I’m sorry, Dad, that you missed most all of my Little League baseball games. You didn’t see me hit my first home run. You didn’t see me throw out a runner trying to steal second base. You didn’t see the walk-off double I hit that plated the run to cinch our City Championship.
I’m sorry you were late getting to our final District basketball game and didn’t see me score 12 points in the first quarter — the most I ever scored in a quarter in high school. You did get there, but by that time in the 4th quarter we had put the other team away and our junior varsity and freshmen were on the floor getting game time.
I didn’t get to play much high school football. My sophomore year it was discovered I had only 1 kidney and doctors kept me out of the game. I’m sorry that you never saw me play my favorite sport in either my freshman or sophomore year.
I’m sorry you didn’t think much of my musical talent. From age 7 to age 14, I had a piano recital once each year. They said I was pretty good playing, but you never heard me play with other students so you could compare.
I’m sorry you were too busy to see me graduate from high school or to even know I graduated 13th of the 630 graduates in my senior class.
I’m sorry that in the 7 years in which I traveled playing in a ministry group that you never came to see or hear us in those several hundred services.
I’m sorry that you walked away from relationships with my children — who were your ONLY grandchildren — and never saw any of them graduate from high school, get married, and never even laid eyes on your only 7 great-grandchildren.
I’m sorry that you weren’t available to be with your granddaughter during her fight with breast cancer, her double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and the night in which at dinner, every guy in the family shaved their heads to show her support in her recovery battle.
I’m sorry, Dad, that you weren’t at the funeral of her firstborn baby girl that died. Today, Emerson — that baby girl — would have been fifteen years old. I’m sorry that I’m pretty sure you never even knew her name. I’m sorry that you didn’t know a children’s center at our church is named “The Emerson Center” in her honor — you missed the building dedication.
I’m sorry you missed every birthday, every school program, every t-ball game, soccer game, football game, baseball game and every graduation of each of your only biological grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I’m sorry you never met any of your great-grandchildren and that I’m fairly certain you didn’t know their names or how gorgeous they are.
I’m sorry you were absent from the Christmas family celebrations we had each year for the last 44 years. I guess you just kept right on missing family Christmases like you did with Mom, my brother and me.
I’m sorry when we lived in South Louisiana and I fell in love with hunting and fishing, bought my own boat, and fished every weekend, you never wanted to go fishing or, during the winter, duck hunting either. I spent many weekend nights camped out on Six Mile Lake and wondered what you were doing when I cooked freshly caught bass on the fire.
But, Dad, I’m NOT sorry about some things, too:
I’m NOT sorry I learned to not treat my wife (of 44 years) the way you treated Mother;
I’m NOT sorry I learned to pour my life into everything that went along with spending time with my wife and children — dance, basketball, baseball, football, plays, church, camp, and eating together;
I’m NOT sorry I missed a bunch of games with “the guys,” golf instead of a baseball game or a dance recital, or staying late at a friend’s house instead of watching Mr. Rogers with our youngest;
I’m NOT sorry I never missed a fish fry at my in-laws where all my wife’s sisters and their families were there. We created special memories grabbing a bass filet right out the hot grease, at fresh homemade hush puppies and fried pies and told stories until all the kids fell asleep;
I’m NOT sorry that we started a beach tradition that was an annual weeklong pilgrimage with our kids, cousins, and always some stragglers at Destin, Florida. I’m NOT sorry we vacationed together as a family every summer. I remember only a single family vacation with you — one on which you fought with Mom about everything WHEN you were with us at all;
I’m NOT sorry that I learned money and work are not everything and that enjoying doing EVERYTHING possible with my own family was and is far more important than working 15 hours a day, always coming home cranky and griping about dinner being cold.
Dad, you DID do something really good for me. And I’m thankful for that one thing if nothing else. You’ve been gone for two years this month and I never had the chance to thank for this, probably the MOST important thing I learned in my life.
You taught how to live a happy life, have a good life and a good family, to love being with them as often and as much as possible. How did you do that?
By living every part of my life exactly opposite of the way you lived yours.
Some of you reading this will think that I’m cold, unthankful for my upbringing, and just an angry 65-year-old guy who has “Daddy issues.” Before you draw that opinion of me, you need to know a few things:
I dealt with much hurt and anger that I allowed to darken a large part of my life. For a time, that hurt and anger clouded my other relationships. Thankfully, a pastor gave a sermon many years ago that I felt was directed right at me on forgiveness. I’ll share the simple sentence in his sermon that changed my life. This “sentence” actually is one verse of the Lord’s Prayer, which I’m certain you’ve quoted as have I hundreds of times: “Forgive me MY sins and I forgive those who sin against me.”
It shocked me to realize, when I prayed that I was actually asking God to forgive me ONLY “as” — which is defined as “at the same time, to the same degree, while, or only if/when” — I forgive all those who have sinned against me.
To that end, years ago I called my Dad and asked him to forgive me for all the anger and malice I had held against him for decades. He wouldn’t forgive me, because he said I had not ever hurt him. He didn’t understand that Lord’s Prayer importance. But that didn’t matter: I did.
I went to his funeral. The pastor who spoke asked me before if I wanted to say something. I thought about it, but I declined. Why? There weren’t many good things I could have honestly said about my Dad. And the one critically important and life-changing principle I COULD have shared with those there wouldn’t have been understood by most if not all of those who attended.
I owe everything the credit anything and everything that might have ever been good in me, every good thing I’ve ever done, every success I’ve ever had, and 100% of all good relationship in my life to the fact that I consciously made a determination and stuck with it:
“I looked at everything Dad did in his life as it pertained to me and all others in our family AND DID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IN MY LIFE!”
I never got to thank you, Dad, for living a pattern that in some crazy way made my life wonderful!
Why the rush to remove monuments, change names of Universities and sports teams all the while denigrating their historical meanings?
Actually, what we are seeing is the fulfillment of Barack Obama’s major campaign promise when running in 2008: “To fundamentally change America.” Think about it: how could one change a nation fundamentally without altering its history? He did not say he wanted to alter the course of America or to change the processes in the U.S. Government. No, he wanted to fundamentally change America.
“Fundamentally” America was structured to operate as the most unique country on Earth. Our forefathers took the best of the political frameworks of European countries and added to it “liberty and justice for all.” They then memorialized that new type of government in the roadmap of roadmaps — the U.S. Constitution. That document and its contents are the fundamental backbones of the United States of America. Sure, people fight over whether or not the framers intended for it to be used in perpetuity as literally written or that it be a “living, breathing,” the process of laws that morph in interpretation to fit the inevitable changes in American life as they happen. But the argument today by some is to alter not the interpretations of the intent of the framers but to actually add, delete, and/or change phrasing and wording of the document.
That seems to be the justification used for the efforts to destroy offending monuments and statues and the removal of slogans and stone markers from places highly visible to the public. Which specific offensive historical reminders should be removed and which should stay? That remains to be seen. Of course, there are many that vigorously object to ANY removal, strictly for historical purposes.
To me, removing, hiding, or changing locations of these pieces of history is not the danger I am writing about. What petrifies me is the slippery slope America is now at the brink of sliding down into an abyss of societal culture never before experienced in America. So far the only thing that has prevented that slide is the strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the greatest judicial system on Earth. However, that too is under attack.
What did the Framers envision the Constitution to be? I think the best way to answer that question is to list the items in Article 1 Section 8 (powers of Congress) and Article 2 Section 2 (powers of the President) of the Constitution. Here is the link:
Upon reading these sections of the Constitution, most people will be shocked to see just how little power the Constitution gave to the new federal government. The federal government is mainly responsible for dealings with foreign countries such as treaties, commerce, wars., and little else (immigration, coining money, etc.). Yet today, Constitutional “detractors” on the Left want to tear up the Constitution and start from scratch!
We’ve all heard about the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Those are the first ten Amendments that are simply called the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and others involved in creating the U.S. Constitution had just after living under a European national government with top-down repressive and totalitarian operations for generations chose to move to a New World and establish a country that worked instead of top-down as a bottom-up governed nation.
The First Ten Amendments were the MOST important parts of the Constitution for those who had memories of awakening every day under that governmental oppression. Those ten amendments were written to make as easy as possible the understanding by all that the American people were creating a federal government that would operate using ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC RIGHTS AS GIVEN TO THAT GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. No other federal government rights were ever to be used unless and until they were expressly given to the government by the People!
An all-powerful central government had destroyed Western Europe. Those American settlers wanted nothing to do with that lifestyle then and certainly not moving forward in the new nation.
What Did the Framers Actually Think?
Let’s look at their OWN words:
On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. —Thomas Jefferson
The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington
Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so? — James Madison
The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison
Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution. — Thomas Jefferson
To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power. — Thomas Jefferson
How does all this compare to what some contemporaries in politics had to say about the Constitution?
Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine. — Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, A Call For The Emancipation Of The Generous Energies Of A People
The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” — Franklin Roosevelt, President
It is the genius of our Constitution that under its shelter of enduring institutions and rooted principles there is ample room for the rich fertility of American political invention. —Lyndon B. Johnson, President
The words of the Constitution … are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life. —Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice
This understanding, underlying constitutional interpretation since the New Deal, reflects the Constitution’s demands for structural flexibility sufficient to adapt substantive laws and institutions to rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. — Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority
I cannot accept this invitation [to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution], for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention … To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start. —Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice
It can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our profound belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases. —Harry Truman, President
If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless. —Antonin Gregory Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Just talk to me as a father—not what the Constitution says. What do you feel? — Joe Biden, Vice President
The Thread of Commonality
Wow! All of those quoted above — those from the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s as well as this century — represent different perspectives and different understandings of the intent of the framers and the actual meaning of the Constitution. But, thankfully, they acknowledge the significance of our nation actually having a roadmap to American governing that is recognized as the greatest in the World.
But there’s on more commonality that runs very obviously through each: Opinion. Yep. Each of those who weighed in with thoughts did so based on opinion — THEIR opinion.
And who among us is any different?
Several things about the framer’s offerings are very obvious:
they recognized that they could not foretell the future and therefore could not imagine what legalities their great, great, great, great grandchildren would face but would still need the Constitution for guidance;
they acknowledged that events in the future would dictate the necessity of flexibility in interpretations demanded by contemporary and unimagined occurrences in American life at the time of its creation;
they knew there would, therefore, be demands for actual editing of their original constitution.
To anticipate exactly how to adjudicate these future certainties they knew was a possibility in the 18th century. They therefore brilliantly included the ability and the process to alter the Constitution. That process is called “Amending.” But because of the importance of the strictest adherence to the blueprint of governing they created, they purposely made the amendment process extremely difficult. Why?
They hated the political process and knew that if allowed, that process would destroy true freedom created by the Constitution. They knew that political partisanship would initiate continuous amending of the Constitution not to better serve the basis of the Laws of the People, but to only satisfy the hunger for political power for the elite. They had lived through that and knew it could NOT be allowed to devour this new nation.
Democracy or Republic?
The cries from partisan political parties for either a Democracy or a Republic for a description of the form of government established by the Constitution have gone back and forth for the life of the United States. The winds of the political party in power have determined which form is desired at the time.
Jefferson and Company knew this would happen. They made clear how the U.S. government would work. And they guaranteed Americans would live in a Representative Republic with the establishment of the Electoral College that governs the process of electing the U.S. “Executive in Chief,” the President and Vice President. Also, states are to determine U.S. Senators: 2 from each state originally appointed by each state’s governor but changed via Amendment to be elected by each state’s electorate, Members that serve in the “People’s House,” Congress, are still elected by voters from each House district in each state.
Today, the political Left doesn’t accept the structure of the Republic, rejecting it for instead a Democratic government. Why? In a pure Democracy, there ARE no federal representatives of the People. Each person gets one vote. That sounds reasonable, right? Consider this:
”IF” the U.S. was a true Democracy, every federal election outcome would simply be what those from the states of California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas voted to be. Election results would be determined solely by the most heavily populated states and their voters’ desires. “Fly-over” Americans would have no say so at all in their government.
Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would be President instead of Donald Trump. That was the choice of the U.S. popular vote when the Electoral College elected Trump in something of a landslide. The same happened in the Bush 43 presidential elections.
So what’s fair?
That answer is simple: NOT A DEMOCRACY.
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote.
True democracy is the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is mob rule. Thankfully we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government….”
And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule, and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win.
Everybody was shocked when Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced he was going to speak to the press on Wednesday. Many more were shocked at the things he said:
Think about this: he stated his team — IF they could declare the President not guilty of allegations made — would have included that in the Mueller Report. What does that actually mean?
Never in U.S. history has any prosecutor ever felt obligated under the law to prove the innocence of someone charged. Mueller is the very first to do so! Based on what you heard and saw above, Mueller has changed the very premise of U.S. law: a charged individual is considered innocent “until” and “unless” he/she is PROVEN GUILTY. According to Mueller, his investigative team, besides not finding Trump guilty of collusion and obstruction of justice, could NOT prove he is innocent either.
I’m not an attorney, but Mueller doing so is either trying to forever change “innocence until proven guilty,” or he takes that position for another purpose. Wanna bet which of those is his reason?
Folks, this position was taken by Mueller Wednesday is a first in not just U.S. history, but a first in World History. Throughout every contemporary World government on Earth, the judicial system in each of those countries adopted a presumption of innocence as a foundation. Here is a link for you to use to see the countries who do so:
Countries like France, Italy, Philippines, China, Poland, Romania, Spain, Brazil, not to mention countries of the European Union and even Russia and every Islamic country in their criminal and civil law as a default presume the innocence of the accused with the burden of proof lying directly on the accuser.
Apparently, Robert Mueller — that bastion of impartiality and upholder of the Law — decided on his own the U.S. no longer believes the presumption of innocence.
Why do you suppose the sudden proposed change in the foundation of Law has been assumed by Mueller?
Assumption Bullet Points
Mueller is really after Trump. He couldn’t find hard evidence of guilt so he left the doubt in the air to prompt the Democrat House to begin impeachment proceedings. Honestly, I think this is NOT his reason. Even though he said in his press conference they could not find sufficient evidence to indict the President, he could have simply said, “We are today turning over the evidence that we DID uncover to the House for use in their investigation into presidential wrongdoing.” Congress in impeachment is NOT required to prove criminality on the part of the charged — in this case, President Trump. They merely are required to prove guilt in the commitment of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” (Isn’t that crazy: those two words are nowhere in the Constitution defined — they are totally subjective.)
Mueller has been tasked by someone to lay the groundwork for non-stop Trump investigations through the 2020 elections. That’s a plausible possibility in that Democrats running for President — all 23 of them and the DNC — have put forth NO legislative platform, no new ideas on any front, and have given Americans no good reasons for voters to (based on Trump policies and legislative and executive actions Dems claim are all wrong and evil) vote for their nominee in 2020. Once again they find themselves with one thing and one thing only to use against Mr. Trump: impeachment. The timing for making impeachment last through the 2020 elections is perfect. Even though Mueller’s team has exhaustive data, documents, written and recorded testimony of hundreds of witnesses, the Democrat House will slow-play impeachment proceedings so they are justified in “thorough investigations” of their own to assure Americans they have all the facts. It’s comical that Dems were so demanding for all to give Mueller room and latitude to complete his investigation with no interruptions, but then refuse to accept his findings: politics at its worst.
Mueller has something to hide and he is kicking this can down the road to distract “this” from everyone until after 2020 — whatever “this” is. As strange as this may seem, this is probably the most plausible of explanations for Mueller’s actions — especially for calling that press conference, making his statement, and, more importantly, taking NO questions! That seems like an effort on his part to send a message to his minions — the Democrats — so they will take action with this cue.
The last listed above is the explanation I feel for Mueller to do what he did. He’s messaged members of the Democrat Party to “circle the wagons” around him because something really serious is about to happen. What can that be? Who will it involve and who or what will initiate it and under what circumstances?
The answers to those will blow your mind! And we’ll get to them in detail after we take this short break at TruthNewsNet.org.
Fired FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, DNI head James Clapper, and others that many say are part of the “Deep State,” have become very vocal in recent days. Comey and Brennan have always had easy access to the media, but of late in social media and Mainstream media television outlets, they are again regular fixtures. And they have become amazingly bombastic and nasty towards Mr. Trump — which is no surprise to anyone. But they’ve turned their vitriol up a notch or two.
Conventional wisdom is that because DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is reportedly releasing one of his investigations’ reports in the next few weeks, that details in that report will certainly implicate at least Brennan, Clapper, and Comey for wrongdoing in both the Clinton email debacle and in the alleged fraudulent FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign. All three have each been caught in lies in sworn testimony before House and Senate committees. It is probable Horowitz will address those issues and many more. And, of course, there are many others like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and many more from the Obama Justice Department who probably are in his crosshairs. His first report will tell that tale. But, there’s a second report coming as well.
There are plenty of Americans who feel more and more that additional Obama Administration career politicians were involved in the propped-up FBI Trump Campaign investigation from its inception. Several from the Obama White House staff have already been drawn into the investigation while other big name folks are yet to be mentioned. But certainly, some if not many will be exposed in the second Horowitz report. Many believe those implicated could include Susan Rice (NSA Advisor to Obama), Samantha Power (United Nations U.S. Ambassador), former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and also Bill and Hillary Clinton. The name Barack Obama has been continually floated by those closest to Horowitz, but it is probable that even if the former president was involved, lower level members of his administration would probably take the fall for any of his wrongdoing. Time will tell.
What role would Bill and Hillary Clinton play in this? And where does Mueller fit into this picture? Hold on to your hats!
Hillary And Bill
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated the transfer of highly enriched uranium (HEU) previously confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during a 2006 “nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices,” a newly leaked classified cable shows.
The classified cable released by WikiLeaks was authored by Hillary Clinton’s State Department on August 17th, 2009. In the cable it states –
In 2008, Russia requested a ten-gram sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) seized in early 2006 in Georgia during a nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices. The seized HEU was transferred to U.S. custody and is being held at a secure Department of Energy facility. In response to the Russian request, the Georgian Government authorized the United States to share a sample of the material with the Russians for forensic analysis.
The cable also states that “Given Russia’s reluctance to act so far, FBI Director Robert Mueller’s delivery of this sample will underscore to Russia our commitment to follow through on this case.” It continues in stating, “Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives in Moscow on September 21.”
Robert Mueller — FBI Director — was “sent” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Moscow to personally deliver a sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU)!
The cable summarizes that, “We regret that the April visit by Director Mueller could not take place due to a scheduling conflict.” and makes a final request that, “We require that the transfer of this material be conducted at the airport, on the tarmac nearby the plane, upon arrival of the Director’s aircraft.”
Now knowing that the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton hid the FBI investigation into the Uranium One deal, this cable brings on new meaning and leads to numerous questions:
Why did Obama and Clinton agree to provide this uranium delivered by Mueller to Russia in the first place?
Another question is why did Clinton’s Secretary of State request that FBI Director Mueller deliver the sample of HEU to Russia and why was the transfer in April canceled and postponed to September?
The fact that Mueller needed to perform the transfer should raise numerous red flags. It’s been widely reported about Mueller’s conflicts of interest with his recent appointment as special counsel in the Russia investigation.
This past week information was reported that prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium through the approved sale of Uranium One, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill.
Mueller was handpicked by Hillary Clinton’s State Department to deal uranium to Russia.
What is Mueller attempting to hide? Robert Mueller is really a brilliant individual. We wrote extensively about his personal and business history when he was first appointed as Special Counsel by President Trump. It is important to note that in his past business life, he initiated and was personally involved in multiple “speckled” circumstances in which he took dramatic and questionable actions that were never questioned by anyone! Well, almost no one questioned him. But Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert certainly did. Take a look back at our 4-part series on Mr. Mueller that started on July 28, 2018: “ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED Part One.“
It’s a simple fact: members of the proverbial “Deep State” — and Mueller certainly is actually a “Charter Member” of that group — are masterful and hiding, covering, and making excuses for the wrongdoings of each other. The Obama Administration was full of them! We’ve mentioned just a few names in today’s story, but know for certain there are dozens more that have a Deep State ID card in their wallet or purse.
Why oh why would the Director of the FBI be tasked by Hillary Clinton — then Secretary of State that had NO authority to dispatch anyone in the FBI to Moscow, especially not the Director — to take that HEU sample to Putin personally? The only answer can be this: Hillary had/has something on Mueller that she threatened to expose if he did NOT take care of that tidbit of necessity to ramp-up the closing of that Uranium One deal! “If” Mueller is as smart as most think he is, and “If” Mueller has the legal mind that most think he does, the ONLY explanation for his doing so was that he owed the Clintons something and they had something on him. Think about it: by taking that trip, he exposed himself as a Clinton sycophant!
In closing, know this: Washington D.C. and those who live and work in that swamp are known as the “quid pro quo” capital of the world. Nothing is done in that city unless somebody initiates it with a threat or blackmail, and in doing so, someone else then owes a favor to the initiator. Mueller in his charade press conference was out there not because he thought it was the right thing to do or that he wanted to do it, he was told by someone who has something on him to do it!
So what happens now? Let’s hope it all ends this way:
Attorney General Barr releases the now unclassified documents that will show U.S. voters exactly what and who initiated the bogus Russia Collusion investigation;
With the release, AG Barr starts letting indictments fly for all those implicated in those documents;
Many of those indicted will “turn” on those above them — their “handlers” — by cutting a deal with the DOJ for immunity or negotiated sentences for their crimes;
Inspector General Horowitz will fill the missing spots with details he’ll be shortly releasing of his investigation into the Clinton Campaign, the DNC server hack, the Clinton email server debacle, and Uranium One and the involvement (if any) by the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.
I doubt Attorney General Barr is going to let this all drag out. I feel strongly that he’ll push hard for indictments, prosecution, and sentence adjudications. He is a no-play federal attorney who knows his way around an investigation and corrupt political operations. And one other thing: he’s planning on retiring from prosecuting and I don’t think he will let this push his retirement back!
The last thing in this conversation, I hope President Trump will NOT get so angry, tired, and disgusted with the dysfunctional American political system that he decides to simply throw in the towel. Just how many Americans would stay in the line of fire as he has when every day he and every member of his family are denigrated in the vilest ways very publicly, often by people who are supposed to be honest and hard-working government servants? Not very many.
You can say much about Donald Trump. Yes, he is loud. Yes, he bloviates quite often. Yes, he is caustic. Yes, he brags a lot.
But as Deion Sanders once said to Howard Cosell in an interview when Cosell asked Sanders why he bragged so much about his capabilities on the football field. Deion famously responded, “Howard, it ain’t bragging if you can do it!”
Say what you will, but Donald Trump has accomplished a lot for Americans and our nation. Just imagine how much more he would have achieved if the Deep State and Never Trumpers had stayed out of the way?
Before the Federal Reserve was founded, the nation was plagued with financial crises. At times, these crises led to “panics” in which people raced to their banks to withdraw their deposits. The failure of one bank often had a domino effect, in which customers of other banks rushed to withdraw funds from their own banks even if those banks were not in danger of failing. Banks needed a source of emergency reserves to prevent the panics and resulting runs from driving them out of business.
A particularly severe panic in 1907 resulted in bank runs that wreaked havoc on the fragile banking system and ultimately led Congress in 1913 to write the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve System, initially created to address these banking panics, is now charged with several broader responsibilities, including fostering a sound banking system and a healthy economy.
Although the need for banking reform was undisputed, for decades early supporters debated the delicate balance between national and regional interests. Nationally, the central bank had to make it easier to conduct financial transactions between businesses and individuals across regions of the country.
A stable central bank would also strengthen the United States’ standing in the world economy because foreign individuals, businesses, and governments have confidence in doing business within a country that has a responsible central bank and economic system. Regionally, the central bank would have to respond to the local needs for currency, which could vary across regions. A lack of available currency had caused the earlier banking panics.
Another important issue was creating a balance between the private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government. What emerged—the Federal Reserve System—was a central bank under public control, with many checks and balances.
Congress oversees the entire Federal Reserve System. And the Fed must work within the objectives established by Congress. Yet Congress gave the Federal Reserve the autonomy to carry out its responsibilities without political pressure. Each of the Fed’s three parts—the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed’s core responsibilities.
The Federal Reserve System was developed and continues to develop as an interesting blend of public and private interests and centralized and decentralized decision-making. As you continue reading, you will learn about the Fed’s structure and responsibilities—what the Fed is and what it does.
Who Runs the Federal Reserve?
At the core of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors, or Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., is a federal government agency that is the Fed’s centralized component. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. These Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions.
A Governor’s term is 14 years. It is possible, however, for a Federal Reserve Governor to serve a longer term. For example, William McChesney Martin Jr. served as a member and Chairman of the Board of Governors for nearly 19 years because he was appointed as Chairman to complete another person’s term and was then appointed to his own term.
Appointments to the Board of Governors are staggered—one Governor’s term expires every two years. Terms are staggered to provide the Fed political independence as a central bank, ensuring that one president cannot take advantage of his power to appoint Governors by “stacking the deck” with those who favor his policies. The Board of Governors must be nonpartisan and act independently. In addition to independence, the staggered terms enable stability and continuity on the Board of Governors. The seven Governors, according to the original Federal Reserve Act, should represent the nation’s financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests. Geography is a factor, too, as every Governor must be selected from a different Federal Reserve District. Recently Congress directed that at least one of the Governors have experience in community banking. (In general, community banks can be defined as those owned by organizations with less than $10 billion in assets.) The seven Governors, along with a host of economists and support staff, write the policies that ensure financially sound banks and a stable and strong national economy.
Governors actively lead committees that study prevailing economic issues—from affordable housing and consumer banking laws to interstate banking and electronic commerce. The Board of Governors also exercises broad supervisory control over certain state-chartered financial institutions, called member banks, as well as the companies that own banks (bank holding companies). This control ensures that commercial banks operate responsibly and comply with federal regulations and that the nation’s payments system functions smoothly. In addition, the Board of Governors oversees the activities of Reserve Banks, approving the appointments of each Reserve Bank’s president and three members of its board of directors. The Governors’ most important responsibility is participating on the FOMC, the committee that directs the nation’s monetary policy.
Who’s The Boss?
Heading the Board of Governors are a Chairman and Vice Chairman, who are Governors whom the president of the United States appoints to serve four-year terms. The current Chairman of the Board of Governors is Jerome H. Powell. This is a highly visible position.
The Chairman reports twice a year to Congress on the Fed’s monetary policy objectives, testifies before Congress on numerous other issues, and meets periodically with the secretary of the Treasury. Other Board of Governors officials are also called to testify before Congress, and they maintain regular contact with other government organizations as well.
As the Federal Reserve’s centralized component, the seven members of the Board of Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions, study trends in the economy, and help forecast the country’s future economic direction. The Governors also participate in monetary policymaking on the FOMC. In addition, the Board of Governors is responsible for regulations to keep the banking system sound and for overseeing the operations of the 12 Reserve Banks.
The U.S. Currency
Did you know that Federal Reserve Banks place the currency you use to make purchases into circulation? Each bill has a number and a letter that denote the Federal Reserve Bank that accounts for that particular bill. For example, a bill with the number 8 will have the letter H (the eighth letter in the alphabet), which means it appears on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
For the recently redesigned $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 bills, the letter and number that identify the Federal Reserve Bank are beneath the left serial number on the face of the bill.
Who Owns the Fed
The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?
The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank’s board of directors.
Should the Federal Reserve be Abolished
The answers here are provided under the condition that US monetary policy is reformed, and that means that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would be repealed, and other new legislature would then specifically outline the steps to be taken with ending the Federal Reserve, or 3rd Central Bank of the U.S.
The Monetary Act, or Monetary Reform Act, could be enacted by Congress, could reform the monetary system in two basic steps:
Abolish the Federal Reserve by repealing the act authorizing it (Fed Act of 1913), which also has illegally contradicted the Constitutional power given to Congress to coin money and control the supply of money.
Authorize the Treasury to print US NOTES, equal to the value of currency also known as “Federal Reserve Notes,” and also as “dollars,” currently in circulation. US Notes would then become “dollars” as the currency.
Since the amount of money in circulation is roughly equal to the amount of the national debt, the creation of U.S. Notes as a replacement to “Federal Reserve Notes,” would simultaneously eliminate the national debt (approaching $19 trillion).
The elimination of the debt would occur without inflation or deflation since the amount of Constitutionally mandated U.S. Notes printed to replace federal reserve notes would be equal, therefore, the money supply as a currency value would not change (hence, no inflation or deflation).
The almost $450 billion dollar interest payments on debt also be gone and so tax revenues that are currently wasted to pay interest could actually be used for say, infrastructure, and other expenses which many believe that taxes “pay for” now, except with the existing system, not all the interest can be paid annually. Therefore, all tax revenues go to just paying interest, and more money must be borrowed as deficit spending (borrowing from banks) to pay off just the remaining interest due, and also cover the federal budgets.
The US could cut all ties with the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, The Bank of International Settlements, ending association with some of the institutions that propagate on-going famine and impoverishment throughout the world, and the unethical domination of already-poor countries that accepted “aid” or “relief” during times of crisis, but then found out that it was money lent to them as debt. This leaves the already worst-off in many countries in an even more desperate state because of intentional destabilization and subrogation results when countries do not or can not pay their national debts.
The government would be controlled by the will of the people again, and not a group of independent bankers more powerful than the President, and the Congress. The lender is always more powerful than the borrower.
People seem to constantly scratch their heads about why, even though we all know that “change” would be good. And why is it that nothing ever does change, or why is it that government doesn’t seem to serve the interests of the people, the voters, but the bureaucratic machine, and what has to be nameless, faceless others? Why is the US in a state of constant warfare? The actual dissolution of the Federal Reserve would make it abundantly more clear, why it would be beneficial to do so.
Abolishing the Fed would put the money, provided for the needs of the people, would be back in the hands of the Congress, which is Constitutionally granted, and an illegal system that contradicts the mandates of the Constitution and the spirit of our national laws would finally be ended.
-The Bank of England called in their loans on King George III who then took away colonial money (Colonial script) and forced English coinage onto the colonists with increased taxation. This was the major catalyst for the war for independence.
-Thomas Jefferson ended the First Central Bank of the U.S. as they tried to recharter
-The War of 1812, an almost forgotten war, was the result of the U.S. government’s refusal to recharter another central bank.
-Andrew Jackson ended then Second Central Bank of the US. He was shot at by a “lone nutjob” house painter who missed with both pistols.
-Abraham Lincoln printed Greenbacks to fund the Civil War to maintain the union, and that money was highly successful, with some greenbacks in circulation till the 1970s. He was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” John Wilkes Boothe.
-James Garfield staunchly claims that he would not allow for the recharter of another central bank in the U.S. He was shot and died of his injuries a week later by “lone nutjob,” Charles Giteau, basically forgotten (See: The Unforgiven, film, Clint Eastwood, won Oscar for Best Picture).
-In 1913, the Third Central Bank of the U.S. is authorized by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which promises full employment, and was signed by Woodrow Wilson (duped), while banking proponents and their shills feign opposition to their own Act as if it was a threat to banking interests.
-John F. Kennedy signs an order to authorize Silver Certificates to replace Fed Reserve Notes. Only weeks later, he was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” Lee Harvey Oswald.
-Ronald Reagan appears on national television and claims in his address that the Federal Reserve poses the greatest threat to the future of the United States. A couple of weeks later, he was shot by a “lone nutjob,” John Hinkley Jr.
The secretive Federal Reserve has remained a mystery for more than 100 years. Reading its history above shows at its creation there was a definite need for it to stabilize the U.S. economy. But it has been questioned for a long time as being essential. In fact, its purposes have been continually questioned by many. It seems to simply be an entity to which the United States Government owes huge amounts of interest dollars to simply for printing currency.
That being said, most financial experts will agree that whether or not the Fed remains useful, it is time for the U.S. to get away from fiat currency and back to a currency that is just a representation of the actual hard, tangible assets owned by the U.S. and its citizens — like gold. For many, a dollar bill is just that: a dollar bill that means nothing.
I was in Zurich, Switzerland the day the Swiss shocked the world and held a press conference to announce their termination of a long-standing practice of pegging the value of the Swiss franc to the value of the Euro. Why? Switzerland owned more gold than necessary to back its issued currency notes — francs — with tangible value instead of setting an artifical value pegged to another currency’s value. Though it rocked the world, it stabilized Switzerland’s currency. In today’s economically up-and-down currency markets, having a currency that itself represents a real asset like gold would give that nation’s citizens confidence in their government and its economic policies.
The most misused word in American social and cultural interactions today is “Racist” — and that in itself is racist.
Think about it: in using the word racist as an adjective, it is defined as “showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another;” as a noun is defined as “a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.” When used as either an adjective or noun, the term “racist” bears a negative connotation in comparison to other people — maybe even to the person using the word.
In its universal use globally, it is actually a curse word, not a name (noun) or description (adjective). And typically the person(s) using it are doing so to demean someone else or some group in particular by comparison to other people or groups. And using it in any circumstance today is a racial act in simply doing so! How so?
You probably have never thought about that word and how it is used. It is tossed about as slang — just an afterthought. But it is so impactful, we all need to understand it, its origins, and its purposes.
First, it is not a “stand alone.” In fact, it is impossible for a word this powerful to exist in a vacuum. The word “racist” actually describes someone the user wishes to demean with the word. If/when a person chooses to take all that goes along with that “word,” it becomes a cancer. In fact, it is really nothing but an identifier of its source. Racism did not just pop up of the ground at some farm. It does not originate from a workshop or art studio. It was created by men about men centuries ago. In fact it has almost certainly existed since Man’s beginning. Racism is a product cooked up in a cauldron of humanity that periodically simply spills over into the hearts of men. But what is its source?
When our young children have a fever, we naturally run to the medicine cabinet and grab Tylenol or aspirin to give to the child to reduce the fever. The fever is NOT the child’s problem, rather a symptom of a problem: maybe an infection or a virus. But we act like if we rid the fever the problem is gone. Not so. The term “racist” does NOT define the problem — it defines the symptoms OF the problem. What is the problem? Elitism.
In the Beginning…..
There have always been at least two classes of humans since Creation — at least with the creation of Eve. God created Adam who needed someone with him. That was Eve. No sooner had Eve entered the scene, both Adam and Eve realized they were different. Each liked, respected, and accepted SOME of the differences of the other, but not all. Then the personality traits God embedded in each took over. Each felt superior in certain ways to the other, and vice versa. i.e. Adam felt he was smarter and stronger. Eve felt she was smarter and more enlightened about everything in their world. Eve felt superior to Adam and Adam felt superior to Eve. Their justifications for those opinions: “I’m better just because I’m a man,” or “Just because I’m a woman.” That was the beginning of elitism.
We all know how the World population grew then: the same way it grows now. Before too long there were many more people around. With those people came different physical attributes, intelligence levels, skills and talents, and personalities. Without really thinking about it, class and status and labeling automatically became simply part of life. Perceptually everyone developed an opinion of everyone else. Reality of those perceptions very seldom were questioned. After all, “Perception IS Reality.”
Inevitably groups were formed comprised of those with similarities with which others identified: race, intelligence, like and dislikes, spirituality, etc. Inevitably those in some of these groups felt better, smarter, better looking — all those things that represent human differences. Whether accurate or not, many in these groups sought to assume places of social standing based on understanding and rankings of those differences. These were the first elitists.
Since Adam and Eve, Elitists have always existed and have permeated every culture on Earth, and still do. No matter what society or culture they are part of, they find a way to demand status. Social Elitists assume power and authority over all labels for everyone in their lives. Elitists invented the words “racist,” “racism,” and other descriptive words like “homophobe,” “islamaphobe,” “xenophobe,” and all the other slang and demeaning labels we hear for various social groups in our lives. These monikors devised by Elitists are dog whistles for all those who subscribe to elitist mentality. Often as in the case of the words “Racist” and “Racism,” the labels that are created and assigned are NOT the issues. The spirit of Elitism is the issue. Those who embrace Elitism feel empowered to determine worth, value, and status of everyone, including themselves. And in all this, Truth does not matter.
“Racist” and “Racism” are simply words and descriptive phrases that describe emotions held and named by Elitists to use to selectively demean others. And they can be VERY brutal. Elitists are those who invent and maintain all the negative descriptive words used to label and while labeling demean all those who Elitists hate — whether or not their disdain for those they label is based on any real characteristic.
“Jay, when did you stop beating your wife?” How horrible for Jay to do that! Guess what: Jay DIDN’T BEAT HIS WIFE!
Homophobe. A very common term elitists use for anyone that disagrees with elitist philosophies — about anything! It does not need to be about homosexuality. You may simply be a Conservative and Liberals label you as a homophobe.
Xenophobe. Anyone who disagrees with the concept of open borders, who believes in LEGAL immigration, who joins the push for border enforcement is labelled by elitists as xenophobic. Forget about law, legalities, and illegalities. Disagree with elitists and you get a label.
The examples are endless. Each can be catastrophic. Elitist labels have destroyed marriages, careers, friendships, companies, and kept some good people from politics and run others out of politics.
Matthew 12:35 puts this in perspective: “A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.”
There are no racists, supremacists, homophobes, xenophobes, islamophobes, alive today. All those that have been labeled as such are just PEOPLE. Sure, some hold views that are angry, hateful, totally emotional without any intellectual basis. But they each are real people with real thoughts, ideas, characteristics, and value. For Elitists to use their dog-whistle labels to point out to fellow elitists an individual or group to attack, is inhumane, sick, and intellectually demeaning.
Guess what: anyone that calls you a racist, IS a racist! For racism is NOT anything on its on. It is created by a heart of elitism to use to attack others by creating a perception in others that the Elitist is more worthy than the one they are compared to.
The Sin is Elitism and the attacks it initiates.
The Elitist goal: “to make others seem and appear to be less valuable and less important than me.”
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) has been on fire since Donald Trump won the White House in 2016. Just 2 weeks after the Trump inauguration, TruthNewsNetwork predicted the cries of “Impeachment” from Democrats would begin, would increase in their fury, and would result in impeachment proceedings in Congress, especially if they could somehow regain the House in 2018. They regained the House, and impeachment proceedings look to be just around the corner!
Wednesday (May 22, 2019) House Democrats had an early morning private meeting the purpose of which was to discuss the merits of the House moving forward with Trump impeachment. Speaker Pelosi has avoided impeachment discussions. One would think she as the House Democrat leader would be out front in any process to discredit the Trump Administration. But she has been VERY hesitant to do so. Why is that?
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was in Congress when the Bill Clinton impeachment took place. Republicans were so anxious to impeach former President Bill Clinton that they ignored what they should have learned from the Nixon situation–that the key to getting rid of a President is to have thorough and open hearings before one even gets to the impeachment process so that the President’s goose is already cooked before impeachment proceedings begin. Republicans rushed ahead soon after Kenneth Star published his report—without any open Senate hearings at all. America was doing well at the time, including the American economy, and most Democrats in Congress thought that the charges against Clinton were contrived. Without a sufficient number of Democrats willing to convict Clinton in the Senate, Clinton was not convicted of those perjury charges and never was going to be convicted.
In addition, the American public was so annoyed at the complete waste of time of the Clinton impeachment process that the Democrats actually gained seats during a midterm while having a Democrat as President, only one of two times in modern history that this has ever happened (the two times in modern history occurred in 1998 after Republican’s failed attempt to convict Clinton and in 2002, post 9/11, under George W. Bush).
Do you think Pelosi went to school on Republicans backlash for going after Bill? I’m certain that keyed her hesitance this time. But with the fury that has been unleashed by her “junior” House members — Omar, Talib, and AOC — who are full-speed ahead for impeachment, Pelosi is in a tough spot.
Add to the fury of the youngsters the overreaching of Jerald Nadler (D-NY) who heads the House Judiciary Committee, and Nancy is facing a dilemma. Remember this: Nadler famously claimed numerous times even before the 2018 elections “there is irrefutable proof of Trump wrongdoing, including collusion with Russia,” and the identical claims of Congressmen Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Nadler finds himself in the same spot with Pelosi.
To illustrate the House Democrat dilemma and how convinced of impeachment House Dems are, in March of 2019, Swalwell said in MSNBC he’s ready for President Trump to sue him because he refuses to back down from his public assertions that there was evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
What’s at Stake For Democrats?
There were 13 Democratic-held U.S. House districts up for election in 2018 that Donald Trump won in the 2016 presidential election. Three of the districts flipped, voting in a Republican representative in 2018:
Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District
Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District
Pennsylvania’s 14th Congressional District
All three races were open seats. Minnesota’s 1st Tim Walz successfully ran for governor, while Minnesota’s 8th Rick Nolan did not seek re-election. Conor Lamb (D) successfully ran to represent Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District. Lamb had previously won a 2018 special election to replace U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (R). This increased the number of Trump/Democratic districts in Pennsylvania from one to two. The districts in Pennsylvania were redrawn after the state Supreme Court ruled that the state’s previous congressional map was unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans.
The 13 districts voted for Trump by as many as 30.8 percentage points and as few as 0.7 percentage points.
This may seem meaningless, but it really is important. And this may be the fundamental reason for Pelosi’s hesitation to push forward with impeachment. But there’s more.
The U.S. is booming on every financial front: revenue, unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, 5 million off of Food Stamps, more people employed in the U.S. than ever, etc.
These facts should certainly slow any impeachment discussions. What do Democrats have to offer better than this? Quoting that famous Democrat pundit, James Carville, or “Serpent-Head” as his wife termed him during the Clinton years: “It’s the economy, Stupid!”
What’s at Stake for Americans?
Let’s be honest: Americans tire quickly with all of the arguing and finger-pointing in Washington. Depending on which poll numbers one believes, Congressional members approval ratings among Americans is just 15% or less. Why is that?
Congress gets very little done!
Congress is really good at spending taxpayer dollars. But Congress is really slow at getting legislation passed and over to the President for a signature to become law. And that’s what members of Congress are supposed to do! Wouldn’t it be prudent to find out just what American registered voters think about what’s important for our government? We can do that.
In April, FOX News polled 1004 registered voters about what their most important issues are for the 2020 elections. Registered voters’ issues that impact their votes are as follows (most important to least important):
As you can see from the results of this poll, Americans are pretty much in lock step with the Trump agenda with maybe one exception: Climate change. But even without that factored in, far more than half of Americans who participated in the poll do not just support Trump’s efforts across the board as President, but strongly support his agenda. And this is the 2020 Democrat nightmare!
I’ve asked this before during the last two years: “What is the Democrat Party platform? What specifics do they plan on bringing to Americans that would support changing the residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year?” I’m still waiting for good answers. Until Wednesday, I thought there was only one. But it appears that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer after their Wednesday morning private chit chat with fellow Democrats, they’ve added a second “platform” idea.
“Let’s Do NOTHING!”
That’s right: immediately after their meeting with fellow Democrats, the pair went to the White House to negotiate infrastructure legislation with the President. However, before heading over to the White House, Pelosi spoke to reporters and gave America the Democrats’ “temporary” plan that they are going to use while deciding if there is enough on which to impeach the President. Pelosi spelled it out for us all: stonewall any meaningful legislation in Congress. And there’s one more thing. Listen closely to Pelosi tell reporters what that “one more thing” is:
According to the House Speaker, “The President is involved in a coverup.”
No explanation…no details…but a typical “drive-by shooter” tactic by the Democrats. What Pelosi did was give the messaging arm of the Democrat Party the talking points to be used by all in the upcoming days when speaking of President Trump. Who is that “messaging arm” of the Democrat Party? CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Washington Post, and The New York Times — The Mainstream Media.
No surprise here.
Do you know what’s saddest about all this? American confidence in the economy is at a high far above any in recent years. Wages are rising, unemployment is lower than almost ever, federal revenue is higher than ever, we are not in any foreign wars, international credibility in the U.S. is back after 8 years of NONE, our military is getting stronger after being gutted by the Obama Administration, law enforcement agencies and men and women who serve there for the first time in almost a decade feel this president has their backs. And the Democrats want to stop ALL this progress and take us back to the horrors of 2008-2016.
And they want Americans to believe in their plan?
I’ll end here with this: what’s the definition of insanity? “Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.”
What would be insanity for Americans at this point? Put a Democrat back in the White House for another 8 years of ObamaGate.
Does anyone else have problems distinguishing what politicians really believe, disbelieve, support or stand against? Legislation, social concerns, and issues, criminal justice, Constitutional matters, foreign policy, which laws we should enforce, which we should not, etc: all very important areas in which elected officials make very important determinations every day. In each, those decisions are more often than not critical decisions.
Many of those politicians prefer to keep their positions quiet — until for political purposes, their specific issue revelations are absolutely required. Why the secrecy? It feeds the narrative in Washington politics: “Blurred Lines:” keep quiet until you absolutely must weigh-in because usually, those revelations turn half of the voting populace against them. Remaining quiet as long as possible keeps voters guessing!
Great way to run a country, isn’t it?
Honestly, it’s a SAD way to run a home, a business, a state, and certainly the U.S. government. We can NEVER trust what we see and hear our leaders tell us. Bill and Hillary Clinton when serving two terms in the White House were against same-sex marriage. But they saw the light, didn’t they? Barack and Michelle Obama were against same-sex marriage. They too saw the light — the same light as the Clintons.
Federal laws passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by the President banned possession and use of marijuana. Barack Obama told his Justice Department head — Attorney General Eric Holder — to NOT prosecute marijuana offenders. Further, the U.S. has pretty specific laws against illegal immigration. Yet dozens and dozens of members of Congress, the entire Democrat Party including members and leadership, and pretty much everyone in the U.S. media want open borders with virtually unlimited illegal immigration. But that’s the way it goes: “Blurred Lines.”
Yep, “Blurred Lines.”That’s a famous song sung by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. I love the sound — love the beat. But even that song is controversial to many. It actually made it to #1 on the Billboard Music charts long before it was understood that its veiled message was about rape and the brutalization of women:
If you can’t hear, what I’m tryna say
If you can’t read, from the same page
Maybe I’m going deaf
Maybe I’m going blind
Maybe I’m out of my mind
OK, now he was close
Tried to domesticate you
But you’re an animal
Baby, it’s in your nature
Just let me liberate you
You don’t need no papers
That man is not your maker
And that’s why I’m gon’ take you
It’s a really catchy song. But unless you isolate the words and think things through, it would sound simply like another catchy 21st-century pop song.
That’s kinda what’s happening to Americans today. All those veiled messages, like the ones hidden in “Blurred Lines,” are finding their way into every critical part of the American infrastructure: government, social media, media, the Church, and especially into our schools. We’ve already talked about government. Let’s take a peek at those other categories.
Facebook and Twitter both took the entire world by storm. And they’re not alone. There are a plethora of social media sources for all to use. There are plentiful statistics one can find that reveal just how dependent are people in the world — especially in the U.S. — on Social media. I’ve got to be honest: I spend too much time surfing Twitter and Facebook myself.
Isn’t it odd that we all without thinking let the posts we read impact the way we think? Certainly, there are many goods that result from social media. But there are probably more bad than good. But that’s a conversation for a different day. Today we are discussing how everyday things that we use and depend on impact the way we think and the decisions we make.
How many times have you read a long post from a legitimate “source” that you simply believe and accept as factual and real without thinking about its source or any real reasoning? We do that all the time! Those situations impact even the hard and set-in-stone standards in our lives. Why? Because we allow them to.
Think of the current ills being exposed almost daily of Facebook especially, and how they apparently have policies that directly impact First Amendment rights that give everyone the right to say and/or write anything they choose to express their thoughts and opinions for anyone and everyone to see. Remember: Facebook is a media giant whose top brass are petrified that the federal government is going to step in and restrict some of the things they allow AND disallow on their platform. Yet we hear almost daily that Facebook does that EXACT thing themselves by editing what people CAN and CANNOT post on THEIR pages.
Don’t misunderstand me: “The Church” is not Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, or Presbyterian. “The Church” we are referring to is all the people together who from different denominations combined comprise the total group of Christians — or “The Church.”
Christians take as their roadmap The Holy Bible. They believe it is God’s word and that it gives all people the guidelines and instructions of how to best live for Christ.
Yes, there are various interpretations of different parts of The Holy Bible, but there is too an abundance of absolutes: “Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Steal…….” Those are a couple of the Ten Commandments. There too are other instructions for Christians throughout the 66 Books contained in it. And some are “interpretive” while others are “literal.” Let’s look at a topic that most Christians have for centuries felt is an absolute that some Christians have today decided is NOT absolute but is “interpretive.”
Homosexuality is one of the most controversial topics today that even perplexes many Christians. It isn’t specifically referenced in the Ten Commandments, but it is many times elsewhere: Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:9-10. (We won’t take the time to detail each, but I suggest you look those up yourself)
In those specific scriptures, homosexuality is deemed to be wrong. I know that statement is controversial and I’ve heard all the hundreds of explanations of those who believe homosexuality is OK. We’re not today going to argue that point. What we ARE pointing out is the “Blurred Lines” that are exposed in this controversy. Are you a practicing Christian? Do you believe The Holy Bible? Do you believe it is God’s Word?
If your answer to those is “Yes,” then for you to OK homosexuality requires you to turn away from your belief in The Holy Bible and that it IS God’s Word. How do we reconcile that?
Before I answer that question, let me say this: I have homosexuality in my personal family — for 40+ years. My family is comprised entirely of people who were raised in the church, believe The Holy Bible and that it is God’s Word, but still, are involved in homosexuality. Two obvious questions pop-up immediately: 1) How do THEY reconcile their beliefs with the scriptures, and 2) How do I reconcile and accept their homosexuality?
The answer is also two-fold: 1) the scriptures tell us that we are ALL to “Work out our salvation in fear and trembling.” They’re handling it however they choose is between them and God. 2) I don’t have to reconcile it because it’s none of my business! THEY answer to God for their choices and not to me. I answer to God for my choices and not anyone else.
But here’s where the lines get blurred: we are taught today by many sources that anyone that does NOT believe in homosexuality and all that goes along with it, is homophobic, and that homophobia is evil. In other words, a segment of society considers their opinion on homosexuality to be superior to someone else’s opinion. Yet many of those people will loudly proclaim their belief in The Holy Bible.
(There are a number of similar Biblical topics that we could touch on here to further examine this process, but for the sake of time we will not. Feel free to express your thoughts on the front page of this website or drop me an email at dan@TruthNewsNet.org and ask questions, and express your opinions. If we receive enough, we’ll do another story for this and let YOU write it with your comments!)
I must be honest: I am horrified at what I see played out every day in our schools. Principles that once were pillars of living in the U.S. have been obliterated by educators, only to be replaced by other “principles” presented by teachers and professors as “Gospel.”
Excellence in achievement is now painted to be unfair and too restrictive. It’s been replaced with “participation trophies.”
American government — especially Capitalism — is no longer the pillar of financial freedom and personal accomplishment students should push to achieve. Capitalism is now an evil threat to American democracy and should be replaced ASAP by Socialism. Those same teachers that damn Capitalism and give Socialism heavenly diety fail to teach the structure of Socialism to our students. They certainly never mentioned in class that there is not ONE Socialist country on Earth today or even in the history of the World that has succeeded in any way. Professors certainly do not explain any socialist failures in those countries were and are direct results of the structure of Socialism itself. The fundamental principle of Socialism is that all people are treated equally in every way. BUT….the government is given autonomy over every part of the citizens’ lives to determine what is right and what is wrong regarding use of the elements of life: education, healthcare, finance, retirement, etc. What Big Brother says always goes. But in every case, Big Brother takes too good care for himself and lets the citizenry suffer. That’s why Socialism fails.
Last, but not least, is today’s Media. Where do we start? Let’s start with the role that Media played in a country that fawned over its government, its healthcare, and its Media….and was destroyed: Germany.
Propaganda within Nazi Germany was taken to a new and frequently extreme level. Hitler was very aware of the value of good propaganda and he appointed Joseph Goebbels as head of propaganda.
Propaganda is the art of persuasion – persuading others that your ‘side of the story’ is correct. Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular to challenge, etc. In Nazi Germany, Dr. Joseph Goebbels was in charge of propaganda. Goebbel’s official title was Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment.
To ensure that everybody thought in the correct manner, Goebbels set up the Reich Chamber of Commerce in 1933. This organization dealt with literature, art, music, radio, film, newspapers, etc. To produce anything that was in these groups, you had to be a member of the Reich Chamber. The Nazi Party decided if you had the right credentials to be a member. Any person who was not admitted was not allowed to have any work published or performed. Disobedience brought with it severe punishments. As a result of this policy, Nazi Germany introduced a system of censorship. You could only read, see and hear what the Nazis wanted you to read, see and hear. In this way, if you believed what you were told, the Nazi leaders logically assumed that opposition to their rule would be very small and practiced only by those on the very extreme who would be easy to catch.
Is the U.S. Media directed by the U.S. Government as was the German Media under Hitler?
Certainly not. They disdain America’s current leader. They fawned over Barack Obama. So what’s wrong today? Where are the lines Blurred?
Today’s Media has become in the U.S. what Hitler and Goebbels were in WWII Germany. The U.S. Media today pick WHAT the U.S. should see and hear and what they should not. THEY determine what is good and what is bad. Take news from that liberal bastion of Americanism out West: San Francisco.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed said Wednesday she supports a decision by two judges allowing police to search freelance journalist Bryan Carmody’s home and office, as the first city official spoke out against the raid. The raid last Friday was part of a criminal investigation into what the San Francisco Police Department says was the illegal release of its report about the Feb. 22 death of Public Defender Jeff Adachi. Carmody said a confidential source gave him the police report, which he then sold to several news outlets. “Our role is to follow the law, and the judges ultimately make the decisions,” Breed said. “They made the decision. And so at this point, you know, I support their decision.” But Supervisor Hillary Ronen disagreed: “The police have gone about this completely wrong.” “I don’t love that (Carmody) took this document that should never have been released in the first place and sold it off to news outlets as a salacious story to hurt Jeff’s legacy and his family,” Ronen said. “But that doesn’t mean that we undermine one of the most important hallmarks of our democracy because we don’t like what this individual is doing.”
Did the New York Times or Washington Post put this story on the front page? Nope. You’d think that such an intrusion of the First Amendment rights would be blasted everywhere. But not regarding California’s flagship Sanctuary City regarding a member of its press. The “State” felt it was best to just let sleeping dogs lie. The Media chose who was right and that in this case freedom of the press was no good.
Then there was this:
Mr. Trump made his animus toward the news media clear during the presidential campaign, often expressing his disgust with coverage through Twitter or in diatribes at rallies. So if his campaign is any guide, Mr. Trump seems likely to enthusiastically embrace the aggressive crackdown on journalists and whistle-blowers that is an important yet little understood component of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy. Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists. Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.
This was an editorial in the New York Times. It is noteworthy and topical here today because it is an editorial and NOT a news story. This paper and almost every other paper in large American cities felt that Barack Obama could do no wrong. But, in fact, just below this sentence we have listed a link to a story that lists the 11 times President Obama unilaterally attacked the First Amendment while the American press looked away:
Here’s the danger that we are today living in: this blurring of lines across our society has become so rampant, so egregious, but so “normal” that Americans just automatically look the other way. Every time it happens it’s just no big deal. THAT’S HOW HITLER ROCKED GERMANS TO SLEEP, TOOK OVER THEIR MEDIA, THEIR MILITARY, THEIR CHURCHES, AND SYSTEMATICALLY RAN ROUGH-SHOD THROUGH EUROPE SLAUGHTERING PEOPLE LEFT AND RIGHT! Even the German people did not really think there was a systematic killing of people that were “different” from most Germans: the Jews that lived in Germany and elsewhere. And, certainly, the German press never mentioned it at all.
In every area of American life, the power junkies are routinely bending the truth to fit their specific narratives. But let’s be real: their doing so is NOT unique; it is NOT without precedent, and it is NOT without the full knowledge of the power junkies in charge.
But now it MUST be put directly in the faces of the American people. And that must happen quickly. One more national election in which those who are part of whatever this is find themselves stacking the deck of government with those who will further blur the lines between good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice find themselves in power. Too many are there now. Americans can afford no more.
We have been inundated for decades about single-family homes, absent father, welfare, and about all those who fall into these categories. And, quite honestly, most of those conversations include characterizations about welfare recipients that are not very flattering. Stories about minority Americans filling a grocery basket with ribeye steaks, wine, beer, and high dollar snacks then paying for them with food stamps and driving away in a luxury car. I’m not certain about the truth of such stories but I AM certain about negative characterizations of single moms and others who receive government assistance.
Make no mistake: there are those who take advantage of the welfare system. Abuse occurs in every government program in which someone receives benefits there certainly is abuse here. But the fundamental premise of this system is to provide to those who find themselves in dire situations in which suffering without help is real assistance to provide for needs while that person or persons get through their crisis. That’s what Americans do: help each other.
What is also true is that single-parent homes in the U.S. are rapidly climbing in numbers. And with that comes much talk, finger-pointing, and blame.
Before we launch into our investigation of this system, let me make one statement: there are far more Caucasian people that are recipients of welfare and other government assistance than there are African-Americans. Needing and receiving government assistance is NOT color specific: it impacts all races, ethnicities, religions, and those from multiple places of origin. What IS common among them is “need.” That need is why welfare was established and why it has been updated and even expanded over the last decades. Does it need changes? Is there abuse? These are things that need to examined and constantly monitored.
Let’s look at the big picture of this process, get some facts, and objectively begin to understand what those who find themselves receiving government assistance are going through. There’s not wrong with facts to be able to make reasoning decisions!
Truths of the Story
CNN’s Don Lemon says more than 72% of African-American births are out of wedlock. Here’s a look at the numbers Lemon’s uses to support that statement:
Race/Ethnic Group Percentage Single-parent
Non-Hispanic Whites 25%
American Indian/Alaskans 53%
There has been no significant increase in the number of married-couple families with children in the U.S. since 1965. By contrast, the number of single-parent families with children has skyrocketed by nearly 10 million, rising from 3.3 million in 1965 to 13.2 million in 2012. Since single-parent families are roughly four times more likely to lack self-sufficiency (and be officially poor), this unraveling of family structure has exerted a powerful downward pull against self-sufficiency and substantially boosted the official child poverty rate. When the War on Poverty began, 36 percent of poor families with children were headed by single parents. Today, the figure is 68 percent.
Since the inception of the War on Poverty in 1964, the welfare state has promoted single parenthood in two ways. First, means-tested welfare programs financially enable single parenthood. It is difficult for single mothers with a high school degree or less to support children without the aid of another parent. Means-tested welfare programs substantially reduce this difficulty by providing extensive support to single parents. Welfare thereby reduces the financial need for marriage. Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, less-educated mothers have increasingly become married to the welfare state and to the U.S. taxpayer rather than to the fathers of their children. As means-tested benefits expanded, welfare began to serve as a substitute for a husband in the home, and low-income marriage began to disappear. As husbands left the home, the need for more welfare to support single mothers increased. The War on Poverty created a destructive feedback loop: Welfare promoted the decline of marriage, which generated a need for more welfare.
A second major problem is that the means-tested welfare system actively penalizes low-income parents who do marry. All means-tested welfare programs are designed so that a family’s benefits are reduced as earnings rise. In practice, this means that, if a low-income single mother marries an employed father, her welfare benefits will generally be substantially reduced. The mother can maximize welfare by remaining unmarried and keeping the father’s income “off the books.” For example, a single mother with two children who earns $15,000 per year would generally receive around $5,200 per year of food stamp benefits. However, if she marries a father with the same earnings level, her food stamps would be cut to zero. A single mother receiving benefits from Section 8 or public housing would receive a subsidy worth on average around $11,000 per year if she was not employed, but if she marries a man earning $20,000 per year, these benefits would be cut nearly in half. Both food stamps and housing programs provide very real financial incentives for couples to remain unmarried.
There are so many stories about the Welfare System: who benefits from its use, the dangers, the abuses, and the dollars involved. We thought it best to go back and look at its history in the modern world. Bill Clinton took the bull by the horns in his second term and Congress on his watch made the last significant changes in the system. Let’s take a look back so we can (with an educated and factual perspective) know exactly where the U.S. Welfare System is today in the U.S.
Welfare in 21st Century America
April McCray thought she had finally caught a break in late 2005. That’s when the state of Louisiana granted cash assistance to the single mother through the Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF) program. (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) It was her first experience with America’s welfare program.
McCray, who had been in and out of work, struggled to make ends meet. This, she hoped, would at least help soften the burden.
But a month later, the state stripped her of the benefits without a clear explanation, she said. Since then, she says Louisiana, which controls state and federally allocated TANF dollars, has denied her requests for assistance several times.
“It gets depressing,” said McCray, who in 2019, was still struggling. With three kids and rarely more than a part-time job, she says she needs help she can’t seem to get from a welfare system that was overhauled 20 years ago.
Overhauling welfare was a hallmark of then-President Bill Clinton’s time in office. When he signed welfare reform into law on Aug. 22, 1996, he declared at a ceremony in the White House’s Rose Garden that it would “end welfare as we know it.”
Twenty years later, few would dispute the accuracy of that prediction. Welfare is, and has been, a vastly different system than it was prior to the law, which gave states wide control over their own welfare programs by allocating to them block grants.
So, two decades-plus later, are those changes working? It depends whom you ask.
TANF’s legacy has divided policy experts, with supporters saying it put an emphasis on work and increased employment among single mothers in the process while also reducing poverty overall. The program’s critics say it tore a hole in the safety net for people who remained in poverty and couldn’t find steady work, like McCray.
“(TANF) did shift the emphasis toward work. I think that is something where there has been a lot of agreement,” said Heather Hahn, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. “… As far as whether people are better off, I do think they are, in some cases, worse off.”
What America’s welfare system used to be
Welfare didn’t exist in America before the Great Depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. It officially came into being as a rule under the Social Security Act in 1935, offering aid to families with dependent children (AFDC).
In establishing the program, the federal government, for the first time, took responsibility for helping children with a parent who was dead, gone or otherwise incapacitated. Previously, those children most likely would have been institutionalized.
The program worked by the government giving funds to the states, which then distributed the money under federal guidelines.
Over several decades, AFDC went through several changes and revisions, perhaps most notably in 1961 when it expanded its definition of a “deprived child” to include one who had an unemployed parent. And, though the benefits were small, many families did end up dependent — and the criticism poured in.
The program was blamed for encouraging unwed mothers, and for discouraging work. It included phaseout rates, meaning that dollars earned meant less dollars in assistance.
Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan chipped away at changes, instituting job training and work requirements for AFDC participants. But by the 1990s, calls were clearly pouring in for change.
Enter Bill Clinton, who championed the most radical overhaul of America’s welfare system to date. Clinton, amid a re-election campaign, made reforming the program part of his bid to win back the White House.
When TANF became a law, a lot changed
The newly minted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) put an emphasis on getting people out of poverty and to work.
Under TANF, recipients in most cases are required to participate in work activities for 30 hours a week. Combined with expansions to the Earned Income Tax Credit, a tax credit for people with low- to-moderate-income jobs, TANF succeeded in getting people to work, especially during Clinton’s presidency.
From 1996 to 2000, employment rates among never-married mothers shot from 63% to 76%, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Additionally, both poverty rates among families with single mothers and overall poverty rates dropped.
“The welfare reform legislation moved us in the right direction by being much more aggressive about employment for the single mother population,” said Robert Doar, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who was formerly the commissioner of welfare in New York City.
Employment and poverty rates have leveled off in the long term, which has resulted in disagreement among policy experts about just how effective TANF has been in increasing employment, though most agree that it at least helped move the needle.
Where the law has failed, experts say, is by leaving behind those at the very bottom — the group of people in deep poverty who typically haven’t been able to find work, like McCray.
Studies have found that since TANF was instituted, deep or extreme poverty has increased. A 2011 study by the University of Michigan’s National Poverty Center found that families living on less than $2 per person a day more than doubled from 1996 to 2011.
Block grants: The good and the bad
Hahn of the Urban Institute and Liz Schott of the CBPP each attribute the rise in deep poverty largely to TANF. They pointed to three main flaws with the legislation: the block grants don’t adjust for inflation; states have often spent large portions of their TANF dollars on things other than basic assistance; and states sometimes have incentives to cut needy recipients loose from the program.
Since TANF became law, states have received fixed block grants from the federal government. When lawmakers were constructing TANF, Democrats in Congress wanted to include an inflation adjustment for the grants, said Ron Haskins, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who helped draft welfare reform as a staff member on the House Committee on Ways and Means.
An inflation adjustment would have enabled the amount of the block grants to increase along with inflation. But the law passed through a Republican-held Congress without one.
“Remember, in 1996 we were in midst of a huge budget fight, and Republicans were trying to balance the budget and savings were a huge deal,” said Haskins, who considers the reform mostly a success.
Not adjusting for inflation has caused the block grants to erode by about a third since 1996, according to the CBPP. That has essentially reduced the benefits states can give out, as well as the number of families that receive benefits, even as the number of needy families hasn’t been going down.
In addition, states have great flexibility in how they can spend their block grants. The money spent must fit into one of TANF’s four main purposes: assisting needy families; promoting work and marriage; reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancy; and increasing two-parent families.
States have wide discretion in determining what falls under those broad purposes, and that has led to significant spending on things other than core welfare services.
That’s a problem, Hahn said, because providing families with cash or helping parents find jobs are the two most effective ways to lift families out of poverty, since both provide them with incomes. In the most recent data available, 26% of national TANF spending went toward cash welfare, while only 8% went to work programs, according to the CBPP.
“It doesn’t always have to be about cash, but it should be about getting people to work,” Schott said.
Donald Trump didn’t often discuss welfare reform or TANF during his presidential campaign or so far in his presidency. But in his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, Trump praised welfare reform for emphasizing work and said other welfare programs should follow the same approach.
While discussing welfare in an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity, though, Trump said people need even more of an incentive to work — which he would seek to create.
“Right now, they have a disincentive,” he said in the interview. “They have an incentive not to work.”
The Trump Administration has paid an enormous amount of time in examination of the U.S. social safety environment. They have made remarkable changes in areas in which Americans have suffered and seemingly been ignored. It is likely that between today and the day of the 2020 election we will see dramatic and positive moves made by this Administration to improve America’s welfare system.
One thing we know for certain: Mr. Trump cares tremendously for Americans. That’s NOT just true about today. His life before politics was full of stories in which he helped numerous Americans who faced problems of many kinds that were no fault of their own. I imagine he’s still the same man and feels the same about his fellow Americans.
Let’s be clear: in this conversation, we are NOT speaking of “Evil” in the “axe murderer” connotation. We are speaking of evil that not only is a principle in lawbreaking but the evil that people make part of their minds and hearts which result in their acting-out on that evil — actually committing evil acts.
Example: in the Mueller Report, it is stated that President Trump reportedly called his White House Attorney Don McGhan and told him to call then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and tell Sessions that Mueller has serious conflicts of interest. Because those conflicts disqualified Mueller to serve as Special Counsel in the Russian Collusion investigation, Sessions should fire Mueller. Evil was NOT in that phone call. The evil was in the REPORTING of details of that phone call. Let me explain:
The President was angry because of the mistreatment he was receiving in what has proven to be a devious investigation based on totally false information disguised as “factual evidence.” (But that’s another story) In anger, he did NOT tell McGhan his attorney to fire Mueller as Democrats and the Leftist Media stated over and over, he told McGhan to tell Sessions to do so. The President followed protocol: Sessions as the Attorney General was who should take such action if necessary. But MUELLER WAS NEVER FIRED! And even if he had been fired by the President or his Attorney General, President Trump has the Constitutional power to do just that.
So where’s the evil? That evil lies specifically in the hearts of those Democrats and members of the Media who hold such hatred for Mr. Trump they wouldparse their reporting to make the President appear evil and that he obstructed justice in that incident. No crime was committed; there was no evil act on the part of the President. Yet many in America believe there was simply because of lies given in the Media. That’s evil.
By the way: there is NO federal statute that states if someone in anger tells another to tell someone else to fire someone, in doing that alone is NOT obstruction of justice.
Evil is not just present in mass shootings, racial crimes, sexual assaults, barbarism, or financial crimes. Evil lives among all of us. Every human being deals with evil, often without recognizing it or understanding it. But it’s there. For Christians, evil’s product is sin. What is sin? There are 10 basic “Thou Shalt/Thou Shalt Not” sins in the Bible: the Ten Commandments. But the evil in sin far surpasses those ten. The determination of the ten from the Bible is pretty easy. Figuring out all the others can be a job. But make no mistake: by the time little boys learn what little girls are, they know the difference between right and wrong. The same holds true for those little girls.
For this conversation, let’s exclude the discussion of the really evil things most can agree are sins: murder, rape, theft, etc. Most will accept those as sin. Let’s talk about those other evil acts, like “little white lies.” You know: those whispers when the phone rings and your kid answers it and you whisper, “tell them I’m not here” because you don’t want to talk to whoever called. Maybe stealing a candy bar from a convenience store, or faking a business deduction on your tax return to get that extra couple of hundred dollars in your refund. The problem is, telling those “little white lies” is lying. Lies are a product of evil, and therefore sin.
In America today because of the internet and satellite television, Americans are inundated with lies all day every day. We hear lies from politicians. We see lies in television ads. “Lose 15 pounds in 5 days, guaranteed,” and “Buy this watch and get the look of a Rolex, not for $25,000, but for only $200!” We hear so many lies we have become de-sensitized to lies of all kinds — except to those with which we object. And that is where the evil lies.
We are accustomed to hearing, repeating, or originating lies that fit our narrative, no matter the subject. And for those subjects that do not directly impact us or our narrative, we simply ignore them. That dismissing of those lies, in essence, legitimizes the lies themselves, but more importantly legitimizes our doing so again and again which numbs us to lying and says “Lying is not evil — especially when it fits MY narrative or that of those who I determine to be allowed to lie.” Examples?
Barack Obama when “selling” Obamacare: “If you like your doctor, under this plan you can keep your doctor.” “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.” “Premiums for the average family will decrease by $2500 per year.” “It will not add to the nation’s deficit.”
Congressman Anthony Weiner when confronting with sexting: “This was a hoax. It was committed on me, it was a prank, it was a relatively easy one to do, making fun of my name.”
President Bill Clinton: “I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.”
Today’s political news is overrun with lies — far too many to chronicle here. But we don’t need to: everyone sees and hears them over and over again. And that’s part of the problem! Lies are so common we have become desensitized to them. They’ve become part of life and are acceptable to most people — just like those “little white lies.” They may be little and seem inconsequential, but all lies are evil and erode at the fabric of truth and the established principles in the U.S. and in our homes.
Although evil has been alive and thriving since recorded history began, we are witnessing a gush of evil in this century and this decade never-before-seen in the U.S. Evil deeds seem to be steadily climbing in number, increasing in their perverseness, and are certainly being reported breathlessly by a press that (for the purposes of advertising dollars) cannot find a single evil act too nasty to blast across the nation. Evil among us is degrading even the most precious and historically sacred pieces of our life. What has caused this to happen and dramatically increase in number and severity?
What possesses a young man to viciously open fire on defenseless movie-goers in Aurora, Colorado? Why did James Holmes intentionally create a bloodbath of horror, killing twelve people and injuring scores of others? Would anyone in his right mind do that?
What possesses an old football coach at Penn State University to sexually molest grade school boys? Why did Jerry Sandusky recruit fatherless children through a foundation promising to help them and then abuse them?
We are perplexed about motivation. We’d like some kind of explanation. Is it insanity? Demon possession? Drug addiction? Is it brainwashing from watching violent video games or graphic pornography? What’s prompts people to perform such horrendous deeds?
What’s Going On?
Our society is dying. Infected by a plague that is making our once proud and God-fearing nation a soulless pit; the slow decay of our collective sense of evil and good is affecting every one of us. Many speak of how our country is divided between liberals and conservatives. The truth is that this division represents those that are awake and aware of what is occurring and those that for whatever reason have allowed the temptation of the easy path to blind them to the evils of going down that road. Whether an individual is clueless in his defense of evil or simply chooses to remain silent is irrelevant, failure to speak out against it is aiding in its advancement.
There are also those that believe that attaching a physical object to evil is a way to rid the world of it, as if removing a gun from an honest person’s hand will change the heart of those who are intent on committing murder because their heart has been infected by this sickness; this inability to be able to discern right from wrong — not because there is something wrong with an individual who can no longer make this distinction, but because right and wrong have become nothing but concepts with no absolute values assigned to their definitions. Right and wrong have been erased from the consciousness of millions as the very idea of something being right and something being wrong has come to be considered offensive, and an obstacle to the quest for total equality. In short; moral relativity has destroyed us.
In early August of 2013, in Oklahoma, a man was gunned down by three attackers whose only reason for committing such a heinous crime was because they were bored and thought killing a man would be fun. This story was being reported on all local media outlets, and because it was in a rural part of the state it was just assumed that the three teenagers were white kids. Honestly, no one even cares about the race of these kids. It was just a cold and heartless act driven by the fact that society had failed to instill the value of human life in them. These kids are just as much victims as is the man they killed; victims of a race-baiting machine that places no value on human life but rather hustles race issues for money while teaching it is okay to hate a certain kind of person, to blame a certain kind of person for all of your problems. That’s right, these kids were black, and they murdered a white man because they thought it would be fun.
Recently in Georgia, a public school in Newton County allowed one of its students to hang a poster they had made declaring that God is dead. We all know full well that if it was a poster praising Christianity, it would have been banned. When are we going to make the necessary connections and see that the further our nation strays from the God our founders referenced and called on repeatedly in prayer, the darker our days become? How on earth can we value life if we no longer value the reason we are living? This is what happens when the philosophies of Marx and Darwin infect society’s conscious. How could anyone hold any value for life when life itself has no meaning because we are just an accident of evolution needing to be controlled by an all-powerful state for own good? This is the sickness that is consuming our society, and it is being done on purpose by those craving power and control.
Oh, don’t forget about Washington D.C. If we tried to list all the evil committed in U.S. politics daily and who the perpetrators are, we’d never stop writing. It happens so frequently that all those who are part of the political process in Washington have become so numb to it those acts are just accepted as a regular part of operating the political process.
Remember all the prayers, all the references to God in documents, “In God We Trust” on all our currency, the Ten Commandments blazoned across walls in halls of government, and “One Nation Under God…?”
Remember the swearing-in of witnesses who are testifying before trial judges and juries? “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God?”
Even that phrase is being pushed out of our government.
Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN), just days ago swore-in several witnesses prior to a U.S. House Subcommittee meeting. He “forgot” to include the last line of the oath that has been used for several hundred years, “So help me God.” Watch and listen as our good friend Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) questions Cohen and suggested repeating the swearing-in but using “So help me God” in doing so. Notice that Cohen and Jerald Nadler (D-NY) poo-pah Johnson’s idea. I wonder why?
In truth I have no authority to claim that Cohen and/or Nadler are evil. But what CAN be said is it becomes more and more obvious that evil is stealthily finding its way into every crevice of the government process in Washington D.C. And it finds a home more and more often in the U.S. Congress. These are the people we elect, empower, and pay dearly to operate “Government OF the People, FOR the People, and BY the People.” If members of Congress were committed to adherence to their oaths of office and not so committed to propping up their party’s political narrative at all costs, they would be leading in honesty rather than in an evil atmosphere driven soley by what’s best for US and not THEM.
Do you know what else is happening and about to get crazier? Our sources have confirmed that a few current and many former government officials are about to receive subpoenas and even some arrested through indictments already issued. Those should occur before June 15, 2019.
But that’s really NOT news. What IS news is what is about to happen RIGHT NOW. Listen closely:
We know the Left have gone all-in to get rid of Donald Trump, and nothing else matters;
We know that even with the completion of the Mueller Report and that its findings show no direct or even indirect illegalities on the part of the President or members of his campaign staff, those Leftists have amped up THEIR investigation. And in doing so, they’re gasping for air. What is their purpose?
Here’s today’s SUMMARY in answer to that question:
The Left is throwing absolutely as much as they can up in the air. They’re calling in all their cards and obligations from the Media lapdogs to help establish and build the furor in the Media against President Trump. They KNOW that truth and justice for them are both on the horizon. They know they will NO LONGER be able to hide the evil that has permeated their actions in D.C. since the beginning of the 2016 campaign season. That evil includes all types of lies, committing of felonies, violations of classified materials laws, and even possibly treason! In short, they are facing the death of the Democrat Party. And its death is coming at the hands of the confrontation between the forces of good and the forces of evil. And we’re not talking about Superman, Wonder Woman, or the Justice League!
Their rhetoric, as loud and consistent as it has been, will become deafening. It will ALL be aimed at Donald Trump with continuous cries about all those previously claimed illegal acts allegedly committed by the Trump Campaign, but will be joined by new and more outrageous attacks that will become increasingly more vile and more in number.
Why are they going to do all this, especially when no one can even now believe how ridiculous their screams against this president are? One and only one reason: Their only hope is to make so much noise and so many allegations against Donald Trump et al, their screaming will deafen American voters so as for those voters to ignore those scurulous charges against them! And the American Media will come willingly to the fray, joining their now very public partners in Wasington: the Democrat Party.
“Evil will be revealed and Truth will out.”
In fact, they’ve all been given opportunities to come clean, but all have declined. In fact, many believe their own lives and ignore their own evil!
But, “Be sure your sins will find you out.” The bright light of Truth will take care of that for all Americans.
It’s about time somebody kicked Evil’s butt in Washington!
Normally we tackle the negativity and ridiculousness of the muck in Washington D.C. in American politics. We do so at the expense of some of the most costic, bombastic, and self-centered Americans in politics who have no real concept of what Nationalism and the Rule of Law really are. The U.S. Constitution? They “say” they love it, but their actions say differently. But today we are taking a different path. We’re not even going to talk about politics. We’re today having a conversation about “real” life.
There’s pretty much no worse feeling than to find oneself totally alone. Whether you’re a soldier who is part of a platoon on a combat mission who finds himself separated from his unit, or a single mother who daily faces the choices of not eating herself just to be able to feed her babies, being alone is usually very frightening.
Those instances in which we find ourselves alone often result in the feeling of loneliness. Loneliness is a complex and usually unpleasant emotional response to isolation. Loneliness typically includes anxious feelings about a lack of connection or communication with others. Loneliness often is heightened by fears of solitude extending into the future.
Research has shown that loneliness is common throughout society, including for people in marriages, relationships, families, veterans, and those with successful careers. It has been a long explored theme in the literature of human beings since classical antiquity. Loneliness has also been described as social pain—a psychological function meant to motivate an individual to seek social connections. Let’s face it: when a person is alone — especially for quite a while and with few or no connections with others — the results are seldom positive and often morph into unpleasant happenings.
Here’s a thought: are those who seem to have everything going their way — a great family, good job, wide circle of wonderful friends — ever susceptible to loneliness?
Gustavo is the pastor of a large and thriving church in Central America. He is an amazing pastor, his congregation is large and growing rapidly every day, and he is a prophet and evangelist in great demand throughout the world — but especially in the United States. As great a minister and pastor as he is, he is a greater husband and father. Yet he too battles loneliness.
I was with him yesterday in the midst of a meeting with hundreds of Americans who were hanging on his every word. He speaks with knowledge of how tough life can and often is, and also how to beat life’s foes while simply being human and fighting for survival each and every day.
Yet late in his message, he stated this: “Sometimes when I speak to thousands of people and see dramatic changes and results in their lives from what I am able to share with them, I find myself — even though they hang on every word and shout and applaud and want to know more and more — later alone in my hotel room wishing I could just have a hug.”
We see and here story after story about famous folks who end up dying alone, victims of self-inflicted drug overdoses or other suicides. But we’re not speaking today about that type of loneliness. We’re talking about situations in which people get stuck, and those dire circumstances come directly from choices in which they have no or very little responsibility.
I wrote a column in my college newspaper: the Tech Talk. I think the best one I wrote in my years there was titled “Alone: All, All, Alone.” Why was it “good?” Not because of the writer, believe me! It was so right-on and representative of those situations of being alone that are not the direct results of OUR actions. Maybe they’re the result of some action or inaction of another. In my case, it came as the result of the nasty divorce of my parents and the quick and horrible results for me from that. I’ll give you the “10,000-foot perspective” of it, just to build the basis this specific perspective of loneliness.
I was 16 at the time. We lived in a small town in south Louisiana. My Dad was the pastor of a small church that couldn’t pay him a fulltime salary. So he worked in construction about 45 miles away, commuting daily. Times were tough financially, but — from a kid’s perspective — things were good…until December 22, 1969. Dad left that day.
I had listened over the past months to Mom and Dad argue. I never saw any verbal or physical abuse. I never thought my Dad was involved with another. I thought those arguments came from the fact that Dad was holding down two jobs, driving to one at 5 AM Monday through Friday, getting home at 9 PM daily, and pastoring a church of 50 people at the same time. Certainly, those factors weighed heavily. But for whatever reason or reasons, Mom and I spent Christmas Day in 1969 alone.
Things went downhill from there. Mom had a nervous breakdown; I couldn’t take the stress and left home and moved to a friend’s garage apartment in the town in which I grew up, 45-miles away. I finished my junior year in high school while working parttime at a radio station.
Things changed dramatically that Spring. (That’s another story worthy of not just a TNN column, but a book! We’ll share that in the future) But the next Fall found me as a freshman at Louisiana Tech University, the home of the “Tech Talk.”
In the 20-months between Christmas 1969 and late August 1971, I discovered what REAL, “non-self-inflicted” loneliness was all about. I will say this: God miraculously intervened in my life in the interim. My story would well have ended tragically if He hadn’t. In fact, circumstances were amazing for me, and those circumstances kept me alive and moving forward.
But what those wonderful occurrences could NOT do was change the fact that I had lost my family as a result of decisions made by two others in which I had no input, that changed the course of my lifetime. That’s not even mentioning that the relationships I had with my mother and father were permanently altered. I found myself on a university campus in Ruston, Louisiana having no idea what life ahead could possibly be. I was alone.
For most of that almost 2 years, I tried my best to just make it. I was just a kid. I had no idea what life objectives even looked like. Moms and Dads — especially when kids are in high school — usually give kids some life templates from which to choose about this time. I simply struggled to put the pieces of life together that I found each day popping up AS they popped up. Thankfully God put people in my life that were there for me! Things would probably have gone unimaginably wrong without them. Yet that emptiness and hollowness that resulted from my loneliness showed up every day. And I had to deal with it every day.
I guess my youth, already-present entrepreneurial spirit, and the love of an unofficially adopted family factored heavily in keeping me on the road to successful real life, thank God! And things turned out really good. I’ve had 65 pretty good years, have a great immediate family and a wonderful extended family. But in all that, I’ve never been able to totally eliminate thoughts of that dark, hollow, achy, and gut-wrenching loneliness — especially as it hit home for the first time about 8 AM, December 22, 1969.
So what’s it all about?
People are simply not made to be alone — PERIOD. Human beings are social beings. And even though — social experimentation being what it is — people attempt the manufacturing of social scenarios in which Superman doesn’t need Superwoman or Super Kids or Super Friends, or anyone at all; that “all I need is ME” to live a happy, fulfilled, and contented life, that doesn’t work. PEOPLE NEED PEOPLE!
No, I am not a Shrink: I have NO psychological or psychiatric expertise or training. And I am NOT trying to give any psychological advice to anyone, or at least advice to do anything specific in or because of life circumstances. I am simply pointing out that sometimes, life is not fair. Sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances not of our own making that are horrendus, and that come with loneliness as a great part. What I am saying is that when this loneliness pops-up in our lives and our heads, we MUST find ways to get through them. And we can.
This would normally be the spot where a journalist would make some monumental and impactful suggestions, like “Here are 5 sure ways to guarantee you’ll never be loney,” or “Do you want to know how to always be fulfilled and happy?” I’m not going to do that. I don’t think there’s a magic prescription or pill that takes care of that.There certainly are people who maintain there are such panaceas for loneliness.
But what I WILL say and what I DO know is this: being alone is NOT fun — when it comes from bad circumstances that one inherits from decisions not their own or were not based on their own selfish motives. And loneliness is NOT the kiss of death.
But finding one self alone and its resulting loneliness and staying there almost always results in despair. And despair often initiates drastic measures.
Isn’t it ironic though that when someone as a result of loneliness and resulting despair commits suicide or worse, kills someone else, how many people who really care show-up in the aftermath? It happens a lot.
What if those who enter the picture only at a wake or funeral who weep for the deceased and cry “If only I had known” had been an initiator of helping that person when alive to work-through their loneliness?
A suggestion: Be open to all those in your life. Keep the lines of communication clear. Make certain ALL of those you care for understand that they can speak to you about anything with the certainty there will be no chastisement or disdain on your part for their simply sharing their feelings of loneliness and its results with you.
Most of the time doing so will be costly. Sometimes doing so will even hurt — and hurt deeply. But there’s a truth that makes that process pretty clear. It’s best revealed in the title of a song my brother — my “adopted” brother from the family that took me into their family in 1970 — wrote years ago: “Anything word having is worth hurting for.”
Truer words have never been spoken.
Why not try it: it probably will work. And if your trying doesn’t save a life, it will probably make someone’s life a whole lot better.