Saturday Bullet Points: July 31, 2021

This past week was truly a week of chaos. In every segment of our government, in every segment of our economy, in all our social, educational, and medical institutions, chaos erupts almost daily to never-before-seen levels. Oh, by the way: what about lawlessness in our major cities and at our Southern border? Confusion and purposeful chaos are everywhere!

Regarding the latest “misinformation” from the Biden Administration’s “experts,” it fed us more of the same: “Shut up, sit down, and listen to and do what we say!” Dr. Richard Fleming joined us Friday on “TNN Live!” and opened an encyclopedia of “facts” for us all. It was amazing to hear the explanation for all the information daily shoved in our faces by the Left in government and their media lapdogs! Dr. Fleming “dumbed it down” for all of us who don’t understand what we see and hear. Because we DON’T get it, we’re tempted to turn to fear and anger, which never accomplishes solutions.

If you’d like to listen to Dr. Fleming and the entire “TNN Live!” show from Friday, you can get that show, and ALL “TNN Live!” shows at Apple Podcasts and Spotify Podcasts. Open which one of those two and enter “TNN Live!” in the search bar. The homepage of the show pops up with a catalog of all our shows. Friday’s is on top. Dr. Fleming joined us the second hour, so if you want to hear only his segment, fast forward about halfway, and you’re there.

Now, if you want to get “The Rest of the Story” of the week, dive into our “Saturday Bullet Points.” We grab the biggest and most important stories of the week and give you (in each Bullet Point) a few sentences describing the story contents. If you want more details, click on the blue arrow at the end of the point and immediately see a full story.

Thanks for being part of the “TNN Live!” weekend and our “Saturday Bullet Points!” Have a great weekend.

Bullet Points

  • We knew we were headed down THIS path: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Democrats need to pass legislation without any cooperation with Republicans! It was just a matter of time before this was going to happen. And with her skinniest of skinny majorities in the House of Representatives, and it looks certain the GOP will regain a majority in the 2022 elections, Pelosi is going straight to the totalitarian utopian dream of all Democrats: One Party Rule! For complete details, click on this link: 
  • The college sports world was expecting some sweeping changes. The one announced Friday takes the breath away from many coaches and administration members in both the Big 12 and Southeastern Conference universities. It’s confirmed: Oklahoma and Texas are leaving the Big 12 Conference to join the SEC! When is this big event taking place? For complete details, click on this link:
  • It was inevitable that Democrats had one major goal in this administration that involved the former President: get Donald Trump so discredited that NO ONE in the U.S. would ever consider voting for him for anything ever again! Both attempts to remove him from office through the impeachment process failed because there was no evidence to prove impeachable offenses. But now, Dems have ramped up their demands to see his tax returns! And the Department of Justice stated that tax officials MUST turn over Trump’s tax returns to Congress! (Let’s see what the federal courts have to say about that) For complete details, click on this link: 
  • We all hang on to every word uttered by “experts” when they speak about anything to do with COVID-19. The “new” COVID-19 topic is the “variants.” These versions of the virus are MUCH more dangerous than the original. The deadliest of the lot has NOT shown in the U.S. yet. But if it shows, WHEN it shows: “Look Out!” The “Lamda” variant is devastating the nation of Peru. How bad is it? For complete details, click on this link:
  • By now, all know that the FBI has arrested hundreds of those Jan. 6 protestors. We’ve heard from numerous sources that several hundred of those arrested have been jailed without any formal charges, are being held in solitary confinement, not allowed to speak to their attorneys or family members, and legitimate sources reveal that some of those being held have been beaten! To make matters worse, several GOP lawmakers have attempted (more than once) to gain entrance to the federal facility where those people are being held. But authorities at that location are refusing to allow those lawmakers access. This is a growing Biden Administration debacle that reeks of totalitarian police tactics. For complete details, click on this link:
  • President Biden’s tiptoeing around mandatory vaccinations has many Americans fearful of what might happen if those jabs become mandatory. Many others are skeptical of that as a possibility. Still, others are up in arms for even a hint of even a possibility the U.S. government would even consider such Marxist tactics to use against its own citizens. But, guess what? The U.S. Military is beginning discussions about making vaccinations mandatory in all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces! Can that actually happen? How would such an edict be enforced? What would result for those who refuse a vaccination? For complete details, click on this link: 
  • When you think the United States government can go no further down the road of chaos and ignoring federal laws, the “Biden Crew” throws us ANOTHER curveball. We all know that crossing the U.S. border without a formal invitation is a criminal act. There are voluminous immigration laws that make such acts clearly illegal and penalties for all those who cross, are captured, and are detained for prosecution. For those who claim asylum as their reason for coming, the law dictates they are held in Border Patrol custody until they receive a date to appear before a judge to determine the validity of their claim. They MUST report to the court at the appointed time for the determination of their asylum status. Democrats in this administration HATE that process. They have long been trying to find ways around it. Now, they have it! Pres. Through pending executive order, Biden has determined individuals in his administration assigned to our southern border have the authority to determine each asylum claim outcome WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL ALIEN APPEARING IN COURT! For complete details, click on this link: 
  • In acts of true patriotism, a group of US Border Patrol agents from elsewhere in the nation have volunteered to go to the southern border to assist fellow agents with processing illegals crossing into the U.S. At least three of those agents from the Canadian border went to the Del Rio Sector in Texas to assist. Three of those agents have contracted COVID-19, and it is expected that more have been exposed to the virus while assisting agents who are overwhelmed by the numbers of illegals. Most Americans are taken aback to learn that the Biden Administration doesn’t test illegals apprehended for the virus! More COVID-positive diagnoses are certainly probable. For complete details, click on this link:
  • Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was once on Joe Biden’s shortlist for potential vice president running mate to join him on the 2020 Democrat presidential ticket. Kamala Harris bumped Whitmer out of the spot. But the governor has implemented numerous measures during COVID lockdowns that have ravaged her state. She’s even been chided by federal judges for her actions against Michigan citizens, resulting in horrible economic and social issues in her state. She’s running for re-election, to no one’s surprise. But one thing that surprised many citizens of the state is that Whitmer has been caught cheating in her campaign for a second term as governor. For complete details, click on this link: 
  • With the furor across the nation about rumored COVID-19 vaccination mandates filling the news airwaves, in surprising actions, multiple labor union officials have made it very clear to the Biden Administration that vaccination mandates and/or lockdowns are NOT the job of the U.S. Government. The latest of those unions spoke out on Friday, making it clear they will fight the Administration should the “Biden Crew” choose to try such a tactic. Which union is up in arms? For complete details, click on this link: 
  • One thing that Jim Carrey’s character in “Mask” said that President Biden apparently could NOT say is, “They love me…they REALLY love me!” A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday shows that the American people are not so hot about the President. In fact, his approval numbers have dropped to their lowest levels since Inauguration Day and don’t appear to be going anywhere but down even more! For complete details, click on this link:  
  • I’m certain you have heard that the CDC has determined to discontinue using the current PCR test used for COVID-19. You know, that’s the one the CDC has not only touted but demanded is the “only” way to determine if/when a person has contracted the virus. Well, guess what? Even though the CDC has daily reported confirmed cases of COVID-19 from across the nation and the world based on those PCR test results, they have determined the test gives results that are unacceptable and often give false-positive results! In other words, the data from the PCR test results have been, in large part, WRONG! It’s so bad elsewhere that in the U.K., more than half of the patients checked into U.K. hospitals tested positive for COVID-19, but only after they were admitted to the hospital! For complete details, click on this link:  

Fauci’s “Outta Here!”

Going, Going, Gone: But Not Soon Enough!

The full story of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic starts long before the virus hit America’s shores and involves Fauci’s role in overseeing coronavirus research grants going to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci, America’s highest-paid career bureaucrat, has directed the health agency that approved hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal funding for experiments on bat coronaviruses that occurred at the Wuhan Institute for over half a decade. This funding has continued despite members of Fauci’s own office receiving information in 2016 that the Wuhan Institute did not even know how to disinfect their own laboratory equipment properly. As new emails show, Fauci had direct knowledge as early as 2017 of the bat coronavirus experiments conducted at the Wuhan lab.

July 15, 2016

According to newly released Fauci emails from Judicial Watch, on July 15, 2016, Wuhan Institute of Virology Vice Director Yuan Zhiming asked members of Fauci’s office for help figuring out which kind of disinfectant to use for their laboratory. The Wuhan Institute did not know what disinfectants to use to clean their protective clothes, to clean the surface of the lab’s doors, or to disinfect “infectious materials indoor.

A member of Fauci’s staff emailed back:

In March 2020, a member of Fauci’s staff recalled this incident and brought it up with colleagues in Fauci’s office so they could discuss how best to “navigate politics.”

October 1, 2017

Emails recently released by Judicial Watch reveal that in 2017, more than two years before the pandemic, Fauci knew his health agency was funding research at the Wuhan Institute geared towards enabling bat coronaviruses to infect human cells. The emails confirm that Fauci and coronavirus researcher Peter Daszak have a personal relationship dating back to as early as 2017. The emails provide clear evidence Fauci knew that experiments were being conducted with the Wuhan Institute’s Dr. Shi to determine if “a novel bat origin coronavirus” could “infect human cells in the lab” and that Fauci’s own office was paying for them. On October 1, 2017, Daszak emailed Fauci:

The original version of the paper Daszak sent to Fauci is redacted, but there are these unredacted images:

Daszak’s study got Fauci’s attention. On October 1, 2017, Fauci forwarded Daszak’s paper to another colleague:

December 9, 2019

Peter Daszak is listed as the “Principal Investigator” on the grant from Fauci’s agency to the Wuhan Institute. Dazak’s EcoHealth Alliance has received $3.7 million for bat coronavirus experiments and given over half a million of that funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct testing and lab analysis of bat samples, federal records show.

Daszak has publicly boasted about conducting gain of function research on bat coronaviruses. On December 9, 2019, days before COVID-19 overtook Wuhan, Daszak said about coronaviruses: “You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily.” He noted that some coronaviruses could “get into human cells in the lab[.].”

Given this historical background and Fauci’s extensive knowledge of the NIH grant funding his office had authorized for the Wuhan Institute, Fauci’s conduct over the seven days from January 23, 2020, to February 1, 2020, when COVID-19 began spreading across America, warrants further scrutiny.

January 23, 2020

On the first full day, China quarantined the city of Wuhan. Newly released emails from Judicial Watch show Fauci immediately wanted to know about NIH funding to the Wuhan lab. One of Fauci’s colleagues wrote:

Another one of Fauci’s colleagues wrote back:

January 27, 2020

On January 27, 2020, Daszak emailed Fauci’s staff and told them to “pass on to Tony” the information that “the Wuhan Institute” is “currently working on the nCoV,” or a novel coronavirus, and that they had previously “[f]ound SARS-related CoVs that can bind to human cells[.].”

January 31, 2020

On January 31, 2020, President Trump issued a travel ban on China, a move Fauci acknowledged helped save lives. That day, Fauci got an email from an NIH-sponsored scientist Kristian Andersen telling him the virus looked potentially “engineered” and was “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

Almost immediately after learning the virus could be “engineered,” Fauci wanted to know more about NIH’s involvement in gain of function experiments on coronaviruses conducted by Dr. Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the infamous Chinese “batwoman.” Fauci emailed his deputy, Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, and attached a 2015 study by Dr. Shi labeled “SARS Gain of function.”

Auchincloss responded:

At that moment, Fauci knew NIH had not only approved funding for the Wuhan Institute but that his office had directly provided funding to Dr. Shi to conduct dangerous gain of function experiments on bat coronaviruses. Ultimately, as recently released emails show, NIH was planning on providing the Wuhan Institute with a total of $1.5 million in funding to continue its dangerous coronavirus experiments. Fauci directly oversaw $826,277 in funding sent to the Wuhan Institute over a 6-year period starting in 2014.

Moreover, NIH funding to the Wuhan lab persisted under Fauci’s direct purview despite the following obvious safety issues and scandals:

  • In 2015, French intelligence warned the State Department that “China was cutting back on agreed collaboration at the lab.”
  • On July 15, 2016, Wuhan Institute of Virology Vice Director Yuan Zhiming asked members of Fauci’s office for help figuring out which kind of disinfectant to use for their laboratory, indicating that the Wuhan Institute was not prepared to conduct experiments on dangerous pathogens.
  • In 2016, Dr. Shi publicly acknowledged she was conducting experiments on “live” bat coronaviruses in a “biosafety level 2” lab at the Wuhan Institute. As scientist Richard Ebright has noted, that is “the biosafety level of a US dentist’s office.”
  • In 2017, French scientists were booted out of the Wuhan lab, and all cooperation stopped between them and the Chinese. During this time, the State Department found that Chinese researchers at the Wuhan lab were engaging in “classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military[.].”
  • On December 29, 2017, a video made public by Chinese state-run media showed Wuhan Institute researchers admitting bats had bitten them. The footage demonstrates that many were not wearing proper PPE when handling bats.
  • In 2018, the State Department found “a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to operate this high-containment laboratory safely.”
  • On September 12, 2019, the Wuhan Institute pulled its public database of 22,000 virus samples and sequences offline. Incredibly, the point person for Wuhan’s NIH grant, Peter Daszak, would later praise this move, saying: “As you know, a lot of this work has been conducted with EcoHealth Alliance… There is no evidence of viruses closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 in those databases, simple as that.”
  • By mid-January 2020, a team of Chinese military scientists had “set up operations inside the Wuhan Institute[.].”
  • In February 2020, it was made public that China had refused to let U.S. CDC experts into the country to observe its coronavirus outbreak for over a month.
  • In March 2020, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency updated its assessment of COVID-19’s origin to include the possibility that the new coronavirus emerged “accidentally” due to “unsafe laboratory practices” at the Wuhan Institute.
  • In March 2020, Fauci’s staff recalled that they’d learned in 2016 that the Wuhan lab did not know how to disinfect their equipment properly and discussed how best to “navigate politics” concerning that issue.

This entire time Fauci’s agency continued approving funding to Daszak and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In fact, it was only after President Donald Trump directly ordered Fauci to cut funding on April 24, 2020, that Fauci “reluctantly” agreed to cancel the grant. Yet, just two months later, in August 2020, Fauci approved a new $7.5 million grant to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance to conduct virtually the same research Daszak was overseeing at the Wuhan Institute.

The new program created by Fauci’s office now filters funding to a Chinese lab in Beijing. Fauci has for years voiced his public support for conducting gain of function experiments, believing that: “important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory.” In 2017, Fauci pushed to lift the federal government’s gain of function research ban. Fauci recently maintained that “if you didn’t pursue that research,” at the Wuhan lab, “you would be negligent.”

February 1, 2020

As Representative Jim Jordan recently noted in a blockbuster hearing, from February 1, 2020, onward, Fauci incessantly pushed the narrative that COVID-19 did not come from the Wuhan lab. Fauci started sending the Trump administration “science” contradicting the lab leak theory immediately after the theory was first floated, emailing an article arguing that COVID-19 originated naturally to Robert Kadlec, a political appointee in the Trump administration.

The article Fauci sent called the lab leak theory one of many “conspiracy theories.” Fauci’s email to Kadlec did not mention that just hours earlier, NIH-supported researcher Andersen had advised Fauci that COVID-19 was potentially “engineered.”

On February 1, 2020, Fauci also met secretly with 11 prominent scientists worldwide, including Kristian Andersen, who had just told Fauci the virus was potentially “engineered.” “I suggested we bring together a multidisciplinary team,” Fauci told USA Today. Fauci said he wanted to “ensure as many opinions as possible” were on the call. But no one from the Trump administration was invited. Fauci noted that “some on the call felt it could be an engineered virus.” But Fauci said, “I felt then, and still do, the most likely origin was in an animal host.”

By the end of the meeting, multiple influential scientists were not just persuaded to adopt Dr. Fauci’s view that the virus had not leaked from the Wuhan lab, they were poised to participate in a relentless campaign to steer media coverage and control the flow of information away from the idea that the virus could have been “engineered” in the Wuhan lab.

Take the case of researchers Kristian Andersen, Ed Holmes, and Bob Garry, who told Dr. Fauci that they all found COVID-19’s “genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory” on January 31, 2020. As Rep. Jim Jordan recently noted, these same scientists published a paper in Nature in March 2020 asserting that: “[W]e do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Fauci appears to have been directly involved with the creation of this “scientific” paper. On March 6, 2020, Andersen wrote to Fauci:

On March 8, 2020, Fauci emailed Andersen back:

Fauci would then cite the paper he provided “advice and leadership” to produce in a White House press conference on April 17, 2020. A reporter asked Fauci whether he could address “concerns” that the virus “possibly came out of a laboratory in China?” This was the perfect opportunity for Fauci to tell the American people what he knew since January 31, 2020 – that the virus had potentially been “engineered” in a Chinese lab and that NIH had been funding that lab for years.

Instead, Fauci referenced the study he helped concoct that claimed COVID-19 was “not a laboratory construct.” Fauci did not even disclose to the public that he was involved in the drafting and publication of the study. Fauci then shared the study he had helped write with various news organizations, maintaining that it was the “scientific” explanation for the origin of COVID-19. On April 20, 2020, for example, Fauci emailed a reporter with the Washington Times saying:

The media then used Fauci’s manufactured study to castigate claims that the virus had come from a Chinese lab. The Washington Post cited it, USA Today referenced it, and the Associated Press quoted it to push back on the view held by President Trump that COVID-19 may have leaked from the Wuhan lab. In addition, an army of fact-check websites like and Politi-Fact relied on the study contrived by Fauci to slam any discussion of the lab leak theory as “baseless, a “conspiracy theory,” and “debunked.” Facebook then, in turn, relied on these media fact-checks and articles that were based on the manufactured “science” study commissioned by Dr. Fauci to censor any discussion on social media of the claim that COVID-19 was manufactured in a lab in China.

Fauci did such a good job of diverting attention away from the Wuhan Institute that Peter Daszak emailed Fauci thanking him.

Fauci responded:

While Fauci was obscuring his agency’s involvement in coronavirus research in Wuhan, he was also downplaying the severity of the virus to the American people.

On January 27, 2020, Fauci publicly opposed travel restrictions on China, saying: “That would create a lot of disruption economically and otherwise, and it wouldn’t necessarily have a positive effect.”

On February 7, 2020, Fauci was asked if he had “any more information about where [COVID-19] came from?” Fauci responded, “No, I mean obviously, if you look at the history of these viruses, we have SARS, which we know, after much experimenting, and epidemiological, molecular epidemiology, it went from a bat to a civet cat, to a human.” Fauci added: “[T]here’s all kinds of conspiracy theories, as you know, going around on the internet with social media about the deliberate or accidental release, etcetera, etcetera.”

On February 9, 2020, Fauci met with former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who asked Fauci about the lab leak theory. Fauci said: “Well, I think ultimately, we know that these things come from an animal reservoir. I’ve heard these conspiracy theories, and like all conspiracy theories, Newt, they’re just conspiracy theories.”

On February 17, 2020, Fauci opined that the danger of the coronavirus was “just minuscule” but that Americans should be worried about the “real and present danger” of seasonal flu.

On February 29, 2020, Fauci asserted, “Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis. Right now, the risk is still low[.].”

On March 9, 2020, Fauci commented that: “If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship.”

Fauci’s obfuscation of the potential Wuhan lab leak had real-world consequences. One study found that if China had been more transparent with the world about how dangerous COVID-19 was and quarantined Wuhan just three weeks earlier, the number of people infected with the virus would have been reduced by 95%.

Most importantly, if Fauci had come clean and told President Trump in January 2020 that COVID-19 had the hallmarks of being “engineered” and that the NIH was funding the Wuhan lab, imagine how the American government’s response could have changed. The White House would have known before a single American died that the virus was likely manipulated by the Chinese and therefore extremely dangerous. The U.S. could have led a coalition of nations in conducting a comprehensive investigation of the Wuhan Institute, and Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia could have cut off travel more quickly from China. At the very least, American taxpayer dollars could have stopped flowing to the Wuhan lab, which continued receiving U.S. funding until April 2020.

Yet, Fauci intentionally omitted evidence that the Wuhan Institute could be the source of the virus, potentially because an investigation into the laboratory would ultimately implicate him. Senator Rand Paul certainly thinks it does. He recently filed a criminal referral against Fauci. Senator Paul claims Fauci lied to Congress when Fauci said under oath in May 2020: “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute[.].” Fauci responded to Sen. Paul by saying: “I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.” But this case is wide open, and over half a decade of evidence appears to contradict Fauci’s claims.


What Anthony Fauci is doing to Americans today — instilling mass fear and confusion — he has been doing since he first took to the White House podium at the insistence of Democrat Party leadership who virtually demanded Trump put Fauci upfront in the COVID-19 conversation. After all, Dr. Anthony Fauci is the “foremost epidemiologist and virologist on the Planet!”

Fauci is anything BUT an expert on “all-things COVID-19.” He IS an expert at using an uncountable number of scary elements of this mysterious virus and its true impacts on humans to weaponize for political purposes for whoever is willing to pay his price. What’s his price? The highest salary of ALL federal government employees, and, of course, ultimate POWER.

Our price for having him spew lies and gross misrepresentations daily for almost two years is abundantly clear: hundreds of thousands of deaths, multiple times more of those with permanent disabilities, and hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs, corporate revenue, business, and employee income, and a massive amount of added federal debt our great, great, great, great-grandchildren and THEIR children will be forced to pay somehow.

One thing at which Fauci IS good is convincing a willing populace through purposeful fear and faux-mystery that without his leadership and benign acceptance of his medical advice, death for all is certain.

He lied to us again and again; he misrepresented “facts” to us again and again; he changed his facts previously shoved in our faces again and again, and we not only let him spin and lie to us, but we also encouraged it.

No matter the outcome for us all regarding COVID-19, it is imperative that the totalitarian indoctrination of all Americans by America’s consummate witchdoctor must be stopped and stopped immediately.

Fauci must go.

Fauci must go soon.

Fauci must go AT ONCE!

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

The American Regime And Its Moral Ground (by Hadley Arkes)

Today, without question, the United States of America is larger than one person. Therefore, it stands to reason that thoughts, discussions, and opinions should all bear that out: and it’s out there.

As we occasionally do at TruthNewsNetwork, today we once again bring to you a very thoughtful and well-constructed offering from a great American thinker. Today it is Hadley Arkes. Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College where he taught for 50 years. His additional significant accomplishments are listed at the completion of today’s piece.

Hadley Arkes

In the night he was elected President in November 2008, Barack Obama addressed a vast throng in Grant Park in my hometown of Chicago and remarked that we had built this country “calloused hand by calloused hand, for 221 years.” Obama professed admiration for Abraham Lincoln, but it was clear that he hadn’t understood – or accepted – Lincoln’s teaching. In contrast to Obama’s 221 years, Lincoln said at Gettysburg that “Four score and seven years” earlier our “fathers brought forth . . . a new nation.” Counting back, Obama found the beginning of the country in 1787, with the drafting of our current Constitution. But counting back, Lincoln took the beginning of the nation to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. It was not merely the claim of independence; it was the articulation of that “proposition” as Lincoln called it, “the father of all moral principle” among us: that “all men are created equal,” that the only just government over human beings must draw its powers from “the consent of the governed.” Lincoln reminded us that the Union, the American republic, was older than the Constitution. The Constitution was made, as it said, for “a more perfect Union.”

Lincoln reminded us that the Union, the American republic, was older than the Constitution. The Constitution was made, as it said, for “a more perfect Union.”

For Lincoln, the nation began with that “first principle” that marked the character of the regime. The task of forming a Constitution was a matter of working out a structure of governance consistent with that principle. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, did not work well. The government couldn’t summon the wherewithal to support itself and defend the country against enemies foreign or domestic. Instead of integrating the separate states into a more unified nation, it set off centrifugal tendencies, driving the states farther apart with discriminatory tariffs and separate currencies. It was not the sense of a nation we would come to know, with the free movement of persons and goods across the boundaries of the states.

Lincoln recalled the biblical proverb that “a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver” (Prov. 25: 11): The words fitly spoken were “all men are created equal,” which provided the “apple”:

The Union and the Constitution are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal or destroy the apple; but to preserve it. The picture was made for the apple – not the apple for the picture.

The Constitution was made for the Union, not the Union for the Constitution. When the Founders took up the task of framing a new Constitution, they had to draw upon those principles of law and moral truths that were there – as they had to be – before the Constitution. If those principles were not there, to tell us of the forms of government that were better or worse, how would we know of just what institutions claimed a rightful authority to put in place those “positive laws” that we were obliged to obey? And over time, jurists found it necessary to appeal back to those principles that were there before the Constitution, in order to apply the Constitution sensibly to the cases coming before them. John Quincy Adams would argue that the “right to petition the government” was simply implicit in the logic of a free government: it would be there even it hadn’t been set down in the First Amendment. By the same reasoning, it would be there even if there were no First Amendment; it would be there even if there were no Constitution.

When the Founders took up the task of framing a new Constitution, they had to draw upon those principles of law and moral truths that were there – as they had to be – before the Constitution.

But if that is all true, people will raise the question: Are you saying that we don’t need a Constitution? Of course we do, for it is a matter again of the “structure” of governance. It is utterly critical to know just whom the military will be expected to obey if a president dies in office. And we would certainly want to know if any state may enter a treaty or alliance or make its territory available as a military and naval base for a foreign power. Even more recently there was a jolting bump in the road to the enactment of Obamacare, when the Constitution delivered up, for the 111th time, in peace and war, a midterm election. And no one thought of litigating over this working of the Constitution.

But what of the beginning of everything in that first principle itself? Obama has affected the manners of the urbane half-educated in our own day as he blithely dismisses the notion that “all men are created equal” has ever been a real truth, let alone one of those anchoring, necessary truths that furnished the moral ground of this government. He has fallen in readily with the doctrines of “historicism”: that “truths” can be known only in that historical period when they are believed to be true; that there are no moral truths that hold across the ages – except of course for the “truth” of historicism. And yet Lincoln and the Founders did take that proposition seriously. Lincoln regarded it as one of those “abstract truths applicable to all men and all times.”

Only one kind of creature understands what it means to consent to a contract – and to honor a commitment even when it no longer accords with his self-interest.

Alexander Hamilton went to the root in explaining that point when he wrote about those “first principles, or primary truths on which all subsequent reasonings must depend.” They contained an “internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection and combination command the assent of the mind.” They were grasped per se nota, as true in themselves, as we grasp the “law of contradiction”: that two contradictory propositions both cannot be true. Then how would one grasp in that way that anchoring principle of the American regime? The answer would be quickly revealed if we posed this question to anyone we know: Why is it that, in this age of animal liberation, we are not signing labor contracts with our horses and cows – or seeking the informed consent of our household pets before we authorize surgery on them? We can expect any person we encounter to be quite puzzled by the question – and wondering why we are asking it. But what the ordinary man grasps already is that animals cannot reason about the terms of a contract, give a promise, and keep their commitments. Only one kind of creature understands what it means to consent to a contract – and to honor a commitment even when it no longer accords with his self-interest.

The ordinary man who grasps at once that simple thing takes hold of the principle in the Declaration. As the argument ran, no man is by nature the ruler of other men in the way that God is by nature the ruler of men and men are by nature the ruler of dogs and horses. Anyone who denies that, said Jefferson, had to assume that the “mass of mankind” had been born “booted and spurred, ready to ride them.”

The question, as Lincoln said, was whether the black man “is not or is a man. If he is not a man … he who is a man may… do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not … a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself?”

And so, when the question was put, “Where in the world would it be wrong for human beings to be ruled in the way that dogs or horses are ruled?” The answer was: that would be wrong anywhere in the world – and at any time – where that difference in nature remains the same. Thus the notion of certain enduring rights, grounded in an enduring nature, or “natural rights.”

But as Lincoln recognized, slavery was in conflict with those deep premises of the American regime. And that disturbing truth was recognized in the South as well as the North.

But as Lincoln recognized, slavery was in conflict with those deep premises of the American regime. And that disturbing truth was recognized in the South as well as the North. A group of slaveowners, meeting at Darien, in Southern Georgia, declared in 1775 their “disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America . . . debasing part of our fellow creatures below men, and corrupting the virtues and morals of the rest, and is laying the basis of the liberty we contend for . . . upon a very wrong foundation.” They vowed then to emancipate their own slaves.

After the war, the move to gradual emancipation swept through the North, and by 1810 the number blacks freed through manumission in the South exceeded the number of free blacks in the north. The famous black leader, Frederick Douglass would say later that the Founders had made the right judgment: They had to accept slavery in the South in order to have the Union. But if those southern states had formed a separate nation, they would have expanded a slave empire into the Caribbean or beyond. It was far better to bring the slave states into a Union, or framework, in which slavery was rejected in point of principle. The word slavery would appear nowhere in the Constitution; as Lincoln said, only “covert” language was used. But at the same time, the framers would block the import of more slaves from abroad (after 1808) and bar its extension into the western territories. As Lincoln said, all of the marks here suggested a policy, not of endorsing and encouraging, but discouraging and compressing, with the hope of putting slavery “in the course of ultimate extinction.”

The famous black leader, Frederick Douglass would say later that the Founders had made the right judgment: They had to accept slavery in the South in order to have the Union.

As Justice George Sutherland reminded us in the 1930s, the Union was older than the Constitution, and the right to defend the country would be there under any Constitution. But defending the country meant the need to plan military operations, while concealing those operations from potential enemies. There could be a need, then, of course, to deploy spies and secret agents. These are the things that are, by nature, “executive” functions. And they continue to be distinctly executive functions even if they are directed by John Jay as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, through a committee in Congress, under the Articles of Confederation. When the Iranian revolutionary government seized American hostages in 1979, the Carter Administration froze Iranian assets in the United States. That could not be done by the Congress, after holding hearings, for those assets would have been gone by the time the hearings had concluded. If this strategic action were to be done at all, then in Macbeth’s words, “‘twere well / It were done quickly.” Only the executive could act with dispatch in a crisis of this kind.

At the beginning of the Civil War, the novelist Richard Henry Dana defended, in the Supreme Court, the authority of President Lincoln to order a naval blockade of the South. Dana observed that a Declaration of War was an artifact, a thing created under the positive law of a Constitution. But war, he said, was a fact. And could it really be sensible to assume that an enemy would be decorous enough to hold back its attack until the Congress could be assembled to declare war? Or was it more sensible to conclude that the authority to defend the country had to fall to that one branch of government that was never “out of town, or out of session”: namely, the executive, charged with the ongoing administration of the laws.

. . . it is one of the deepest principles in the American regime, running back to the revolution, that the safety of the American people cannot be put in the hands of officials in Westminster, or unelected judges, who bear no direct responsibility to the people whose lives are at stake.

In that vein, it is one of the deepest principles in the American regime, running back to the revolution, that the safety of the American people cannot be put in the hands of officials in Westminster, or unelected judges, who bear no direct responsibility to the people whose lives are at stake. That is why some of us would argue that it was a profound mistake for Justice Anthony Kennedy and four of his colleagues to inject the judges onto the battlefield in Iraq in the Boumediene case (2008). Actions taken in the heat of battle may not indeed satisfy a demanding test of “due process of law.” But judges are in no decent position to second guess because they bear no responsibility for the lives that may be lost.

Before the Civil War there was in this country another civil war – in Rhode Island. Two different legislatures and governors were put forth to represent the legitimate government of Rhode Island. President John Tyler signaled the intention to intervene on the side of the established government, and that signal was enough to induce the armed opposition to stand down. Chief Justice Roger Taney would later explain (in Luther v. Borden, 1842) that a crisis of this kind could not be handled by trial court, with the time it takes to select a jury, hold a trial, and reach a verdict. Nor could an appellate court handle the matter by calling for briefs, hearing the arguments, and retiring to chambers to write opinions. What came through was an unseasonable but inescapable truth: that it is not mainly the courts that sustain a regime of constitutional freedoms. It is rather the “sword of the law” that preserves that civil peace in which courts are free to render a more scrupulous justice, with those procedures more exacting and more fitting the function of judges.

We have seen, in recent years, presidents and administrations blocked in their initiatives by judges operating with nationwide injunctions. And yet we have also seen, on matters ranging from the launching of wars to the steady “administration of the laws,” that the executive will hold a rightful authority to act at grave moments outside the reach of the legislative or judicial branches. If that leaves people uneasy, we think of Thomas Hobbes’s taunt: If you are uncomfortable with the notion of sovereign power, you will have to call forth some other authority to limit it. And whatever power you call forth will be, then, even more sovereign yet. If one doesn’t trust an American president in conducting war and foreign affairs, the solution cannot be had by putting authority in the hands of unelected judges, who cannot be held responsible for their acts.

Even a president bound up with a thick body of laws will be compelled at times to act well beyond the restraints of the law. The question will always arise then how we can be sure that a president, freed in this way, will use his power to preserve this regime and our freedoms, and not create a new regime built around himself. The only answer to that old question remains the same: the only ground of assurance lies in the character of that person we elevate to the highest office. We would find the deepest assurance in a man who could say, as Lincoln said to a contingent of soldiers, that “I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” This was a man whose loyalty to the regime ran to the deepest levels of his own character. The question for us now is whether we cultivate men like that anymore – and whether we have cultivated among ourselves the wit to recognize them when we see them.

. He is also the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Law and the American Founding in Washington, D.C. Among his numerous books are First Things (1986) and Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths (2010). He is completing a book to be entitled Mere Natural Law.

The Pelosi Circus on Capitol Hill Is In Full Swing!

It’s finally here: an opportunity for the “Pelosi Circus” and the “Schiff Show” to, for the fourth time, try to saddle Donald Trump with the responsibility for a real tragedy less of HIS doing than the doings of Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, and other Democrats. The January 6 charade is fired up.

But there are some problems for Democrats. The facts don’t support their anti-Trump allegations. There’s no doubt there were a bunch of folks at the Capitol that day that did some horrible things. Who they are and what they individually did may never be known in full. But the facts of the incidents in January that ARE known DO implicate some folks. But none implicate the former President.

In the upcoming days, we’ll chronicle for you the FACTS of January 6, 2020, and point to who were the real perpetrators. All this while Pelosi and Schiff march out their foils so they can one more time try to make a case to run Donald Trump out of Washington. If it wasn’t that there are a couple of really serious things that these members of Congress should be handling instead of another fake inquest into another nothing-burger, it would hilarious. I personally LOVE to watch Schiff and Pelosi embarrass themselves over and over. Pelosi’s charade at the State of the Union in which she tore up Trump’s speech transcript along with Schiff’s incessant claims of “uncontroverted proof in hand that prove Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary” frame this latest chapter of “Get Trump anyway possible.” And we’ll give you the facts and nothing but the facts as this waste of time and taxpayer dollars play out.


Officials in charge of security for the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 blamed poor intelligence and sluggish response from the federal government on Day 1 of the Pelosi Select Committee hearings for the deadly riot that threatened the peaceful transfer of power. Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified at a joint Senate committee hearing on security and intelligence failings leading up to the riot that intelligence reports compiled from information from the Capitol Police, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and Washington Metropolitan Police showed that “the level of probability of acts of civil disobedience/arrests” on Jan. 6 ranged from “remote” to “improbable.”

“In addition, the daily intelligence report indicated that ‘the secretary of Homeland Security has not issued an elevated or imminent alert at this time,'” Sund testified. “Without the intelligence to properly prepare, the USCP was significantly outnumbered and left to defend the Capitol against an extremely violent mob,” he said.

That’s despite significant online chatter and numerous media reports that protesters were targeting the electoral vote count during the joint session of Congress. Asked about a Jan. 5 threat report from the FBI’s field office outside Norfolk, Virginia, that detailed specific calls online for violence at the Capitol, including that protesters be ready to fight and show up ready for war, Sund testified that it had gone to an intelligence official with the Capitol Police and that he had not seen it. Robert Contee, acting chief of the Washington police, said he had not seen the memo, which was “not fully vetted,” on Jan. 6, either.

“What the FBI sent, Ma’am, on Jan. 5 was in the form of an email,” he said, adding that he would think a warning “that something as violent as an insurrection at the Capitol would warrant a phone call or something.”

The former House and Senate sergeants-at-arms also testified that they did not see the FBI memo.

National Guard delay

Contee said that he and Sund called the National Guard for help shortly after the mob stormed the Capitol and that he was dismayed by the response he received from the Army.

“At 2:22 P.M., a call was convened with, among others, myself, leadership of the Capitol Police, D.C. National Guard, and the Department of the Army,” Contee said. “I was stunned at the response from the Department of the Army, which was reluctant to send the D.C. National Guard to the Capitol. While I certainly understand the importance of both planning and public perception — the factors cited by the staff on the call — these issues become secondary when you are watching your employees, vastly outnumbered by a mob, being physically assaulted. I was able to quickly deploy MPD and issue directives to them while they were in the field, and I was honestly shocked that the National Guard could not — or would not — do the same,” he added.

Sund said in his prepared remarks that Army Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt said on the conference call that he didn’t like “the visual of the National Guard standing a line with the Capitol in the background” and would rather that Capitol Police officers be pulled from other posts to handle the protesters.

Sund added later that the “first 150 members of the National Guard were not sworn in on Capitol grounds until 5:40 p.m., 4½ hours after I first requested them and 3½ hours after my request was approved by the Capitol Police Board.”

In his opening statement, Sund also blamed former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving and former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger for the sluggish response. Sund said he had tried to enlist the National Guard for help in the days before the riot, but “Irving stated that he was concerned about the ‘optics’ of having National Guard present and didn’t feel that the intelligence supported it.”

Sund said he also asked Stenger for help ahead of time. “Instead of approving the use of the National Guard, however, Mr. Stenger suggested I ask them how quickly we could get support if needed and to ‘lean forward’ in case we had to request assistance on January 6,” he said.

Sund said the pair were also slow to respond during the riot.

“I notified the two sergeants-at-arms by 1:09 P.M. that I urgently needed support and asked them to declare a state of emergency and authorize the National Guard,” Sund said. “I was advised by Mr. Irving that he needed to run it up the chain of command. I continued to follow up with Mr. Irving, who was with Mr. Stenger at the time, and he advised that he was waiting to hear back from congressional leadership but expected authorization at any moment.”

Irving pushed back against Sund’s account, saying he didn’t recall speaking to him at that time, had no record of any phone calls or text messages from Sund, and never said he had to run Sund’s request up the chain of command. He also denied that he’d voiced any concern about “optics.”

“That is categorically false,” Irving said. “‘Optics,’ as portrayed in the media, did not determine our security posture. Safety was always paramount when evaluating security for January 6. We did discuss whether the intelligence warranted having troops at the Capitol, and our collective judgment at that time was no, the intelligence did not warrant that.”

Republicans defend witnesses

Sund, Stenger and Irving resigned after the riot, which left five people dead, including Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Police officers were able to regain control of the building with help from the National Guard and federal law enforcement officers after several hours, and the vote counting was completed. More than 200 people have been criminally charged.

Sen. Josh Hawley, (R-MO), whom some Democrats have blamed for inciting the violence by announcing that he would challenge the legitimacy of some states’ electors during the vote count, defended Sund, Stenger, and Irving during his question period.

Hawley noted that retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), has tasked with leading a review of the Capitol’s security, had called Capitol Police leadership “complicit” in the attack because of the poor response. He asked the trio whether they were complicit, and they responded, “Absolutely not.”

“Yeah, of course, none of you were. There’s absolutely no evidence to that effect,” Hawley said. “To allege that you, any of you, were complicit in this violent mob attack on this building, I think, is not only extremely disrespectful. It’s really quite shocking.”

Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI), meanwhile, read from an article blaming the violence at the Capitol on “Antifa,” “fake Trump protesters” and “provocateurs.”

Johnson asked Sund whether he believed the attack was foreseeable or predictable — Sund said it wasn’t — and then asked whether his belief was based on past experiences, suggesting that “the vast majority of Trump supporters are pro-law enforcement, and the last thing they’d do is violate the law.”

God Forbid Members of Congress Might be Complicit! (There might be Partisanship in these hearings)

A new report from Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton has sent congressional leaders scrambling after finding that Capitol police were told that they could not use critical riot materials and tactics in preparation for the Jan. 6thprotests.  The finding challenges the narrative put forward in the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump. It also raises questions of whether congressional leaders (who repeatedly condemned Trump for the death and injuries of officers) share responsibility for the loss of control of Congress to the rioters.

The report, “Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol,” raises additional questions over the responsibility of figures in Congress for the lack of sufficient forces and materials to deal with the protest. Previously, it was disclosed that offers of National Guard support were not accepted prior to the protests. The D.C. government under Mayor Muriel Bowser used only a small number of guardsmen in traffic positions.

The report magnifies suspicions over why House leadership refused to hold hearings with key witnesses before the second Trump impeachment. It also raises whether, after the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park in the prior summer, leaders in Congress hamstrung their own security force.

Ultimately, over 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the riot, and Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick later died. Two other officers later died by suicide.

Bolton and his staff reportedly found in its 104-page report that, three days before the riot, officials were warned in an intelligence assessment that “Congress itself is the target” in the planned protests. Congress was further warned that “Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike.”

That would seem more than sufficient reason to call for National Guard support and assemble the full force and resources available to the Capitol Police.  According to the Inspector General, that is not what happened. Instead, the plan stated that there were “no specific known threats related to the joint session of Congress.” More importantly, the Capitol Police’s Civil Disturbance Unit was ordered by supervisors not to deploy the department’s highest level resources and tactics in addressing any problems.  This including the use of “heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades. The report states categorically that they “were not used that day because of orders from the leadership.” Instead, 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot by a Capitol police officer inside the Capitol despite being unarmed and standing in a hallway.

That explains a lot.  On the day of the riot, many familiar with the Capitol expressed disbelief over the lack of serious perimeter protections and the relative ease of protesters in breaching the Capitol.

This is precisely the type of information that should have been revealed in the weeks after the riot. Indeed, as previously discussed in repeated columns, the House Democratic leadership refused to hold a single hearing with key witnesses on what occurred before the riot. After using a “snap impeachment,” weeks went by without calling such witnesses before the Trump impeachment trial. Such evidence could challenge the narrative and raised questions over decisions made by Congress that left the Capitol vulnerable to such an attack.

The report also raises over the Lafayette Park effect. In the prior summer, White House officials feared that the compound could be breached by violent protesters who had injured dozens of officers and engaged in arson and attacks around the White House during that weekend. They decided to clear the area to install fencing (which Congress only ordered after the Jan. 6th riot). They also deployed the National Guard and the “heavier, less-lethal weapons” that the Inspector General found were denied to the Capitol Police.

To this day, the media and many members continue to repeat false accounts of Lafayette Park. Many still have stories posted that claim that Lafayette Park was cleared for Trump to hold a photo op in front of a church. Those accounts were discussed previously in testimony before Congress and in columns on the clearing of the Lafayette Park area. NPR still has a story on its website entitled “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.”

A wide array of witnesses and documents detailing how the plan to clear the area was put into motion over 24 hours before the actual operation — and long before any discussion of a photo op.  The plan was approved by then-Attorney General Bill Barr but was delayed because the officers were waiting for both fencing material and backup personnel.

Yet, the narrative remained that this was a peaceful protest that was met with tear gas and stun grenades. Many in D.C. criticized the use of force in the operation, calling the protest entirely peaceful is only possible by focusing on the time just before the clearing. As discussed in Congressional testimony, some 150 officers were injured during the protests, and half of those were injured around the White House. The Justice Department claimed there were 750 injured officers during the various protests.  The attacks around the complex were so great that the President was moved into the bunker.

Nevertheless, Lafayette Park became the rallying cry against the use of National Guard personnel and resources like tear gas and pepper balls. After Lafayette Park, Mayor Bowser declared “if you are like me, you saw something that you hoped you would never see in the United States of America.”  Democrat Party leaders and the media denounced the use of the guard and tear gas as akin to military rule.  The New York Times even apologized for publishing a column of Sen. Tom Cotton encouraging the use of the National Guard (and effectively fired the editor who approved the column).

Both the media and members are heavily invested in the Lafayette Park narrative. It would be embarrassing to report that Congress should have ordered the same expansion of a fenced perimeter and guard deployment before the protests — let alone the use of non-lethal devices like pepper balls.

The question is whether that narrative influenced the restrictions placed on the Capitol Police. It was only after losing control of Congress that a full deployment of fencing, riot resources, and the National Guard was allowed. It then remained up for months at a huge daily cost. It was the ultimate example of locking the barn door after the horse had bolted. But in Washington, it is not really about the horse or the barn. It is about who gets the blame.

Day 1 Is In The History Books

Don’t expect during this “inquest” for the Democrat Party media lapdogs to do anything in their reporting other than spin the testimonies and offer more of their anti-Trump drivel. We’ll keep the facts before you. There will be more tomorrow.

Throughout this process, please know this: even according to the Inspector General’s report, there were NO ties to Donald Trump. The main difference between the Inspector General and Democrats on Capitol Hill is this: the IG has nothing nor any reason to hide any details or spin FOR Donald Trump. But Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff have mountains of reasons to “fade the heat” that they are certainly feeling for their benign yet purposeful involvement in the Jan. 6 debacle.

If nothing else is revealed in these hearings, expect the truth to be revealed that points to the direct involvement of Nancy Pelosi (who as House Speaker is responsible for oversight of the operations of the Capitol) in ignoring multiple intelligence reports projecting almost certain massive unrest expected Jan. 6. And there can be just one reason for her doing so: to Get Donald Trump!

More — MUCH more — tomorrow!

To Download Today’s (Wednesday, July 28, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:


Can The Woke Mob And Their “Critical Race Theory” be Stopped?

Wokeness has infiltrated every industry, from the military to media to philanthropy. It has succeeded despite a lack of public support. But, according to Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson, there is a way to stop it.

The word was first printed in a 1962 New York Times essay and traditionally has meant “conscious” and “aware.” The Oxford Dictionary notes that the term originally meant well-informed or up-to-date, but now chiefly means “alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice.”

Hanson told Fox News that wokeness, as we think of it today, has its roots in decades of critical theory coming from universities.

Today, it’s intertwined with cancel culture, critical race theory, and progressive activism – and it’s everywhere you look.

The U.S. military has offered personal development classes focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended the teaching of critical race theory, and other woke curriculum in military academies before the House Armed Services Committee.

The media has similarly come under fire for their activism, with New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones declaring that “all journalism is activism,” and CBS News reporter Kate Smith leaving the network and immediately declaring her advocacy for abortion rights.

School districts have faced public outcry over their teaching of critical race theory, leading many states to go so far as to ban the curriculum.

Even generosity is not immune. Naomi Schaefer Riley noted in an opinion in the Wall Street Journal that “nonprofits big and small have shifted their missions toward combatting “inequity” and “systematic racism,” and according to Elise Westhoff, president of the Philanthropy Roundtable, “donors have faced intimidation and threats of violence simply for supporting causes they believe in.”

Hanson said the push toward wokeness picked up speed during the Obama administration when there was a “separation of race from class” and a movement to lump all non-White ethnicities into one homogenous identity called “diversity.”

But it wasn’t until the last 18 months that wokeness reached a fever pitch.

                                    Victor David Hanson
“I think the perfect storm of COVID fears, locking down two-thirds of the population for 15 months, the self-induced recession, the Trump derangement syndrome, the George Floyd death, the 120 days of riots, the inactivity and inability to get people to meet one another, the crazy election, all of that was the spark or the fuse that lit the preexisting problems,” Hanson said.

For opponents of the societal push toward wokeness, Hanson said not all hope is lost – the majority of American’s don’t support it either.

“Whatever aspect that we look at in wokeness, whether it’s gender or race or immigration, transgenderism, it doesn’t have public support,” Hanson said.

Sixty-eight percent of American adults disapprove of the current administration’s handling of the southern border, where an open-door policy has led to a massive influx of illegal immigrants into the country, according to Pew Research.

A Fox News poll further showed that, despite a raging debate in many communities over critical race theory being taught in school, nearly half of voters say they have never heard of it. Only a quarter of Americans are in favor of teaching it to U.S. students.

Another Pew Research study showed 73% of Americans say college admissions should not be based on race.

One thing is clear about the trend that has dominated much of academia, media, and corporate America: it does not stem from overwhelming grassroots support.

Hanson said that is because proponents of woke ideology are now in positions of leadership.

“Unlike the ’60s revolution, which were protesting outside the corporation or outside the New York Times or Hollywood, these people are inside,” said Hanson. “They’ve taken over. So they run Hollywood, they run the NBA, they run the Major League Baseball, they run the NFL, they run Wall Street, they run Silicon Valley, they run the universities, they run the media.”

“They infiltrated these institutions and took them over,” he continued. “So that’s what explains why an agenda that has very little popular support continues to thrive.”

Mainstream media, Hanson noted, has fully bought into this ideology and can’t be counted on to report on it fairly.

Outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post are now “fused with the woke mob,” he said.

“They pick left-wing reporters, so you can’t count on the media to stop the wokeness or to report on its setbacks. They won’t do it.”

The left has succeeded in pushing this ideology into every facet of American life because they are organized, he continued, and opponents need to learn to fight fire with fire.

The Woke Mob And Critical Race Theory (CRT)

A Minnesota fourth-grade student and her mother expressed concern to their local school board after her class was given an “equity survey.” Students were told not to tell their parents about the activity.

Sitting alongside her mother Kelsey, fourth-grader Hayley Yasgar in a Monday interview said that the questions were confusing, and it made her “very nervous and uncomfortable” when the students were told not to tell their parents.

According to a video uploaded by Alphanews, when students didn’t understand some of the survey questions, they were told by a teacher in the Sartell-St. Stephen School District to not repeat the survey questions to their parents.

“The survey asked questions that some students didn’t understand. Even after hearing an explanation from their teacher, some still couldn’t comprehend the survey questions,” The Center Square reported.

The George Floyd incident sparked a nationwide conversation on race and the role of policing. School districts across America are pushing critical race theory on students to attempt to contextualize current events on matters of race.

CRT curriculum has sparked a national conversation about the role of race and racism in school districts across the country. Compared to actual racism, CRT is often a school of thought that generally focuses on how power structures and institutions impact racial minorities. 

Kelsey Yasgar said that although parents were “informed that the equity audit was taking place, they were not informed on the date of the activity and not given other details.” She explained further that due to the lack of transparency from the school district and from Equity Alliance Minnesota, the third party that administered the survey, parents were not informed of the questions being asked to the students.

Yasgar was “very upset” when her daughter told her that teachers instructed her not to repeat any of the questions being asked of them.

“I do want to say, though; I believe that this wasn’t a single case that her teacher made this decision. We had been informed that this came down from the administration and Equity Alliance of Minnesota instructed them to make sure the children did not share this information with their parents, and that should pose a great concern in any parents’ eyes,” Hayley said.


Victor David Hanson closed one interview in discussion Wokeness and Critical Race Theory (CRT) with these thoughts:

“[Republicans] are very polite, they don’t cancel people out, they don’t boycott, they don’t get angry and noisy. And I think that has to end,” Hanson said.

The people who oppose woke ideology are “half the country,” he continued. But they aren’t “organized like the left is.”

“So I think they have to use the same methodology to fight back. Otherwise, they’re going to be steamrolled by a minority that doesn’t have popular support, that’s very much better organized and funded.”

Hanson said he could already see the public backlash against wokeism – the most notable examples being school board protests and Eric Adams, a pro-law enforcement candidate, winning the Democratic mayoral primary in New York.

But on a larger scale, he said, it will take a “charismatic, effective candidate who doesn’t polarize people and says, ‘Look, we’re not going to throw away the traditions of the United States because of a bad year or a bankrupt theory.'” 

“I think the Republicans are going to have a big midterm election,” Hanson predicted. “That’s what destroyed the Obama administration was the Tea Party pickup of 63 seats in 2010.”

“So, I think it can be stopped because there’s no public support for it.”

It seems like there is hope to stop this insanity. But we all must awaken and understand that good things don’t always “just happen.” Evil dominates the process of instigating “bad things.” Let’s hope Americans will come to life and cancel Cancel Culture, Wokeness, and CRT.

We MUST make this happen!

To Listen or Download Today’s (Tuesday, July 27, 2021) “TNN Live” show, click on this link:

The “Big Lie” is Really From Democrats

Did you know that black people are not going to be allowed to vote in America anymore? At least in states controlled by Republicans? It sounds a bit unlikely, but that’s a conclusion you might have come to if you took seriously what President Joe Biden said in Philadelphia Tuesday.

Biden decried Republicans’ proposed changes to election laws as “the 21st-century Jim Crow assault” that tries “to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy.”

This is, to be polite, unhinged nonsense.

Biden is old enough to remember what real Jim Crow voter suppression was like. It meant zero black people voting in places like Mississippi. It meant threats and violence against black people who tried to register to vote. It meant the unfair application of literacy tests and poll taxes.

Requiring voters to present photo ID is nothing like this: Large majorities think it’s reasonable. And measures such as reducing the number of pre-election voting days in Georgia (there are zero in Biden’s Delaware) or ending pandemic-inspired measures like drive-through voting in Harris County, Texas, are not the same. Not even close.

Early in his speech, Biden denounced “the big lie,” a reference to Donald Trump’s claims that he actually won the 2020 election. But Biden’s Jim Crow charge is an even clearer instance of the big lie — and a more dangerous one — since it’s unlikely to be fact-checked by most media.

If you want people to condemn a big lie, don’t tell one yourself.

In his criticism of Trump, Biden invoked a long-standing norm of American politics.

“In America, if you lose, you accept the results. You follow the Constitution. You try again. You don’t call the facts ‘fake’ and then try to bring down the American experiment just because you’re unhappy.” He spoke these words, apparently unaware that they could be applied to him and his own party.

You might not understand this if your only news sources are The New York Times and CNN.

But if you try to look at it, as Darryl Cooper does in the leftist Glenn Greenwald’s Substack, you might recall that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats NEVER accepted the results of the 2016 election and spent months advancing the Russia-collusion hoax to delegitimize and end the Trump presidency.

“We now know,” Cooper wrote, “that the FBI and other intelligence agencies conducted covert surveillance against members of the Trump campaign based on evidence manufactured by political operatives working for the Clinton campaign, both before and after the election.”

He went on: “We know that those involved with the investigation knew that accusations of collusion were part of a campaign approved by Hillary Clinton to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

As Cooper noted, for months, many Trump supporters worried that there might be substance to the Russia-collusion charges. Democrats insisted there was. News media like the Times and CNN ignored or ridiculed efforts by the likes of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to show there was nothing there.

As became apparent when special counsel Robert Mueller admitted in his report that he had no evidence of collusion, Nunes was right. But the Times and other papers didn’t return the Pulitzers they won for their Russia-collusion stories.

The Times’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, acknowledged in an angry newsroom meeting: “The day Bob Mueller walked off the witness stand, our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy s- - -, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ ” As a result, “We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years.”

“A little tiny bit flat-footed,” translated into English, means “dead wrong.”

Have Baquet or other news media leaders confessed errors for their misjudgments? Have any Democrats who pursued the Russia-collusion hoax like Inspector Javert confessed error? Not that I’ve seen.

Democrats who want to restore respect for the electoral process need to stop calling harmless changes in election laws “voter suppression” and a return to Jim Crow. They and their media protectors need to apologize for their years-long campaign to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency by advancing a baseless hoax.


OK: let’s put this “Big Lie” thing in the context of this “new” era of American politics.

First: the truth no longer matters — at least to those on the Left. Beginning in the 1790s, it was appropriate for politicians to have disagreements, some of which turned really ugly. But guess what they did: they found ways to reconcile those differences, especially regarding the essential things. After all, these were our nation’s leaders. It was incumbent on all those in office to do what voters in their districts and states chose them to do: represent the People. There were NO political factions that had great power, no lobbyists who represented massive corporations, and even foreign governments who all wanted access to those politicians who had the sole power to shape legislation in their favor.

So how in the world did they function?

They crafted pieces of legislation that best represented the wishes of voters. Then, on the U.S. House and Senate floors, debated, cajoled, argued, screamed, and hollered to convince those with opposite opinions to change. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn’t.

What’s different now?

It’s become vogue in government (and everywhere else in the nation) to abandon the pursuit of truth and reach consensus and replace it with this: “You have YOUR truth, and I have MY truth.” That sounds like a nice way to “just get along.” But what it doesn’t resolve are the differences, nor does that get legislation for the People passed!

Who loses in this process? The People.


Do you want an answer as to how to reach a resolution? The only way to achieve such is to enter into every negotiation with a willingness to “give a little to get a little.” Compromise on legislation is the fundamental building block in our Representative Republic. Without it, we are either an Autocracy (dictatorship) or a “banana republic.” Neither one is good.

I will not insult any person reading this story by saying that Democrats possess the role of being the “walkaways” unilaterally. The GOP is just as guilty. There’s plenty of fingerpointing allowed in this debacle.

What MUST happen is for ALL of our political members to in total to abide by their oaths of office in EVERY situation — even if/when it’s not one of their choosing.

Right now, we hear the catcalls by Democrats saying, “The Republicans don’t want to fix things. They want to destroy our democracy!” Democrats know that’s not the truth. And the People know that’s not the truth. But Democrats, in large today, use that as an excuse for the behavior in which they obfuscate their responsibilities as lawmakers to craft, revise, vote, and pass bills to send to a president to sign into law.

On the GOP side of the aisle, the consistent blather about Democrats is, “All they want is to fill the nation with illegal aliens with a long-term goal of making them voters to keep Democrats permanently in control of the U.S. government!” We don’t know if that’s true. Granted, it appears as a real possible option, based upon the policies (or lack of policies) from the Biden Administration to demonstrably enforce federal immigration laws. To further exacerbate the problem, when asked what their purpose is, their fallback is “We must rescue those from other nations who are just looking for a better life.”

Say what you will about these two scenarios, but saying anything will NOT solve our problem. Unless the men and women in government buy into the fact that their sole job is to work for the people by crafting and passing legislation for THEIR constituents, this nation will NEVER move forward. But it most certainly will slide backward — something it appears is already happening.

“Is there hope to stop it?”

Honestly, I don’t have any at this point. But gaining the resolve for this “resolution” process of differences begins when the People demand factual information from our lawmakers about every issue and a commitment to adhere to the principles of lawmaking to which each swore an oath.

Short of that, Venezuela, Here We Come!

If we DON’T do it, it will not be because of “A” Big Lie,” but about thousands of them. And I STILL think we’re better than that.

I hope our lawmakers agree.

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

Have An Explanation For Biden’s Illegal Immigration Flood To The U.S.? We do…

Without question, the most asked question about this administration’s actions during its first six months is this: “What is the purpose for the unfettered waving-in of illegals across our southern border?” When you add the fact that approximately 1 million have shown up at the border — that we know about — to the OTHER fact that there is NO COVID-19 testing of these illegals by the Biden folks, PLUS the news that most of these illegals are ferried in the dark of night to towns and cities around the country and summarily released, what the heck is President Biden thinking?

I get stuck on the very first and most important factor in this process: They’re coming to our nation illegally! And the Biden Administration is encouraging it.

The Law

All persons residing in the U.S. are supposed to fall into three categories: a U.S. citizen, those with a Green Card permanent resident status, or temporary inhabitants with Visitor or Student Visas.

The Biden folks radically promote that there are 10-12 million illegal residents.  Using a more sophisticated methodology, professors from MIT and Yale estimated in September 2018 that as many as 22.1 million undocumented aliens could be in the U.S. They came to three conclusions: 10-12 million is no longer viable. Immigration experts say there are at least 16 million illegals here, and more likely that number is over 20 million.  One thing is for certain, we do not know who they are or where they reside.

A nation that cannot secure its borders against drug traffic, criminals, gangs, human trafficking, and illegal aliens has a serious national security problem. There’s that old border adage: “A nation without borders is NOT a nation.”

President Trump worked on this issue and managed to bring it under reasonable control.  But the Democrats promised to reverse all of those gains.  Why? Democrats see illegal aliens in general and Hispanics in particular as a valuable voting bloc.

In a press briefing at the end of his presidency, President Trump outlined 42 things Biden will do if elected. Nineteen of them had to do with immigration:

  1. Abolish immigration detention.
  2. Stop all deportation.
  3. End prosecution of illegal border crossers.
  4. Support the deadly sanctuary cities.
  5. Incentivize illegal alien child smuggling.
  6. Expand asylum for all new illegal aliens.
  7. Cancel all asylum cooperation agreements with Honduras, Guatemala, with El Salvador.
  8. Taxpayer-funded lawyers will be given to all illegal aliens.
  9. Abolish immigration enforcement against illegal workers.
  10. Restore Catch and Release policies for illegals.
  11. Grant work permits for illegal aliens.
  12. Provide taxpayer subsidies and welfare for illegal aliens and new immigrants.
  13. Federal Student Aid and free community college for illegal aliens.
  14. Sign new immigrants up for welfare immediately.
  15. End requirement for immigrants’ self-sufficiency and maximize their welfare.
  16. End all travel bans, including from jihadist regions.
  17. Grant mass amnesty.
  18. Vastly expand low-skilled immigration to the United States.
  19. Increase refugee admissions by 700 percent.

The fact-checkers — Democrats and mainstream media — went crazy, saying nothing in Biden’s platform said he would take those actions.  The truth is now obvious: though it appeared Biden as president would not open the illegal floodgates at the southern border, leaders in the Democrat Party quickly changed that. Already a million illegals have been apprehended at the border. Just imagine how many slipped in.

For decades the Democrat Party has been synonymous with “Identity Politics,” particularly Black American voters. For a decade or so, Democrats have seen the illegal alien Hispanic community as a new political identity target. In 2016 Hillary Clinton ran on a platform promoting “a pathway to citizenship.”

Trump’s 2016 victory was a huge setback for the Democrats’ plans for two reasons. Immigration reform was an over-arching issue in Trump’s campaign, and it was the exact opposite of what the Democrats intended to do. Secondly, Trump not only campaigned on stopping the continuous flow of illegal immigrants, drugs, criminals, terrorists, and human trafficking, he immediately set out to fix it.

Biden’s 14-page campaign platform on immigration was littered with soft language and propaganda. For example: “Biden will move immediately to ensure that the U.S. meets its responsibilities as a nation of immigrants.” He said he would “End prolonged detention.” That is code for catch-and-release, which was the Obama/Biden centerpiece and the reason we now have over 20 million illegals. Then there is, “End the mismanagement of the asylum system.” More catch-and-release. “Welcome immigrants to our communities.” That is to say, “Amnesty for All.”  The one thing his website did NOT say was how he would reduce illegal immigration. Six months into his presidency, we now know why: he had NO intention to stop it!

Let’s be clear about what is happening with Biden on immigration.  As pointed out, there is soft language in his printed platform, and then there are the direct answers to questions during rare occasions when the media are questioning him.

During the Democrat primaries, there was open dialogue concerning “Support for eliminating criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.” That Democrat Party position is a euphemism for open borders. Why don’t they just come clean and say, “We Democrats are for open borders?”

During a recent interview, Biden was asked if he would introduce immigration reform legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants promptly after assuming office. “I already have the bill,” Biden said. And, he continued, “I will get it done in the first week.”  There it is, amnesty, pure and simple. In that interview, Biden went on to say, “illegal immigrants should have access to the same health benefits everyone else has.” Biden missed his promised date for that bill. But there’s plenty of time for it IF Democrats can maintain control of Congress.

From fiscal years 2017 to 2019, Homeland Security reports that ICE agents arrested and eventually deported around 205,000 convicted criminals and about 36,000 immigrants with pending criminal charges. Over that same period, ICE deported around 17,000 known or suspected gang members and 145 known or suspected terrorists. Biden promised to “limit ICAE’s ability to deport criminals.” He certainly has kept that promise.

Doing the math on the 258,000 deportees cited above, over a 24-month period, would be the average deportation of 353 nasty folks a day.  So, when Biden emphatically declared he “Would not deport a single soul in his first 100 days in office,” that’s about 35,000 criminals that are still in our neighborhoods but shouldn’t be.

What is the intellectual point about opening our border wide open?  Was it a Biden signal that deportations may be eliminated?  Given that he has reversed every gain made during the Trump presidency, that “open border” possibility seems to be a valid happening.


“Amnesty-for-all” is not only a slap in the face to the millions of upstanding citizens who worked through the immigration system legally, but the long-term ramifications of amnesty-for-all are unthinkable. Once amnesty-for-all is initiated, that precedent becomes a powerful force.

Democrats know that government change in a dramatic fashion seldom occurs. If Biden successfully implements “Amnesty-for-All,” it is highly likely that amnesty-for-all will become the norm in the future every time Democrats control the government.

There are about 47 million Hispanic citizens in the U.S. plus another 20 million illegals. Politically, this is the holy grail for the Democrats. Democrats foresee a dynasty in power for years to come to get a stronghold in this Hispanic identity group. The complete revamp of the immigration system in the nineteen immigration initiatives outlined above by President Trump will certainly do just that.

It’s impossible not to take a swipe at Speaker Pelosi. How many dozens of times did she lecture during the Trump Administration, saying, “No one is above the law.”  I’m suggesting she needs to modify that as follows: “No one is above the law except the millions of illegal aliens living among us.”

How Do Americans Feel About Biden’s Border “Crisis?”

On no other issue has President Biden lost the country’s faith as quickly and thoroughly as immigration, where Americans tell pollsters they not only find his strategy lacking, but they actually yearn for a return to the Trump days.

A series of polls show the public sides with security experts, border-region law enforcement, and Border Patrol agents who say what’s going on at the border is a crisis. Biden’s ditching of Trump policies fostered it.

In an Economist/YouGov poll taken in late June, just 16% sided with Biden in rejecting the “crisis” label, including just 27% of self-identified Democrats. And of those who called the situation a crisis, a strong majority saw it as an immigration, security, or crime crisis, rejecting the Biden administration’s attempt to portray it as a humanitarian situation.

Most striking was a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, also from late June, that found most voters think former President Donald Trump’s policies should have been left “in place,” and the two-thirds of voters who said Biden’s executive actions had encouraged illegal immigration.

“People are basically saying they’re not with the president on immigration,” said Alfonso Aguilar, who ran the Office of Citizenship in the Bush administration and now runs the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. “They’ve seen there’s a major shift with immigration policy with this administration and the Democratic Congress, and they don’t like what they see.”

Immigration support is dismal. A Morning Consult/Politico survey late last month found 40% approval of his handling of that issue, compared to 48% disapproval.

Whatever President Biden’s stumbles at the border, it does not appear to have the fundamental dynamic of a country increasingly more open to immigration and leniency for those already in the country without permission.

The Economist/YouGov poll found 72% still ascribe to the sentiment that the U.S. is “a nation of immigrants,” with just 15% disagreeing. Surprisingly, the most resistant to the idea were younger adults, ages 18-29, where just 54% agreed with the sentiment.

Polling has long shown the public wants better border security.

A Harvard-Harris poll taken in September, amid the presidential campaign, found about three-fourths of those surveyed wanted to see the border tightened and wanted to see undocumented immigrants who commit crimes deported.

Another striking feature of the Harvard poll is that Biden fares even worse when Trump’s name is taken out of the equation.

When asked whether the president should revert to Trump’s policies, 55% agreed. But when asked whether Biden should adopt “stricter policies” — without Trump’s name attached — support leaped to 64%.

In Texas, which is bearing the brunt of the border surge, a University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll last month found just 27% approved of President Biden’s handling of immigration and the border.

Among Hispanic people, a key demographic group whom Biden hopes to woo with his policies, his support was underwater, with 34% approval to 47% disapproval — a net negative of 13 percentage points.


Those in this Administration constantly repeat the story that the reason for allowing large numbers of illegals into our nation is because of horrendous economic problems in their home countries. That might have sold at one point. But Border Patrol agents reported that those apprehended sneaking into our country originate in 61 different countries worldwide! So much for “helping” those Northern Triangle aliens.

It’s all about power, folks: the unfettered power to flood the nation with “future” Democrat Party voters.  That’s the only logical explanation.

That won’t fly with most Americans. Biden and his fellow Democrats have sold out to that “idea.” I wonder if he’s willing to “fall on his sword” to protect that concept.

To most Americans, whatever the underlying purposes for allowing the thousands of illegals to cross the border daily, there is NO justification for its continuance. And these Americans get stuck when considering it’s blatant disregard for federal immigration laws. 

Saturday Bullet Points: July 24, 2021

FAR too many important events occur 24/7 in the Nation for anyone to catch them all and digest them live. But you don’t want to miss ANY of the important ones!

If you missed any of the noise, don’t worry: we’ve captured each of the big events. Check them out in our Bullet Points. Read the sentence or two of each story. If you want complete details, click on the blue arrow at the end of the descriptive sentences, and you’ll be transferred immediately to a full story. If you have all you need to know about it, click on the next bullet point and move on!

Relax with your Saturday morning cup of java and catch up on the news of the week with us. Let’s get going:

Bullet Points

  • The policies of the Biden Administration regarding how to handle our southern border and illegals flooding into the nation is probably one of the most important news happenings of any day. Why? No one can figure them out! When it seems like there may be some integrity being re-inserted in what’s happening, they turn around and make stupid policy decisions based on who-knows-what. The Trump immigration folks had just about wrapped up getting that wall built when last November came. Biden had promised while campaigning he would reverse ALL of the Trump border control policies. Now, he’s taken it even farther: cancellation of contracts for portions of the wall we’ve already paid for! For complete details, click on this link: 
  • So how does President Biden pacify Americans who are dead-set on closing the border while, at the same time, fulfilling promises to the “open-border” gang? You find a way through current pending legislation to hide elements within it to pacify those who want open borders while getting Congress to spend billions in new tax dollars in the name of Border Security. Yep, that’s what’s on the drawing table. And the nuggets of pacification are amnesty for millions of illegals. For complete details, click on this link: 
  • We’ve heard that the FBI has arrested more than 500 people who were identified as being on-site and complicit in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. They used primarily facial recognition software to determine who those perpetrators are. Several of those arrested have already pled and are awaiting jail time. Others have been held in egregious prison conditions with NO liberties, NO ability to see family members or their own lawyers, and are being treated worse than actual terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay. It has come to light that Sidney Powell has announced she’ll be part of defending many of those caught in this “Biden trap” to take on the federal government for these alleged unconstitutional treatments. For complete details, click on this link: 
  • Many Americans are fearfully anticipating government mandates for COVID-19 vaccinations. And everyday information slips into the news that there “may” be mandates in the works for many, if not all, Americans to take the jab. Certain private employers have already begun demanding vaccinations of their employees as a condition of their employment. One of those employers is the National Football League. One of the greatest offensive football minds in NFL coaching has been fired for refusing to take a COVID-19 vaccination. Who is it? For complete details, click on this link: 
  • We at TruthNewsNetwork have weekly published the deaths and adverse reactions to COVID vaccinations from both the U.S. and Europe. These statistics are actually published weekly by the CDC in the U.S. and the CDC’s counterpart in Europe. However, when the news is bad, members of the Biden Administration carefully choose which of those to reference in press briefings and which to avoid. One reporter confronted Jen Psaki, White House press chief, about the latest “breakthrough” infection numbers, and Psaki refused to give that info to the media. What are they hiding? For complete details, click on this link: 
  • Remember those “PPP” loans to small businesses that were included in the first COVID-19 Stimulus package? There were restrictions on which companies could receive any of those federal tax dollars — specifically the size of companies that could apply. One of the large companies that most Americans despise tax dollars going to is Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider. It seems that Planned Parenthood’s employee number disqualifies them from receiving PPP money. Yet, they DID receive millions. And members of Congress are after the Biden Administration to find out why and get those millions back. For complete details, click on this link: 
  • The state of Mississippi has petitioned the Supreme Court to take up a Mississippi anti-abortion law to confirm its constitutionality. Though the Court has finished its season of determination of many cases filed with it, they prepare their docket for the next session. Constitutional law professors feel with the makeup of this Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade may be in danger when the Court weighs in on this Mississippi case. For complete details, click on this link:
  • It appears new COVID-19 cases are on the rise again. This time, three states are leading the way with the newest cases. Which states have earned that honor, and what are their case numbers? For complete details, click on this link: 
  • Who can figure out the stock market? When you’re tempted to drop a few thousand dollars to purchase stock in a new “can’t miss” startup, days after you invest, bad news shows the company is already facing certain failure, and your stock value drops to zero! But the opposite is happening more today than the losses, and stock market values have soared, even in the midst of horrible employment numbers and certain inflation upon us. For complete details, click on this link: 
  • News from Venezuela has of late certainly be rare. Remember: this South American country was tagged as one of the wealthiest nations on Earth just a couple of decades ago. But a brutal socialist dictator seized power and initiated Venezuela’s financial, social, and economic demise. We’ve all heard of the lack of basic needs of its people, including food, medicine and healthcare, and even toilet paper. Now, we’re told that to get gasoline for a car, waits are as long as all day! For complete details, click on this link: 

“TNN Live!”

Here’s the link to Friday’s “TNN Live!” show.

Don’t forget our “Saturday Bullet Points” offering published every Saturday. It’s a way for you to get the top stories of the week that you may have missed. Check them out with a Saturday AM cup of coffee first thing tomorrow.

Have a great weekend!


It’s Time America Talks About Cuba — It’s Full-Blown Communism Knocking On Our Door

If you’ve seen any of the video footage from within the protests in Cuba that have lit the island since Sunday, July 11, you’ve probably questioned once or twice, “Why are the Cubans protesting, and what are they protesting about? Those are fair questions. Whatever the source(s) of the unrest and the response by the Cuban government to the protests, it’s fair to say that something is just not right.

So I’LL ask the question: “What IS going on in Cuba?”


To objectively understand what is occurring in Cuba, to gauge how these events are once again affecting the United States, and to respond, one must understand the history of the Castro dictatorship and how America has related to it. The government in Cuba is a self-described socialist-Marxist regime, as proclaimed by Fidel Castro himself. It is a murderous, non-stop abuser of human rights. The proof of its 60 years of murder is legion.

Firsthand accounts of torture and decades-long incarceration in horrific conditions can be found in “Contra Toda La Esperanza (Against All Hope)” by Armando Valladares and “Cómo Llegó La Noche (How the Night Arrived)” by Huber Matos. Along with Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Camilo Cienfuegos, and Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Huber Matos is one of the five commanders of the Cuban Revolution.

Visit Miami and talk to former political prisoners for contemporaneous proof. The American embargo — the ruse by which the dictatorship affixes blame for their incompetence and abuses — is but a fantasy. Briefly, the American embargo does not prevent the world’s 195-plus other countries from trading with Cuba. For example, Canada and Spain have for decades prolifically traded with Cuba. The American embargo has never prevented food and medicines from reaching Cuba.

And what about the millions of dollars Cuban-Americans have sent to their family members? Or did the American so-called embargo cause thousands of human rights abuses by the regime?

The solution to the six-decades crisis in Cuba, a crisis that has directly affected the United States, is pretty straightforward. Anything that supports the Cuban dictatorship must be stopped — including tourism, money transfers, and trade. Food and medicines should only be delivered directly to the people.

The United States and like-minded governments should seek criminal indictments of Raul Castro and the rest of the country’s dictatorship at the International Criminal Court. Suggesting an armed intervention is nonsensical and divisive to the Cuban people, for, as St. Augustine noted, “The devil deludes men by despair and hope.” No one should negotiate with the regime for the rights of the people in Cuba, as doing so presumes that those rights are the dictatorship’s to grant.

Today’s Events Are Not Isolated Incidents

For those assuming what is presently occurring in Cuba has no consequence to the United States, history has proven that they are sorely mistaken.  A few months after the 1959 Cuban revolution was deemed successful, a militia showed up in Havana to place men on house arrest. For years, locked-up men desperately worked to find ways for their family members to get to Miami to get away from Cuban Marxism. Yes, some stories tracked thousands of Cubans who successfully made the journey by boat. Sadly, there are just as many stories of Cubans who lost their lives just trying to get to a land where they could live free.

During the last six decades, most of those Cubans have watched how a few men enslaved a people, turning a rich country into a veritable slum while running roughshod over the United States. Despite the bluster of conservative Republican administrations and the practical acquiescence by neo-socialist Democrat administrations, the rulers in Cuba keep getting away with murder.

The regime’s murderous aggression is well-documented, from the killing of American military officer Major Rudolf Anderson to installing strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, to welcoming airline hijackings, to the harboring of fugitives, to the exportation of socialist Marxism to Latin America, to force waves of illegal migration, to murdering four American citizens in international airspace, to being a transshipment waypoint of cocaine into the United States, to in 2016 the U.S. embassy in Havana being attacked by an energy weapon injuring approximately 60 Americans.

Of Course, Cubans Are Angry

Today in the U.S., we are treated to the news of multitudes demonstrating against the despondency they have endured for their entire lives. They are desperate people who tolerate eight hours’ queues to obtain their monthly allotment of things like sugar. They are a tortured people for whom medical care is sparse, rationed, and, more often than not, nonexistent.

They are an enslaved people who cannot associate freely, cannot speak openly, and cannot partake in the riches skimmed away from them by the military ruling class. Even the international money sent to them has to be laundered through the black market to avoid the Madoff-Ponzi-Rube Goldberg official exchange rate.

And it WILL destroy the US in the United States if we do not soon turn away from Totalitarianism of ANY name.

It seems that Cubans have had enough of all of these sufferings. And what are the lies they have been fed for decades? Well, like all socialists, the Cuban dictatorship attributes every single one of its problems to others — in this case, to the United States.

The rulers take no responsibility for squandering the country’s riches in cobalt, citrus, tobacco, pristine beaches, sugar, and most notably an industrious people. State propaganda is but serial lies deflecting the actual responsibility resting with the regime. The people have had enough. Perhaps what we see in the streets of Cuba is a harbinger of what could happen in America when we are fed up with the serial lies our government is feeding us.

Yes, It Could Happen Here

What is shocking is how some Americans and one dominant U.S. political party actively advocate for socialism. The demonstrations today in Cuba are a godsend by showing firsthand, in real-time, what happens when socialism takes hold.

The demonstrations in Cuba offer a live view of what can happen to the United States if it accelerates socialist policies. If Americans see the present-day peoples’ revolt in Cuba as nothing but a disturbance in yet another banana republic, or as due to the fable of the “American embargo” in combination with the COVID-19 virus, then we are but pimps for instigating the same Castro-styled totalitarian state in the United States.

When one man held prisoner in a Castro jail for several decades finally escaped from Cuba many years later, he gave Cubans who fled the island and made homes in the U.S. two salient pieces of advice. First, be grateful to America and its people for harboring Cuban immigrants with the gift of living in its freedom. The other was ominous: communism is the disease that can destroy America.

It’s disheartening to hear members of the U.S. Congress place blame on Capitalism, the United States, for the lack of free trade, with little or no regard for the history of Cuba or the happenings since the Fidel Castro revolution sixty years ago. Yes, the U.S. has levied and maintained tough trade restrictions between our two nations. But more than 190 other nations trade with Cuba! It’s sad to hear Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) blame the U.S. embargo for ALL of Cuba’s problems. In doing that, she legitimizes the oppressive treatment of Cubans by its own government.

The bureaucrats and their cronies in Cuba do NOT do without. They live in splendor with no lack of any of the necessities the Cuban people are forced to live without.

But AOC’s statements should surprise NO ONE. Her objective for the U.S. begins with shelling capitalism to replace it with socialism.

If this Cuban crisis does nothing more than show the true colors of those from the political left in the U.S., it’s been worth it. There is NO nation on Earth today or any past that has embraced Socialism and all its egregious treatment of its people that still exists today! If any version of Socialism was effective, why are citizens of socialist nations all over the world still trying to flee those countries to come to the U.S.?

Maybe this crisis in Cuba was a Godsend to the United States. At least now, as hard as it is to say, Americans seeing Cubans struggling across the board in horrible conditions implemented by their government might be the key for our nation to padlock ANY talks of socialism here.

Let’s hope so!

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