Woke but not Sleeping

If you’re a “Woke” person, you number among a bunch of folks who feel they are a class cut above most everyday Americans. Any woke person knows what that means. You don’t need to look up the definitions to know what “woke” means. If you ARE “woke,” you’ve opened your eyes and become socially engaged. And if you’re in that self-proclaimed classification, you need to educate yourself on current events and political issues. Being “woke” is being plugged in and actively aware and involved with the world around you.

However, the word holds a partisan undertone that we usually don’t even notice, and if we do, we probably agree with it. The word “woke” implies that to support the liberal viewpoint is to be socially aware — that’s the ONLY way to be socially aware. Woke people are heavily informed and actively involved with liberal social issues. If you’re leading a Black Lives Matter protest, you’re probably “woke.” If you’re calling your congressperson to advocate for Planned Parenthood, you’re probably “woke.” However, if you’re handing out pro-life leaflets, you probably will not wear the “woke” label.

This biased nomenclature is rooted in a belief held by some on the left that people are only conservative because they are uneducated. If only people were smarter, more informed, more “woke,” they would surely see the Democratic light and switch sides. Nevertheless, it is crucial to see the fault in this mindset.

Some of the most “woke” — socially informed and engaged — people I know are “woke” from the right. I know conservatives who watch the news 24/7 and don’t let a single current event slip their notice. I know people who utilize grassroots efforts to engage with their community to raise awareness for an issue that is of the utmost importance to them: anti-abortion legislation. Conservatism is not about being misinformed, and being “woke” is not about liberalism. There are educated, impassioned individuals on all sides of an issue.

I acknowledge that the origins of the word “woke” stem from the black community and its fight for equality. I understand that, historically, racial equality has been primarily driven by liberals, and hence the historical connection between the word and partisanship is natural. However, “woke” is spreading. It is taking on new meaning and new reach. “Woke” is starting to become an umbrella term for all that is just, thus making justice synonymous with Democratic political platforms.

Such usage of language is merely one example of rampant political polarization in the United States. We would rather assume that people on the other side are misinformed or downright idiotic than acknowledge the viability (and the necessity) of different opinions or priorities.

Furthermore, we have reached a point where we often isolate ourselves from people with differing political opinions. This is harmful in the obvious sense: It diminishes open, enriching political discourse. However, even more harmful is the reduction of individuals with whom we disagree to nothing more than their political beliefs. We allow our own self-image to be defined by our political identification. We fail to realize that people are more than their votes for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Donald Trump. People have families, friends, hobbies, passions, thoughts, and priorities. A Trump voter is not necessarily a raving racist, and a Clinton voter is not necessarily trying to leech off your hard-earned money. They are simply people who have different opinions than you. Those opinions do not make them dumb or evil. Those opinions do not have to mean that they are not “woke.” They are different, but they are not invalid.

A Biden voter: that’s a conversation for another day!

The Flip-side Of the Wokeness Coin

“If you hate wokeness, you should vote for Joe Biden.” So said one writer in the run-up to last November’s elections. It was a sentiment that echoed across what we might call the respectable “anti-woke” world: that Trump is to identity politics what kerosene is to a dumpster fire, so a win for the moderate Joe Biden would calm everyone down.

Unfortunately for the “woke” crowd, Biden’s presidency has done nothing to diffuse racial paranoia. On the contrary, it’s getting more feverish. We’ve seen the New York Times eliminate its star COVID-19 reporter because he once used the “n-word” in a private conversation about racist language. Teen Vogue canned its new editor over jokes she made about Asians on Twitter as a teenager. And six Dr. Seuss books have been withdrawn, never to be printed again, over “racist images.”

No issue can be too silly or too serious to be left unracialized by the “wokesters.” After two horrendous mass shootings in March in Atlanta and Boulder, the bodies were barely cold before they were declared victims of “white supremacist domestic terrorism,” Hollywood’s guru over political extremism, Rosanna Arquette, wrote hours after the Boulder shootings.

The Atlanta shooter targeted Asian-run massage parlors, but the FBI said it did not believe the white, sex-crazed killer was racially motivated. New Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock disagreed: “We all know hate when we see it.” The same story was published about Boulder, where 10 people had been gunned down in a grocery store — until the suspect turned out to be a Syrian American named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa. It’s hard to turn that into white supremacy.

Racism has become a kind of theory of everything for the American intellectuals or “woke” folks. This new religion has its roots in “critical race theory,” which holds that little real progress has been made since the Sixties and that racism remains structurally, culturally, and psychologically ingrained in American society. According to this worldview, racism is everywhere. And, of course, if you see otherwise, it’s because you’re blind, not because it isn’t there. Confronting racism’s various intrusions in our lives — real or imagined, historical or contemporary — apparently requires constant, hair-trigger vigilance.

This thinking has been mainstreamed recently by a pack of best-selling authors, led by Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, who have boiled it down to a series of slogans. In Kendi’s words, “There is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas, and antiracist ideas.” His type of worldview is a recipe for hysteria. And in this, America’s colleges continue to lead the way.

In January, the UIC John Marshall Law School in Chicago put Professor Jason Kilborn on indefinite leave. It barred him from campus after students claimed to be “incredibly upset” by one of his exam papers. The paper, describing a discrimination case, featured the “n-word,” written, “n_____” for sensitivity’s sake. Kilborn arranged a Zoom meeting with one of the offended students to smooth things over. He joked that the dean might think he (Kilborn) was “homicidal.” According to Kilborn, the student then told the campus authorities that he really was homicidal, thus triggering his expulsion from campus.

The “woke” left used the killing of George Floyd last year to push identity politics out of the colleges and into the streets. In a moment of universal horror at what appeared to be a brutal, racist murder, identity politicians offered straightforward answers.

This was not one horrible incident or even an example of one specific problem. They said: it was just the most extreme end of everyday white racism. This explanation comes, according to a writer in TIME, from white people complimenting black women on “how pretty our hair looks when we wear it straight” to cops “literally suffocating black people.” That’s true — you can’t make this stuff up!

There was an attempt to initiate a sense of white collective guilt for Floyd’s death. “White people, you are the problem,” thundered an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune. Creepy public displays of penance followed this. In Bethesda, Maryland, a group of whites held their arms up and pledged to tackle “racism, anti-blackness or violence” and to “do everything in my power to educate my community.” In North Carolina, white pastors washed the feet of black pastors while begging God for forgiveness.

A guy named David Shor, a progressive data analyst lost his job at a consultancy firm after tweeting the results of a paper claiming to show that race riots might hurt the Democrats in an election. Even expressing allegiance to Black Lives Matter in insufficient detail got some people canceled: the president and board chairman of the Poetry Foundation were forced to resign because their post-Floyd statement of solidarity was deemed too brief to be taken seriously.

All this legitimizes what John McWhorter, a dissident on race issues, has been saying for a while: anti-racism has become a religion — not like a religion but actually a religion, complete with a doctrine of original sin, gospel, and a pretty hard line on heresy. Just as original sin must be reckoned with but cannot be overcome, McWhorter said, nor can the taint of “white privilege.” The anti-racist movement has drifted, he says, “from a commitment to changing society to a narrower commitment to signaling antipathy to racism and leaving it there.”

Then last summer, along came the U.S. company rush to “wokeness.” Corporate America fell spectacularly, with Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola, and others pledging their allegiance to the Black Lives Matter movement. They all engaged in hollow performances that required them to give up nothing other than their dignity — something summed up by the photo of Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, taking the knee in front of a Chase bank vault.

One of Biden’s first acts as president was to cancel Trump’s ban on critical race theory. He dropped the usual buzzwords, from “systemic racism” to “equity.” And he even joined in the cancellation of Dr. Seuss by removing any mention of him from the presidential proclamation on Read Across America Day, which marks Dr. Seuss’s birthday.

A bunch of folks are looking at identity politics as anything but silly. If you’re one of those people, flush it from your mind. “Wokeness” is the “acceptable” means through which racial thinking is being peddled today. Its high priests see the experiences and interests of blacks and whites as irreconcilably different. As Robin DiAngelo puts it in White Fragility, “I have a white frame of reference and a white worldview, and I move through the world with a white experience.” Meanwhile, black people are portrayed as permanent victims.

Racial stereotypes are being rehabilitated in the politically correct form. Last year the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture released an educational guide to talking about race, in which it said that “hard work,” “politeness,” and “objective, rational linear thinking” were examples of “white culture.” It’s a claim many white racists would enthusiastically agree with.

Slowly but surely, the idea that blacks and whites need to be separated for their own safety or self-fulfillment is once again taking hold. In September, Ibram X. Kendi went on a tear against interracial adoption, suggesting that Amy Coney Barrett was a “white colonizer” who wanted to “civilize” her adopted Haitian children.

Woke politics is ugly and destructive. It does nothing to improve the lives of hard-up minorities because it is obsessed with only language rather than ordinary people’s lives. Its ideas about group-based privilege and victimhood are as likely to hide class inequalities as expose them. All it has achieved is to push America into racial paranoia and to call into question the old civil-rights ideals of color-blindness: the hope that one day people would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” as Martin Luther King, Jr. so beautifully put it.


If you are shaking your head right now, I urge you to pause for a moment. Can you look at yourself and label one single opinion that comprehensively defines your entire identity? I certainly hope not. We should all acknowledge our complexities as individuals and refuse to be defined by a single term. Then we should extend this same courtesy to others. If Americans en masse refuse to do this, we are headed down a long, dark, and narrow road. We know where the “wokesters” say they want to take us down that road. But I doubt more and more each day that their expressed destination for all this is really where we’re headed.

For me, I can sum up where I stand on all this is one statement: I don’t want to be “woke!” I don’t want to restrict my definition of activism and intelligence only to include those who agree with me politically. I want to be open-minded and engaged. I want to be informed and passionate. I want to be an advocate and a human being beyond political issues. Maybe we can broaden the definition of “woke” to include these characteristics from both sides of the political spectrum, but until then, I remain happily “un-woke.”

To Download Today’s (Tuesday, May 4, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:



The United States of “Power”

Declaration of Independence (annotated)

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness That — t to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…”

The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Who can honestly argue that these tenets espoused by all those men and women who fled their native countries to find a “New World” was an attempt to rebuild their World radically? The “New World” they fled to was a long sought-for home in which to establish the utopia described in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

The 1776 Declaration of Independence put the British on notice of their intentions; the Preamble two decades later that introduced the Rule of Law to this new nation and the rest of the World and enshrined it in a template with which this new nation would operate, “of, by, and for the People.”

Grandios thoughts and plans, don’t you think?

They WERE implemented. Over two centuries plus, these settlers gave their time, their blood, sweat, and tears — and sometimes their lives — to preserve the part of this utopia established and propped up so far. Though difficult at best, pure drudgery at worst, they endured and worked and died to fulfill this pipedream for which they fled Europe. They made their dream a reality! Ten generations later, the fight and struggle continues, and maybe with the same challenges, disagreements, and fights, and even wars, as did they.

We’ve finally arrived!  Or have we?

The U.S. Status Quo

Here we are in 2021. We finally arrived! We fought the British twice, the Germans twice, the Japanese once, and the North Vietnamese along the way to get here. We sustained skirmishes throughout those 260 years with radical Muslims, the Barbary Pirates, and showed our teeth and growled multiple times at the Commies. Oh, don’t forget that we fought ourselves domestically in a bit more than a skirmish that saw 600,000 faithful U.S. servants give their lives. It’s a pretty sure bet that we’ve been through a lot to get where we are. We bear scars — but at least they’re victory scars. Our nation is intact! We’ve prevailed. Yet, today, our compilation of 13 colonies that started this thing, and a bunch more added along the way, is more divided than ever — more so even than when we fought each other in the Civil War.

Sadly, there’s only one universal staple of the United States of America: Politics. It’s existed here since Europeans decided to come. And little about the political system has changed. Certainly, much of which our founders cautioned has happened despite (and sometimes because of) their warnings. After all, Americans have progressed through a couple of centuries, are much smarter, much richer, and more astute to the “things of the world.”

Yes, self-awareness and sanctimonious back-patting have thrived in the “New World.” And, to the chagrin of our forefathers, political parties were established and flourished.

The Founding Fathers were generally uneasy about political parties. For the most part, they believed that parties had the potential to tear the new nation apart. To these men, political parties meant factionalism, which they believed could be fatal to the development of the United States as a unified country. It is no surprise, then, those political parties are entirely omitted from the U.S. Constitution.

America’s founders understood that the republic they were founding requires parties as a means for keeping government accountable to the people. Throughout America’s history, the power of political parties has risen and fallen, reaching their power-peak in the last few decades. Americans today attribute to parties the very maladies from which great parties would save us if only we would restore them. Great political parties of the past put party principles above candidate personalities and institutionalized resources to maintain political relationships based on principle. They moderated politics and provided opportunities for leadership in Congress instead of shifting all power to the executive branch, enabling the republic to enjoy the benefits of checks and balances while avoiding gridlock. Parties also encouraged elected officials to put the national interest ahead of narrow special interests.

Does that sound anything even similar to today’s political parties?

If there is one thing about politics that unites Americans these days, it is their contempt for political parties and partisanship. More Americans today identify as independents than with either of the two major political parties. Citizens boast that they “vote for the person, not for the party,” and denounce fellow citizens or representatives who blindly toe the party line. Party leaders in Congress are held in disrepute, criticized by one side for being too soft and condemned by the other for being too partisan. Insurgent, outsider candidates are increasingly successful against those who are perceived as “the establishment.” Americans are bipartisan in their condemnation of partisanship.

Americans have always viewed political parties with skepticism. The Constitution did not seem to anticipate their emergence. Despite this, however, parties play an essential role in our republican form of government and have done so throughout American history.

If one thinks through the concept of such parties, it is safe to assume that political parties are considered to be essential to our democratic process. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The power to directly impact the federal government and its processes gives political power today to parties that far exceed our founders’ anticipations and their purposes for existence.

Many scholars feel the need for these parties holds a place on the “necessity scale” equal to that held by labor unions. Both were important for our nation at their foundings and through its formative years. The fruit of their operations protected their members while facilitating both government and America’s business operations, respectively. But neither function today in those ways and long ago moved away from foundation principles only to be devoured by political power and its fruits.

Thomas Jefferson best described the feelings toward political parties of many founders from the 1700s and many Americans today:

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

That speaks volumes about the substance of political parties then AND now.

What is their purpose today?

There can be only one correct and honest answer to that question: “To amass, maintain, and use the power of the party to establish unilateral, one-party control of the U.S. Government and all of its operations.” Never before in American history has its people seemed so divided. The division is actually the antithesis of the purposes for which the U.S. was established. Though settlers came from many countries, ethnicities, native languages, and even religions, each shared a handful of things that became the glue of commonality that amazingly held the country together despite its citizens’ vast array of oddities. How did it work? Through the personal choice to push through differences with others of every kind and pull together for those common goals spelled out above in the founding statements describing their purposes then and, supposedly, our common purposes today.

Today’s political leaders forgot about that.

No one can reasonably doubt the singular objective of both of today’s political parties. Unfettered power to control every aspect of the nation, its people, and its government has consumed all in its path. The last few presidential elections are evidence of that — if we needed more.

Barack Obama, while campaigning, revealed his purpose in becoming president was to lead the fundamental change of America. Hillary Clinton ran to instigate “Barack Obama Part III,” but Donald Trump spoiled the party. The American populace slipped up and spoiled the power push, keeping Hillary on the sidelines for four years. Why would they do that? They saw in Trump a leader NOT consumed with a lust for political power and a man who the populace felt would do something if elected that few if any presidents in their lifetimes had done: do exactly what was promised while campaigning AFTER being put in office. What a novel idea!

What happened in November of 2020? Without diving into the weeds, let’s say that Donald Trump was sent packing. The victor in that race was NOT the American people. Sadly, it was — on the back of Joe Biden — “Barack Obama Part III” that Hillary could not do.

Democrats on Biden’s watch quickly launched an all-out war against any American who disagreed with their power push. And it was not and is not for Socialism of some sort. We are watching daily as more and more evidence proves their objective looks more like totalitarianism than any socialism seen in other countries. In fact, it can truly be likened to Marxism — TRUE totalitarianism.

Talk about a hunger for power! What political structure in history was built more on seizing power that then is maintained by a small despotic bureaucratic hodge-podge than original Marxism?

What does Marxism look like? What are its purposes in operation?

In a nutshell, Marxism examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism. In other words, the government gets larger and stronger, seizes power over processes and systems and organizations other than government, and rules the nation unilaterally. Government “of, by, and for the People” disappears in the rearview mirror.

That’s not underway today in the U.S. There are still three co-equal branches of government and two distinct political parties that offer diversity. How can a case be rightly made that Marxism is underway or that is even being contemplated?

Any American that subscribes to that theory is either living under a rock, asleep, or simply not paying attention!

One of the first steps of any totalitarian political operation is to seize control. Isn’t it obvious that in November 2021, that very thing occurred? At best, there were certain election “irregularities.” At worst, there was rampant voter fraud that changed national election outcomes. Either is sufficient to complete the first step in a Marxist movement: seize total control of the government.

Democrats seized control of the House, Senate, and the White House.

The second “must-have” in Marxism is the stifling of dissidence: eliminating opposing views against the controlling government entity.

Leaders in the Democrat Party perfected the Cancel Culture, a new term to divide and conquer America’s political class: Critical Race Theory and the demonization of anyone with any diverse ideology that disagrees with the ideology of the Ruling Class. Our Ruling Class today is the Democrat Party.

  • They don’t need consensus for legislation, restrictions that they choose to implement, taxing, spending, or canceling anyone and anything with which they disagree.
  • With power, they have virtual control of every policy, every law, every interaction with other governments, controlling borders, and virtual control of every aspect of not just the government, but THROUGH the government, every aspect of American life.
  • Why would they even consider eliminating the filibuster if that was not key in their project? They wouldn’t IF they perpetuated their cries to KEEP the filibuster to protect a minority party as they did in years past.
  • Why would they foment daily hatred for “other” Americans — those with whom they disagree if their objective was not to seize power?
  • Why would they rush massive spending projects one after another through Congress, knowing that many Americans disagree?


The bottom line to this all is horrifying but truthful and scary: the political class in power plans to take whatever measures they deem necessary to keep that power in perpetuity, no matter the cost or the personal or professional damage doing so cost American individuals OR the nation as a whole. In their plan and their minds, the “end certainly justifies the means to that end.”

You and I are not the only victims. In fact, we are the least among those victims. They are freedom, justice, the rule of law, government of, by, and for the People, liberty, a guarantee for the unfettered pursuit of happiness, our First and Second Amendment rights, and every individual right we’ve had since the late 1700s. As far as those political party leaders are concerned, Americans never had the right to all that anyway.

Their feelings are justified by this: “Government gave those rights; Government now takes them away.”

What happens next? Why don’t you tell me!

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


Do You Need Forgiveness From Someone?

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

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

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

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

Forgiveness: the toughest thing to give OR receive

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

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

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

But how does one get started in that process?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Said…

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And YOU control it!

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

New York Time COVID-19 Statistics Daily Tracking:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

This explains each of these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

That’s pretty scary!

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

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

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

That’s a tall order!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blood Money: Experimentation For Profit

Part Two by Kelleigh Nelson

The concentration camps were a laboratory for the Nazis. They put the minorities and intellectuals in there because the general population wouldn’t mind losing those people. The Nazi leaders knew people needed targets for their own self-hatred. Wendy Hoffman, Survivor of Criminal Abuse

We slow the progress of science today for all sorts of ethical reasons. Biomedicine could advance much faster if we abolished our rules on human experimentation in clinical trials, as Nazi researchers did. Paul Nitze served under Truman, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson

The above quote by Nitze is the reality of how the government and medical scientists think of American citizens…we are cash cows to be used and disposed of for their own experiments.  Joseph Mengele, the Angel of Death, would be proud.

In 1951, I was sitting on the kitchen table in our apartment in Chicago swinging my legs as little girls will do.  My mom was reading the very conservative Chicago Tribune newspaper and often would read aloud to me as a child.  I distinctly remember her reading an article that stated the federal government had sprayed a flu virus over the Rogers Park area of Chicago to see how the contamination worked on the population.  It was a very small article in the back pages, and I remember my mother’s anger at reading it.  I believe Americans have been experimented on by our government, for many, many decades, and I also believed it would get far worse with Obamacare and it has.

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

In 1951, a 31-year-old woman and mother of five by the name of Henrietta Lacks died of cervical cancer in Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.  Without her or her family’s permission, portions of her cancer cells were taken by her doctor prior to her treatment, as well as after her death and during the autopsy.   Throughout our history, the poorer citizens, many of whom were black, were especially targeted for experimentation.  Henrietta had two of the most virulent strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) that cause cervical cancer.  There are over 100 different strains affecting 90% of today’s sexually active population.  Henrietta’s family did not learn of her cells being taken until over 20 years after her death.

Unlike normal cells which are extremely difficult to grow, the cancer cells from Henrietta grew exponentially.  They are called the HeLa cell line, the first two letters from the patient’s name were used for cell lines back then.  Henrietta’s cells have helped to conquer various illnesses with new drugs, helped create the polio vaccine, uncovered secrets of cancer, viruses, and the atom bomb’s effect, and have been bought and sold by the billions.  There are so many of them now that they would wrap around the earth three times.  They also easily contaminate other cell lines so their use is now in a sterile and controlled environment.

Henrietta’s family has never received one dime from any laboratory or Johns Hopkins in all the years since her death despite the fact that her cells were taken without the family’s knowledge, until now…

In 2013, the National Institute of Health announced it was, at long last, making good with Lacks’ family. Under a new agreement, Lack’s genome data will be accessible only to those who apply for and are granted permission. And two representatives of the Lacks family will serve on the NIH group responsible for reviewing biomedical researchers’ applications for controlled access to HeLa cells. Additionally, any researcher who uses that data will be asked to include an acknowledgment to the Lacks family in their publications.  And in 2020, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute gave a six-figure donation as reparations to the Lacks family.

There are still no laws on the books stating that any piece of your body that is removed cannot be used without your express permission.  Today, labs sell countless biopsies for various uses in cell line cultures, but there is no benefit to the patient.

Back in 1954, Dr. Chester Southam, a cancer researcher and chief of virology at Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute had a frightening thought.  What if the researchers working with HeLa cells could be infected?  He and many other scientists believed that cancer was caused by either a virus or an immune system deficiency, so Southam decided to use HeLa to test those theories.

He loaded a syringe with a saline solution mixed with HeLa.  He injected millions of HeLa cells into the forearm of a leukemia patient telling her he was testing her immune system.  Within a short period of time, nodules like Henrietta’s showed on the arm.  He removed them.  He injected several other patients who had cancers to see whether or not their own immune system would fight them off.  In many cases they did, but in four they had to be removed but kept growing back, and in one they metastasized to her lymph nodes.

Southam continued injecting patients at Sloan-Kettering and James Ewing Hospitals.  It wasn’t until three Jewish doctors refused to do Southam’s protocols, citing the Nuremberg Code, that the experiments were halted.  In the ensuing media mess and trial, Southam nearly lost his medical license, and the wars about patient consent began.

Southam went on to solicit prisoners in Ohio State Penitentiary in order to inject healthy patients with HeLa.  As Rebecca Skloot, the author of, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” states, his tactics reminded her of Dr. Josef Mengele, the notorious “Angel of Death,” in Nazi Germany who conducted horrid experiments on prisoners and especially twins.

You can even order Henrietta’s cells on the web today, and we still have no proper laws governing parts of our bodies that are excised and discarded, but are not put in the biohazard garbage!

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

At the White House on May 16, 1997, President Clinton addressed five elderly African American men, ages 89 to 109, and the family members of others that couldn’t be present.  He apologized for one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. medical history.  In 1932, the government used 623 men as human guinea pigs in a 40-year medical experiment.  This, in itself, is bad enough, but for 40 years these black men, predominately poor and uneducated, were deliberately kept in the dark about what was happening to them.  This “experiment” continued for 20 years after the Nuremberg trials and the set of standards that came out of the trials called the Nuremberg codes.  The civilized world agreed that human beings would not be used as research animals and that doctors would never forget their first duty to heal their patients.


The United States Public Health Service (PHS) (now the CDC) conducted this experiment. More than half of the 623 men had syphilis, the others, a control group, did not.  They were told they were being treated for “Bad Blood.”  The men were told they’d get free lunches, free medical care, free burial, and 100 dollars. That may sound odd, but at the time burial money and free medical care were coveted.  Despite the development of penicillin in the early ’40s and the availability of it by 1944, the men were never treated.  In actuality, the “experiment” was to see what illnesses developed and how long it took the men to die.  Here is the timeline.

By the end, in 1972, 28 of the men had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis.  At first, they were given the choice of the medicine of that day to treat syphilis, but in such small amounts that only 3% showed any improvement.  To ensure the men would show up for potentially dangerous spinal taps, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype…their “last chance for special free treatment.”  The men were also never told their bodies would be required for autopsy.  Even the Surgeon General of the U.S. participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment by sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.

To read about this experiment on poor uneducated blacks in our country is to become outraged at the cruelty and the inhuman tactics, not to mention the fact that they purposely lied to these men as though their lives were less important than anyone else’s life…i.e., white men.  Yet, the times were quite different, and even after the experiment, many within the medical community felt absolutely no regret.  And, what did the “experiment” succeed in doing?

On July 27, 1972, one survivor, Charlie Pollard went to see attorney Fred D. Gray who became the attorney for the plaintiffs in what became known as Pollard vs. the United States of America, a $1.8 billion class-action civil suit filed in federal court in Montgomery, Alabama.  Gray demanded $3 million in damages for each living participant and the heirs of the deceased.  The case never went to trial and was settled out of court in December 1974.  The government agreed to a $10 million out-of-court settlement.  Sadly, the living participants received $37,500 in damages, the heirs of the deceased, $15,000.  Gray received nearly $1 million in legal fees for two years of hard work.  No PHS officer who had been directly involved in the study felt any contrition.

While working as a producer for the Roger Fredinburg show some years back, we interviewed attorney Fred D. Gray.  I will never forget what he said when we were told the small number of awards from the lawsuit.  He said, “How can you expect to get a fair settlement when the judge hearing the case works for the people you’re suing?”

In 1990, a survey found that 10% of black Americans believed the U.S. government created AIDS as a plot to exterminate blacks and another 20% could not rule out the possibility that this might be true.  Is it any wonder after the government’s experiment at Tuskegee?

President Clinton nominated Dr. Henry W. Foster for Surgeon General in 1995.  The mainstream media reported that Dr. Foster, an OB/GYN was present at a meeting in 1969 in which a small number of local doctors were informed of the infamous Tuskegee experiment.

Dr. Luther C. McRae said in an interview that Dr. Foster learned some details of the experiment at the 1969 meeting. Dr. McRae said that like all the doctors present that day, including himself, Dr. Foster did not express any moral qualms about the study. At the time, Dr. Foster was chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Tuskegee University.  He did not become Surgeon General because of this fact.

Medical Apartheid

The experiments on black Americans began in the early days of our Republic and by the time of the War of Northern Aggression, blacks were being used, almost exclusively for experimental surgeries, and it was never consensual, but rather to expand medical knowledge.

One surgeon from Alabama, James Marion Sims, did all his experimentation with his slaves.  He took the skulls of young black children (only blacks) and opened their heads and moved the bones around.  He even decided to remove the jawbone of a slave who protested loudly, so the doctor had him tied to a barber’s chair and operated on him without anesthesia.

There have been many stellar physicians and surgeons throughout American history who have never suffered any consequences for their experiments and surgeries on people without their permission.

Prison experiments have been off-limits for a number of years, but a federal panel is now considering loosening the regulations around prisoner experiments.  The history of research in prisons has been the worst of abuses.  There were experimental agents administered, men were crippled and killed.  There were even mind control experiments.

In Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia, prisoners there were injected with Staphylococcus and Monilia, herpes, and other viruses.  Dr. Kligman was in charge and he injected men at the behest of pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies with dangerous chemicals.  These men had a type of checkerboard on their backs where different chemicals were tested.  Dr. Kligman has never been successfully sued, but rather honored.

Another Mississippi neurosurgeon, Orlando J. Andy, was doing experimentation in the 1960s and ’70s.  He was taking institutionalized young black boys and cutting out parts of their brains.  His rationale was to find “behavior problems,” but there’s no psychologist report.  And he was not a psychologist, but a neurologist.  Also, there was no indication any of them had behavioral problems.   The University of Mississippi is very proud of its revered hero, Dr. Andy.  His medical literature never shows that he did anything untoward.

There are countless horror stories of experiments on black Americans from the beginning of our Republic, but there are also countless experiments that are done on the general population of America.  I’m not talking about conspiracy theories; I’m talking about documented proof of government experiments on the general population.

The SV-40 monkey virus contamination of the polio vaccines, the plutonium experiments during the cold war on military and others, and the fluoride deception perpetrated by the majority of towns and cities of America, are only a few of the horrors perpetrated on American citizens.

The US government’s secret history of grisly experiments on both animals and humans remains hidden from most citizens.


The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot

Bad Blood by James H. Jones

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study by Fred D. Gray

Bus Ride to Justice by Fred D. Gray

Medical Apartheid by Harriet Washington

Acres of Skin by Allen Hornblum


To Download Today’s (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)  “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

The Low Seat

This story was first published here July 29, 2017. That was my 64th birthday. Wow! Much has changed in just 3.5 years, hasn’t it? But while our nation has raced on from just having welcomed a new president, we’ve now welcomed his successor. Some things change, but many things remain the same.

This story published on that birthday chronicles a characteristic that not only do I want to make certain I exercise every day in my life, I wish everyone on Earth could adopt the same philosophy. In our “new” government that has quickly devolved into a government I never thought I’d see in my lifetime, finding ways to put others before ourselves has almost become a lost art.

I needed to revisit this story. And I think I’m not alone. I know some of you, but only a small number who will see this today. I have a suggestion for you: when you read this (and it’s a short 1100 words), I hope you think it through and adopt this thought process, if you haven’t already. In either case, please take it to heart and offer it to at least a handful of the important people in your life you feel will benefit from this principle.

After all, nothing feels better than helping someone else who is in need, no matter what that need might be. We never know when we’ll need someone to do the same for us: “Quid Pro Quo,” and “Pay it Forward!”

“The Low Seat” Revisited

Pretty much everyone I know likes to receive gifts. And most like to give gifts, too, especially to those who they know and love. But it’s rare to find people who just give and give and give to everyone and anyone – far too rare. But those people are out there.

When I was 16, three of those people came into my life and changed it forever. It happened suddenly and very dramatically. My parents split, I left home and moved 200 miles away. I was invited to become a family member of the Rodney, Francis, and Denny Duron family in Shreveport, Louisiana. I have never been the same.

Denny is a year older than I, had just graduated from high school, and was headed to college. Pastor Rodney Duron every school day of my senior year in high school got me up, cooked me “real” breakfast, and got me off to school just like I was his biological son. Each of the Durons have treated me like a son (and brother in Denny’s case) ever since. I am “Uncle Dan” to Denny and his wife’s 6 children.

They gave to me with no expectation of return. Pastor Duron taught me with his life what “taking the low seat” means. I’ll summarize it for you:

In Bible days, weddings and wedding celebrations were festive and were huge events. The host always maintained a “guest list” and seating in specific spots was always preset. When guests arrived, it was customary for them to take a seat in the very back of the room. The front table was reserved for guests of honor. The host always determined who got those seats – the “high seats.” Unfortunately it was common for some guests to “crash” the party and demand a “high seat.” Obviously those guests who calmly and voluntarily took the “low seats” were a relief to the host. And they were always marked as being different kinds of guests from the high maintenance folks that wanted preferential treatment.

Pastor Duron ALWAYS took the low seat in every setting he entered. He was an amazing pastor who spent his life pouring himself into the city of Shreveport. That meant more time with non-church members than church members: at hospitals, nursing homes, funerals of people he didn’t even know, and strangers on the street. And his being involved was never a big deal to him.  He’d sneak into a hospital room unannounced to pray for a child or a Saint about to leave Earth. It was NEVER about him — he always took “the low seat.”

He gave away smiles, money, influence in areas of people’s needs, beds in his own home, clothing, cars, labor, the message of God’s unrelenting and everlasting love for everyone, and lots and lots of hugs and smiles. Few knew what he did for others — unless they were the ones he did it for. He always gave this and more with no expectation of anything in return. Every time I ever saw him until his death 4 years ago, he always made everyone in his presence feel wanted and accepted – not just me, but everyone in his life. He never expected recognition for his considerable accomplishments at establishing an amazing church that reached a city, a school that has sent graduates to military academies, Ivy League schools, the NFL, the White House and other houses of government around the World. He did all that he did because he loved so much that he gave…and gave…and gave. He simply lived to give. His goal for everyone in his life was to see to it they had the “high seat” in his life while he was in his element sitting in the back row. And he never stopped giving because he loved people and loved investing in their lives when he could make their lives better. He always moved you down front.

The seed of that type of giving he planted in me changed my life. To this day, his son Denny (who is my best friend and Brother) treats me and everyone in his life just like Dad Duron did. His wife DeAnza and their 6 children do the same thing. They all learned the joy of combining unselfish giving with honor and passing that along in genuine fashion to everyone they meet. While I’ve had a modicum of success in my life, listening to the praise and honor lavished on me by any and all in the Duron family you’d think my life surely was the roadmap for Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, and Mother Theresa too!

I spend many days of my life seeking ways to lay aside pride, prejudices of life, ambition, and drive for “success” to look for ways to be the true giver Dad Duron was and that all in the Duron family are today. The older I get the easier it is – maybe because accumulating and “arriving” mean less and less when true values of life are driven home to me more and more. People are the important things in life. Without relationships we have and we are nothing. I truly want to help move all those folks to the front row in their life.

After all, if you believe in Creation as I do, God created Man for relationship — relationship with Him. And if that is good enough for God, it’s good enough for me!

More than ever I try really hard to make certain the people in my life know that I care for them with no reservations and no expectations, other than honesty and openness. I want them to know that I truly am concerned and interested about every part of their life, and that no matter what they face, I am willing to face it with them.

Yes, that’s a large responsibility. But it’s worth it. Know why? Nobody will be sticking dollar bills or stock certificates in my coffin. (It’s a good thing I don’t want that!) But knowing there will be a few tears along with fond memories and thankfulness from a bunch of folks for all those times “I was there for them.” That’s plenty enough for me.

I turned 64 today. Think for the next 64 I’m going to take the low seat.

I’m fine with that.

To Download Today’s (Tuesday, March 9, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

Do Marxists Now Dominate the U.S. Judiciary?

Jewish law was based on the Ten Commandments and other sacred writings, which we find in the Hebrew Bible.  Jewish law influenced Roman law, English law, and our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  These laws are contained in the Torah (teaching) which became the first five books of the Bible.  It is why we are called a Judeo-Christian nation.

When a liberal higher-critic sort of attitude rules the day, the wisdom of man rules the day.  Man wants to be on the throne, but God is on the throne.  Thus, man elevates himself above God, and seeks to destroy the sacred writings of the Holy Scriptures, along with those who believe in Him.  When leaders are willing to throw out the expressed truth claims of God, it’s a simple next step to throw out the moral claims of God.  This is today’s “cancel culture.”

When political leaders and pulpits dismiss the authority of the scriptures and dismiss the authority of the God of the scriptures, freedom is rejected, liberty is crushed, law becomes perverted and justice is denied.

Communists and socialists are evil proponents of big government who would willingly sacrifice human liberty and freedom to advance their concept of “social justice.”  From the beginning of time, this evil has paved the way and devolved into what we’re seeing today.  The hatred of God and the elevation of man is the very core of communism.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) expressed these sentiments perfectly when he accused Democrats of trying to define what it means to be male or female. “The gender confusion that exists in our culture today is a clear rejection of God’s good design. Whenever a nation’s laws no longer reflect the standards of God that nation is in rebellion against him and will inevitably bear the consequences,” the congressman said. “We are seeing the consequences of rejecting God here in our country today.”

That comment drew a fiery response from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY).  “What any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress,” added Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

There you have it; God’s will and the Holy Scriptures are no concern of America’s Congress.  For nearly a century, the country has been turned over to godless men and women who care nothing for the rule of law.  Yes, a century and longer.

FDR’s Supreme Court

The elimination of true Constitutional originalists began and was solidified with Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in 1933.  Prior to his election, three republicans preceded him, Warren Harding from 1921-1923. When Harding passed from a heart attack, Vice President Calvin Coolidge became the 30th President of the United States for six years.  President Herbert Hoover followed with one term from 1929 to 1933.  FDR was President from 1933 to 1945; he had three vice presidents, the last being Harry Truman who succeeded him as president until 1953.

In the late 1930s, FDR had a plan to pack the court so as to legislate into law everything he wanted in his New Deal.  Sound familiar?  Congress and the people viewed FDR’s ill-considered proposal as an undemocratic power grab.  Nevertheless, FDR succeeded in putting eight members on the court the old-fashioned way, through attrition.  His administration was filled with communists, particularly Harry Hopkins who lived in the Lincoln bedroom and ran the Lend Lease program.

FDR appointed eight new members of the Supreme Court: Associate Justices Hugo BlackStanley F. ReedFelix FrankfurterWilliam O. DouglasFrank MurphyJames F. ByrnesRobert H. Jackson, and Wiley Blount Rutledge. Additionally, he elevated sitting Justice Harlan F. Stone to Chief Justice.  All were progressive democrats except Republican Harlan F. Stone.

Felix Frankfurter helped to found the American Civil Liberties Union. In a 1917 letter by former President Teddy Roosevelt to Frankfurter, he criticized Frankfurter for supporting “traitors,” “Bolsheviks” and “murderers.” This was exposed in Manning Johnson’s book, Color, Communism and Common Sense.

SCOTUS Election Cases

The Supreme Court has refused to hear any 2020 general election cases involving voter fraud.  On December 11, 2021, the Supreme Court denied a Texas effort that would have essentially nullified the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan,Georgia and Wisconsin.  Seventeen other states joined in the suit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.  Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

On February 22, the Supreme Court rejected three GOP elections-related lawsuits regarding the state of Pennsylvania.  The same three justices dissented.  The fact that states did not follow their own state legislatively set laws is the issue millions of people still are not happy with.  The Roberts led Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the cases brought challenging the procedures of how the election was conducted.

Congressman Mike Kelly of the 16th District of Pennsylvania also had his case rejected by SCOTUS.  Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania case was filed in Pennsylvania and disputed the state’s greater allowances for mail-in ballots amid the pandemic.

The high court had no intention to intervene in the cases because it did not act before Congress certified Biden’s victory on January 6th.  The dates were set by the court, purposely being stretched past the 6th.  Sidney Powell reacted to the rulings on election integrity.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a scathing dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear the merits of lawsuits challenging the 2020 election in Pennsylvania and by so doing, detailed what he described as the “inexplicable” avoidance of cases with critical implications for future elections.

He stated, “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.  The refusal to do so is inexplicable.  We failed to settle this dispute before the election and thus provide clear rules.  Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.  The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling.  By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence.  Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

Amazon Prime dropped Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, an acclaimed and popular PBS documentary on Justice Clarence Thomas, making it unavailable to stream during Black History Month. Justice Thomas is our only black justice, yet Amazon, during Black History Month removed this great documentary.  Any conservative, regardless of skin color or position is censored by big tech… that’s the communist way!

Trump Tax Case

Democrat Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., has been seeking Trump’s tax records since 2019 as part of an investigation. On February 22, 2021, SCOTUS ruled for Vance.  There were no comments or dissents noted.  Vance immediately subpoenaed the records from the Mazars accounting firm that has long done work for Trump and his businesses. Trump had asked for a delay to rehear lower court decisions, but was denied by the court and Vance received the records in three days.

The Supreme Court waited months to act in this case. The last of the written briefs in the case was filed Oct. 19. But a court that includes three Trump appointees waited through the election, Trump’s challenge to his defeat and a month after Trump left office before issuing its order.

President Trump said the Democrat inspired case is politically motivated and he’s absolutely right.

Trump’s Justices

In my last article, and in previous articles regarding the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, I documented their funding by Koch family organizations. These two organizations created the lists of potential Supreme Court candidates.  Federalist “picks” were not simply vetted by the Federalist Society; the nominees were Federalist Society loyalists.

The Koch brothers supported and subsidized Mike Pence and Kellyanne Conway, but detested Donald Trump.  Pence worked in the early 90s for the Indiana State Policy Network, a satellite of Heritage Foundation who he has joined once again. Kellyanne Conway and her Trump hating husband, George, are long time members of the Federalist Society.  George is a member of the Lincoln Project, republicans dedicated to defeating Trump.

Since the confirmation of Trump’s three justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, they’ve often chosen to side with Chief Justice Roberts and the politically liberal justices.  Election fraud is not new…it’s been here for decades.

Election Fraud 1948

Frank Hamer was the legendary Texas Ranger who trapped and killed notorious outlaws, Bonnie and Clyde.  R. Cort Kirkwood wrote the entire story for the February 1st, 2021 New American Magazine.  Frank Hamer was shot 17 times and killed 53 men during his illustrious career.  He also saved 15 black men from death at the hands of lynch mobs in various towns and cities in east Texas, where he led an unpopular fight against the Ku Klux Klan.

It was July, 1948 when beloved Texas Governor, Coke Stevenson ran for the Senate and won, but victory was stolen by election thief Lyndon Baines Johnson.  In the Democratic primary of 1948, Stevenson bested Johnson by more than 70,000 votes, but neither candidate received a majority of the more than one million cast.  Three men were in the running, but the most votes went to Stevenson with 477,077 and to Johnson with 405,617.  The two met again in a runoff on Saturday, August 28th.

Mr. Kirkwood writes, “Though polling put Stevenson ahead, 53-47 percent, Johnson turned that deficit around.  As more precincts reported results, Stevenson’s lead dwindled to less than 1,000 votes, and while more uncounted votes magically appeared, by Tuesday, election officials had declared Stevenson the victor by a slim 349.  Yet the counting still wasn’t finished. More and more counties in the Rio Grande Valley reported “new votes” for Johnson, which cut his deficit to 157.  That still wasn’t enough to defeat Stevenson.  At 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 3, Jim Wells County called in a 200-vote change that gave Johnson 494,191 to Stevenson’s 484,104.”

Cork Stevenson knew there was fraud, so with his friend Frank Hamer and two lawyers, they traveled to Corpus Christi to check the votes.  Hamer and Stevenson went to the bank where election records for Precinct 13 were kept. “Git,” Hamer told one band of five. “Fall back!” he ordered the second larger group blocking the bank’s door. He was ready to draw the gun holstered at his side.  The other men had removed their jackets and none were armed except Frank.

They proved the votes had been rigged and a “7” had obviously been changed to a “9.”  A Mexican American in the precinct told the two lawyers that “people live longer down here if they keep their mouths shut.”

Even though they had the proof of vote fraud, the Democrats did the same thing they always do and just did on January 6th, 2020, they declared Johnson the winner by one vote.

The evidence from Hamer and Stevenson didn’t matter.  Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black halted the trial just minutes before the vote boxes were to be opened in court.  Johnson’s attorney, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, successfully argued to Associate Justice Hugo Black, then in charge of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, that primaries were “irrevocably and incontestably vested” in Texas law.

Black agreed, and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling. Fraud was discounted out of hand, just like it was in our 2020 general election and the runoff in Georgia in January.

Hugo Black was one of the liberal democrats nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In 1921, Hugo Black defended E. R. Stephenson, a minister of the now defunct Methodist Episcopal Church South in his trial for the murder of a Catholic priest, Father James E. Coyle.  Stephenson’s daughter had converted to Catholicism and married a man of Puerto Rican descent, and Coyle had conducted the wedding.

Hugo Black got Stephenson acquitted in part by arguing to the jury that Puerto Ricans should be considered black under part of the South’s one drop rule.  Black, a Democrat, joined the Ku Klux Klan shortly afterwards, in order to gain votes from the anti-Catholic element in Alabama. He built his winning Senate campaign around multiple appearances at KKK meetings across Alabama.

Allegedly he left the Klan in 1925.  Black later said that joining the Klan was a mistake, but he went on to say, “I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes.”

Many Americans also know of the 1946 Battle of Athens in McMinn County, Tennessee regarding Democratic vote fraud by Paul Cantrell, the candidate for sheriff who tied his campaign closely to the popularity of the Roosevelt administration and rode FDR’s coattails to victory over his Republican opponent.  He ruled until 1946 when returning WWII veterans stopped the deceit.


Vote fraud has existed in America for eons; and America’s judiciary is fraught with corruption…a corruption that has all but collapsed our rule of law.  The judges are the ones who have elevated themselves above God and who will willingly sacrifice our freedom and liberty.

  Kelleigh Nelson






To Download Today’s (Wednesday, March 3, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, Click on This Link:

CPAC: 2009 Keynote Address by Rush Limbaugh

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

“Mega Dittos, Rush…”

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

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

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

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

My Parting Memories of Rush Limbaugh You May Have Missed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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