Joe Biden’s $1.8 Trillion “New” Plan We Cannot Afford

Here we are again, bringing you a “new” Biden spending plan. It seems like we’re doing that every two weeks or so. In fact, I’m certain there have been at least six or seven such plans from Democrat leaders in Congress, along with those that “supposedly” are inked at the White House. As usual, this new one is a doozy. Let’s take a look at its details and how much it will cost Americans: Oh, not you and me. It won’t cost us anything because there’s no way we Baby Boomers could pay for this and all the other ones, even if we paid EVERY dime of our personal incomes to the federal government! But that’s a story for another day.

The American Families Plan

President Biden on Wednesday outlined the American Families Plan, an ambitious package that calls for $1 trillion in new spending and $800 billion in new tax credits and aims to significantly expand access to preschool and community college, as well as child care and health care benefits. Biden detailed the proposal during a speech before a joint session of Congress in which he rolled out his agenda for the coming months. The centerpiece of the speech is the families’ plan, which is being rolled out less than a month after Biden unveiled a $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal.

The American Families Plan calls for a $200 billion program offering universal pre-kindergarten for all three and four-year-olds; $109 billion for tuition-free community college for any American who wants it; $85 billion to increase Pell Grants to benefit low-income and minority students; and more than $4 billion in funding for larger scholarships, certification and support programs for teachers.

The plan builds upon provisions of the American Rescue Plan by extending the Affordable Care Act premiums tax credits indefinitely (sounds much like Government operated Healthcare to me) and makes the earned income tax credit expansion for childless workers permanent. If passed and signed into law, it would permanently make the child tax credit fully available to the lowest-income families while extending other aspects of the credit expansion, such as the increase in the credit amount, through 2025.

The proposal also calls for the creation of a national paid family and medical leave program. The $225 billion earmarked for this specific giveaway would provide workers up to $4,000 a month if they require leave to care for a new child, care for a seriously ill loved one, deal with an illness, or another serious reason.

Other measures Biden called on Congress to pass include $45 billion for meal programs for children and low-income families, unemployment insurance reform, $225 billion for child care that includes a $15 minimum wage for early childhood staff, and expanded child care center accessibility. Officials said the plan would be paid for through tax reforms targeted at wealthy Americans, such as an increased capital gains tax rate, a higher top income tax rate, and increased IRS auditing enforcement on high-income individuals and businesses.

“We view the American Families Plan as a core element of President Biden’s strategy to build back better and generate a strong and inclusive economy for the future,” a senior administration official said.

The plan, which faces an uncertain future in Congress, does not go as far as some Democrats hoped. Some have pressed for a permanent expansion of the child tax credit, and it’s not clear that lawmakers will be satisfied by the proposal to make part of the expansion permanent while extending other parts through 2025. Key Democrats signaled that the House bill would include such a provision despite Biden not putting it in his initial proposal.

Biden has also faced pressure from members of his party, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to include health-related provisions expanding health coverage and lowering drug prices. The ideas had initially been expected to be part of the plan, but Biden did not include them in the final version. Asked why such provisions were not included, a senior administration official said that the permanent ObamaCare premium tax credit represents a “critical investment” and insisted that Biden remains “fully committed to negotiations to reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

The White House views the plan as a companion to Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure and climate plan he announced last month, and officials said that the investments would be made over a 10-year period. The two plans combined total more than $4 trillion in government spending, on top of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill that Biden signed into law about 50 days into his term. The administration’s two most recent proposals include tax increases that we are told would pay for both plans in full over a 15-year period.

Biden’s proposed jobs plan would allegedly be paid for through an increase in the corporate tax rate. Wednesday’s proposal would roll back the 2017 Trump tax cuts by increasing the top individual tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income. Biden is also proposing an increase in the capital gains tax rate for households making more than $1 million to 39.6 percent.

Senior administration officials made clear the proposal is meant as a starting point and that Biden is open to hearing suggestions on what should be included and how to pay for the package. But Republicans are likely to oppose Biden’s family plan, and the tax hikes proposed to pay for it, and some moderate Democrats could also oppose the plan because of its large price tag and tax provisions.

One Administration official quipped that if people have other ideas about financing these critical investments, Biden is open to hearing them. “But he believes that these issues of tax fairness, of making sure people pay the taxes they already owe, are fundamental and necessary.”

Why do Democrats continually call new taxes “Investments?” By definition, investments are voluntary. Unless I missed something in Civics and American History, taxes levied by any government are anything BUT voluntary! If anything, they should all be labeled “confiscatory budget Income snatches from American.”

Biden and other top administration officials are set to embark on a publicity blitz after Wednesday’s speech to educate the public about both the infrastructure proposal and the families’ plan to win over support for both measures. The White House now faces a complicated road to getting both proposals passed. Even as officials have said publicly, they hope to see some progress on an infrastructure bill by Memorial Day and passage by summer. The White House has not ruled out using budget reconciliation to pass Biden’s proposals without GOP support, which Democrats resorted to passing his coronavirus relief bill.

To Whom Does This D.C. Mess Actually Belong?

No one can rightfully claim that the Biden Administration has its arms around the American populace, and everyone is calmly cozying up to a warm fire together singing campfire songs. It’s anything but that. In fact, it’s doubtful many folks would give such an opportunity a second thought. There’s minimal consensus in our government today. And there’s plenty of animus and disagreement to go around. We haven’t seen this since Tip O’Neill as Democrat House Speaker went toe-to-toe daily with President Ronald Reagan. And back then, political rancor was left on the sidelines at the end of the day. Reagan and O’Neill became close buddies.

There certainly is a vast gulf between the political ideologies on the Hill and the White House. Try as I do, I find it impossible to consider there may be some possible unity on the most significant legislative issues in this Congress. Those things that MUST be discussed and resolved somehow have been left blowing in the wind of partisan hackery. No one wants to give an inch.

What happened to the constant campaign promises from candidate Biden to unite us all, put partisanship behind, ensuring us that he planned to be the president of “All the American people, not just Democrats.”

With the slight cognitive hangups he’s exhibiting, maybe he forgot about those.

Does the “Mess” culprit have the letters “C” and “S” for his initials?

There is a crisis on the border that President Biden did not inherit but instead created. While he far too late tries telling migrants to stay home, some leftists are mad he isn’t doing more for the thousands packing overcrowded, unsuitable facilities. These same Democrats wanted Vice President Kamala Harris to overrule the Senate parliamentarian and include a $15 minimum wage increase in their COVID relief bill. Now they are demanding a kitchen sink of liberal wish-list items that have no chance to pass the 50-50 Senate, insisting Biden relent and agree to abolish the filibuster to pass climate legislation, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, immigration reform, expanded health care and environmentally reimagined infrastructure.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is cheering those frustrated leftists on, telling Rachael Maddow on her show: “We will change America in a big, bold way. We must. It’s an imperative, and failure is not an option.”

One could say Schumer is just keeping the party unified, doling out happy talk about things that, again, can’t happen as the rules currently allow. He is, after all, up for reelection next year and working to fend off a primary challenge from the left-wing of his party. No one has to tell Schumer twice that the progressive left is a threat to his own seat and his position in history as the nation’s first Jewish Senate majority leader. Their energized faction has captured enough critical mass within the Democratic coalition that Biden’s victory in the nominating fight was considered an eleventh-hour surprise.

From student debt to marijuana, progressives now have Schumer on the front lines of policy debates that might have shocked his younger self. The once moderate lawmaker, who entered Congress 40 years ago as a “law and order” Democrat, helped write the 1994 crime bill progressives have demonized Biden for. He also voted against gay marriage in 1996, for the Iraq War in 2003, and for a border wall in 2006. After years of shoring up his reputation as a strong ally of Wall Street, Schumer now spends much of his time talking about wealth inequality and racial justice.

There is a lot Schumer is likely doing right. Yet he is merrily alienating Republicans in a 50-50 Senate where — while he is technically majority leader — Democrats preside over the chamber without truly controlling it. An evenly split chamber does not “change America in a big, bold way.” On most votes, the vice president cannot break a 50-50 tie, so 10 Republicans are required for 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. For now, Schumer is making it harder to find those Republican votes, not easier.

No one knows better than the four-term senator that the entire Biden presidency now revolves around the decisions made by fellow Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who is feeling quite comfortable bashing his own leader for refusing to court Republicans.

“I haven’t seen an effort by any of our leadership to go sit down and work with them,” Manchin said last week. “Make that effort. Make a little more effort with him and Mitch McConnell and make an effort with the leadership. John Thune’s a very good guy. Roy Blunt, I hate to see Roy leaving. These are all good people.”

It was a one-two punch, not only fingering Schumer for failing to reach across the aisle but complimenting Republicans. One Republican he didn’t name is Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. Manchin and Collins are close, he endorsed her in her race against her Democratic opponent, and together they lead the Common Sense Coalition. The bipartisan group counts more than two dozen senators and works directly with the House’s bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.

Not only has Schumer neglected to mend fences with Collins or attempted to work together on legislation, he recently blamed her for Democrats taking too long to negotiate, and ultimately watering down, a bipartisan compromise for President Obama’s stimulus program in 2009. He also criticized the compromise Republicans, led by Collins, offered to Biden in the COVID-relief negotiations this year.

“We made a huge mistake in 2009 and ’10. Susan Collins was part of that mistake. We cut back on the stimulus dramatically, and we stayed in recession for five years,” Schumer said on CNN. “What was offered by the Republicans was so far away from what’s needed, so far away from what Biden proposed.”

Collins was clearly horrified by Schumer’s outburst. “Why Chuck seems to be going out of his way to alienate the most bipartisan member of the Senate is a mystery to me,” Collins told Politico, adding, “It must just reflect his extraordinary frustration at having wasted $100 million in the state of Maine in an attempt to defeat me. And for me to win by a strong margin.”

In 2009, Collins noted, then Vice President Biden thanked her for her vote on their stimulus plan. “For Sen. Schumer to now say that this was a huge mistake and try to blame me, when he was in leadership and helping with the negotiations and voted the same way, it’s bizarre. It makes no sense,” she said.

Collins has also expressed concern that Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, pushed the president away from compromise with the GOP on the American Rescue Plan and has retweeted posts critical of her. However, Klain has spoken with Collins about such concerns, and White House aides communicate with Collins and her staff several times every week, the Wall Street Journal reported. Schumer has not spoken to Collins since the election.

As the administration tries to sell their American Rescue Plan, they are also entering a period of negotiations with Republicans they hope will produce some, although smaller, bipartisan compromises as they push for a large infrastructure package Republicans aren’t likely to support. One of those initiatives is a Schumer project — introduced with Republican Sen. Todd Young — known as the Endless Frontier Act, which would overhaul the National Sciences Foundation. Young is also a member of the Common Sense Coalition that Manchin and Collins lead — the very first place Schumer would go to pick up GOP votes for his initiative.

Schumer seems far more focused on pleasing leftists than cooperating with Republicans, impressing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez while he disses Collins. Ocasio-Cortez, who would represent Schumer’s most serious threat in any field of left-wing Democrats, has said she hasn’t made up her mind about challenging the incumbent next year, but that she is pleased that the idea of her running has pushed Schumer left. Throughout, the newly leftist 71-year-old leader has kept Sen. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren close as well — they meet with him every Monday night at weekly leadership team meetings that also include Manchin and Sen. Mark Warner, another moderate Democrat.

Schumer is known for his constant contact, phoning Democrats at all hours to keep them united, but as they head toward a rough midterm cycle next year, they will be known only for the bills they get signed into law. With just five seats needed for the GOP to gain control of the House and only one in the Senate, delivering results is the Democrats’ only hope to throw off losses that traditionally plague the party in control of Congress and the White House in the first term of a new president. Schumer, former moderate, has watched a volatile electorate shift control of Congress numerous times throughout his career.

If he had every Democrat on board to nuke the legislative filibuster, wooing Collins — who has indicated she is willing to work with Democrats on raising the minimum wage and other issues — would still be the smartest course. But he does not. Both Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema have been emphatic about keeping the filibuster in place, and that while they may be willing to make it harder to use, they oppose eliminating it.

Schumer wants progressives to think he’s preparing to end the filibuster. Yet when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued his threat of retribution, saying, “Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like,” he knew Schumer could imagine just that.

Since Schumer won’t “just make that effort” to reach out to Blunt or McConnell or Thune or Collins, as Manchin urges, it seems that a failure is actually an option for the majority leader — as long as he wins his primary.

Summary

Do you think we can ever get to a place with ANY unity on any pieces of legislation? Those things that have always been nothing but a rubber stamp-passed-bill have been met with hatchets and hand grenades on the House and Senate floors. Nothing is getting done — except for spending trillions of dollars, we do not have.

Is there hope for reaching a consensus for the “big bills” in this Congress?

Think about that question: who controls legislation in this Congress? Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Has there ever been a whiff of bipartisanship in anything since January 20th? “No, there has not.” That fact portends little of any significance should we expect before January of 2023 — if then.

In the meantime, breathe deeply and slowly. Keep your eyes on the “target” — whatever the heck you can determine actually is the “target” — and learn how to tread water with everybody in D.C.

I know, we all want members of Congress and the Biden Administration to play nice. Unfortunately for Americans, there is NO dollhouse big enough to hold all those people. And, even if there was, the best we can hope for is Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mike McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell to use Pee Wee Herman’s method of conflict resolution with his best friend: “I know you are, but what am I?”

To Download Today’s (Thursday, April 15, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

Time For Some Constitutional Amendments: But How?

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

There is a way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pandemic is hurting everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Is The Capitol Locked Down?

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

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

Something is going on in D.C.

Think about the following facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do impeachment and the Philadelphia Eagles Have in Common? They’re ‘Tanking’

This impeachment charade has become little more than a circus. And just when you think it could NOT get any wilder, it gets wilder and crazier. And most legal experts STILL maintain there is no Constitutional basis on which to justify it!

Who do we trust to explain it’s justification or lack thereof? Most of us are not attorneys. And just a handful of attorneys are actually legal “experts.” So here’s what we did:

There are two real experts on the Law that we have turned to for some non-emotional insight. Both are Democrats and neither voted for Donald Trump. Call me “Stupid,” but I think both Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley have proven through the years they’re each “middle-of-the-road on Constitutional law. We related Dershowitz’s perspective on this impeachment trial several days ago. Today, we turn to Jonathan Turley to try and shine a light of reason on the circus in the Senate Chamber.

The “Turley Perspective”

The second trial of former President Donald Trump is shaping up to be a curious exercise designed more to enrage than convict. While legal eagles will be analyzing every move, what citizens really need is a Philadelphia Eagles fan to understand what is unfolding. In the NFL, it is called “tanking.” This year, there was a raging debate whether Eagles coach Doug Pederson was actually trying to win or just losing convincingly to secure a better draft pick. The House trial strategy has every indication of a tanked trial, but few are noting the glaring lack of a credible offense.

When it comes to football, tanking allegations arise when the inexplicable speeds along with the inevitable. That point was reached this season when Pederson decided not to tie the game against Washington in the third quarter with a field goal and instead put Nate Sudfeld in the game over Jalen Hurts. The House may have reached that point when the managers seemed to be trying harder to make a better case for losing than winning. That was driven home by the selection of such managers as Rep. Eric Swalwell in the wake of his scandal with a Chinese spy. Sending in Swalwell, who has also been accused of reckless political rhetoric, made the Sudfeld substitution look like sheer genius.

The snap impeachment

The first indication was the use of what I have called a “snap impeachment.” The House wanted to impeach the president before he left office, which was perfectly constitutional. I have long maintained (as I did as a witness in the first Trump impeachment hearing) that the House can legitimately impeach a president on his very last day in office if it has evidence of a high crime and misdemeanor. However, after Jan. 6 the House had time to hold hearings (even if only for a day or two) to create a record supporting impeachment. The House leadership refused despite the urging of some of us that no impeachment had ever been submitted with no record of a hearing, investigation, or formal opportunity for a president to respond.

The House made it easy on those seeking acquittal. It could have crafted an article that would appeal to broader bipartisan support. Instead, it sought the most extreme language alleging incitement to an actual insurrection — virtually guaranteeing a partisan vote and likely acquittal.

Impeachment trial: The Senate is unlikely to convict Trump. Can we count on the courts?

The House also included language that only strengthened the expected challenge facing the House in seeking a trial for a former president. The article declared Trump “has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.” Yet, the House was virtually certain that he would already be out of office when he came to trial. The language magnified concerns over the constitutionality of retroactive trials. Not only does the Constitution refer to the trial as deciding whether to remove “the President” but the article itself refers to the purpose of such removal to protect the nation. While the article mentions disqualification from future office, the article is crafted around an urgency that would become a nullity in a matter of days.

Then nothing happened

What occurred next was familiar to NFL fans suspicious of tanking. Nothing happened. The House made it to the endzone of a Senate trial and then stopped on a dime. The House demanded witnesses in the Senate but then let weeks pass without calling any witnesses that would be relevant to proving Trump’s intent or state of mind. It could have created a public record and locked in testimony in case the Senate, as expected, declined to call witnesses or severely limited witnesses.

Impeachment: Donald Trump’s impeachment filing fails to make a case for acquittal

The House brief in the Senate further highlighted the lack of direct evidence on Trump’s state of mind. It laid out an emotionally charged but legally incomplete case for the Senate. To convict, the House needs to show Trump was more than reckless. It crafted the article as inciting an actual rebellion or insurrection, not mere negligence. Instead, the House plans to show clips of damage and interviews with rioters to show how Trump’s words were interpreted rather than intended. The thrust of its case is a parade of horribles from that day, a narrative that will harden the minds of many but change the minds of few. Without such evidence, the Trump team will be able to hammer away at similarly reckless rhetoric used by Democrats, including members of the “jury.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.

To Listen to “TNN Live’s” Show from Friday, February 12, 2021, click on this link:

 

How Far Left Does Pelosi’s H.R. 1 Bill Go?

The answer in a nutshell: so far left, the table on which the 600-page bill sits has to be propped up to keep it from falling over left.

Not only is H.R. 1 a dramatically far-left piece of legislation, but if Congress passes even 10% of it, the country as we have known it is forever gone. Every dream of anyone who believes Karl Marx and his Institutional Government Control utopia has even a hint of success tied to it will be elated beyond description. The remainder of Americans will be marked — especially if they are conservatives — will be cast to the side, demeaned publicly, and banished to not a basket, but a dungeon Nancy and Chuck had specially designed for them.

It’s that bad. H.R. 1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process — which is necessary for protecting our liberty and freedom. The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, to participate in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives. What else?

What H.R. 1 Would Do

  • Seize the states’ authority to regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
  • Make it easier to commit fraud and promotes chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and cannot anticipate the number of voters, ballots, and precinct workers that will be needed.
  • Hurt voter turnout through early voting by diffusing the intensity of get-out-the-vote efforts; it raises the cost of campaigns. Voters who vote early don’t have the same information as those who vote on Election Day, missing late-breaking developments that could affect their choices.
  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV and welfare offices, by registering large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens, and multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals.
  • Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cybercriminals through online voter registration not tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license.
  • Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precinct, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allow election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud. Mandates no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves.
  • Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and remove ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered voters; participating in state programs that compare voter registration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states, or ever removing registrants due to a failure to vote no matter how much time has gone by.
  • Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
  • Violate the First Amendment and could cover a vast range of legal activity. Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But H.R. 1 adds an additional provision to prevent interference with registering or voting that is so vague that it could easily interfere with free speech and other lawful activity.
  • Expand regulation and government censorship of campaigns and political activity and speech, including online and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 imposes onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public.
  • Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.
  • Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and impose numerous other “ethics” rules that are unconstitutional or unfairly restrict political activity.
  • Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
  • Transfer the right to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 makes it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandates inclusion of alien population, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that takes away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decision about redistricting.
  • Violate separation of powers and directly interfere with the President’s constitutional duties. H.R. 1 bans his political appointees, such as the Attorney General, from participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in any matter (including lawsuits against a President’s policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of the law) in which the President is named as a party.

Summary

President Trump and other conservatives warned us all what a Biden presidency would really be. H.R. 1, I’m sad to say, is only one page (actually 600+ pages) in what has in just one week proven to be just one of the far-left legislative ideals that Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others have promised they would push President Biden to foist on the American people. Friday morning we will dive into a complete list of his executive orders that — with the stroke of a pen — have dismantled every process and system implemented during the Trump Administration that ushered in the most economically successful and safest four years of this century. But H.R. 1 will be the death nail in the coffin of democracy in our country if passed and signed into law.

We have felt as far back as Obama’s second term that if Democrats ever find a way, they will dismantle the U.S. election system. We explained to our readers and listeners long ago that, because their party is floundering to find and keep members, their only hope for political survival is to either dismantle our current election system or totally do away with elections! Please do not doubt that H.R. 1 is the first step — and nothing more than the “first” step — in the process in which the Democrat Party Leaders empower themselves with a choke-hold on the entire political system. They will have finally achieved their supreme goal: Totalitarian control of the United States.

“Dan, you’re nothing more than a conspiracy theorist! Americans will never allow this to happen.”

Really? Do you honestly believe that? Just consider several things: did you anticipate the government, from top to bottom, telling you to go home, stay at home, and wear a mask, all to keep from being arrested for violating state and federal shutdown orders? Did you envision tens of thousands of U.S. businesses shuttering their operations after just 10 months of a government lockdown and, in doing so, put millions of Americans out of work? Did you prepare for all the financial blessings received in your family to be swept away in just a few short weeks by a pandemic, which, 10 months later, we know very little about?

I would never allege that any politicians would bear any responsibility for the COVID-19 horrors we are still experiencing. But what I DO know to be factual is that the Pelosi/Schumer led Democrats weaponized the fear and trepidation instilled in Americans by the unknown in COVID-19 to begin implementing their massive government overhaul.

And Americans quietly went home, schooled their children without teachers and with no other students in sight, made certain every family member socially distanced and always wore a mask. Still, though, Anthony Fauci told us repeatedly if we did not do all of these things, we’d all die. We did them, and people continue to die. Thus, Dems harvest the fears of Americans to use against us.

There’s one thing good about Joe, Nancy, and Chuck throwing these egregious legislative and executive actions out so quickly: their doing so has shocked Americans into the realization that the Democrat Party has NO desire any longer for democracy and no place in their party for the Rule of Law.

I guess we all need to put on our Big Boy and Big Girl underwear and get ready to either lay down and die or head to the front of what appears to be a second American Civil War.

Let’s hope this one will spill no blood!

To Listen to Thursday, January 28 “TNN Live” Show, Click on this Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pFdq3HL2V2SNuyaMfxzTpcSLQ25Z1_ly/view?usp=sharing

Unprecedented

This story written and published live at 9:54PM Wednesday evening

“Unprecedented:” we hear that term used often. Do we really know what it means? Webster says,” Unprecedented is an act that has never happened before.”

Want an example? “His passing for 600 yards in that NFL game last week is unprecedented.” 

Unprecedented in its truest form references something that happens as the very first of its kind. It applies not only to successes of all kinds, inventions or creations, but it is applicable to the actual acts of people. To that end, I feel it’s appropriate to say, “Experiencing an election of federal candidates in the United States that was rife with corruption is ‘unprecedented.'” So, too, is those in the government who are both responsible for the election corruption AND it allowing to go unpunished is unprecedented.

The November 3, 2020, election and its false results and the acceptance of the results by members of Congress is not only a first in my lifetime but a first in United States history. It appears that the response to this corruption by American patriots is not only going to be serious, thorough, and massive, it is going to be unprecedented.

Firsts

I’ve been married for 45 years to one person. She’s my “first” wife. She’s the only “first wife” I can ever have. For me, marriage to her was “unprecedented.” There can only be one first in everything. Anything after that is just a copy or a second or third or fourth version of the first version of “it.” The very first one of everything — when it happened or when it was created — was unprecedented.

November 3rd of 2020, American saw an unprecedented event. That election was the first U.S. election in which vote manipulation and voter fraud were rampant. We as of yet don’t know just how much fraud it contained. To be honest, we may never know.

Events that occurred on Wednesday in Washington D.C. were unprecedented, based on the circumstances that prompted those at the U.S. Capitol. They were in direct response to the massive volume of documented voter fraud that, until Wednesday, had not been addressed by any elected federal official in any public forum. It happened with the joint session of Congress in which the electoral votes from the November election were to be received, counted and confirmed by Congress. The expected end result of the joint session was to be the confirmation of a Joe Biden election victory to confirm him to be the next President. THAT did not happen. But what DID happen is “unprecedented.”

Wednesday’s Capitol Hill “first” was legislators from both the House and Senate stood in objection to the certification by Congress of those electoral votes.

Chaos erupted on Capitol Hill. Protestors clad in MAGA hats and sweatshirts waving Trump flags and banners peacefully marched in D.C. in the runup to the 12:00 noon Congressional session. As VP Mike Pence gaveled the legislators into session, the crowd moved slowly toward Capitol Hill. Just minutes after the objection to Arizona’s certified slate of electors forced the House and Senate to separate to debate the objections, protestors made their way up the Capitol steps and some entered.

Fear gripped members of Congress as alarms sounded and both Houses were cleared. There was a bomb scare. Representatives scrambled for cover as more protestors found ways into the Capitol. One news channel showed one protestor breaking a window and climbing into an office inside the Capitol.

We are facing the beginning of a never-before-seen transition of the government of the strongest nation on Earth into something radically different. The U.S. that we were born into, raised within its power and safety and freedom, and thrived within its economic opportunities is quickly morphing into ANOTHER new entity: a Plutocracy.

What’s a Plutocracy? It’s a governing entity comprised of a powerful group of people who are a combination of financial and economic elitists who use their accumulated power, influence, and financial resources to “buy” and maintain their power over ALL people within a country.

Truth About Today in D.C.

I just spoke to an insider who just completed 48 years of service in Washington and knows all of the inside-outs, all of the players, all of the power junkies, those who are real, honest, and integrious. Sadly, this person knows who are the treasonous turncoats, too.

The protests today (Wednesday January 6th) and the break-ins of the Capitol with subsequent damage and bomb scares were NOT perpetrated by Trump supporters. The entire operation was carefully planned and coordinated by the group that plans to man positions of power in government going forward. They have the contacts and the infrastructure necessary to manage this government takeover that has been in place for some time. And, of course, they have the money.

Those people dressed up in MAGA attire who were plastered all over the news cameras were NOT, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Trump supporters.” They were coordinated and paid members of Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA.

I am NOT blathering something that is not factual. I seldom say this, but I KNOW this to be true.

Will it ever be confirmed? I doubt anyone in our government will do so. Why? They are all as I write this frantically trying to compute where they possibly find a position of safety and security in the “entity” that’s going to move forward in total control. There will be interviews and claims made. There will be patriots — real patriots, not actors — who do their very best to publicly talk people into believing the truth of this power shift in government. But their attempts will fall on mostly deaf ears.

I will stop writing this story now. However, I strongly encourage you to join us live this morning (Thursday morning) at 9:00 AM Central on TNN Live. We will be discussing the latest details — those that have been confirmed and any that may have substance but we are awaiting confirmation. We will have live with us several Americans who were there live and witnessed much of what happened. Join the show using this link online: https://www.elasticplayer.xyz/truthnews/ Click on the arrow to begin listening.

We’d like for you to share your thoughts via telephone during our conversation. During the show callers use our toll-free number to speak to us live. That number is 1-866-37-TRUTH. (all numbers it’s 1-866-378-7884) You are not required to give your last name. And this is a live “streaming” online program, not broadcast radio. No one edits or monitors the show that could possibly create problems for callers.

As I write, Congress has reconvened to continue the joint session electoral vote presentation. We will discuss details of this session live in the morning.

No matter what happens going forward, you will always be able to say the events of the last four years culminating with those today on Capitol Hill and what happens going forward were and are “Unprecedented.”

God Bless you.

Dan

dan@TruthNewsNet.org

The Only Thing That Matters: Truth

Slowly, but steadily, more and more Congress members are stepping forward to support the move by legislators to object on January 6th to the acceptance of the electoral college votes that state governors have certified as those that represent the “true” wish of the voters in their states. The most recent and demonstrative is that of Texas Senator Ted Cruz which stated:

“Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.”

American voters in droves (and mounting in number daily) are publicly proclaiming their belief that November 3rd’s election does NOT represent the People’s will and does NOT evidence a true election. Those same voters are expressing their angst at members of Congress NOT doing so. Why is that?

Tens of millions of Americans have watched as hundreds of firsthand reports have been given, sworn under the penalty of perjury, showing evidence of election fraud that are being ignored by leaders in office and the Mainstream Media. It comes as no surprise that a FOX survey shows at least 30 percent of ALL Americans believe the votes included a vast number of fraudulent ones, 77 percent of Republicans feel that way. Even 10% of Democrats feel that the Biden victory is fraudulent.

It is unconscionable that many Washington leaders ignore this evidence and are pushing forward with what appears to millions to be a fraudulent presidency of a candidate that did NOT win legally. Why is it unconscionable for elected members of our government to do so? Because in doing so, they are ignoring the oath of office they took to serve in Congress.

The Congressional Oath of Office

“I (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, So help me God.” (Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code)

The Constitution states that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” (Article I, section 4).

In the November 3rd election and the run-up to that date, there were tens of dozens of changes made to numerous states’ election processes, none of which (if any) were made in the Constitutionally mandated method. The legislatures did NOT make those changes — various hired state executives, elected Secretaries of State, and even governors made those changes in direct violation of the Constitution. Only state legislatures have that authority unless Congress steps in and does so, which did not happen.

“So how does that pertain to United States legislators?” Simple: the legislatures must act on the illegal action taken by these unauthorized individuals. They must right the wrongs committed against their citizens. Didn’t they swear an oath to do that — to defend the Constitution of the United States?

Oh, there’s one additional responsibility of that oath: “and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Anyone can rightfully accept that a state’s election laws are upheld, as are the Constitution’s provisions at the same time.

The Maniacal Rumor Mill

Is it any surprise that the conspiracy theorists have been having a field day with this? I’ve seen and heard reports from people I always thought were credible that are alleging as fact all kinds of unverifiable actions committed and/or pending: “Joe Biden will never be inaugurated. He has already been arrested and is headed to Guantanamo Bay;” “Pelosi, Schumer, John Brennan, and Adam Schiff have been notified of their immediate arrest after the January 6th joint session of Congress.” And the craziness goes on and on.

Why not just dismiss all this based on it coming from partisan hacks trying to make a buck from gullible Americans? Because no one can knowingly and honestly say that because the facts that prove the election wasn’t fraudulent have not been investigated for their veracity.

So the rumors continue, as does the fear and havoc across the nation as we enter a new decade — all of which is needless angst perpetrated against Americans by the unholy union of Leftist Media and Democrat Party sycophants and, yes, even some GOP RINO’s.

“Thuggery” Instead of “Representation”

Political thuggery and partisanship bear no particular party name.

Many Americans laughed during the 2016 campaign when candidate Donald Trump began talking about the “Swamp” in D.C. and “draining the Swamp” of all those who were living in the mire of the D.C. swamp.  That Swamp was/is full of bureaucrats and lifetime politicians who were not content to govern solely as  “servants” but chose to build powerful and lucrative careers feeding at the trough of sustenance provided by the American people. Gone were the days when Americans volunteered two years of their lives to leave their farms, towns, and communities to go to Washington to represent their fellow Americans in lawmaking in the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Senators that were initially representatives of the states discovered how attractive were those Senate jobs that could make them a lot of money “IF” those Senate state appointments were changed to come from public elections instead. think of it: “campaign in your state, raise a lot of campaign dollars, trade obligations for campaign dollars with donors, and then everyone gets taken care of when they get to Washington and start passing out “deals” and opportunities!”

Summary

Don’t be lulled into thinking the 2020 election and its results are over — it’s anything BUT over. Am I saying that Donald Trump will somehow continue as President and serve for four more years? Will these U.S. lawmakers from the House and Senate that are planning to object at the joint session of Congress be successful and force both the House and Senate to move to separate considerations of these objections and vote on who should be President rather than the vote tallies as presented at the electoral college? Will Joe Biden NOT be President? I’m not saying that at all. But I AM saying that all of this is unresolved and will NOT be resolved by January 20th or February 20th or March, April, May, June, July, or any time this year!

Why?

The sleeping giant named “The American People” have been rustled from years of slumber. Americans have benignly lived private lives in blind faith that their nation’s leaders have operated the government honestly, legally, ethically, morally, and solely for the good of all Americans. That trust included confidence of their being nothing but adherent to the Rule of Law and that any wrongdoing in the government would be handled by those elected to do so. And “The American People” have rudely awakened to the realization that our government leaders have taken advantage of us while we snoozed and have ripped from us the substance of what our nation has been for 260 years!

This Giant is NOT happy. There are tens of millions of people who Donald Trump activated by exposing bits of the Swamp’s underbelly. Contrary to what Leftist leaders tell their minions, Trump has NEVER demanded anyone from Americans but patriotism, love of country, loyalty to the Constitution, and adherence to the Rule of Law. That has enraged the Left! They cannot deal with it in the ways they have always handled others who have tried. Oh, they tried: again, again, and again. But each time, Truth has been revealed. And when that light has shined, more and more Americans saw the light of Truth.

I have said numerous times that Truth is absolute: there are no “versions” of it. There are no such things as “My Truth and Your Truth.” The Left does not understand that. It was a snippet of mantra which they successfully sold to a marching army of left-leaning political elites. And Leftist leaders cannot find a way to erase the facts Americans have seen in the last four years under this administration!

Want an example? Here is just one of the thousands:

William Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and Defense secretary under former President Clinton, blasted GOP lawmakers challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election in a Thursday interview in which he suggested the formation of a new political party.

Cohen made the comments on CNN’s “The Situation Room” while discussing Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) plans to object during Congress’s counting of the Electoral College vote on Wednesday. Cohen called Hawley’s actions “shameful” but warned that Republicans are just following President Trump’s lead, calling him the party’s “ringmaster.”

“We have to remember that the current occupant of the White House is a ringmaster and what he expects to do is snap his whip and all the elephants hop up on chairs,” Cohen said. “What they have to understand is he is going to continue to snap the whip whether he’s in office or out of office. And every time they’re going to have to jump up and sit on that stool to satisfy him and his supporters.”

The days of Leftist leaders talking down to and about Americans who disagree with those leaders are over. The sleeping Giant has awakened!

What’s going to happen? I cannot say, but I can “surmise.” I think that there is still a sliver of opportunity for the truth of the egregious and gargantuan voter fraud from November to be “confirmed” to Americans. Much of it has already been exposed. But even if that happens, it’s uncertain what result we would see.

What I CAN predict is that the Great Awakening that began during the 2016 campaign and continued after the election continues to grow at a rapid pace. Eyes and ears have been opened. Millions of people see and recognize what they first thought was fact, and has been revealed nothing more than partisan drivel has been driving our government for many years. They know and are now committed that it must stop.

Just as I penned this story, I received the following note from a TruthNewsNetwork partner in Australia. (I do not know this person) I thought it was applicable to share with all today:

DearTruth News Network,

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I am deeply concerned (and frightened) by the Great Reset, as well as the ‘Plandemic’ and the Covid vaccines. All I want is to return to normal again. Here in Australia we are governed by globalist socialists who support lockdowns, the poison Covid vaccines and the Great Reset. We do not have a ‘Trump’ here. Australia’s politicians have all sold out and are ‘compromised’.

In my heart I do believe that President Trump will win! But the big question I’d love to ask you is: What will happen to us here in Australia when Trump wins? I mean, will Australia, like the USA, be removed from the shackles of the Great Reset/Plandemic/Covid vaccines, etc? In other words, will Trump’s win destroy this evil socialist reset program in JUST the USA, or will Trump’s win destroy this evil reset worldwide, including Australia?

Thank you very much. I really look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards and God Bless,
Shane Stephenson,
Melbourne, Australia”

That’s from an Aussie concerned about us who watches our government and our leaders from “Down Under.” Do they see something that we do not?

What’s going to happen? What that will look like is still pending. However, there are two things that I can say are beyond question by anyone:

  • The Son of God said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free;”
  • “The Truth Will Out.”

Those two in tandem will change our nation for the better. Yes, I hope this change will happen this year — and I’m certain it will begin. Will it begin with a different POTUS or the one we have now for four years? I cannot say which will happen. But either way, the Truth is going to drive this nation in a way it hasn’t seen in quite a while.

We’re going to all be all right: “God’s Got This!”

$900 Billion “Pork-U-Lus” Bill

COVID-19 Stimulus Bill
Before we weigh into the frivolity they included, please understand this: they agreed — after six months of haranguing — to pay Americans $600. Don’t get me wrong, $600 comes in handy no matter in what fiscal condition one finds themself. Putting the $600 number in context certainly shows the nation a few things, few of which are good. It’s a $900 Billion package of which less than $2 Billion in total goes directly to Americans!
Here is no surprise to anyone, but the equal to $900 Billion is packed full of pork! We just got our hands on the text, and we are combing through the document, but here are some of the highlights.

  1. $4,184,000 for Office of Ethics expenses.
  2. $85,476,000 for Economic Research Services
  3. $183,921,000 for National Agricultural Statistics Service
  4. $60,131,000 for the Risk Management Agency
  5. $21,000,000 for the Central Utah Project
  6. $3,850,000 for the Office of the President
  7. $13,641,000 for the White House Residence
  8.  $18,400,000 for the Office of National Drug Control Policy
  9.  $700,000,000 for Sudan.
  10.  $500 million to Israel
  11.  $453 million to Ukraine
  12.  $135 million to Burma
  13.  $85.5 million to Cambodia
  14. $1.4 billion for “Asia Reassurance Initiative Act.”
  15. $130 million to Nepal
  16. $10,000,000 for gender programs in Pakistan.
  17. $13 billion for farmers and agriculture, including money under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program for growers and livestock, dairy, and poultry producers.
  18. $82 billion in funding for schools and universities to assist with the reopening, including $2.75 billion for private K-12 education.
  19. $16 billion for airlines to pay the salaries of workers and contractors.
  20. $14 billion for mass transit agencies.
  21. $10 billion for highways.
  22. $1 billion for Amtrak.

Even though the bill passed with overwhelming support in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, six Republicans stood firmly against it. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee(R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Rick Scott (R-FL), all stood firmly against the bill, which had been bundled with a $1.4 trillion spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. Their criticisms largely focused on the size of the legislation, both in terms of the dollar amount and the bill’s page count. The reasons for their “No” Votes?

Rand Paul: “To so-called conservatives who are quick to identify the socialism of Democrats: If you vote for this spending monstrosity, you are no better,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “When you vote to pass out free money, you lose your soul, and you abandon any semblance of moral or fiscal integrity forever,” he said, targeting his fellow Republicans.

Rick Scott: “Once again, in classic Washington style, vital programs are attached to a massive omnibus spending bill that mortgages our kids & grandkid’s futures,” he tweeted. “Therefore, I can’t support this bill.”

Marsha Blackburn: “I cannot support nearly $2.4 trillion in spending that will make a recovery even harder,” she said in a statement. “I have serious concerns with provisions buried in the 5,593-page bill, such as expanded visas, Pell grants for prisoners, and households with illegal aliens receiving economic impact payments. For these reasons, I voted no on the passage of this legislation.”

Ron Johnson: “The dysfunction of Washington, D.C. was on full display as Congress combined covid relief with a massive omnibus spending bill three months past the deadline and into the current fiscal year,” Johnson said in a statement. “This monstrosity was 5,593 pages long and passed only nine hours after the Senate first saw it.”

Ted Cruz: “It’s ABSURD to have a $2.5 trillion spending bill negotiated in secret and then—hours later—demand an up-or-down vote on a bill nobody has had time to read,” Cruz tweeted. Cruz also railed against Democrats in a statement posted Tuesday morning, claiming that the bill “advances the interests of the radical Left, special interests, and swamp lobbyists, with funding going towards expanding authority for more H-2B visas for foreign workers while a near-record number of Americans remain unemployed.”

Mike Lee: “Because of the length, no one may have the opportunity to read it between now and the time that we will vote,” Lee said in the video. “And I am certain that this has been cobbled together by a tiny handful of members of Congress and their staffs and to the exclusion of 98% of members of Congress of both political parties in both houses.”

“Not Enough, Not Enough!”

That was the reason, we are told, that Pelosi and Schumer continued to reject stimulus offers from President Trump and Republicans since August. Let’s face it: there will NEVER be enough “free money” for Nancy Pelosi. Keep in mind, the deal Pelosi just accepted and was passed in the House and Senate pumped “only” $900 Billion into the American marketplace. That doesn’t sound like much, does it? Why would Pelosi settle for that paltry sum when Trump himself offered twice that to Democrats in October?

Pelosi, in an October letter to her Democrat colleagues, explained why she is so dissatisfied with the recent $1.8 trillion proposal from the Trump administration, which she says “falls significantly short of what this pandemic and deep recession demand.” To illustrate her point, she outlined eight ways that their proposed stimulus package falls short, citing a different Democratic colleague for each issue she raised.

Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues say that the $1.8 billion proposal from the Trump administration:

  1. Didn’t include enough money for state and local governments.
  2. Lacked funding or planning for COVID-19 testing, tracing, and surveillance.
  3. Didn’t expand the Child Tax Credit or the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  4. Failed to provide enough protections for tenants who are at risk of being evicted.
  5. Didn’t protect workers or offer enough assistance to child care programs.
  6. Didn’t do enough to help small businesses.
  7. Provided no funding for state and local governments to ensure safe and secure voting.
  8. Jeopardized the completion of an accurate Census.

Those were her words, not mine!

How did she get from “No Way!” in October to “Yes, let ‘er Rip!” in December for half the money!

It’s simple, folks. If you throw every conceivable factor for a COVID-19 stimulus bill from Congress into one big pile, to Nancy Pelosi, the least important would be “to help individual Americans who are in dire financial straits.” How can I maintain that? Just look at the facts:

  • The October Trump Stimulus included $1200 for each American — twice as much as Pelosi agreed to.
  • Pelosi walked away from her demands for big bucks to help states in their elections. (She and others took care of the elections with no extra money!)
  • There are no provisions we can find among the 5,000+ pages that address Census problems.
  • Also, we cannot find any expansion dollars for Child Tax Credit or Earned Income Tax Credits.

The timing of this, coupled with the fifty percent reduction in her “lowest possible agreeable dollar amount” demands an explanation. If Pelosi was such a great and successful leader as we are led to believe, how could she possibly reconcile cutting her package in half, totally at the expense of the American people she so religiously demanded she would never let down!

Summary

The most significant factor for consideration in this bill is that in no way was it driven based upon the needs of the American people that result from COVID-19! If it did, where are the relief segments for hundreds of thousands of small businesses? Other than an extension of the PPP Program, there are none. How could any government servant look at the numbers of unemployed Americans solely due to government shutdowns, not at the hands of the virus or American individuals, but due totally to the egregious power and fear-mongering edicts of Democrat governors and mayors across the nation? There should be a quid pro quo demand on one page of the 5000+ pages in the bill: a page that details how many D.C. paychecks are members of Congress going to forego to show Americans they care for us? Not one federal government employee missed a paycheck or lost a job during the six months Americans lived in “COVID Limbo!” This while tens of millions of Americans struggled to survive during insane lockdowns that came arbitrarily from medical “experts” like Fauci and Birx through socialists-in-disguise mayors and governors that changed the lives of Americans who many of will NEVER fully recover.

“Listen to the Science!” they cried. We DID listen, but government officials did not. Scientists told us we MUST get our kids back in school. They told us that suicides and chronic depression cases skyrocketed due to lockdowns. Divorce number soared. Domestic crimes escalated. Crimes of every sort ramped up at the hands of COVID-19 lockdowns.

To what end? Remember, in the beginning; they told us a 30-day lockdown would put us on the downside of the spread of COVID-19. 30-days came and went. Infection numbers just kept climbing. Wearing masks did not work; social distancing did not work; deaths continued to rise in number. We saw inexpensive drugs achieve dramatic results worldwide in stopping COVID-19. The “experts” said those drugs would cause severe problems and even deaths. Meanwhile, Hydroxychloriquine has proven to STOP severe cases and deaths in a higher percentage of patients than any other drug on the market.

It seems to many that all of this, COVID-19 and all of its ancillary issues, including serious illness and deaths, has been used by politicians. It is unconscionable to consider the possibility of anyone weaponizing such a disease for political purposes. But millions of Americans are confident that is exactly what happened. And I’m one of them.

Put all of this in the context of where we stand as a nation. We’re more divided than ever; we wink at laws and reject their enforcement instead of amending or abolishing statutes with which we disagree; we turn over our rights to free and fair elections to politicians who stood idly by and watched waves of fraudulent voting processes sweep across the nation; we benignly allow those to whom we have ceded our power as citizens to flood the country with illegals, doing so in the name of “fairness.”

This is the nation in which we live today. By the way: none of that will change anytime soon. Doing so would require a vast and dramatic groundswell of Americans pushing back against egregious government tactics designed to see how far they can push control of the citizenry. To what end? Apparently, to push us into a “Socialist-Light” environment where Big Government assumes control of every area of our lives.

Fill a pot with boiling water and drop a frog into the pot of water. The frog will immediately leap from the pot. Fill a pot with cold water and put a frog into the pot. Turn the temperature on low under the pot. What happens? The frog will simply boil to death as the water temperature slowly rises about 212 degrees and boils.

The American Pot is on the stove. We’re the frogs. How are we going to handle it? Will we allow the government that we see testing us with COVID-19 crazy regulations that don’t work along with what they tell us is $900 Billion of COVID-19 stimulus money they say is to “carry us through the pandemic?” Or will we lash out and start demanding our government “servants” (which they certainly are NOT) do what they swore to do in their oaths of office?

It’s all about Power and Control!

“Calm down, Dan…they’re doing the best that they can! We know you and many other Americans are upset at members of Congress. You have NO right to expect any preferential treatment. After all, they gave you $600 of your own money!”