The “Big Lie” is Really From Democrats

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

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

This is, to be polite, unhinged nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

So how in the world did they function?

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

What’s different now?

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

Who loses in this process? The People.

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Is there hope to stop it?”

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

Short of that, Venezuela, Here We Come!

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

I hope our lawmakers agree.

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

Dividing America: The Racist Plot of Communism, Part I

Blacks who have not succumbed to the victim culture have been, are, and will be doing quite well – all on their own, without handouts, affirmative action, and other patronizing measures.  Tammy Bruce

Of all forms of slavery, none is so harmful and degrading as that form of slavery that tempts one human being to hate another because of his race or color. – Booker T. Washington

The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States. – Charles Dickens, 1862

Have we reached the ultimate state of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born? In contrast, are other people not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?  Thomas Sowell

We are at war against the communist division of black and white Americans and, ultimately, the takeover of the greatest country in the world.  While promising freedom, socialism delivers free men into slavery.  Death ultimately comes with communism, and the latter is being foisted on America today.  Over 100 million died under communist regimes in the 20th Century.

Free men in a free society will, by their own ability, create an unequal citizenry.  Socialist equality is and always has been the death knell for freedom.  Thus, the socialist demand for abject human equality should be viewed with a jaundiced eye.  Socialist and communist equality is obtainable only at the point of a bloody bayonet.

Nowhere in the founding fathers’ writings is there to be found anything close to the Marxist concept of mandatory equality.  However, within this free republic, all citizens can compete for any social or economic prize.  Not all will succeed, but all are equally free to attempt to do what they set their minds to do.

Murder and Genocide

Churchill is credited with saying, “The victors write history.” Still, it was most likely, Walter Benjamin, a Jewish, German literary critic and philosopher who expressed the spirit of the sentiment without saying/writing those exact words.  Historical truth must be unearthed by those with a heart for documented facts, even when the victor has done everything to destroy reality and rewrite their own glory.

Surely anyone who has searched for true history knows that not all slaves, whether black or white, were treated humanely, and some were murdered, whether by lynching, beating, starvation, or excessive labor. The American institution of slavery was evil because it depended on unrestrained domination. One group of people determine, in God-like fashion, the fate of others. Link

In British-owned Ireland, between 1845-1850, the Perfect Holocaust occurred. It wasn’t a famine; it was a purposeful Irish genocide by starvation.  Irish families rented and farmed British-owned land. The Irish genocide began when the European potato crop failed in 1844, and food prices rose. Britain then ordered regiments to Ireland. When blight hit the 1845 English potato crop, its food removal regiments were already in Ireland, ready to start.  The British government-run police state removed the abundant food grown by the Irish and exported what they didn’t need, leaving any for the Irish farmers.  They took more than they needed to survive and, in doing so, purposely starved to death Irish men, women, and children.  It was outright theft and annihilation by the British government.

Approximately six million Irish starved to death and were buried in hundreds of mass graves. Link  The truth is told in The Perfect Holocaust and Who Kept it “Perfect.”

Video here:  https://youtu.be/BHmp8UPl3_c  (approximately 30 minutes in length)

Ludlow Massacre

In 1914, a much smaller murder occurred, the murder of exploited white laborers, their wives, and children. When the miners went on strike for better working conditions and housing, they were living in tents.  On Monday, April 20, 1914, the first shot was fired at Ludlow, Colorado. One of history’s most dramatic confrontations between capital and labor was the so-called Ludlow Massacre.

It took place at the mines of the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Company (CFI). The face-off raged for 14 hours, during which the miners’ tent colony was pelted with 1200 rounds of machine-gun fire and ultimately torched by the Colorado National Guard and Rockefeller’s privately hired militia. Many people were killed, among them two women and 11 children who suffocated in a pit they had dug under their tent. The deaths were blamed on John D. Rockefeller, Jr.  For years, he would struggle to redress the situation and strengthen the Rockefeller social conscience in the process.  Few people understand the evil of the Rockefellers and the slave labor conditions they exacted on the miners.

Shoah Genocide

One of the greatest losses to civilization was the extermination of millions of brilliant Europeans, most of whom were our Jewish brethren.  One need only read the short book by concentration camp prisoner Gisela Perl entitled I Was a Doctor in Auschwitz to understand the horror and evil of genocide and the loss of great minds.

In 1933, the Jewish population of Europe stood at over nine million. In the 1930s, a leader arose in Germany who would eventually murder two of every three European Jews resulting in the genocide of over six million of God’s people. Most European Jews lived in countries that Nazi Germany would occupy or influence during World War II.

Dissenters, homosexuals, disabled, Slavs, and Romani were also exterminated, bringing the total to nearly 13 million lives destroyed in the gas chambers of concentration camps.  The Shoah was one of the most horrific genocides of white European lives, many of whom were murdered after months of forced slave labor.

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters

A new study suggesting that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before is another story in itself.  The history of white slaves by African masters is rarely heard of or taught.  White slavery was far more prevalent throughout the centuries than the years of black slavery in America.

620,000 Died

There was no peace-loving, Constitution-respecting defender of liberty with the followers of Lincoln during the War for Southern Independence.  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution in 1861 did it say the Federal Government had a right or obligation to wage war against any state in the Union for any reason.  No state ever rescinded its sovereignty or gave up its independence.  In fact, three states were so protective of their independence that they insisted, before they would join the new Union, that they could secede from it if it became tyrannical in their eyes. Those states were New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Slavery was not the issue; it was southern state secession from an overzealous and controlling government.  Slavery was already on the way out as it became less economically feasible, although it may have taken a few more years. Jefferson’s attack against it should never have been eliminated from the Declaration of Independence by northern merchants, Georgia and South Carolina.  Unfortunately, it was made an issue by Lincoln and his allies. However, Lincoln detested anyone with black skin, and in 1862 suggested that with the help of government funds, blacks would return to Africa or emigrate to Central America. That same year, Lincoln signed the first progressive income tax into law.

When the Southern States seceded, they followed the exact precedent set by the Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Each Southern state called a convention of the people (commonly called a secession convention), elected delegates as Unionists or Secessionists, debated the single issue of whether to stay in the Union or leave, then seven states voted to secede. Four rejected secessions for the time being.

When the guns of Fort Sumter sounded, there were more slave states in the Union (eight, soon to be nine) than the Confederacy (seven). Of course, the four that had rejected secession immediately seceded when Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South; they did not believe the Federal Government had a right to invade a sovereign state or coerce it to do anything.

What was lost was the American system of government the Founders set up; 700,000 plus military lives and scores of civilian lives would have been saved.  The totalitarian potential of the centralized state was revealed in Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and his jailing of political opponents. He ruled as a virtual dictator during the war.

Confederates Were Not Traitors

Today’s definition of “patriot” is totally different than the one found in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, which states, “devoted to the welfare of one’s country.”

The definition of “traitor” is even more explicit than today’s definitions.  It’s not just “one who betrays another’s trust or commits treason.”  The 1828 definition states, “One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to its enemy; and more…

Four-star General Jack Keane has twice stated on Fox News that Confederate soldiers were traitors and every Confederate soldier committed treason.  What a bald-faced lie! Confederate soldiers were not traitors! Many of whom were descendants of Revolutionary War heroes, including Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, fought for independence from an overzealous centralized government of control.  Slavery had nothing to do with the issue until it was brought to the fore by Lincoln.  In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation itself promised a continuance of slavery to States that would lay down their arms.

The very thought of controlling another human being was already being destroyed by Judeo-Christian society. Still, the right to secede was within Constitutional boundaries and agreements via the state joining the Union.

Secession wasn’t treason, and Southern President Jefferson Davis wasn’t a traitor.  Not one Confederate officer was tried for treason.  Jefferson Davis demanded a trial, but the victors refused to give him one.  U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA), a hateful radical, deplored that Davis was even captured because his presence in a northern prison was an embarrassment to the government.  They couldn’t let him go because of Northern opinion, but “to try him would be the ne plus ultra of folly,” Sumner wrote to Salmon Chase, the chief justice of the Supreme Court and Chase agreed.

Chase wrote to his former colleagues in Lincoln’s cabinet in 1866: “If you bring these Confederate leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is on rebellion.”  In the end, they had no choice but to release Confederate leaders.  Even Andrew Johnson, who hated Davis, yielded to the pressure and released Davis on May 11, 1867.  When the former Rebel commander was a free man after two years, thousands of people (many of them black, it was reported) lined the streets and took their hats off in respectful silence.
Murdering 620,000 Americans

There was no love for southern Americans by Lincoln’s allies.  Congressman Zachariah Chandler stated, “A rebel has sacrificed all his rights.  He has no right to life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness.  Everything you give him, even life itself, is a boon which he has forfeited.” (Congressional Globe, 37th Congress)

Lincoln’s men moved from rebellion to Nazi-like genocide.  Union General William Sherman was caught up in this Nazi-like practice of “authority and responsibility” as demonstrated by his dispatches: “To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of, the better.” (Official Records, War of the Rebellion, Volume XXXII, pt. II, pp. 280-281) Sherman’s target was enlarged, and disposing of included children: “There are a class of people (Southerners) men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.” (William Sherman, Ibid, page 132) Sounds more like Adolph Hitler than a peace-loving, Constitution-respecting defender of liberty.

Sherman would be welcomed as a comrade by today’s communist revolutionaries and Democratic Socialists with their censorship of free speech and destruction of our First Amendment.  “Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, precious relics of former history, must not be construed too largely.” General William T. Sherman

Lincoln had adopted the “black flag” policy, and this policy was executed by several Union commanders. The fundamental meaning of a black flag was to give no quarter, kill them all.  “Warring against noncombatants came to be the stated policy and deliberate practice in its subjugation of the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln, the commander in chief with a reputation as a micromanager, well knew what was going on and approved.”  Link  Abraham Lincoln never believed in racial equality.

Slaughter continued during the 12 years of Martial Law in the confederate states after the war.  The shelling and burning of cities, systematic destruction of entire districts, mass arrests, forced expulsions, wholesale plundering of personal property, and murder of civilians.  War Crimes Against Southern Civilians also give full attention to the suffering of black victims of Federal brutality.

Northern historians cling to the Lincolnian myth that only by the most horrendous of wars could the slaves be freed, ignoring the fact that the rest of the Western world managed to bring an end to the institution without bloodshed.

 

White has become the new black. Centuries of white slavery are ignored, never taught in universities, and we are targeted with the Marxist label of “White Skin Privilege.”

Really?  We’re privileged because we were born with white skin?  That’s the propaganda being sold today by communists like South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, who promoted the apartheid murder of all whites.

Black American elitists are screaming for reparations, for whom?  No one alive today was a slave or a slave owner.  Where do white Americans who suffered slavery throughout past centuries go for reparations?

Over 60 years ago, racism vs. black people was tolerated, even codified into law, and black and white Americans marched together to put an end to it. Yes, we stood with our black brothers and sisters to stop this evil, and whites died to ensure our brother’s freedoms. Today, racism vs. white people has become more tolerated, and even some of our laws reflect that.

Despite over half a century of aiding our black brothers and sisters with Affirmative Action, we are being divided once again by the communist desire to shred the cloth of freedom that binds us as Americans.

Communism wants our division.  We stand together, arm in arm, or we lose it all.

Summary

Kelleigh Nelson is one of the most astute “deep-divers” of the purveyors of our American history. Not only has she studied it, but she has also sat at the feet of many of America’s greatest historical and political intellectuals and sponged on their thoughts as they shared them. She is certainly not hesitant to ask for facts, opinions and to even reject some of each of those unless and until she verifies those herself. That’s why TruthNewsNetwork is not hesitant to share her work with you.

We at TNN have presented factual documentation showing the undeniable evidence that some in our government are dead-set on pushing our nation into a political structure somewhere to the left of Socialism which teeters on Totalitarianism. Though I have felt that for some time, it became clearer in Barack Obama’s second term as President, but it has picked up warp speed under Joe Biden! My dread that Joe Biden spurned by far-left Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the rest of her “Gang” has opened the floodgates of a totalitarian utopia wannabe that Big Corporate America, Pharma, Big Tech, and even an entire generation of moderate Democrats across America are lusting to see implemented here.

Why the rush?

The answer is simple: Democrats certainly feel they must “make hay while the sun shines” — their time in the sun will almost certainly be short. Therefore, they must race ahead as quickly as possible to put as much of their wanted principles in place before they are replaced by Americans with new members of Congress. No one can argue they’re doing a spectacular job!

Where are we headed in all this? In Part II of this story, Kelleigh Nelson will give you some answers. Stay tuned for the finale. She begins that part by breaking down the civil rights debacle implemented by Democrats in Congress to supposedly “level the playing field” in business that has failed and failed dismally — Affirmative Action.

You will NOT be let down!

To Download Today’s (Tuesday, July 6, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

 

What Can We Do As Citizens To Fight the Illegal Immigration Problem?

Let’s be honest: this presidential administration is doing nothing to fight the illegal immigration problem. In fact, daily we are spoonfed bits of information from the media revealing NEW ways the “Biden Crime Syndicate” are breaking immigration laws and thumbing their noses at the American citizens who in the hundreds of thousands are working on their own to pushback against the lawbreakers flooding across our border.

Let’s be clear: not all who come here are criminals. We don’t have any desire to denigrate these immigrants, many of whom are honestly trying to find better living conditions for their families. But many of them have criminal records — often from committing felonies — before they get here. In fact, many have U.S. criminal records from previous trips across our border in which they committed crimes and were arrested and deported.

Here’s the conundrum for Americans that elevates in intensity daily: “Illegal” means “Illegal.” That means ALL who enter the U.S. without permission to do so (pursuant to federal law) is considered, by the law, an “Illegal Alien,” not “Illegal Immigrant.”

Why do we use the term “Illegal Alien?” Because that is the language used in federal immigration laws governing immigration. Democrats a few years ago changed the terminology to “Illegal Immigrant” to make American citizens feel warm and fuzzy about those whose very entry without doing so within U.S. immigration policy are breaking laws and are therefore technically “Criminals.” (That may not be politically correct, but it IS correct: it’s the law!)

Why do our federal law enforcement officials not stop illegal immigration? Why don’t they go after illegal alien lawbreakers like they do domestic criminals?

That’s the question of the day. I can (and will) answer that. But the answer is NOT a comfortable one and doesn’t justify the allowing of illegal alien crossings.

First, what does federal law say about illegals entering the country?

8 U.S. Code § 1325: (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

In other words, anyone entering the country somewhere besides ports of entry, by lying or cheating about purposes for coming, hiding their identities, or concealing other facts are considered to be breaking the law.

Secondly, what does federal law say about those who assist illegals entering the country?

8 U.S. Code § 1323 – Unlawful bringing of aliens into the United States

1. It shall be unlawful for any person, including any transportation company, or the owner, master, commanding officer, agent, charterer, or consignee of any vessel or aircraft, to bring to the United States from any place outside thereof (other than from foreign contiguous territory) any alien who does not have a valid passport and an unexpired visa if a visa was required under this chapter or regulations issued thereunder.
2. It is unlawful for an alien (except an alien crewmember) to the United States to take any consideration to be kept or returned contingent on whether an alien is admitted to, or ordered removed from, the United States.
The bottom line is this: it’s illegal to enter the country illegally; it’s illegal to assist someone to enter the country illegally.

There’s one more entry on the “bottom line:” that little thing — an “oath” — that’s sworn by every elected public servant and by most appointed political public service that says:

“I 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.”

In other words, they each swore an oath to protect that Constitution “thing:” The Rule of Law. And the Biden Administration and most of the Democrats in Congress are NOT abiding by their sworn oaths.

What Can U.S. Citizens Do About the Government Lawlessness in Illegal Immigration?

It is “well settled,” says the U.S. Supreme Court, that it is the federal government, not state governments, that “has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012).

But the “pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States,” which bear the many “consequences of unlawful immigration.”

States can legislate and act in this space to a limited — but crucial — extent as long as their actions are not preempted by federal law. For example, states can pass licensing and similar laws directed at those who employ, recruit or refer for a fee illegal aliens. There is no doubt, given the enormity of the problem and the limited resources of the federal government, that the assistance and support of the states is essential to comprehensive and effective enforcement of our immigration laws.

The federal government, despite its vast financial resources and expansive workforce, simply does not have the manpower to enforce every federal immigration law. That is where the states come in, as they are force multipliers in confronting the problem — and no one can rationally deny that we have an illegal alien problem in this country.

What States Can Do

What follows is a list of the major types of laws that states have passed to enforce immigration law at the state level, and a discussion about how they work, and why they make common sense.

Require Licensed Businesses to Use E-Verify. One of the major driving forces behind illegal immigration is our economy and the ability to earn money. That is where the term “economic migrants” stems from. Aliens from less prosperous areas of the world want to take advantage of our thriving economy and high standard of living. Aliens in the U.S. send over $54 billion per year back to their native countries. Mexico receives the most remittances, over $24 billion in 2015, making up 2 percent of the nation’s economy and nearly 20 percent of income in the poorest parts of the country.

But illegal aliens are not authorized to work for businesses in the United States. That is one of the major differences between being an illegal alien and a lawful permanent resident (LPR, or “green card” holder). The former are prohibited from working; the latter can be employed, just like American citizens. But as is obvious, many illegal aliens are working in the United States. Where else would the remittances come from?

States can pass laws that make it more difficult for illegal aliens to work, hold jobs, and earn salaries by considering requiring businesses, which are licensed by the state, to use E-Verify.

Target Businesses Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Aliens. The other aspect of the Arizona law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, above and beyond the use of E-Verify, is the part that provides that the license of a business can be suspended or revoked by the state if an employer “knowingly” hires an illegal alien. Willful ignorance of immigration status by businesses happens all too often.

Pass Vehicle Laws Aimed at Thwarting Day Labor. One obvious outward sign of aliens who are in the country illegally is the proliferation of day laborers. llegal immigrants choose the day-labor route precisely because it avoids official work verification tools, such as E-Verify.

The Arizona legislature decided to do something about the day laborer phenomenon by passing three criminal laws aimed at this practice. None of those laws were preempted by federal law, and none has been struck down by the courts, so each is available for states to pass. In general, the Arizona vehicle law makes it unlawful to hire or pick up passengers for work under certain circumstances:

Under the first provision is a state law crime for the occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

  • Notice that the statute does not mention the word immigration at all, and applies to legal and illegal immigrants alike, as well as citizens. It also applies to the “occupant,” which would include both the driver and non-driver occupants in the vehicle.
  • The second provision is focused on the day laborer. It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and transported to a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
  • The third provision applies to illegal aliens. The statute reads: “It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.”

Each of these provisions was part of the controversial and much larger Arizona statute called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, or as it came to be known, Arizona S.B. 1070 (S.B. because it was passed in Senate Bill 1070).

The Obama Administration sued the State of Arizona, challenging many provisions of S.B. 1070, claiming that they were unconstitutional, and moved for an injunction to prevent Arizona from enforcing the statute. The Obama Administration did not seek to enjoin the first two sections. The district court refused to enjoin the entire act, and instead evaluated the constitutionality of individual provisions.

Require State and Local Law Enforcement to Determine Immigration Status. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld another section of Arizona S.B. 1070, which required state and local law enforcement officials to make a “reasonable” attempt to determine the immigration status of any person they stop, detain, or arrest if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.”

Any person arrested “shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” But officers may not consider “race, color or national origin…except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s].

State legislatures can require law enforcement officers to verify the citizenship status of anyone who is stopped, detained, or arrested on state and local matters. Moreover, “no formal agreement or special training needs to be in place for state officials to ‘communicate with the [Federal Government] regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States.”

Prevent Sanctuary Policies in Counties and Cities. We have discussed this extensively. States have the authority to pass legislation preventing any municipality of any kind from creating Sanctuary status.

Empower Legal Residents to Sue Officials Who Thwart Immigration Law Enforcement. Another provision of Arizona’s law that was upheld is a prohibition on local officials implementing any policy that limits the enforcement of federal immigration laws.37

U.S. v. Arizona, 703 F.Supp.2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010). This provision was upheld by the federal district court, and the U.S. Justice Department did not appeal that particular holding, nor a number of other holdings in that decision.

This statute allows any legal resident of Arizona to bring an action in court against any official who adopts or implements such a policy—and provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs if he or she prevails. A violation is also punishable by a civil penalty of up to $5,000 a day “for each day that the policy has remained in effect” after the lawsuit is filed.

Pass Laws Making It a Crime to Transport, Conceal, or Induce an Alien

Make It Illegal to Provide Illegal Aliens Licenses, Automobile Plates, or In-State Tuition

Publish Crimes Committed by Aliens

Summary

The bottom line is simple: the Federal Government is NOT acting to stem the flood of illegal aliens into the U.S. But states have numerous rights AND the responsibility to pass laws that have already been tested at the Supreme Court as valid that can help do just that!

Though the Constitution is clear that immigration law and enforcement are chiefly the responsibility of the federal government, every state has the legal right to attack their own individual illegal immigration problems in the ways detailed above.

EVERY State — including YOUR state — should be abiding by the oaths of office each legislator and governor swore and craft ways to protect YOU from the ills of ALL criminal actions to first prevent them from occurring. Then, of course, offenders need to be held accountable under the law for their abuses.

The only way this can happen is if YOU engage personally in this process. It starts with “You,” then to someone with whom you share your concerns regarding this and who will commit to working to get YOUR state engaged in fixing these problems.

Don’t say it cannot be done! It has already been done. It’s not necessarily easy and takes much work. But it is a job in which we ALL must engage!

To Download Today’s (Thursday, July 1, 2021) “TNN Live” Show, click on this link:

Almost Four Months Since “Insurrection Day:” Still No “Facts”

Will January 6 go down as another “day of infamy,” an assault against America akin in its seriousness to December 7, which commemorates Pearl Harbor? Maybe, but not for the reasons that comparison suggests.

Sure, many irresponsible commentators — but here I repeat myself — and Democratic politicians compared the January 6 protest at the Capitol to December 7, to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, even (thank you Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer) to the Civil War.

Back in February, I noted here that there were a few differences between these two sets of events. At the Capitol, we were told that “domestic extremists” or “domestic terrorists” at the instigation of Donald Trump “stormed” the Capitol in what amounted to an ‘armed insurrection.’

One trouble with that narrative is that the only arms were deployed by the Capitol police, one of whom shot someone dead. The victim’s name was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed veteran and pro-Trump activist who was trying to climb through a window.

The role of the Capitol police that day is curious. At first, they went along with — indeed, they assiduously circulated — the baseless rumor that one of their number, Brian Sicknick, had been brutally beaten to death with a fire extinguisher by a crazed Trump partisan. That story was as eagerly seized upon by the media, just as were the phantasmagoric stories about Brett Kavanaugh’s teenage sexual exploits or the Covington Kid’s rudeness to an Indian elder. It turned out that Sicknick died of ‘natural causes’, a fact that even the New York Times eventually admitted after their original story had done its damage to Trump and anyone who supported him.

Just a few days ago, someone on the Capitol police force — CNN knows who but they aren’t saying — sent an anonymous letter to Congress demanding the establishment of a “9/11 style” inquiry into the events of January 6, as urged by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. I say “anonymous letter,” but really, as Tucker Carlson said, it was more like a ransom note, a politically charged demand made by an armed security force that is supposed to be politically impartial.

Yet the crumbling sound you hear in the distance is the sound of the Capitol armed insurrection narrative falling to pieces. It was supposed to be the gravest threat to ‘our democracy’ in the long history of the Republic. But the more we know, the less we see. It had long been rumored that the Capitol police actually opened the doors to protesters and welcomed them in. I had heard from one reputable source that it was because January 6 happened to be a day in which the Capitol was open for visitors. That might explain why so many of the ‘insurrectionists’ stayed between the velvet ropes as they walked through The National Statuary Hall. Did they really know what was going on?

I have also seen the recently released footage showing Capitol police welcoming in the protesters.

I saw that footage thanks to the independent reporting of Julie Kelly at American Greatness.  She has been tenacious and uncompromising. Anyone who has followed this depressing story is much in her debt.

One of her leitmotifs has been the cruel and vindictive treatment of protesters by the Biden Department of Justice, abetted by the Capitol police. Hundreds of people have been arrested. Some have been languishing for months in solitary confinement without being formally charged. 

This, as Kelly points out, is police-state behavior on the part of the Biden DOJ. The FBI and the CIA have been operating more like the Soviet NKVD than the storied agencies of yore.

Back at the beginning of the Trump administration, Sen. Chuck Schumer warned that President Trump was crazy to pit himself against the intelligence services. ‘They have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you,’ he said.

In his somewhat gaseous Defense of Poetry, Percy Bysshe Shelley declared that poets are “the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” In fact, as W.H. Auden pointed out, the real unacknowledged legislators of the world are not poets but the secret police. It turns out that Chuck Schumer was right.

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

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: