It could not get any worse: the President is trampling on the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution!

Wow. Just think of it: Donald Trump signed a contract to host at HIS resort property in Miami — “Trump Doral” — the upcoming G7 Summit. Everyone knows it is illegal for a president to politically enrich themselves purposely by using the office of the Presidency to create any financial gain for themselves. Mr. Trump owns Doral! What did he think when he signed that contract?!?

Emoluments Clause of the Constitution

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or another thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive. The common purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to ensure that the country’s leaders would not be improperly influenced, even unconsciously, through gift-giving, then a common and generally corrupt practice among European rulers and diplomats.

How dare the President think he would get a pass from his obligation under that clause in the Constitution and contract with the G7 to host that world gathering? Hotel rooms, meeting rooms, food, and services cost money. Those international diplomats with security and support staff will pay Trump Doral for their visit! That’s unconstitutional and, of course, is an impeachable offense!

You will probably be surprised to know that there are already several lawsuits filed against President Trump using as their purpose and legal support the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. Those were filed immediately after his election in 2016. There is an excellent and comprehensive analysis of these cases and how several state and federal courts have already ruled on those. This specific analysis is written in legal language and certainly is not in the format I prefer: “Executive Summary.” I’m a bit slow, and it takes pictures with explanations to help me understand intricate legal issues. I am attaching the three-page analysis of existing Emoluments litigation against President Trump. Here’s a link: https://truthnewsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Emoluments-Clauses-Litigation.pdf

Feel free to examine it yourself. For those of you like me who prefer the “executive summary” version of the intricate and court-tested legal opinion of these, here it is: “There’s No There There!”

So why the uproar? There IS much uproar.

How about a swim to cool-off at Trump Doral?

Here’s the take of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): “The Administration’s announcement that President Trump’s Doral Miami resort will be the site of the next G7 summit is among the most brazen examples yet of the President’s corruption. He is exploiting his office and making official U.S. government decisions for his personal financial gain. The Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution exist to prevent exactly this kind of corruption. The Committee will continue investigating, litigating and legislating regarding these matters—including pressing for answers to our prior requests about the G7 selection process—but we will not allow this latest abuse of power to distract from Congress’ efforts to get to the bottom of the President’s interference in the 2020 election.” 

And it’s not just Democrats. The FOX News Legal Contributor — former Judge Andrew Napolitano — weighed in: “He has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. This is about as direct and profound a violation of the Emoluments Clause as one could create,” Napolitano told Neil Cavuto on Fox Business. Napolitano also pointed to Mick Mulvaney’s insistence that Trump would not “profit” from hosting the G-7 Summit at Trump Doral in Florida.

“Most respectfully, Mr. Mulvaney’s focus on profit, while it may make sense in the economic world, is not what the Framers were concerned about,” Napolitano said. “They were concerned about a gift or cash coming directly or indirectly to the president of the United States, even if it’s done at a loss. Now, the president owns shares of stock in a corporation that is one of the owners of this, along with many other investors. He also owns shares of stock in the corporation that manages it. So those corporations will receive a great deal of money from foreign heads of state because this is there.”That’s exactly, exactly what the Emoluments Clause was written to prohibit,” he said.

Let me analyze for you my perspective from spending much time reading and researching the Emoluments Clause and how it impacts President Trump. I have also spent a few hours reading the linked legal analysis and courts’ findings in litigation against the President since his election. I have much respect for Judge Napolitano and his experience. In full disclosure, I hold NO respect for Rep. Nadler, who, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in my opinion, are the bookends to Democrat Party and “Deep State” corruption in Washington. But, Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee, so I must say as a Christian “Render to Caesar that that is Caesar’s.” (That means to respect the office Mr. Nadler holds)

After my research and those existing court decisions, my finding is that Trump Doral hosting the G7 summit is NOT in any way a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. 

But I’m just a blogger/podcaster. What do we know? The Democrats always know more than others about pretty much everything. Once again, they know more than we do. And they are screaming — LOUDLY.

So what basis is there for the Noise?

The Noise

I know this will come as a surprise to you, but the Emoluments Clause uproar is just one more link in the Impeachment Debacle that Democrats have forced on the American public. They’ve tried so many things to rid themselves of Donald Trump. None have so far been successful. Why? Because there’s been no impeachable offense on the part of the President that support his impeachment.

First, it was Russian Collusion. Then Conspiracy and Obstruction of Justice. Those were just the tips of the iceberg. There are plenty more: 91 more, to be exact!

Do you think I’m kidding? Heck no. Democrats have floated allegations of Trump impeachable offenses that so far number 94. Want to see what they are? Click on the following link that will take you to a page listing those. Then for complete details of each, you can click on the number of that allegation and see complete details: https://lists.grabien.com/list-things-democrats-have-said-trump-could-be-impeached


With those two attachments and your looking and reading their contents closely, your Saturday is full of essential information. I hope it’s not too much for you to process. After all, it’s Saturday with college football! But I wanted to illustrate to you how voracious these Democrats are to get rid of Mr. Trump. I have only been able to surmise why they are so deadset to impeach him. Do they not interact with American voters who are in their lives experiencing the fruits of the improvements in the nation that are results of Trump’s accomplishments? Do they think that Americans are dumb and cannot watch the national news and examine products from liberal and conservative news sources and determine on their own which are legitimate and which are providing us the news organization’s perspective and not merely the news that we can use to assess the reality of what has happened? I do not understand.

                         A little Golf?

This is NOT solely a conservative issue. This is NOT solely a liberal issue. This is an American political issue that has become an information war. “DoralGate” is simply the latest arrow in the quiver of liberalism that the anti-Trump proponents grabbed that might be the right ammunition to exterminate the 45th U.S. President.

By the way: DoralGate might be number 95 in their list of impeachment justifications. But it will not be the last. There’s another 15 months in President Trump’s first term in office. At the present rate, Democrats could run that number up to 200 impeachment reasons!

One more thought: How would Democrats feel if the President said this to the G7 partners regarding their stays at Doral: “We’ll comp the hotel rooms and meeting rooms for your entire contingency. Just pay for your food and tip the help.” Do you think that would pacify the anti-Trump Democrats and never-Trump Republicans? Probably not. Remember their continuing mantra: “Facts don’t matter. We believe in ‘Symbolism over Substance.'”

In closing, let me pose just one question to you: Do you think that maybe the President purposely put this G7 deal together knowing the amount of uproar from the Left it would initiate? If so, who would be surprised? The President is really good at carrying around that sharp stick and pokes his political opponents consistently. I think it would be hilarious if that’s what he’s doing. More uproar, more noise, and more drama between Donald Trump and the Left.

Nothing more needs to be said.


It’s Groundhog Day — Again!

What’s the groundhog fable? If on Groundhog Day the groundhog emerges from his den and he immediately sees his shadow, he will retreat, and Winter will continue for six more weeks. I don’t know how many days have been American voters’ Groundhog Day. Each day we emerge to see the shadow of Washington on the ground in front of us. So we go back into our lives, and the crud in Washington continues. The only difference is the D.C. crud will undoubtedly last longer than six more weeks.

While the House with a multitude of new scheduled hearings is scratching for anything to fuel Trump impeachment, the Grand Groundhog — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — keeps coming out to a microphone saying, “There’s no requirement that we have a vote. We’re not here to call bluffs. We’re here to find the truth to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Doing so is not a game for us. This is deadly serious.” The House Speaker then retreats to wherever it is she stays while nothing gets done for another day, another week, but hopefully NOT another year, in Congress.

Americans know full well what members of the Democrat side of the aisle in the House ARE doing: “Impeachment Inquiry.” But what are House members NOT doing?

“They’re Not Doing Any of This”
  1. The House is NOT taking up legislation to reform immigration law.
  2. The House is NOT a taking up legislation to take care of the Dreamers that are not citizens but are young Americans who were brought to the U.S. by their illegal parents and have lived here — many of them — for years.
  3. The House is NOT taking up legislation to honestly examine and debate options with the intent to complete a border barrier on our Southern border to curb illegal crossings.
  4. The House is NOT taking actions to repair the Healthcare debacle that they with Democrats in the Senate created with Obamacare — a health finance program that without serious editing and revisions will bankrupt America.
  5. The House is NOT taking up legislation to curb the opioid crisis that is killing thousands of Americans each month.
  6. The House is NOT taking up legislation to address the nation’s homeless problem that is concentrated in the largest U.S. cities.
  7. The House is NOT taking up real budget issues with long term projections and agreement on government spending tackling waste with honesty to balance the budget.
  8. The House is NOT taking up legislation to support efforts of the Trump Administration that have proven successful in attracting significant corporations that previously abandoned the U.S. for other countries with more favorable economics. President Trump has shown the restructuring of Obama-era corporate taxing and regulation assists in attracting new business with existing U.S. companies while attracting foreign-based companies to relocate to the U.S.
  9. The House is NOT taking up legislation to tackle the deadly graft and corruption among elected officials and unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
  10. The House is NOT taking up legislation to assure federal and state elections are operated honestly and without foreign interference.
  11. The House is NOT taking up legislation to eliminate election fraud in all 50 states in spite of assurances by former President Obama that there have been NO frauds committed in previous elections.
  12. The House is NOT taking up legislation to rein-in the unfairness of federal election campaign finance.
  13. The House is NOT taking up legislation to regulate or to altogether eliminate federal lobbying, which would remove much of the financial corruption running rampant among members of Congress and members of special interests.
  14. The House is NOT taking up legislation regarding federal and private partnerships for critical infrastructure programs across the country.
  15. The House is NOT taking up legislation regarding the restructuring of the federal tax system to make it fairer and simpler so that every American contributes at some level with personal and corporate investment in its government operations.
  16. The House is NOT taking up legislation to assist our allies in the Middle East in the development of policies to stem terrorist attacks by ISIS and other organizations.
  17. The House is NOT taking up legislation to assure all international agreements between the U.S. and other governments are treaties that require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
  18. The House is NOT taking up legislation to correct issues that resulted from the federal takeover of the management of college student loans.
  19. The House is NOT taking up legislation to eliminate some House recesses and shorten others to process more legislation that is passed-over because of session time restrictions.

Here’s the big reason the House is not doing more: their work schedule. (click on the hyperlink to go to the 2019 Full House Legislative Calendar) https://truthnewsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-House-Schedule.pdf

If you look through the calendar as compared to yours, here’s how many days in each month the House was in session as of October 15, 2019, and how many workdays they have not worked (“workdays are M-F minus federal holidays):

  • January they were in session 19 of 24 workdays
  • February they were in session 16 of 20 workdays
  • March they were in session 16 of 21 workdays
  • April they were in session 14 of 22 workdays
  • May they were in session 17 of 22 workdays
  • June they were in session 17 of 20 workdays
  • July they were in session 17 of 23 workdays
  • August they were in session 9 of 22 workdays
  • September they were in session 16 of 20 workdays
  • October 1 thru October 15 they were in session 5 of 12 workdays

That means in 2019, of 206 possible workdays (Monday through Friday of each week minus Federal Holidays), the House has been in session so far just 146. That means they worked only 71% of the time they could have worked conducting legislative tasks.

In fairness, these Representatives will maintain that they took time to meet with their constituents in their districts during the year and took time with their families for vacations. No one loves family vacations more than I. But taking one week for a family vacation during each of the two years of their two-year-term seems fair. Allowing two weeks per year to campaign in their home districts while meeting with constituents still means they would have worked 156 days of the possible 206 they could have been in session or just 76% of their time while taking a week for vacation and two weeks for meeting with and campaigning among their constituents in their respective districts.

I agree with the premise that the Congressional job is tough. I agree that being away from home while living in a pressure-packed political environment with weighty expectations for job performance is robust. But they each knew all of this when they chose to campaign for the job.

In my professional career, I have had hundreds, if not thousands of employees. Each of those during their job interview received in writing what their job expectations were, work schedule, and a full list of benefits. Each of those hired was expected to abide by the requirements of their job that were revealed and agreed to when they accepted employment. Why should it be different for members of Congress? How can we expect less and allow less than we do from any non-political employee of our own?

Americans have during the last decade lived in a nonstop news environment. That 24/7 news cycle is the “new” norm. Subsequently, Americans are learning more details of government operations. Americans are now as never before understanding the specifics of accomplishments by our elected officials in passing legislation. Therefore Americans know better than ever how the bureaucracy of Washington D.C. was created and has been perpetuated to facilitate working conditions, compensation, and benefits for members themselves that are not as were intended. Americans are angry.


D.C. is not working. Congressional operations must be changed. Members of Congress must work smarter, harder, and longer in their present jobs. If their Congressional job is too harsh, they should resign.

One might consider that an unrealistic expectation. But we all know to live and work in Washington is harder and more demanding than in Hometown America. That is why just a few can do so successfully. Based on the Congressional favorability ratings of Americans, members of Congress are felt to be less than expected and accomplishing far less than expected by Americans. And Americans who see all that is left unfinished are more than ever demanding changes to be made. Congress must complete those essential tasks that are pushed to the back of the line in each Congressional session and never finished.

If you’ve wondered why the Democrat-controlled House has essentially one agenda only — Impeachment — wonder no more. It is because the Democrat Party has only one plank in their party platform for the 2020 election. If Donald Trump is re-elected, it will obliterate their historical operating methods, shine the light of truth in the Swamp, and expose the waste and lack of fulfillment of necessary tasks by each Congress. They cannot allow that to happen.

Expect the angst, bitterness and vocal haranguing to only worsen the closer we get to November of 2020. Don’t expect much legislative progress either. Democrats refuse to allow Mr. Trump any new legislative triumphs until they hopefully vote him out of office.

In the meantime, expect another Ground Hog Day or two often in the next year or so.


Context or Soundbites?

The most shocking thing about the current House Democrat closed-door hearings is that by locking-down those hearings, Dems are locking-out Congressional Republicans who are responsible for Congressional actions to the citizens they represent. In Monday’s 9-hour House Joint Committee hearing with Fiona Hill— a former State Department employee — reams of testimony from Ms. Hill are out there somewhere in the “blogosphere,” but in a place which is taboo to Republicans.

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz attempted to enter the hearing but was told he could not. A Congressional parliamentarian who controls hearing access stated that because Rep. Gaetz is not a member of any of the three committees that joined together for this hearing, House rules precluded him from being in the room.

The House Intelligence Committee, chaired by California Democrat Adam Schiff, is running the meetings, but the investigation also includes the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as well as the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Gaetz IS a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has the sole power to instigate impeachment proceedings against a president. Here’s what Gaetz said about that: “Judiciary Chairman [Nadler] claimed to have begun the impeachment inquiry weeks ago,” he wrote. “Now, his own Judiciary members aren’t even allowed to participate in it.”

So why all the secrecy? After all, these interviews and testimony are expressly for one purpose: to find evidence to use in the impeachment of the president of the United States. It is safe to say the Democrat game plan is to control all the information released about these hearings — including “their” version of testimony given. Why? They must control the context.


“Context” defined by Merriam-Webster: “the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning.”

Words on their own cannot be allowed outside the committee hearing walls. Democrats must filter all testimony and edit it down to just a few sentences — a few sentences that supposedly encompass all of the nine-ten hours of testimony.

That isn’t possible. Context — especially that in such a lengthy meeting replete with Q & A of members of Congress and a key witness — is necessary to capture the meanings of events and people investigated along with their testimony.

But Democrats cannot afford for the light of truth to be seen and heard by Americans outside of Washington. Democrats are afraid of the truth! In the case of President Trump, the truth is that there was no wrongdoing on his part — indeed, not anything impeachable. And what has been “leaked” to the media from these hearings is certainly benign at its worst and supportive of the President at its best. Neither of those narratives is what Democrats want to discuss in Breitbart, in the Wall Street Journal, or on FOX News. So what do they do? Simply delete any context.

Context in these hearings is required. Here’s a sample news story that illustrates the necessity of context:

”A six-year-old Salt Lake City child died in a horrible car crash on Nevada’s I-15 yesterday afternoon. The mother was the driver of the car. She lost control of her vehicle at mile marker 456, leaving the road running head-on into a bridge abutment. Blood tests are inconclusive as to the possible role  of alcohol in the wreck.”

Here’s the same story in context:

”A young girl riding in a car with her mother died in a car crash north of Las Vegas. The woman, who police say was driving below the speed limit, was driving north on Interstate 15 late yesterday afternoon. She along with her daughter who was in her booster chair were the only ones in their car. At mile marker 456, the driver of a late model Chevrolet pickup southbound on I-15 lost control, crossed the median striking the car occupied by the Salt Lake City mother and daughter. The young girl was pronounced dead at the scene while her mother is reported to be in serious condition at Valley Hospital in Las Vegas. She is expected to make a full recovery. Tests for possible alcohol influence of the truck driver is being investigated.”

You see, context can dramatically change the narrative given to those who have no firsthand knowledge of an event. The presentation is everything.

In all of these hearings conducted by Congressional Democrats behind closed doors are supposed to be either classified or purposely kept secret to “protect the witnesses from outside threats and harassment.” We all know now that it is nothing but nonsense. Their purpose is singular: to trap Americans with out-of-context narrative to paint a picture of facts that are NOT factual but are to make Democrats and their agenda appear palatable, accurate and truthful — even when they are anything but that.

Without Context What Do We Get?

Here’s the problem with the “Adam Schiff Hearing Plan:”

  • It is impossible to know what questions were asked in the hearing. Who asked what? What were the witness’ answers?
  • What exactly did the witness say in their answers to the questions?
  • What was the demeanor of the witness? Did he/she get rattled? If so, as a result of which question? What exactly was their response?
  • Who from the committee asked what questions?

Without the answers to these specific questions, it is impossible to put anything we are told from that hearing in context to give the full story, just like in the car wreck story given above. But in a natural setting, it is far less likely and much more secretive.

Do you remember the cries from Democrats when President Trump had the transcript of his conversation with Ukraine’s President Zelensky released to the media? The call transcript was ripped to shreds because “it was partisan, opinionated, and in snippets rather than being the actual phone call to allow House members to hear conversations to ascertain what was being asked and answered.”

So what is different from the Zelensky call transcript and the actions of the Democrats running these closed-door hearings? From the average American’s perspective, there is NO difference.

Details from House Committee Hearings

They held a nine-hour hearing with former State Department employee Fiona Hill. What have you heard about the content of that hearing? After all, it was a confidential hearing of which NO ONE had the authority to leak hearing contents. Are you surprised details were leaked — to CNN?

Washington (CNN) Some of the White House’s most senior foreign policy officials were trying to raise the alarm about the administration’s potentially illegal activity in Ukraine well before President Donald Trump’s now notorious call with his counterpart in Kiev, according to stunning new testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia adviser, said in a startling deposition Monday that then-national security adviser John Bolton told her to tip off White House lawyers about the activities of Giuliani and others, according to sources familiar with her testimony. Bolton’s advice followed a meeting two weeks before the call between the two presidents on July 25, one source said.
Is it any surprise that the private, secret, confidential testimony at a hearing in which no Republican members participated and that CNN immediately released a story about? No confirmation, no interviews with Hill allowed, and no way for any American to factually counter details released.
Does that sound like part of the legal process in the Nation that guarantees  access to question one’s accuser and the protection of human rights in such matters? What is going on? Answer: Democrat response in made-for-media edited and faceless soundbites that cannot be verified for accuracy. The fingerprints of Adam Schiff are all over this hearing.
Why were Democrats so hell-bent on keeping Ms. Hill’s testimony away from Republican scrutiny? That answer is in this story:
House Democrats’ interest in Hill’s testimony goes beyond the Ukraine whistleblower issues. She’s an associate of Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who produced the 2016 dossier on then-presidential candidate Trump, which included salacious allegations about his past activities in Moscow as a businessman. House Democrats hope that with Hill’s front row seat to Russia-related events, she can provide details about Trump’s conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the May 2017 Oval Office meeting between Trump and two top Russian officials.

Summary: Soundbites

Here’s what is happening: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), with the approval of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are presenting an orchestrated fiasco in which secret hearings conducted in which they attack current and former Trump associates in desperate attempts to induce one or several to turn on Mr. Trump and provide dirt on the President. Even if there continues to be no dirt exposed about the President, you can bet Democrats have offered some deals if they’ll flip and even if they’ll say something negative even if not authentic!

Their primary interest in Fiona Hill is that she was an associate of Christopher Steele, who was the author of the Steele Dossier, used as THE evidence that prompted the electronic surveillance of Carter Page and the justification for the investigation of the Trump Campaign. They still feel they can tie the President to Russians, which will give them leverage in the 2020 election. To that end, they are using anything they can to confuse Americans.

Who had Russian dealings in the 2016 election? Not Donald Trump; it was Hillary Clinton! Her campaign funded the Steele Dossier. They depend on young Americans and their naïveté to overcome the tired and ineffective policies of the  “old folks” from the Great Old Party. That’s why Republicans are not allowed to attend these hearings. They’d see everything and would know the truth firsthand.

Democrats want to with soundbites only not present facts or quotes or even snippets of witness testimonies. They want Americans to “just trust us” and believe what they claim to be a factual hook, line, and sinker. And, sadly, there is a large number of Americans who will believe all that. After all, these are members of Congress. Surely they would not mislead the American public, right?

It all boils down to this: Securing and maintaining the viability of the Deep State is all that matters to Democrats and their publicity department — CNN and MSNBC. The question is: “Will it be a successful exercise, or will it destroy the small amounts of American trust and belief in Congress.”

Let’s hope that President Trump and his staff can keep themselves above the fray. If so, there will be a resounding beat-down in 2020 that will flood the streets of Washington with conservatives and also in cities across America.


House Oversight Committee: What are They Hiding From Americans?

According to Bill Shakespeare, “The eyes are the windows to the soul.” Looking at Adam Schiff, (picture to the left) one would think his soul is full of some pretty nasty stuff!

An almost universal feeling for political savvy Americans is distrust of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who chairs the powerful House Oversight Committee. That Committee is charged with looking into operations of every department of every government entity in operation including financial and actual operating procedures.

As the makeup of Congress changes, so does the constitution of every committee. The majority party has a very attractive chore that House leadership gets to use to give their party legislative power over those in the minority party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as do all Speakers carefully chose those to chair the most important  committees. For the House Judiciary Committee — where “real” impeachment must be initiated according to the U.S. Constitution — Pelosi appointed as chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). The arguably second most powerful committee — the House Oversight Committee — is led by the Democrat Party “Witchhunt Bulldog” Rep. Adam Schiff of California. Both committees since Democrats won House control have concentrated almost solely on getting rid of President Trump. (Forget about legislation: “Let’s Get Trump!) Both Schiff and Nadler have walked through the fields of harvested evidence ignoring the “real” crop of facts to daisy-pick any piece of evidence they think they can use to use against President Trump. Their problem has been that there are not very many pieces showing Trump wrongdoing. Never mind: they’re really good at manufacturing “evidence” to say what they need it to say.

Having no factual evidence against President Trump should end their nonstop committee hearings, one would think. Not so. They both continue to dominate the focus of the House with some new piece of “evidence” that requires virtually every minute of their committees’ time to investigate rather than to conduct the normal business of the House of Representatives.

Schiff is without question the most partisan, the angriest, and most vile member of House leadership. He’s so vile, he makes fellow Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) look like a kindergarten school teacher. We will not chronicle all the lies he has told through the last few years — we’ve done that before. But what we will do is ask some questions in an attempt to discover if he is hiding and what he is hiding from Americans. Why would we think he is hiding something? Just follow this line of reasoning:

  • The House is contemplating pursuing the most impactful act to our nation’s political institution and its structure: the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
  • The House of Representatives is known as the “Peoples’ House” — they are supposedly chosen to serve a short term of two years and while doing so representing those like-minded other citizens from their communities. They are to speak “our” minds not their own.
  • Following that line of reasoning, one’s expectation should be they are to reflect the people of one’s own district in writing bills and passing bills into law, strictly for the betterment of their districts first but put into the context of what’s best for the Nation.
  • Impeachment is not a legal issue. The House is constitutionally required to investigate a president when applicable for the commitment of “High crimes and Misdemeanors.”  The House does not conduct a trial for impeachment. The House investigates, gathers evidence, and determines if the evidence is sufficient to pass Articles of Impeachment that then go to the Senate which holds the sole Constitutional authority to try those impeached.

So why does this House of Representatives (led by Schiff rather than House Speaker Pelosi) insist on privately conducting what are called “classified” hearings with witnesses rather than conduct these hearings with full television and radio coverage so that Americans can see and hear the testimony of witnesses? Both Schiff and Nadler have continually maintained they have “sufficient evidence to justify the impeachment of President Trump.” That’s the question we are working to answer for you — hopefully today.

What Does it Take to Justify Impeachment?

“Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” According to Article II Section IV of the Constitution, these elements must in whole or even in part be evident and verifiable to successfully impeach a President. So what does that phrase actually mean?

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, or tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. The word “High” refers to the offense and not the office. Any elected government official may be impeached. There are some who posit that “High” refers to the level of office. But that interpretation is false, and lowers a standard of similarity, whereby the US Constitution refers to Treason and Bribery, and other crimes that are “High”—of equivalence to Treason and Bribery. Some also akin “Misdemeanors” as current lower crimes in many jurisdictions. At the founding there was no reference to a misdemeanor in criminal law. High Crimes and Misdemeanors provides for other malfeasance at a level similar to Treason and Bribery. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. (See Harvard Law Review) The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds” that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.”

Just to be totally transparent, President Trump to be impeached does not have to have broken any laws of any kind. That means, of course, no American president should break any laws. That is troubling to millions of Americans, as it should be. The conclusion for all of us should be that President Trump can be impeached for committing an act or acts that do not reveal any criminal wrongdoing.

Members of Democrat Party leadership in the House have exhibited not a single choke or filter on their stated and obvious plans to impeach President Trump. We previously showed you a live report from a sitting member of the House who two days before Donald Trump had even taken the oath of office stated he would vote for articles of impeachment of Donald Trump as President.

But back to Adam Schiff. So far, the Oversight Committee hearings, for the most part, have been held behind closed doors. The reasoning provided by Schiff for the secrecy is to both protect the identities of those who testify, and to make certain that those who would “literally attack these witnesses will not have possible ammunition for any attacks. We know they are out there,” said Schiff.

Any reasonable person who has watched Schiff’s actions since 2o16 know he and his cohorts have one purpose for their anti-Trump rhetoric and now with House power are fulfilling: Stop Donald Trump!

Rep. Adam Schiff: “Full Speed Ahead!”

Schiff did not just get started with impeachment. Schiff impeachment calls began in earnest shortly after Mr. Trump moved into the White House. Republicans pointed to a March 2017 appearance on MSNBC in which Schiff said “there is more than circumstantial evidence now” of a relationship between Russia and Trump’s associates. In December of that year, Schiff said on CNN: “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the president made full use of that help. That is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not.”

And in May of 2018, Schiff said on ABC that the Russian trolling of Democratic National Committee emails is “like Watergate in the sense that you had a break-in at the Democratic headquarters, in this case, a virtual one, not a physical break-in, and you had a president as part of a cover-up,” he said. Schiff said later that the Russia investigation is “size and scope probably beyond Watergate.”

On numerous occasions, Schiff said publicly that he had plenty of evidence of Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing that was sufficient to impeach him and successfully try and convict him in the Senate. So why has that not happened until these latest attempts? There’s a simple answer: Schiff lied; there’s no “irrefutable evidence” that supports impeachment; he’s pushing forward in hopes of finding someone from the White House to turn on President Trump and provide damning evidence against him. That did not happen in 2018 or so far in 2019. But Adam Schiff has made it abundantly clear: he will not quit until he drives Donald Trump from office.

What’s Hidden?

One must first believe there really is something hidden that Schiff and Company are desperately keeping from Americans.  The “and Company” (of “Schiff and Company) would be the likes of James Clapper, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, and many officials in the former Administration. It appears that much of the investigatory findings of such wrongdoing that occurred before and during the Russia Collusion investigation are about to be dumped on the American public — in fact as early as Friday, October 18th. Like most Americans who are waiting for that information certain to be included in the Inspector General’s report, one would think members of the House of Representatives would be psyched— psyched that the truth will finally be released. It should include details of the matters surrounding 2016 election tampering and the alleged wrongdoing by government employees accused of illegal investigations against Mr. Trump. It is safe to say that Rep. Adam Schiff is not one of those Americans hoping to get to the truth. In fact, Mr. Schiff is trying to hide the truth. Let me explain.

  • There’s MUCH at stake for MANY people. John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, and others who were operatives whose communications have shown extreme animus for Mr. Trump will certainly be fingered in this report. Any of those who have been exposed for committing illegal activities should and probably will be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution. Those could very well be the list of those included in the previous sentence and even others. And there probably will be trials and prison sentences for some of those exposed and referred for prosecution.
  • How could the 2.5 year Mueller investigation with 30 fulltime investigators and staff who spent $30 million dollars investigating these claims against the President be so inept as to miss any Trump wrongdoing? Obviously, there was none. But that’s not good enough for Mr. Schiff.
  • Remember the “Ukraine-Gate” Schiff initiated investigation? Remember that first whistleblower who certainly had dirt on the President regarding that phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky? “The American people need to hear from that Whistleblower who has evidence of pressure put on President Zelensky to investigate President Trump’s leading opponent in 2020’s election,” said Rep. Schiff. Guess what — Schiff said this on CBS October 13th: “Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected,” Schiff stated. “Indeed, now there is more than one whistleblower, that they are protected. And given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower, who wasn’t on the call, to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that.” Schiff could not care less about the whistleblower. He, some from his staff, and probably other committee members met with the first whistleblower long before the claim was made. There is actually evidence that Schiff and Company assisted in the preparation of the whistleblower filing. We already know that the whistleblower is a former CIA operative who was loyal to former CIA Director John Brennan who is alleged to have taken part in this whistleblower action. Schiff is just concerned about being implicated in his own actions.


Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is treading water as hard and fast as possible. What are he and other members of his committee hiding? The answer to that is apparently their personal involvement in cover-ups and lies for which they are personally responsible. They are petrified that the Friday October 18 release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on wrongdoing in the 2016 Trump election investigation will implicate them in multiple ways.

Their evidence of wrongdoing must be significant. Why? D.C. politicians have historically been able to hide most of their wrongdoing — especially political corruption. With this President and his commitment to “draining the Swamp,” they are really nervous — and they should be. Mr. Trump has pulled the plug on the tub these swamp creatures have called their own for decades. And when the water that they have used for cover is drained away, the critters in the swamp are fighting for survival.

But what is the purpose — the single purpose — of Democrats closing of the hearings to the public? They must control the narrative of what comes to the public from these hearings. What we’ve seen so far in their endeavors is only couched stories that are incomplete replete with cherry-picked tidbits when taken out of context of the full hearings can make the President look bad. They do not want the American to see and hear any of this testimony in context. They MUST control the narrative to have any hope of getting Mr. Trump.

Their attacks on their “foe” of three years have apparently been unsuccessful. Why? Because Mr. Trump has apparently kept his nose clean. Their actions since 2016, however, have been exactly opposite of President Trump’s.

They should be nervous — maybe even more than just nervous. With the information that has oozed out of the IG report, some of them should be concerned about who will be their cell mates!


The Seed of a Miracle

Scott and Kori were happily married. Both had careers after earning three college degrees between them and were ambitious and hard-working young adults. They wanted children but decided to wait a few years to get their careers on track. They then decided to take the plunge into parenthood. The day was joyous beyond words as they gave the news to their family, “We’re pregnant!” Both came from large and close-knit families that united as one big, happy family when they married. The pair launched into preparations as all young Moms and Dads “in waiting” do. And they were having so much fun!

One day Kori felt something different about the baby. To make certain, their doctor had them see a specialist. They where shocked to hear the news that their baby had a chromosomal disorder — “Turners Syndrome.” And babies with that seldom survive. Imagine the horror of having your baby with a certain death sentence living — at least for now — in your body. Still, they prayed, hoping for a miracle. But the inevitable happened: one day the baby quit moving. The fear for their baby in an instant became their reality.

Kori gave birth to Emerson who was stillborn. Those years of waiting, planning, and creating the perfect scenario for their first baby just melted into their tears, anguish, and unspeakable pain. It seemed the pair were living in a fog while preparations were made for Emerson’s funeral. It was a graveside close-family funeral. Driving up to that gravesite and seeing that tiny white coffin and knowing it held the first daughter and the first grandchild is unexplainable. But it happened. That single moment galvanized the most devastating loss a mother and father can ever feel: the loss of a child.

In the days that followed, Scott and Kori took a trip to Scottsdale, Arizona just to refresh and reset their hearts and minds. They in the past year of their lives had lived through the joy of a first pregnancy, the excitement of knowing they’re having a daughter only to have death steal all of it away. They needed to recoup. And they did. Little did they know that trip would initiate a newness in their lives they had never imagined. As fate would have it, a trip to the Fashion Mall in Scottsdale started the pair on a trek down life’s road that changed them forever.

A close pastor friend and his wife happened to be in Scottsdale at the same time. And at the very moment that pastor and his wife were at the Mall, Kori and Scott ran into them while shopping.

The pastor had just completed a sermon-series at his church titled “The Providence of God.” He pulled Scott to the side and said, “We can’t always find answers for bad things that happen to us. Sometimes bad things just happen to good people.” He then told Scott this: “If you and Kori will resist the temptation to shake your fists in God’s face in anger, He will pay you back. God promised that.”

Those words rocked the pair. They were doing their best to find a way to walk through the darkness of their devastation and to move-on with their lives. Those words rang true to them — they’re both hard workers and positive believers. They decided to not just “give it a whirl,” but to “give it their best.” And so they did, looking for that God “payback.”

It wasn’t but several months of believing God’s promise to “repay evil with good” while resisting the natural blame folks most often put on God, they found out they were once again pregnant! A second baby was on its way. But it was even better: THEY  WERE PREGNANT WITH TWINS!

August 29, 2005 — the day Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans — in a Louisiana town 300 miles from the Big Easy, Earth saw Grace and Emmaline Shurley arrive. You can imagine the glee for the entire extended family when the pair of beautiful babies moved into the Shurley home with Mom and Dad. Scott and Kori were more than excited…and thankful.

In this picture are Grace and Emmaline fourteen years later. They are amazing young women, wonderful students, friends, cousins, granddaughters and Christians who have already set their worlds on fire.

           Grace and Emmaline Shurley

Kori is the best Mom one could imagine. She has a very successful career in architectural design, owns her own company and is continuously in great demand. Scott owns his own company as well — a medical services company that has clients all over America.

But all of this goodness sprang from one little thing: a seed. For a moment, let’s go back a bit. Do you remember the story of Noah and his ark in the Bible? God became so upset with men because he could find only Noah and his family that were God-fearing. He told Noah to build an ark, to get two of every kind of animal, and get on that ark. God then sent rain that lasted for forty days and destroyed every human except Noah and his family members.

When that flood was over, God promised Noah that as long as the Earth existed there would never again be such a flood. Further, God said (In Genesis 8) “As long as Earth exists, men will always have Winter and Summer, Hot and Cold, Nightime and Daytime, and there will always be “reap and sow.”

We can all understand those first promises, but that last one: Hmmm… What does “reap and sow” mean? That means that everything people throughout time have and will plant in the ground, those people will always see results directly from their planted seed. In other words, when one plants peach seeds, peaches grow.

To that end, Scott and Kori purposely did just that. They planted their just anger and rage for losing their baby in such a horrible way in God’s promise. They decided to just trust God and test what He promised. The reaping they were allowed to receive provided not one, but two healthy baby girls! Though as heart-wrenching as it was to see their firstborn not live, Emmaline and Grace have taken the sting of death away and shown their parents every day that living in expectation instead of living in grief and despair is much more valuable and provides much more good for them and their family than any anger could have.

I miss Emerson. I was there that day when we buried their little girl and our granddaughter. I cannot imagine the pain and heartache this cost our baby girl and her husband. But we too knew what they learned in that mall in Scottsdale: “The Best is Yet to Come.”

Oh, and as a P.S. to this story, Kori a few years later discovered breast cancer. Rather than panic, she and Scott pulled together to tackle one more major life problem — their second. Even though the odds of a second such devastation happening were minuscule, they had no choice but to accept the challenge and go to war again. And in war one more time, they triumphed.

July 17, 2017, I told their story here at TruthNewsNetwork. Some of you may remember that. But today is even more special. Last Friday, Kori celebrated being 10 years cancer-free!



Kori Shurley


Can Dems Win Without Impeachment?

Certainly, House Democrats are dead-set on the impeachment of President Trump. In fact, it can be honestly stated that they have for more than two years been on the path towards impeachment. Their latest method is called by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a preliminary impeachment “inquiry.” Never mind there is no Constitutional provision or historical example for such action. We have previously detailed the impeachment process required by the U.S. Constitution. So why would Pelosi label it as an impeachment “inquiry?” Rep. Al Green (D-TX) publicly explained that so Americans would know what impeachment’s real purpose must be when he said this: “We can’t beat Donald Trump at the polls. The only way we can defeat him in 2020 is to impeach him.” That tells us what they’re up to regarding impeachment. But this brings a question to mind: Can Democrats beat President Trump in 2020 WITHOUT impeachment?

Dems Case For Impeachment

Democrats have made significant never-before-seen moves for their attempt to impeach President Trump. In the three previous U.S. presidential impeachments, as required they all began in the House of Representatives. The process itself required a vote in the House for impeachment’s initiation. As Trump’s attorneys have stated, without that vote, the results which must contain those of a majority of House members to move forward, a “formal” impeachment process cannot begin. In all three of those historical impeachments — Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton — such a vote was taken.

That vote is necessary for very critical reasons: when the House votes to initiate impeachment, doing so triggers a process not exactly like but akin to those of a civil trial. The defendant has the right to face his or her accusers, the defense uses similar guidelines as in a civil matter, such as calling their own witnesses, subpoenas for evidence and testimony, and has the right to object to witnesses and/or the production of certain types of evidence by the opposition. Normally the defense has the power to question the accusers under oath. In the current version of impeachment floated by the Left, historical and normal precedents are not in place. Preliminarily, House Democrats have stated in the current impeachment “inquiry,” there is to be no defense authority to issue subpoenas, no cross-examination of witnesses, the calling of their own defense witnesses, or basic objections that are allowed to be included on the record. The President and his legal staff have arduously pushed-back on this unprecedented impeachment process and put House Democrats on notice that the White House will NOT comply with any of their demands unless and until the House initiates the historical process of impeachment. How? Have a full vote in the House.

As far as Democratic “ammunition” to support impeachment, the same old talking points are front and center: election collusion by the Trump Campaign, first with Russia in 2016 — which was debunked in the Mueller Report — the President’s alleged obstruction of justice, which was also debunked, and the latest allegation is Mr. Trump’s collusion with Ukraine to interfere somehow in the 2020 presidential election. Add to that Mr. Trump’s unilateral pullout of troops previously protecting Kurds in Syria which has opened up the door for Turkey to take military action against the Kurds, and impeachment cries are louder.

Leading their charge is America’s favorite Congressional litigator: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Schiff himself is facing a barrage of allegations of wrongdoing. Those include, but are not exclusive to, lying on numerous occasions, committing “real” collusion with members of a foreign government himself, efforts on his part to get foreign sources to provide information defamatory to the President, even though the sources of that information were known to be unreliable at best but that were knowingly unverified and unverifiable.

That now-infamous phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelensky was what the Democrats termed the “final straw” necessary to justify their formal push for impeachment. President Trump to their chagrin immediately released the official transcript of that call which showed NO evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of President Trump. Democrats shouted to the World that in the call, President Trump threatened Ukraine with withholding of financial aid for Ukraine that Congress had already approved. That was false. Then Democrats grasped at this theory: “Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to continue Ukraine’s canceled corruption investigation of then VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter. That proves that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine to investigate Biden — Trump’s chief opponent in the 2020 presidential race. Trump’s trying to impact for his favor a foreign government to investigate Biden for the purpose of pushing Biden out of the race!”

One of the problems with that claim is that President Zelensky said there was no such request make of Mr. Trump that included any type of quid pro quo. That was confirmed by the recently resigned Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker. Volker resigned that position last week but stated after that in a closed-door congressional hearing that there was NO such request from President Trump or any other request that could even remotely be construed as a bargaining attempt by President Trump.

But that’s not good enough for Democrats. When their “evidence” they are using to get Mr. Trump is debunked, they just double-down. And they have again. When that first whistleblower who wasn’t legally a “whistleblower’s” story was proven to be unsubstantiated, Democrats are ready to trot out another!

What Happens if the House Votes to Impeach?

Without over-simplification, there will be a formal investigation. Evidence of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing will be presented in the form of multiple types of evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and probable testimony by the President. Subsequent to those, charges are devised by the House Judiciary Committee. Each charge will be presented to the full House and voted on separately. If a majority of House Members vote to confirm one or more of the charges, those will be turned over to the Senate to consider. The Senate will vote to either take up each charge or decline to. The charges (if any) that are voted to be taken up will then be included in a real trial of the President. If he is convicted of any of the charges, he will then be removed from office. If not, (as in the case of Bill Clinton) the impeachment process is completed.

What Happens Then?

The President will be free to proceed with the obligations of his office in serving, presumably through the 2020 election. Of course, if re-elected he will remain in office for a second term.

The Polls

As always, one can find a presidential poll that supports pretty much any position. Normally a network considered by most to be a conservative news outlet — FOX News — released a poll Wednesday, October 9, 2019, that showed more than 50% of Americans currently support an impeachment preceding to be held to consider the removal of President Trump. The Quinnipiac Polling organization, however, released another poll that shows that 37% of Americans want impeachment to take place.

This polling process leads us to make this observation: almost every poll “tries” to poll a realistic segment of Americans whose opinions “should” reflect the majority of Americans. However, the fact that most polling segments are of at the most of 1000-2000 Americans, it is simply not pragmatic to accept that such a small section of the American population could realistically provide accurate and factual representation of ALL Americans. Who can forget polling on the very morning of the 2016 election? By almost every poll, Hillary Clinton had already won the election.

I find it hard to believe that Americans at this point want the President impeached. But who am I to say? After all, my saying so would be simply my opinion. Of course, it depends on which newscaster, which news writer, which opinion show host you read or listen to, you’ll find if not an exact 50-50 split on opinion, something close to it.


Until this apparent abandonment by the Trump Administration of the Kurds in Syria who have been guarding hundreds of ISIS fighters in jails there, I could not see a way that would lead Americans to support impeachment. The Kurd’s argument is for another day. That (just like in all political circumstances) requires a lengthy and very detailed conversation. We’ll take it up, but we’ll wait and do so in another story on another day. But the Left has been pummeling the President for doing so, even if it was one of his campaign promises in 2016. Sadly, there are Republicans who support President Trump that have come out loudly against these military actions.

The tide of American opinion on this issue could weigh heavily on how this impeachment decision goes. And as of today, it doesn’t look good for the President on that front.

However, we all know there are numerous circumstances within our country that certainly trump (no pun intended) consideration of any foreign situations. Americans have under this President determined to view the necessary functions of the U.S. government in a new light. They understand the U.S. cannot afford to police the whole world and need to allow foreign entities to be their own countries and fight the fights which they choose. This may be one of those.

War is never easy. And in wars, someone always dies. That’s a functional and horrific by-product of each war. But we did NOT pick this or any other Middle Eastern war currently underway. We have stepped in to back those considered to be our allies. This is one of those cases.

It’s too soon to make a call there.

I have always and still feel that the impeachment pending as well as the 2020 election both depend on how Americans feel about themselves, their homes, their jobs, their families, and the economy of the United States. Even with the things hanging over the U.S. that are, if these factors in an imaginery pile are leaning toward the good of Americans, President Trump will NOT be removed from office and WILL be re-elected.

That’s just my two cents!



“She’s Back!”

Who would have thought it? Hillary Clinton appears to be ready to throw her hat in the presidential ring…again.

Apparently, she can’t get the bad taste of 2008 and 2016 out of her mouth. What is that bad taste? Being told by Americans, “We don’t want you as President.” Of course, in 2016 she and many of her supporters felt like she had earned the right to own the keys to the White House for a while. But American voters — especially those in the fly-over country — disagreed. And her glass ceiling remains intact.

It appears that her hunger for power has been heightened by her need to get even with her 2016 nemesis who now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is sending out signals — demonstrative ones now — that she may throw her hat in the ring when Joe Biden pulls out of his 2020 presidential bid. And to most, his departure is imminent. Joe looks to be the fall guy who will take the Ukraine-Gate hit that certainly appears to be disqualifying him. (Monmouth Polling on Thursday when asking Americans if they believe President Trump’s telephone call with Ukraine President Zelensky was NOT about going after Joe Biden but purely suggesting Ukraine continue their previous corruption investigation. 43% believe the President while 37% do not.) Regarding Hillary, her recent statements pummeling President Trump is signaling that she may enter the Democrats’ presidential contest. Ex-Vice President Joe Biden looks to be the obvious fall guy for alleged Ukraine’s collusion with her 2016 presidential campaign.  Hillary’s not stupid: she’s always been capable of reading the tea leaves and acting accordingly — that is until her taking a few states for granted in the runup to the 2016 election. She realizes that the Democrat consuming thirst to unseat President Trump will kill the ambition of Biden to assume the right to the inhabitation of the White House that rightfully belongs to her.

Let’s be very clear: Hillary has not committed to the race. But she’s often made it clear when asked that she has kept that possibility open. It appears that all of her recent appearances have been carefully planned and orchestrated. She has narrowed her attacks on Trump as angst from the Left has heightened. She still feels that she can go negative and stay negative regarding the President if she decides to enter the fray and faces him in 2020.

But Americans tired of Hillary! After 2016 and her loss, her continued excuses and ridiculous excuses for her loss, many in the U.S. wrote her off as simply being done and yesterday’s news. Here we are three years after her defeat, she still complains and calls President Trump an “illegitimate president” and now a “corrupt human tornado.”

It’s not clear who pushed Joe Biden into the middle of all this. But each day it seems that the allegations against Biden’s intervention in Ukraine on behalf of his son Hunter might really be true. And now it appears that the $1.5 Billion Hunter’s company received in investment from China could be for similar reasons. President Trump actually suggested China look into Biden corruption! (And when the President said that the reaction of the media is epic.) It is close to being abundantly clear that the compensation the younger Biden has been received from the investment company being investigated by Ukraine — $600,000 per year — that began while his father was formally tagged by former President Obama as the U.S. watchdog over Ukrainian corruption is probably going to be the nail in the Joe Biden Campaign coffin. In fact, it is likely to see the former VP stop the fighting and drift away into the political sunset in the next week or so.

So what will happen with the Democrat Party presidential race then?

First, it is highly likely that if Hillary throws her hat into the ring, she will immediately snatch 25% of the Democrat party members’ support. That will certainly happen based on her name recognition and that large segment of the voting populace who were Clinton supporters in the 1990s. It will also split the balance of Democrat support between the 10 or so candidates that might still be in the race. What then will determine who is left in the two months before the Democrat Party Convention. And who remains will be based on several important issues: campaign contributions and where they go, and how Democrat voters go in the wake of the Trump impeachment proceedings and how that plays out in the next six months or so. Believe it or not, Democrat support for their 2020 candidate is now and will continue to be skewed toward a candidate that holds the line against Trump and for his impeachment. How so? Believe it or not, the American voter populace is aging: there is a rapidly increasing Democrat base that is younger, more liberal, more anti-Capitalist and more pro-Socialist. This younger group has totally bought-into the Medicare for All, Climate Change, Free College, College Debt elimination, the repeal of the Second Amendment and the “Dump Trump” movement. Hillary’s possible opponents have pretty much all demonstrated their support of these ideas. With Biden gone, (if he leaves) his moderate, middle-of-the-road spot will be vacated. Hillary will have to decide if she wants to fill it and if her getting back in the race and assuming that moderate spot can get her elected.

What further clouds the picture is how the reorganization of Democrat candidates will impact campaign contributions. Folks, like never before in American election history has dollars and cents been so important. It will cost the President and his Democrat opponent and their parties at least $1 Billion each! So who among the party candidates has the ability to tap that Wall Street fountain of dollars for this presidential race? Remember, Hillary has already proven she has an open door at almost all of the investment banks, hedge funds, and stock-trading companies. She was well-financed by Wall Street in 2016. Campaign dollars were of no concern. After all, the White House was owed to her. But things change.

Big financial bankers have some serious considerations regarding financial support: Hillary lost in 2016. Why did she lose? If you have listened to her gripes and multiple explanations her loss was no fault of her own but that of everyone from Donald Trump, his campaign, Russia, inept polling operations, sexism, lies and misrepresentations of her in the press, James Comey, the FBI fake investigation of her server, and election vote tampering. There is certainly a multitude of other excuses she used. Won’t Americans remember all that? Certainly, some will. But political memories in the U.S. seem to evaporate shortly after each election. That is probably due to the drenching of Americans by non-stop campaign ads for months before every national election.

That’s a bunch of “if’s.” But it’s American politics, after all. In American politics — and especially with Donald Trump in the middle of it all — there are no sure deals, just ask Hillary. Decisions must be made every day and often on the fly. Making a bad one or two can be deadly — can even cost you an election. Few Americans that were alive that day will forget the shock and awe experienced by 300+million Americans with the election of Donald Trump and the repudiation by voters of Hillary Clinton thought to be a certain winner.

I think this was Hillary’s first interview after losing to Donald Trump. While we’re contemplating her contemplating another run against Donald Trump, I thought you might want to take a trip down Memory Lane with Hillary and Me:

I cannot for the life of me believe that Hillary Clinton thinks she has even a minuscule chance to win the presidency in her third time trying. Conventional election wisdom is that in a bid for president, garnering support for even a second attempt is normally iffy when it comes to attracting campaign dollars. That would be an extremely tough task for Hillary on her third such attempt.

Several other thoughts run through my mind about her possibly declaring a run. First, what would Americans think? Obviously, a bunch of Americans — about 63 million — voted for Donald Trump instead of her in 2016. What could she think has possibly happened to change their minds? Second, many of her 2016 supporters while they still despise Mr. Trump feels betrayed by her in that loss. It is factual that she herself was responsible for the loss. She gave up on several midwestern states and didn’t campaign there much if at all. She “assumed” she had their votes. But, as usual, she felt that those voters felt the obligation as Democrats to pull the Democrat candidate’s lever in the polling booth just “because.”

But then there’s this: why would she even want to face the possibility of a similar fate? I don’t know the answer and I don’t want to know HER answer. It’s scary to think that she and Bill might move back into the White House for four more years. A bunch of bad things happened in there previous eight years there. I don’t want to go back to that school of learning again.

I trust everyday Americans more than she. That ‘s good enough for me. And when I hear “Four More Years!” chanted over and over again at campaign rallies, I don’t want to think the cheers may be for Bill Clinton along with Hillary!



I’m Sick and Tired!

Ten years ago I created a website titled “SickAndTired.com.” Its sole purpose was to allow me to vent regarding craziness in government and in life in general that had very little if any plausible explanations for existing. After six months or so I discontinued it. Why? Certainly not because instances of craziness stopped or lessened in number. It was because documenting the craziness I saw around me did nothing but give me more heartburn and fury when I recalled and wrote about them! But as much as I’d like, it’s impossible to ignore craziness in the governance of our country. It is never more obvious than in tracking Congressional actions on a day-to-day basis. And this “impeachment inquiry” as House Speaker Pelosi and friends have termed it falls into the category of the same craziness that prompted me to start that website.

There is no doubt that impeachment plays a large and vital role in the U.S. government. It was devised by a group of guys who had just fled a European government in which the ultimate authority was always a King and his cohorts. Honesty, fairness, truthfulness, and integrity were necessary for everyone under that government and its laws — except the King and others of his posse. The average guy on the street who worked hard to just feed a family had to abide by different rules. Our forefathers righted that with the finest and longest-lasting nation’s constitution: ours.

The Constitution sets the framework for 100% of the operations of our government — PERIOD! There are guidelines for every part of government operation. In the case where items pop-up that were not anticipated in the late 1700s when it was written, the Constitution includes provisions for altering the original existing rules. Just as important as are the rules themselves are the rules that govern the process to change those rules. That is called “amending” the Constitution.

My angst today centers around the current House of Representative’s actions initiated regarding impeachment. But it’s not for impeachment itself. It is a result of the process for doing so that has consumed the Nation. We saw it first with the Mueller Investigation. We saw the process of an elite class of people who wrestled control of governing away from the core process from the Constitution that was non-existent in those European governments but necessary for the success of America. Let’s dig in.

The Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is the complete structure of the process of creating laws by and for the people of a nation, implementing those laws evenly across the entire body of its citizens, holding every person in the country governed by those laws equally according to the law, and a process for each time there are disputes by either the government or its constituents to address those disputes fairly and impartially. That’s how our founders came up with the three co-equal branches of government: The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, each with specific tasks.

So what’s the problem today? Primarily, one segment of the Legislative branch has seized control of the process for enforcing laws fairly and equally among all Americans. And they are without authority, re-writing the “Rule of Law” as it is set forth in the Constitution.

Make no mistake about it: there have been and always will be disputes among lawmakers and those who live by laws and those who are legally obligated to enforce laws. But it has never been more obvious than it is now. This “impeachment inquiry” initiated in the House by Speaker Pelosi and a close circle of her fellow Democrats is the most egregious example of the abuse of the Rule of Law I have ever witnessed. It is best described in this manner:

  • Ordinarily, when a crime is committed, law enforcement is empowered to and then responsible to find any wrongdoers, then to bring those people to the Judicial branch to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. Of course, the wrongdoer who is guaranteed “equal treatment under the law” is entitled to a legal defense to present evidence and witness testimony that disputes the claim or claims of wrongdoing. The Constitution guarantees that every person is “innocent until proven guilty,” called the presumption of innocence.” 
  • Then members of the Judicial branch — attorneys and/or juries comprised of ordinary citizens randomly selected — examine all the evidence, ask questions and obtain answers, and then reach a conclusion, or a verdict.
  • In the case of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” punishment, as defined in applicable laws for that wrongdoing, is meted out and the wrongdoer receives the legal sentence. Sometimes sentences are fines, sometimes jail, sometimes both, and sometime exoneration.

It sounds simple, doesn’t it? The framers of the Constitution purposely made it that way so as to protect citizens against the type of top-down unfairness they had lived under in Europe. The premise is that in a fair society, no government or representative of the government should hold a right that supersedes the rights of citizens over which they govern. That is what has been turned inside out by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and other Democrats in leadership in the House of Representatives. What we are witnessing is a copycat — albeit updated historically — of the Salem Witch Trials. What were they?

The infamous Salem witch trials began during the spring of 1692, after a group of young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts, claimed to be possessed by the devil and accused several local women of witchcraft. As a wave of hysteria spread throughout colonial Massachusetts, a special court convened in Salem to hear the cases; the first convicted witch, Bridget Bishop, was hanged that June. Eighteen others followed Bishop to Salem’s Gallows Hill, while some 150 more men, women and children were accused over the next several months. By September 1692, the hysteria had begun to abate and public opinion turned against the trials. Though the Massachusetts General Court later annulled guilty verdicts against accused witches and granted indemnities to their families, bitterness lingered in the community, and the painful legacy of the Salem witch trials would endure for centuries.

Don’t get me wrong: no one is demanding the burning at the stake of anyone — yet. But the hatred and animus for President Trump has deteriorated daily since the day of the 2016 election. The question that must be asked and then answered is simple: Why the hatred from Democrats for Donald Trump?

The Crime

A crime committed is required to initiate any legal investigation regarding finding a perpetrator or perpetrators who commited that crime, their motives, and the crime’s details. In this case, let’s list the crimes that have been committed that have implicated President Trump that could instigate an impeachment process. Here they are:

  1. He’s not “presidential!
  2. He’s a narcissist!
  3. Democrats don’t like him!
  4. He’s arrogant!

There never was a crime by Mr. Trump or any member of his campaign that had anything to do with him that was discovered by the exhaustive investigative team compiled by Robert Mueller in a 3-year, $30-$40 million investigation!

Democrats in locked-step have sniffed for 2+ years to find some dirt sufficient in content to justify impeachment. The more they investigate, the angrier they get. They cannot find Donald Trump wrongdoing.

The latest ploy on their part is a telephone call between the President and Ukriaine’s President Zelensky. Dems were shocked when President Trump released the full call transcript to the public immediately. We all saw and read it. There was absolutely no wrongdoing by Mr. Trump in any part of that call — period. But that only prompted radical Democrats to turn up the heat. In the aftermath of the transcript release, they have gone wild.

I personally believe they planned on using the whistleblower claim from someone who appears to not be a whistleblower at all based on the statute defining it, but is apparently a plant to implicate the President in the interactions with the president of Ukraine. When they drew a blank on that, they not only didn’t stop with their rhetoric and claims, but they increased the lies about the call’s content and the veiled obstruction actions by our President.

Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff— the two impeachment sycophants —held a press conference on Wednesday in which they laid out a case to justify their actions in their unrealistic impeachment “inquiry.” It was easy to see that in Pelosi’s case, she was rattled in the presser because she struggled in her attempts to chide media members to ask her questions that would show she is intent on other legislative matters besides impeachment. She finally achieved getting one such question asked. All the media wanted to discuss was impeachment.

Not long after that press conference, FOX News reported this:

A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff’s panel before filing a complaint — prompting President Trump, in an extraordinary afternoon press conference at the White House, to directly accuse Schiff of helping write the document.

It shows that Schiff is a fraud. … I think it’s a scandal that he knew before,” Trump said, as the president of Finland stood at an adjacent podium. “I’d go a step further. I’d say he probably helped write it. … That’s a big story. He knew long before, and he helped write it too. It’s a scam.”


Before I summarize today’s story, let me say this: until further notice, TruthNewsNetwork will present on a specific schedule. There is NO doubt that Democrats are hell-bent on impeachment and will dominate national news each day until the impeachment threats die away just as did their Russian collusion and Trump Obstruction of Justice contrived stories have. Therefore, each weekday until further notice, we will concentrate on all daily news items you may have missed surrounding this impeachment process. Our Saturday headline bulletpoints will continue each week. Sundays we will either post a story and podcast about some other important to you topics OR — if current news demands it — we’ll do another impeachment update. I hope that will asist you in managing your time, knowing how our reporting schedule will go.

To quote President Trump, this impeachment inquiry is nothing but another chapter in the “Do-nothing Democrat Party Witch Hunt.” It’s amazing that the Media still thumb their noses at real news that includes the great progress that has been made in the U.S. in just three years of the Trump presidency opting to cover “dirt” on Mr. Trump that is “dirt” that does not even exist. It makes me ask this question: “Who watches, listens, and absorbs their non-stop fact-vacant news reports? Based on CNN’s ratings, they have fewer than a million evening viewers. That’s one million or less from a country of 350 million people. That’s not a wide reach by anyone’s definition.

Where will this all go? The facts are being revealed hour by hour. Even as you read or listen to this, new information has been revealed that is all relevant to the facts regarding the sham investigation the Democrats keep alive.

Yes, I think (barring some unforeseen upsetting horror about Mr. Trump being released) the House will push through with his impeachment. No, the Senate will absolutely not in an impeachment trial find President Trump guilty of any wrong-doing. But they’ll certainly keep it ramped-up.

As a side note, I have a thought as to why they have pushed this so hard to be initiated and completed in such a short period of time. Aparently the Inspector General’s report on his findings of all of the unlawful and/or unscrupulous spying on the Trump Campaign during the 2016 election is to be released any day. Further, it is rumored to be full of damning evidence on many from the Obama Administration, including former Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice, several Democrat members of Congress, former CIA Director John Brennan, DNI Director James Clapper, a gaggle of high level FBI and DOJ people, Hillary and Bill Clinton and staff at the Clinton Foundation, and various others. Democrats want the angst against Trump to be at a fever pitch when that IG report is released to distract from the information contained in that upcoming report.

Buckle in: It is already and will only increase in intensity and drama in Washington. It’s going to be a wild ride!



“Impeach 45!”

This is the political rally mantra of Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA): “Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Impeach 45!” Those have been her cries since the election of Donald Trump. They initially fell on deaf ears: not so much now. Yes, we’re there!

House Speaker Pelosi announced the House has initiated “a formal Impeachment investigation.”

What is that?

There’s no Constitutional authorization for a “formal Impeachment Investigation,” no House rules allowing a Speaker to unilaterally launch any action involving the entire House. That requires a full vote of the House on the floor. There is no authority for any House Speaker to launch unilaterally a joint investigation using all six of the applicable House committees. Yet Pelosi has done it, all the while obliterating Constitutional instructions for initiating impeachment AND ignoring jointly passed House rules.

Remember this: in this House of Representatives, there have already been two formal votes on motions made to begin “real” impeachment proceedings. Both motions failed miserably in House votes. For that reason, Pelosi decided to ignore the Constitution AND jointly approved House rules. “I’ll just pander to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and ‘The Gang’ and start this thing myself.” So she has!

Here’s how impeachment is supposed to occur:

In The House of Representatives

An impeachment proceeding is a formal process by which a sitting president of the United States may be accused of wrongdoing. The articles of impeachment are the list of charges drafted against the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the U.S. can also face impeachment. The process begins in the U.S. House of Representatives, where any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.

Next, the House Judiciary Committee will investigate; there is no time limit placed on their investigation and a likely public hearing would be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote on the articles of impeachment. A simple majority of the members of the committee would have to vote in favor of approving an article or articles of impeachment in order to proceed to a vote by the full House. The House Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans; 21 votes in favor would be necessary.

In The U.S. Senate

The Senate is tasked with handling the impeachment trial in which there is a higher threshold that must be reached in order for an impeachment to go forward. What that means is that in the Senate, a higher percentage of the body has to vote in favor of conviction than in the House of Representatives. In the House, a simple majority is needed, and in the Senate, they need a two-thirds majority or 67 percent.

If the Senate fails to convict, then the president]will have been impeached but not removed. Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson are examples of this. In neither Clinton nor Johnson’s Senate trials was a two-thirds majority reached. According to the Constitution, at least two-thirds of the Senate have to concur to convict and remove the president from office. Once the president is removed, the vice president typically succeeds him or the normal course of the line of succession will be followed.

While the Senate trial has the power to oust a president from office, it does not have the power to send a president to jail.

Where We Stand Today  Regarding Impeachment

As mentioned above, two House motions have already been voted on in the House, the first in December of 2017. In that vote, an unexpected large number of Democrats voted in favor to launch impeachment proceedings against President Trump, revealing the growing agitation among liberals to remove him from office. The House, however, voted overwhelmingly 364-58 to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) laying out articles of impeachment against Trump, with four Democrats voting “present.” “Tabling” a resolution means simply a vote against the motion.

All Republicans voted with 126 Democrats to defeat the resolution. Those Democrats included Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who announced ahead of the vote they would vote against the effort. They cited the ongoing investigations by congressional committees and the FBI special counsel. “Now is not the time to consider articles of impeachment,” Pelosi and Hoyer said.

The second bill to impeach the President occurred two-and-one-half months later, on January 19, 2018. Every Republican again voted against the bill, but twelve Democrats changed their votes to “Yes.”

Obviously, neither bill passed so no House impeachment process was implemented. If the majority of House members approve the articles of impeachment, those articles will go to the Senate where each article will be considered separately. (In President Clinton’s impeachment, the House considered four charges separately against him. He was impeached based on the agreeing on two of the four: his conviction for lying under oath, and also for witness tampering). At the presentation conclusion, a vote will be taken regarding confirmation of each of the impeachment articles. As mentioned above, two-thirds of the 100 U.S. Senators would have to vote in favor of at least one of the charges against him approved by the House before that would occur. The Senate would then immediately remove the President from office.

How Did We Get Here?

If you’ve been on the back 40, you may think this is all brand new. No way. As shown above, House member Al Green (D-TX) offered a bill to initiate impeachment December 2017. But way before that, Democrats in Congress had already sowed “impeachment seeds” for Trump impeachment. That actually began before Trump was even inaugurated — he wasn’t even President!

That freshman House member just said he would support the impeachment of Donald Trump: that was January 18, 2017 — three days before Donald Trump was even sworn in as President!

There has been an underlying thread through everything the Democrat members of Congress have done since 2016. That thread is to somehow, in some way, use every tool they can find to drive this man they hate from office. They have proven they’ll do anything. And in doing so, at least so far they have been unsuccessful. They ignore the dozens and dozens of accomplishments by this Administration for the sole benefit of Americans. I won’t waste your time by listing them all here. You know what they are: Americans from every economic, social, racial, ethnicity, country of origin and no matter of what age can easily (if they choose) peer through the fog of deceit wafted into the air by angry Democrats to cloud Americans’ vision and see what Donald Trump has accomplished for them, their families, and their fellow Americans. And you know what? Don’t listen to or believe me, find out for yourself. The truth is there. The problem is that most Democrats and others even further left politically don’t want to see or accept that truth. And they don’t want anyone else to see. They want more than anything for Donald Trump to fail — even so desperately that some are publicly sharing their hopes that the economy will crash on Trump’s watch!

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) who filed articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, twice voiced Democrats struggle with “all things Trump” best when he said this: “We cannot beat him at the polls. So we must impeach him!” That statement summarizes the Democrats plans.

The Latest

The telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy has been Democrat’s apparent “final straw” necessary for Speaker Pelosi to give-in to her Socialist mob segment and to start an “official impeachment inquiry.” She announced it in a public appearance stating that contents of that Ukranian telephone conversation made it happen. She did this before anyone — Democrat or Republican — even knew the substance of the call. (You know the whistleblower story and its details regarding the call. We won’t go through it again)

What’s craziest in this bizarre Pelosi action is that the President had stated he would release the transcript of the call the next day so all could know its contents. I find it incomprehensible that Pelosi would put any chance of Democrats winning the White House and even the Senate in 2020 in jeopardy simply to launch her inquiry without first knowing the call’s contents. But she did. The call transcript was released, its contents were benign — nothing like Democrats had demanded would confirm impeachable Trump wrongdoing. Mr. Trump purportedly pressured the Ukrainian President to investigate former VP Biden and his son, all the while holding Congressionally approved financial aid to Ukraine hostage if Zelenskyy did not restart that investigation. The transcript proved those things didn’t happen, no demands of any kind were placed on Zelenskyy, and there was nothing in the call but several company presidential topics the two discussed.

(Here’s the call transcript. Click on the link to download. Feel free to share it)


Pelosi and Democrats are sunk!

I will stick my neck out here and say that two things are now certain: the House will go through the impeachment process now — they have no other choice. And, Donald Trump — who I think was going to win the 2020 race anyway — will win in a landslide!

Americans see through all this hoo-hah. And the more Democrats scream and holler and blame and allege through “anonymous sources” and “a highly-placed source,” the more Americans who may have been on the fence because of non-stop allegations of Trump wrongdoing are seeing that Democrats are NOT doing what they all promised to do. They are trying to foil the so-far successful attempts of a never-before politician to bring truth, common sense, hard work — without any political perspectives or objectives — to put in place as many (and hopefully all) of the promises to Americans he made in his campaign for which he was elected. Democrats have never seen that before…and they cannot and will not stand for it!

I’ll close with this: “Quid Pro Quo”

We’ve said often at TruthNewsNetwork that very often when any politician screams loudly about something a political opponent is doing, they often are guilty of doing that very same thing themselves. It happens that way more often than not. I have looked closely to find out if there was any quid pro quo going on regarding the Ukraine that could fit into that scenario. And guess what? I found some:

In May of 2018, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

“Donald Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter so it would throw dirt on Trump’s chief presidential 2020 rival!” These three senior Democrat Senators had themselves done exactly what they are accusing Donald Trump of doing!

By the way, the Constitution’s “take care” provision requires the president to ask any foreign government — in this case Ukraine — to investigate potential corruption in their country that may reach into ours. In this case, that would V.P. Biden’s mafia-like withholding of defense dollars unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor investigating Biden’s son’s corrupt energy company.

It’s a long time until the 2020 election. And this bogus impeachment process is intended by Democrats to perpetuate a cloud of question over Donald Trump sufficient to cause former and current Trump supporters to vote for the Democrat 2020 candidate. I’m pretty sure this current tactic will fail. But don’t be tempted to sigh in relief: they never give up and will not here. There are plenty of opportunities for Democrats to toss out more “fake dirt” on Mr. Trump again and again before election day. And I promise you, They Certainly Will!


Climate Change: It’s A HOAX!

Here we go again: Climate Change. One thing we’ve learned since the 2018 mid-term elections if we didn’t already know it: Climate Change concern on the part of most of those on the Left is real — and it’s dramatic. The P.S. to that is that for a generation now, Leftist educators in every country on Earth have been teaching our children that Climate Change is not only real, but that is also an existential threat to the future of all mankind. And our kids believe it!

Where have we been, Mom and Dad? Our kids (and my grandkids) are hearing this everyday from those to whom we have entrusted the hearts and minds of our most prized assets — our children — only to now find out that this religion of Climate Change has been shoved down their throats from those in what was formerly one of the most revered careers any person could choose: Education. We trusted them, and they taught OUR kids what their Mom’s and Dad’s from the 1960s era were taught by radicals that though were few in number, preached a magnetic message. How can we forget the Vietnam War protests, the Free Love movement, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn bombing police stations, sit-ins and the protesters killed by police at Kent State University? Now that it has been exposed to us, it all makes sense. Or does it?

16-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden set the Climate Change world on fire with the anger, certainty, and confidence in her speech to the United Nations. She has in her native Sweden been a climate change activist for some time, missing school on Fridays as her personal protest to attend various climate change events in Sweden.

The 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, who set sail from Plymouth, England, on Aug. 14, was greeted by cheers, chants and singing as her silver sailboat, the Malitzia II, cruised past the Statue of Liberty through choppy waves and rain to drop anchor in Manhattan’s yacht harbor before her UN speech.

Thunberg, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, was named one of Time Magazine’s most influential teens of 2018. She has set the Climate Change world on fire!

But, it’s a hoax!


Wait, do I know something that no one else knows? Or are climate change loyalists deluded? Are they going down the wrong path?

Several days ago, TruthNewsNet.org published a list of about 41 climate change predictions made over the past few decades. Every one of those predictions was wrong: not partially wrong, not almost wrong, flat out “wrong.” The truth is, there are far more than those we published. At latest count, 71 climate change predictions were made since the 1960s, and not one of them has come true.

No, we’re not going to exhaust you by listing them all and giving you their details. That’s all immaterial. There are a few “absolutes” that we need to express before moving on.

They shove report after report in our faces that have been prepared by pro-environmental “experts.” Some of those experts are actually scientists, but most of those “experts” are making predictions and conclusions based on “obvious and natural outcomes that we see now and have seen play out in nature,” concluding if those happened then certainly the natural results of the same factors that are only more intense will produce the same results but be worse.

Let me ask an important question: where does all this go in days and years ahead? How serious is it — Climate Change? Should we join-in the movement? And if we do not, what message does that send to our children?

The Truth

Zealots have made Climate Change more than any environmental issue. It’s become environmental, social, political, and economic in nature. Few things in our lives cross such a vast spectrum of life. The zealots know that. They also know that Science is inconclusive at best on the matter, and are using that to drive a primarily political agenda. They are hell-bent on “Power!”

Environmental issues are indeed serious — at least those that we can control. We can certainly control pollution. There are billions of pounds of waste that blot the landscape of the U.S. and other countries around the world that could be prevented, at least in part. We can lessen the impact on the environment of caustic elements and materials that commercial production now spew into the atmosphere 24/7, like factories, mills, and industrial plants. We can continue to find new types of renewable energy, get those online, all to help reduce damage caused by fossil fuel production. We can be successful at all of these and more. But even so, we cannot take control and operate the Earth’s environment. And anyone that says we can is trying to perpetrate a hoax.

The questions that are asked so often by those who are not sold out to Climate Change are “How can we afford the obvious staggering expense necessary to fund real Climate Change? Who can and who is going to take responsibility for that process? Who is going to devise the process? How long will it take? And what are the known expected results?

Let’s try to answer those:

  • Can we afford it? I’m not a scientist, but I something of a business economist. I do not know all of the factors that must go into determining an expense and if it’s affordable. But based on the little we know and that the Climate Change advocates already are certain of, we simply cannot afford the cost. For the U.S., the initial cost estimates are $10 trillion a year — which is three times the U.S. total Gross Domestic Product. In other words, the U.S. would be required to produce the exact same revenue as being produced today and add twice that amount each year, just to pay for Climate Change. That doesn’t include the current normal operating budget of the U.S.
  • Who would take responsibility for the project? Conventional wisdom is the United Nations. God forbid we would empower and trust the UN with so much of American money to spend on this or any other project! The United Nations is perpetually racked with fraudulent financial event after another: graft and corruption are rampant. And the U.S. has very little sayso over what the UN does. That would mean immediate failure.
  • Who will devise the process? Scientists from numerous countries have provided massive amounts of data supporting Climate Change. Of course, there are Scientists from numerous countries that have provided massive amounts of data discounting Climate Change. Who’s right? Who knows! The problem about “process” is that there being no real consensus on whether or not there really is anything we can do that can actually impact Climate Change. At best, no matter what these scientists say, their conclusions are conclusions not made from actual facts but are made from opinions drawn from a certain set of data facts, knowing all the while there are exactly opposite opinions from scientists based on another certain set of data facts. Knowing that, who should be tasked for the job?
  • Finally, there really are not any known expected results. There are hopes and projections made, but there are no known results.


Knowing all this, how can we launch what would be the most exhaustive, most time consuming, most expensive project in human history? No one knows how long it would take, even if mankind garnered enough proven factual information to justify doing so. And we certainly cannot afford to fund it — at least not in current world economic circumstances.

Let me ask YOU a question: knowing all this, and especially knowing that it would be impossible to do, why do the Climate Change advocates still push forward to initiate it? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking through that, and can only reach one conclusion: to take control of every part of such a process would necessitate controlling the entire political, economic, and industrial sectors of every country involved! Think about it: the necessary resources are not available without a combination of numerous if not every world country to assist in planning, implementing and operating and its funding.

Oh, there would be an absolutely necessary bi-product of this process: Power — total and unilateral power that would be given by all to some ruling entity.

Do you think I’m kidding? Do you think I’m trying to scare you? Nope. Can you think of any other way to get such a monstrosity created and put into operation? There’s never been anything like it. Doing it would require massive power to accomplish.

I’m not the first to think through and reach this result. But here’s the caveat: I’m certain that many of the leaders in Climate Change are way ahead of the majority of world citizens who have signed-on. These leaders know it will never happen; know it’s impossible, and probably know it’s not necessary. It simply will not work.

What happens then? They’ll have power — massive power — and will be in control of multinational economies, politics, government, and social functions. That’s a utopia!

Don’t laugh at me: George Orwell was thought by many to be a blathering idiot when he penned 1984. But much of what he predicted in his novel came true and, in fact, some came true before January 1 of 1984!