the issue of mask-wearing after vaccination. Some of his exchange with Sen. Rand Paul, who is also an M.D. and has been one of the few true critics of Fauciism, went directly to the absurdity of the “mask up after vaccination” claims:

Sen. Paul: Dr. Fauci, in a recent British study, David Wiley and others found that no symptomatic reinfections from COVID-19 after following 2,800 patients for several months. In fact, there’ve been no reports of significant numbers of reinfections after acquiring COVID-19 naturally.

Given that no scientific studies have shown significant numbers of reinfections of patients previously infected or previously vaccinated, what specific studies do you cite to argue that the public should be wearing masks well into 2022?

Dr. Fauci: I’m not sure I understand the connection of what you’re saying about masks and reinfection. We’re talking about people who have never been infected before.

Sen. Paul: You’re telling everybody to wear a mask, whether they’ve had an infection or a vaccine. What I’m saying is they have immunity and everybody agrees they have immunity. What studies do you have that people that have had the vaccine or have had the infection are spreading the infection? If we’re not spreading the infection, isn’t it just theater?

Dr. Fauci: No, it’s not.

Sen. Paul: If you’ve had a vaccine and you’re wearing two masks, isn’t that theater?

For anyone who’s keeping score, yes, it’s clearly theater. It’s unreasonable to expect people to live their lives in constant fear, frustration, and inconvenience because there’s a theoretical possibility that breathing air normally will spread a virus to someone even after the person breathing has been vaccinated against that possibility.

The people calling the shots on this are delusional. Recently, the CDC gave some crumbs from the table of our basic freedoms, including that you can visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without masks or physical distancing. Are we supposed to be grateful for this?

Does anyone in the CDC actually live in America, or do they just go from their bedrooms to their living rooms for appearances on MSNBC? Most normal Americans across the country have already been spending time with family indoors without masks for many months.

This is the result of mass hysteria, created in large part by the mass media. The Democratic party leveraged this to defeat Trump in 2020, and now they want to keep the madness going as long as they can to squeeze even more political benefit from this health policy autocracy.

As a country, we need to get back to some basic truths. Nothing is perfect, there’s no absolute safety. And if the government can take away any of your rights “for your own good,” then you don’t have any rights.


Don’t mistake this missive as an attack on the highest-paid U.S. federal employee. And it’s not to attack an eighty-year-old man. It just happens that Dr. Fauci is eighty. And I’m NOT attacking him or any other.

This is merely a statement highlighting the continual chaos all Americans are subjected to  — and have been daily for more than a year now thanks to Dr. Fauci. Is it not odd to you that Dr. Fauci has changed positions on each of his numerous edicts regarding COVID that he initially sworn to us was Biblical? And then he summarily — and sometimes jokingly — tells us later he gave that whopper when he did because it was “necessary” for him to do so at the time. The sad part is that no real explanation was necessary. The sheeple just quietly acquiesced.

Does that make sense to you? Let me get this straight: a mysterious and secret virus, that can destroy every human on Earth, strikes the U.S. The number one expert on the planet about all-things-virus was naturally the guy called on to save us all. And he trots out “fact” upon “fact” to educate us to the COVID-blight on humanity and to unilaterally lead us to the promised land of anti-COVID to preserve all mankind.

All these “Fauci-isms” are way too much. For this sexagenarian, (that’s a real word describing my age, not my virility or prowess) it’s long past time to drop the elitist know-it-all attitude as the savior of the COVID World. The clock is ticking and it never stops. Far too much of life is zooming by while we exist as little more than fearful statues frozen in place, waiting for his latest breath of salvation from the Devil-virus.

Dr. Fauci and the rest of the lockdown chorus have been a constant reminder of this, alongside their catastrophic policy failure to stop or contain the virus in the first place. Enough is enough, Fauci needs to go.

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

Truth of Abortion, Its Origin in Modern America, and Who Is Responsible

All across America, video of activists attacking statues plays on a loop while some political leaders voice their support for removing all reminders of people whose personal histories put them in a negative light. In asking for the U.S. Capitol to be cleansed of Confederate statues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said they must go because their efforts were “to achieve such a plainly racist end.” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said on NBC’s “Today” show that removing statues is a “healthy expression” of priorities and values.

For those identifying historical figures with racist roots who should be removed from public view because of their evil histories, Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, must join that list. In promoting birth control, she advanced a controversial “Negro Project,” wrote in her autobiography about speaking to a Ku Klux Klan group and advocated for a eugenics approach to breeding for “the gradual suppression, elimination, and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Sanger’s Planned Parenthood mission

In a 1939 letter to Dr. C. J. Gamble, Sanger urged him to get over his reluctance to hire “a full-time Negro physician” as the “colored Negroes…can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions, and doubt.”

Like the abortion lobby today, Sanger urged Dr. Gamble to enlist the help of spiritual leaders to justify their deadly work, writing, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

And that spirit of racism continues today, as more than 300 former and current employees of Planned Parenthood said recently in an open letter, noting a “toxic” environment.

“Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist, white woman. That is a part of history that cannot be changed,” they observed, writing that the pattern of “systemic racism, pay inequity, and lack of upward mobility for Black staff” continues.

Let’s take a deeper look into the “real” Margaret Sanger. It’s laughable how the Left deify her. When you get the facts, you’ll understand that abortion came from the pits of Hell. It’s about far more than a “Woman’s right to choose.”

The Mother of Abortion

In her works Woman and the New Race, Pivot of Civilization, and My Fight for Birth Control, Margaret Sanger offers a range of justifications for killing “unwanted children.” This is no surprise considering how she reacts when she witnesses an act of violence against an infant: “I saw a sickly baby in the arms of a terrified woman whose drunken husband had thrown the wailing, naked infant into the snow,” she recounts, and “I remember having keen sympathy with that man!” His wife had given birth to eleven children, six of them living, and the last “evidently had eczema” and “whined night and day,” so the situation was just “too much” for the father, and “out of the door into the snow the nuisance went!” The justification Sanger offers is purely subjective: “desperate for want of sleep and quiet,” the father’s “nerves overcame him.”

Infanticide is simply ridding oneself of an intolerable “nuisance.” This passage demonstrates Sanger’s pitiless view of nascent life and shows how fitting it is that she should be the founder of Planned Parenthood, today the chief purveyor of abortions in the United States. In another place, she remarks, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” She is remembered for her fight to legalize birth control, but a close reading of Sanger’s work shows that she saw birth control, abortion, and infanticide as differing only in degree, not in kind. They were points on the same continuum.

Sanger tells of a recurring nightmare of hers: she dreamed that “mechanical, automaton-like crowds were walking, walking, walking, always in the opposite direction” to her and crowding her to the curb, and then suddenly these people turned into “mice; they even smelt like mice.” The dream reveals her sense of superiority to the masses, who turn out to be vermin. When she sets up the Clinical Research Bureau in Brooklyn, she observes pointedly that she will be using people instead of mice: it will be “a nucleus for research, a laboratory, as it were, dealing with human beings instead of with white mice.”  She refers to the Chinese as breeding “with the rapidity and irresponsibility of flies” and compares most American women to cattle, asking if “any modern stockbreeder” would “permit the deterioration of his livestock” as Americans permit and even “encourage” the deterioration of their race by misguided charities.

In 1871, Darwin tried to show, in his Descent of Man, that humans did not differ fundamentally from beasts and that human morality had evolved from the social instincts of brutes. Between 1871 and 1930, a Darwinist worldview arose in Europe, according to which humans should be bred like animals for the sake of evolutionary progress, and “the destruction of the less well-endowed” be encouraged to “win space for the expansion” of superior stock. This was Margaret Sanger’s worldview; witness her frequent use of the word unfit for those she thought should be sterilized, aborted, or left to die.

In her campaign for birth control, Sanger spoke of “the evolution of birth control from infanticide, through abortion, to modern methods of scientific and harmless prevention.” But since birth control was supposed to replace infanticide and abortion in her scheme, it had to be foolproof. She tells us that women around 1920 were constantly asking her, regarding birth control, “Is it certain? Will it prevent absolutely?” “Yes,” she would answer, “there are sure methods, and the doubts raised about the certainty of contraceptives come from uninformed doctors and neighbors.”

Although the law, she added, forbade her to name the failsafe methods, she could say that they had “stood the test of certainty” in Holland, France, England, and even among the wealthy in the United States; witness their falling birthrates in the past quarter-century. After giving such unqualified assurances to women during the 1920s, Sanger flatly contradicts herself in My Fight for Birth Control in 1931. Now she admits that the “need for reliable methods has been far greater and more extended than the ability on the part of the medical profession or science to supply them” and that “biologists and biochemists are now at work perfecting the science of contraception.”  So birth control offers no absolute “certainty” after all. So what happens when contraceptives fail and women are faced–to use Sanger’s term–with “involuntary motherhood?” She explains that “nearly all” working-class women fall into two groups in such a crisis: the first group will “find refuge in abortion,” while the second will be “hopelessly” resigned. The better choice, she declares, is abortion, for those “in whom the feminine urge to freedom is strongest choose the abortionist,” while the others bring children to birth “hoping that they will be born dead or die.” Thus, according to Sanger, nearly all working-class women wish their unborn children dead, but only some of them act on that wish. She approves heartily of those who choose abortion because she says they follow an irresistible “urge” to guard their liberty: women are driven to defy “church and state,” she exclaims, by “the strongest force” in their nature, by an “absolute, elemental, inner urge” of the “feminine spirit.” The passionate eugenicist (Sanger) wished to rid America of its “idiots” and “imbeciles” and “morons” as part of her crowning vision for “race improvement.” The Planned Parenthood matron lamented America’s “race of degenerates.” The nation’s landscape needed to be purged of its “human weeds” and “the dead weight of human waste.” Sanger shared the view of humanity held by another Supreme Court progressive icon, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who declared that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Margaret Sanger maintained that “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” Progressives today dare not speak of Sanger’s May 1926 speech to a rally of the women’s branch of the KKK in Silverlake, New Jersey, or of her work on the “Negro Project,” or of her December 10, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, stating (in a statement disputed by liberals): “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
America, according to Planned Parenthood’s founder, must limit these lamentable populations, and she was willing to take big steps to make that happen, including a special kind of segregation. In her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger urged that “every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives.” But even then, this surely wasn’t enough: “Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem.” What to do then? Well, if a nudge wouldn’t work, then coercion would: “we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.” These “defective delinquents” were a “menace.” America needed to “become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race.” Funds should be made available, she counseled in 1922, “by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born.”

How grand it would be if Uncle Sam could fund the means to limit the reproduction of these unsavory populations. After Sanger’s death, her legacy lived on in Planned Parenthood.


No doubt Sanger’s legacy is NOT as it has been portrayed over the last 50 years. She never planned for abortion to be “about women’s health.” It was always to rid the world of unwanted babies. She exhaustively justified herself with the extermination of those unwanted babies. She was not just an abortionist — she came from a family who believed in “eugenics selective extermination.”

It’s a far stretch to get “Margaret Sanger was probably the World’s greatest proponent for the health of all women” from the above truths. No matter which side of abortion you live on, no one — even those on the Left — should normalize or glorify Sanger’s version of “women’s healthcare.” Hers’ was more about removing an unnecessary “interruption” in many women’s lives: babies.

It’s beyond comprehension that African Americans were chief among her targets for her mostly fatal treatments! And, yet, Planned Parenthood’s actions of placing their abortion mills either directly inside or in close proximity to African American communities. Why? That’s abortionists’ target audience. It always has been.

There’s one thing additionally we now know about Margaret Sanger: she KNEW those abortions killed BABIES!

And still the Left worship at the altar of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, and at-will abortion. And still, they all claim that everything Planned Parenthood does is promote women’s health in minority communities.

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

Another Mass Shooting – The Same Tired Rush to Ban Guns

Another mass shooting — this time in a grocery store in Colorado. Besides the horror of ten people being shot and dying at the hands of a lone gunman, the thought of a legally purchased gun was the weapon used is frightening and sad. And that weapon was lawfully purchased by the shooter just days in advance of his killing spree.

It took NO time for the anti-gun crew to ramp up their rhetoric as always. A gun killing of any type is fodder for their purposes. And they are as always rewarded for their cries as Democrats in Congress rekindle the fires of screaming for every type of gun control one can imagine. But there are many “facts” that must be remembered and seriously pondered before rushing to more gun laws. After all, nationwide, there are several hundred gun laws of every imaginable type already enacted — and far too seldom enforced.

The latest ideas are two-fold, tired and old: universal background checks for those who wish to purchase guns, and then Joe Biden’s old standby, the ban of “assault weapons.” There are several disqualifying “facts” that dispel either as a viable option. Let’s look into those.

People should also be aware that most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders. There are twice as many suicides in the U.S. by guns as there are homicides, and I think most people find that very surprising. Over and over again, one reads that 30,000 people have been killed with guns, but what’s not said is that 20,000 of them took their own lives.

But perhaps the most common misperception of all is that there is no simple, effective policy to reduce gun crime that is just there for the asking as long as we have the political will to do it. That solution doesn’t exist. It’s tough to find an implementable and enforceable initiative that would make any impact on gun crime.

Would An Assault Weapon Ban Fix the Problem?

Many people want to ban so-called assault weapons because they believe these firearms are uniquely dangerous or the same as machine guns. They are not. Assault weapons — at least the ones available to civilians — are like all semi-automatics and fire one bullet with one pull of the trigger. What makes an assault weapon different than a regular rifle are the cosmetic “military-like” features, such as a bayonet mount or pistol grip and so forth, none of which have functional significance. Assault weapons are not more powerful, they do not shoot more bullets, and they do not shoot faster. We would not be a safer society if we could eliminate all of the assault weapons because people could substitute non-assault weapons that are the same.

Why Wouldn’t U.K. Style Gun Control Fix our Problems?

The U.K. has gone the farthest in restricting the private ownership of guns. Shotguns and rifles are only permitted to those who can pass through an arduous police-administered licensing process, and after the 1996 massacre in Dunblane, Scotland, ownership of handguns was prohibited. But the U.K.’s policy could not work in the U.S. because we have a Constitution, we have a Second Amendment, and we have a Supreme Court decision that guarantees the right of Americans to keep and bear arms in their home for lawful purposes. So we cannot have a prohibition of private ownership of firearms.

Australia had a gun buyback program and prohibited new purchases of many types of firearms. It has failed dramatically. We have tried gun buybacks in the United States and they have been unsuccessful. People do not wish to sell their guns to the government, and those who do almost invariably sell old firearms so they can get the money and buy new guns.

Would Background Checks For Private Gun Sales Fix It?

I think that requiring background checks for all gun sales, period, would be a good idea in principle. The problem is implementing and enforcing such a system. There’s no universal registry of firearms, so if the police were to arrest somebody and try to prosecute whoever sold them their gun without the required check, there’s no way to verify who the seller was or when the sale took place. To have an effective system of regulating private sales, you would need a registry, and the idea of a registry is a panic symbol to the gun-owning community because they see a registration system as a precursor to a general confiscation — which it was in the U.K. and has been in other countries as well.

But even if we could politically will a gun registry into existence, it’s unlikely that it would work. In the few states where we have a requirement that assault weapons be registered, no more than 10% of the owners of assault weapons have generally gone through the registration process, meaning at least 90% of the people don’t register. Other countries have also had a difficult time making registration work. The Canadians have registered handguns since the 1930s. In 1993, the liberal government initiated shotgun and lengthy gun registration. The program attracted a great deal of criticism, substantial cost overruns, and resistance from firearms owners, and in 2012, the Conservative government scrapped the plan and destroyed the registry. That might give people pause for thought about the feasibility of a registration program.

Another problem with background checks is surveys of inmates show overwhelmingly that criminals obtain guns on the black market or the grey market. Almost no prison inmates say they went to a licensed dealer and filled out forms. And why would they? Even the lowest estimates show 30% of U.S. households own at least one firearm, making it very easy for someone banned from purchasing a gun to obtain one from a friend, family member, or fellow criminal who already has one.

Do We Tackle the Mental Illness Problem?

It seems sensible to practically everybody that people who are extremely mentally ill are not reliable enough to be gun owners, but building a policy around that is more complicated than one might think. The federal law says that a person who has ever been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or who has been found by a court to be mentally defective is prevented from buying a firearm, but that would disqualify a minimal number of people.

If we wanted to move beyond this, we’d have to expand the definition of who is mentally ill — no easy task — and even if we did, the government has had a difficult time getting mental illness data on individuals because many in the mental health treatment community strongly oppose these types of controls. They believe mental disqualifications are stigmatizing, that they would deter people from seeking treatment, and that they are detrimental to the therapeutic relationship. As a result, there’s been strong opposition from these groups when more aggressive laws on guns and mental illness are proposed.


Here’s the conundrum that all of America is facing: the hard Left is set on abolishing the Second Amendment. Their passion is NOT only to rid the nation of guns, but, in doing so, seize “control.”

Guns stand in the way of total dominance over the American people. Their only purpose for doing so is for unfettered power OVER guns which, in their minds, will allow their complete control of the People. Every part of their governing is about seizing and maintaining ultimate power over us all. Why do you think our forefathers, with forethought, clearly stated the People retain the right to own and bear arms?

Have you ever wondered why, immediately following any gun killing, the Left always default to banning assault weapons? Assault weapons don’t kill people. Knives don’t kill people. Tire irons nor machetes kill people. People kill people!

The alleged murderer in Colorado, as it turns out, has a sordid past full of anger, lashing out at others, he is prone to violence, and is a Donald Trump hater. The commonality with killers he had? Hatred — hatred killed those people.

Not one of the conventional gun control “weapons” of the Left would have stopped him. Colorado is one of the few states that use the most invasive gun background checks: universal background checks. He legally purchased that rifle six days ago.

There is ONE thing that could have easily stopped this killing: “If you see something, say something.” Why did authorities hear stories of anger, his attacks on others, his violence perpetrated against others, and the hatred for politicians in power whose policies with which he vehemently disagreed only AFTER a mass shooting?!?!

Think about it: there will be no gun confiscation in the U.S. There too reportedly are more guns legally owned in this country than there are people in this country. Seizing them all would be impossible. Trying to seize them all would initiate Civil War Part II. And criminals, on the most part, use stolen guns anyway! If officials successfully rid the nation of all legally owned guns, the criminals would STILL have their guns and would massacre far more than we see killed today.

Where should we start? Start here: “If you see something, say something.”

Will that stop it all? I doubt it. But it certainly will open the eyes of several hundred million of us who would then feel an obligation to speak up instead of remaining silent. It would be a start and would create a culture among us that would keep most Americans wary of our surroundings, more cautious, but, more importantly, more responsible. 

Enforce the laws we have — all 600 hundred of them. TEACH Americans using, professionals nationwide, to educate the populace on the telltale signs of pending violence within those around us.

Knowledge, understanding, acceptance of each other with attention to detail are the ONLY tools necessary to identify the vast majority of potential mass murderers who live among us.

Some will cry that a process like this will only further erode our freedoms. Folks, your freedoms stops at my body. You have NO right to hurt me in any way. Protecting oneself and family in no way inerprets to mass murder.

Fundamentally, as humans and as Americans, we owe it to ourselves and others to make our decisions about this based on facts, not emotions; in large part find ways to push through differences and find commonalities; work together as a nation instead of working against each other as individuals, and find answers with solutions.

Government is NOT our solution. In this, they’ve tried, and their only solution is to ban guns. Aren’t you tired of that? It has not been effective anywhere else on Earth.

“Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results” is the actual definition of insanity.”

Then why keep doing it?

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

Rep. Mike Johnson (R- LA) Joined “TNN Live” Yesterday re: “The Biden Southern Border Crisis”

Congressman Mike Johnson is not only a rising star in the U.S. Republican Party, but he has also made himself a stalwart in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a Constitutional expert, he has a different perspective than do many of us who sometimes make rash decisions about matters that directly and indirectly impact us.

There’s no question that the debacle playing out at our Southern Borders has impacted all Americans already. But we have no real idea of where this is all headed. It’s already steeped in egregious wrongdoings that unimaginable at this point in our nation’s history. It’s bad — really bad. How bad is it?

We turn to Congressman Johnson who joined us live yesterday morning to give us firsthand facts about what’s happening on the border. This audio segment is nine minutes long.


Click on the hyperlink to listen to Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) breakdown the “Biden Southern Border Crisis:”    Mike Johnson 3:22:2021 Southern Border

Rule of Law Should NOT Be Subject to a Political Party or the Media

2021 news has unabashedly morphed into “THE” propaganda department of the Democrat Party. There is NO legitimate debate of that fact anymore.

When many like us here at TruthNewsNetwork first pronounced that fact way back in 2014, we were laughed at incessantly. “You’re conspiracy theorists, alarmists, and rubes for the Republican Party!” We heard that and much more from “the other side.” I’d be laughing and screaming how right we were if it made any difference. In this case, as would millions of other Americans, I would be much happier knowing the American journalists were that and nothing more. Journalists are professional news reporters who report the facts — period. These so-called journalists are anything but news reporters. The Leftstream Media pundits who we refer to have allowed themselves to believe their own drivel and have become little more than self-appointed Democrat Party sycophants set on destroying every individual and news organization that formally disagrees with their line of spin. They refuse to accept the responsibilities that come with wearing the title “Journalist.” They like the sound of the name; they abhor what its definition is.

Now, these 2021 Media find themselves being targeted by a federal judge. Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Court of Appeals shocked many in the world of News in an opinion written and released last week. A synopsis of his blistering negative notes about this media are included in a story below.

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist and FOX News Contributor wrote a short piece illustrating this fact better than any other I’ve seen or heard. We defer to her on this one:

The control of major media by one political party is a dangerous threat to the country, a federal judge warned in a blistering dissent that called for courts to revisit libel laws that generally protect the press from being held liable for their reporting.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news,” wrote Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit for the Court of Appeals. “It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy.”

Silberman argued that it’s time for courts to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, which has shaped press law in favor of media outlets for more than five decades. The New York Times and the Washington Post “are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction,” Judge Silberman wrote in his March 19 dissent. He said that orientation also controls the Associated Press and most large papers in the country, including the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe. “Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet,” Judge Silberman added. Silicon Valley also has “enormous influence” over the distribution of news and it “similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party,” wrote Judge Silberman, highlighting the shocking suppression of stories about Joe Biden and his family when he was running for president.

In that case, Twitter and Facebook censored media outlets that reported accurately about the Biden family’s dealing with foreign entities. Twitter suspended users, including sitting White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, for merely sharing accurate information, and prevented people from sharing the information privately on its platform. Facebook said it would censor coverage of the Biden family corruption pending a “fact-check,” an unprecedented privilege given to Biden in the closing days of one of the closest presidential elections in history.

Only a few major media outlets are not controlled by the left, Silberman noted, citing Fox News, where this reporter is a contributor, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal. “It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News,” he wrote. CNN hosts and other leftist activists are currently on a campaign to deplatform their rival.

“Admittedly, a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left,” Silberman wrote in a footnote, in a dig at reporters inserting their extreme partisan views into news stories.

A New York Supreme Court judge last week ruled against The New York Times’ effort to get a defamation suit against it dismissed. The Times had said that its reporters were inserting opinion into news stories and that opinions are not actionable for defamation. The argument didn’t hold sway with the judge, who critiqued the blending of news and opinion in purported news stories. Another footnote critiqued the tepid response of some to “big tech’s behavior” censoring conservative speech. Silberman called repression of political speech in large institutions with market power “fundamentally un-American.”

“Some emphasize these companies are private and therefore not subject to the First Amendment. Yet—even if correct— it is not an adequate excuse for big tech’s bias. The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefore is—I say this advisedly—fundamentally un-American,” Silberman wrote.

He then cited Tim Groseclose’s book, “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” which empirically argued that media bias even a decade ago gave Democrat candidates an 8-10 point advantage. “And now, a decade after this book’s publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral news services,” Silberman noted.

“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power,” Silberman concluded.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor.

She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court


We, American plain old citizens, do little other than work in the trenches, trying to keep our businesses (if we own one), our families, and ourselves afloat while dodging COVID-19, Black Lives Matter, White Supremacists, the KKK, Antifa, and Capitol Hill rioters. Sometimes that’s a really tall list of responsibilities! Most have very little time to expend the effort necessary to digest and analyze the blather we see and hear daily in newspapers, television, radio, and internet “noise.” These sycophants 24/7 indoctrinate readers, viewers, and listeners with the various Leftist blather of the day. Keeping up with it all is exhausting!

So what do we “Joe” Americans do about our news? We choose one that we like and that most appeals to our senses about honesty and truthfulness in the news, and that’s the source of 90% of what we learn about our country and its daily social, political, and cultural happenings.

That’s pretty scary!

Before any who number among the group of Americans who really pay attention and keep up with the facts blasts their fellow Americans, think of this: This Lamestream media environment is NOT just an accidental occurrence with little backing, little or no preparations, no guidance from a group of so-called “Leaders,” and without a plan. There IS a plan. What is it?

I can only surmise — which I will NOT do. “Why not tell us, Dan?” Doing so would only give you one opinion on the matter. And that’s not sufficient.

Yes, getting the truth is of the utmost importance — not just for you but also for everyone who breathes air within your circle of influence. This literally is life-and-death for us all. Why? How we receive and digest the news in our world determines which decisions we make, when we make them, and based on which “facts” as WE determine are THE ones to use in doing so.

That’s a tall order!

How do we do that? You start right where you are. Then you “engage” — in everything around you that impacts your world.

There’s no need for me to elaborate further. You know what they are. And you are already doing it, often based on anything BUT facts. The scary thing is that your doing so with no forethought, investigation, or fact-finding could be creating the destruction of your future and that of all those who look to you for guidance. Obviously, getting your arms around it all is supremely important.

From there, I have just one suggestion: Stay engaged. Treat this process as you should be treating your personal relationships with those you love. Listen, watch, learn, sometimes remain silent while other times blowing your head off in talking to others. When it’s time to make decisions after adopting and living in this process, you may make a wrong turn or two. But it is doubtful there’ll be any car wrecks. Why?  Because you’ll be making decisions based on facts that YOU have verified are just that: FACTS.

It won’t be easy. But it’s necessary for us all.

Whatever you do going forward, stop struggling to become WOKE!

To Download Today’s (Tuesday, March 22, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

Gun Control or Gun Deletion

The insanity of the House passing those two ridiculous unconstitutional gun control bills will NEVER fly: even if the Senate passes them and Biden signs them into law. How so? We have this little obstacle for such called the “Second Amendment” of the Constitution. So why was Pelosi dead set on passing those two bills? One reason only: to appease the gun control advocates.

The law would certainly be embroiled in Constitutional litigation. And, certainly, the first clause of a lawsuit to push for overturn of such a law would be a temporary injunction to prevent the law’s enforcement.

Why then would the House push so hard to get them both passed? “Pay-back.” Think about how much money Democrats have raised in campaign funds from far-left supporters: tens of millions of dollars. Also, Pelosi when hitting a roadblock, either in the Senate OR constitutional lawsuit will be able to say to those campaign resource holders, “We tried. But those Republicans are clinging to their guns. There’s nothing we can do.”

And the anti-gun campaign dollars continue to flow into Democrat campaigns.

Gun are NOT bad. People who own guns are certainly NOT bad. Using guns for murders IS bad. What IS bad is that politicians at federal, state, and local levels refuse to enforce the gun laws we have today.

Don’t think that ATF and FBI agents could not track down a million or two of the illegal guns in the U.S. I know, that’d be a tall order. Remember: these are the guys that can find a bag of weed, the user, the dealer, and even the transporter of that bag into the country. They are able to enforce the laws they choose to enforce.

They’ll never get every gun lawbreaker. Put that in the context of overall lawbreakers and it makes more sense. We all know they’ll NEVER catch all lawbreakers of any kind. But what they accomplish when finding any number of these criminals is two-fold: they stop the lawbreakers from breaking any other laws, and they also send messages to the criminal community that these criminals are untouchable and will be hunted and arrested. It’s a deterrent to new crimes.

Politicians and gun confiscation advocates rather pursue new laws that they know will never work. But the campaign dollars continue to come in regardless. Remember our motto about answers to all “Why’s?” Follow The Money!

The Gun-Grab Processes

Watching the recent emotional speeches and marches supporting gun control, I can’t shake a question that nags me: Would we be safer with fewer guns? Gun control advocates have an intuitive argument. Guns are an efficient way to commit murder. If we reduce the number of guns in society, we axiomatically will reduce murders.

Reducing gun violence is a desirable goal, particularly when one sees shooters mowing down children. After I thought about it, I realized the question of whether reducing guns in a society will lead to fewer murders is a testable hypothesis. You can measure gun ownership and murder rates. No two countries have the same gun laws or the same murder rates. So I jumped on Wikipedia to answer a question: Do countries with higher murder rates have more guns, and vice versa?

This question can be evaluated in a ratio: the number of legally owned guns per 100,000 versus the number of murders per 100,000. According to the theory, the ratio should be relatively stable. So countries with fewer guns will have fewer murders (a small number divided by a small number) and a country with more guns should have more murders (a big number divided by a big number).

I took the countries with the 100 highest murder rates. I added to the sample countries that compare to the United States culturally such as European countries, Australia, and Japan, etc. I deleted countries for which I could find no gun ownership statistics or countries that were small or obscure. My profile looked at 98 countries or a pretty solid slice of all the countries in the world. America is by far the country that owns the most guns per 100,000. In America, there are actually more guns than people. Our murder rate is much higher than that of our European counterparts. So far, the gun control hypothesis seems to be holding up.

But guns in America are very unlikely to be involved in murders. Our ratio of guns to murders is 20,696 guns privately and legally owned for every murder. Not every murder involves a gun. But the gun-control hypothesis suggests guns still make murder easier and more common.

The murder capital of the world is El Salvador. El Salvador has done a relatively good job rounding up legal guns. There are only 5,800 guns per 100,000 residents (compared to over 101,000 in America), yet El Salvador’s ratio of guns to murders is a staggering 53. Every year, there’s a murder for every 53rd gun in El Salvador.

The countries that have been most successful at limiting private, legal gun ownership are 1. Ethiopia, 2. Eritrea, 3. Haiti, 4. North Korea, and 5. Rwanda. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Haiti all have higher murder rates than that of the United States. North Korea and Rwanda have slightly lower murder rates (4.4 and 4.5 per 100,000 respectively versus the United States at 4.88).

Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are:

  1. The United States at 20,967
  2. Uruguay at 3,777
  3. Norway at 55,893
  4. France at 19,747
  5. Austria at 59,608
  6. Germany at 35,647
  7. Switzerland at 35,435
  8. New Zealand at 24,835
  9. Greece at 26,471

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

  1. El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
  2. Honduras (63.75/6200)
  3. Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
  4. Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
  5. Lesotho (38/2,700)
  6. Belize (34.4/10,000)
  7. South Africa (34.27/12,700
  8. Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
  9. Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
  10. Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data, the conclusion is inescapable: high concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude exactly the opposite: higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

The data also exposes some myths I have heard about gun control. For example, I’ve heard activists tout Australia, which supposedly banned all guns. Australia has advanced a number of gun control measures over the years. Nevertheless, according to the data, Australia has a rate of private ownership of guns of 13,100 per 100,000 and a murder rate of .98. Australia has almost twice as many guns per capita as the United Kingdom, for example, and a comparable murder rate. New Zealand has almost twice as many guns per capita as Australia but a lower crime rate.

Countries with both a low rate of private gun ownership and a low murder rate exist, but they are clearly data outliers. These include the Netherlands (3,900 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .61), the United Kingdom (6,200 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .92), Japan, and Portugal. Places like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany overwhelm those examples because they all have high rates of gun ownership and enviable crime rates.

An owner of a private legal gun in America measures as one of the most responsible in the world.


This isn’t a perfect study. I didn’t make the effort to include every country in the world, and I did skip many Asian countries. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering why so many countries that have relatively successful programs of limiting private lawful ownership of guns are so dangerous and why countries with such high rates of private gun ownership are relatively safe. Even in a place like the United Kingdom, where the gun control seems to be effective (with a low murder rate of .92 per 100,000), it’s arguable that the UK’s peer countries such as Germany and Austria have had more success controlling crime in spite of allowing greater freedom of gun ownership.

The ratio of murders per gun works as a decent measure for how responsible a country’s citizens are with their firearms. Measured in this light, an owner of a private legal gun in America measures as one of the most responsible in the world. A gun in America is 387 times less likely to be used in murder than in El Salvador. Even in Japan, which has one of the lowest murder and gun ownership rates in the world, there are ten times as many murders per gun as in America.

Before the U.S. government makes any measures actions regarding gun ownership illegal, it should be demonstrated that gun restrictions will have the desired effect. The perverse effect of increasing murder rates by reducing private gun ownership has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Places like Chicago, Washington D.C., and New York City have repeatedly experienced unintended consequences of aggressive gun control laws. They simply do not work.

When marchers scream to ban guns, they’re pushing to make America more like El Salvador (1 murder for every 52 guns), Ethiopia (1 per 53), Honduras (1 per 88). All of these countries have succeeded in limiting gun ownership even if they can’t keep their citizens safe. The numbers are clear: murders are less common when the victim might be armed.

It’s no surprise that most mass shootings happen in one particular area: those which are “no-gun” zones. Think about it: those who plan those shootings know they’ll be the only ones with zones so THEY won’t be killed!

Do you think these bills/laws proposed have to do with stopping murders? Just as in every other country on Earth that has banned guns, murders don’t stop. Why? Criminals will always have guns. What happens is the People, those law-abiding, constitutionally committed taxpayers, in large part believe in the Rule of Law, and don’t carry guns. It doesn’t keep people safe. It never has kept people safe.

By the way: doing so is un-Constitutional!

To Listen to or download today’s (Monday, March 22, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link: