Mueller: “Forget Presumption of Innocence”

Everybody was shocked when Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced he was going to speak to the press on Wednesday. Many more were shocked at the things he said:

Think about this: he stated his team — IF they could declare the President not guilty of allegations made — would have included that in the Mueller Report. What does that actually mean?

Never in U.S. history has any prosecutor ever felt obligated under the law to prove the innocence of someone charged. Mueller is the very first to do so! Based on what you heard and saw above, Mueller has changed the very premise of U.S. law: a charged individual is considered innocent “until” and “unless” he/she is PROVEN GUILTY. According to Mueller, his investigative team, besides not finding Trump guilty of collusion and obstruction of justice, could NOT prove he is innocent either.

I’m not an attorney, but Mueller doing so is either trying to forever change “innocence until proven guilty,” or he takes that position for another purpose. Wanna bet which of those is his reason?

Changing History

Folks, this position was taken by Mueller Wednesday is a first in not just U.S. history, but a first in World History. Throughout every contemporary World government on Earth, the judicial system in each of those countries adopted a presumption of innocence as a foundation. Here is a link for you to use to see the countries who do so:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Countries like France, Italy, Philippines, China, Poland, Romania, Spain, Brazil, not to mention countries of the European Union and even Russia and every Islamic country in their criminal and civil law as a default presume the innocence of the accused with the burden of proof lying directly on the accuser.

Apparently, Robert Mueller — that bastion of impartiality and upholder of the Law — decided on his own the U.S. no longer believes the presumption of innocence.

Why do you suppose the sudden proposed change in the foundation of Law has been assumed by Mueller?

Assumption Bullet Points

  • Mueller is really after Trump. He couldn’t find hard evidence of guilt so he left the doubt in the air to prompt the Democrat House to begin impeachment proceedings. Honestly, I think this is NOT his reason. Even though he said in his press conference they could not find sufficient evidence to indict the President, he could have simply said, “We are today turning over the evidence that we DID uncover to the House for use in their investigation into presidential wrongdoing.” Congress in impeachment is NOT required to prove criminality on the part of the charged — in this case, President Trump. They merely are required to prove guilt in the commitment of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” (Isn’t that crazy: those two words are nowhere in the Constitution defined — they are totally subjective.)
  • Mueller has been tasked by someone to lay the groundwork for non-stop Trump investigations through the 2020 elections. That’s a plausible possibility in that Democrats running for President — all 23 of them and the DNC — have put forth NO legislative platform, no new ideas on any front, and have given Americans no good reasons for voters to (based on Trump policies and legislative and executive actions Dems claim are all wrong and evil) vote for their nominee in 2020. Once again they find themselves with one thing and one thing only to use against Mr. Trump: impeachment. The timing for making impeachment last through the 2020 elections is perfect. Even though Mueller’s team has exhaustive data, documents, written and recorded testimony of hundreds of witnesses, the Democrat House will slow-play impeachment proceedings so they are justified in “thorough investigations” of their own to assure Americans they have all the facts. It’s comical that Dems were so demanding for all to give Mueller room and latitude to complete his investigation with no interruptions, but then refuse to accept his findings: politics at its worst.
  • Mueller has something to hide and he is kicking this can down the road to distract “this” from everyone until after 2020 — whatever “this” is. As strange as this may seem, this is probably the most plausible of explanations for Mueller’s actions — especially for calling that press conference, making his statement, and, more importantly, taking NO questions! That seems like an effort on his part to send a message to his minions — the Democrats — so they will take action with this cue.

The last listed above is the explanation I feel for Mueller to do what he did. He’s messaged members of the Democrat Party to “circle the wagons” around him because something really serious is about to happen. What can that be? Who will it involve and who or what will initiate it and under what circumstances?

The answers to those will blow your mind! And we’ll get to them in detail after we take this short break at TruthNewsNet.org.

The “Decoy”

Fired FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, DNI head James Clapper, and others that many say are part of the “Deep State,” have become very vocal in recent days. Comey and Brennan have always had easy access to the media, but of late in social media and Mainstream media television outlets, they are again regular fixtures. And they have become amazingly bombastic and nasty towards Mr. Trump — which is no surprise to anyone. But they’ve turned their vitriol up a notch or two.

Conventional wisdom is that because DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is reportedly releasing one of his investigations’ reports in the next few weeks, that details in that report will certainly implicate at least Brennan, Clapper, and Comey for wrongdoing in both the Clinton email debacle and in the alleged fraudulent FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign. All three have each been caught in lies in sworn testimony before House and Senate committees. It is probable Horowitz will address those issues and many more. And, of course, there are many others like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and many more from the Obama Justice Department who probably are in his crosshairs. His first report will tell that tale. But, there’s a second report coming as well.

There are plenty of Americans who feel more and more that additional Obama Administration career politicians were involved in the propped-up FBI Trump Campaign investigation from its inception. Several from the Obama White House staff have already been drawn into the investigation while other big name folks are yet to be mentioned. But certainly, some if not many will be exposed in the second Horowitz report. Many believe those implicated could include Susan Rice (NSA Advisor to Obama), Samantha Power (United Nations U.S. Ambassador), former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and also Bill and Hillary Clinton. The name Barack Obama has been continually floated by those closest to Horowitz, but it is probable that even if the former president was involved, lower level members of his administration would probably take the fall for any of his wrongdoing. Time will tell.

What role would Bill and Hillary Clinton play in this? And where does Mueller fit into this picture? Hold on to your hats!

Hillary And Bill

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated the transfer of highly enriched uranium (HEU) previously confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during a 2006 “nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices,” a newly leaked classified cable shows.

The classified cable released by WikiLeaks was authored by Hillary Clinton’s State Department on August 17th, 2009.  In the cable it states –

In 2008, Russia requested a ten-gram sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) seized in early 2006 in Georgia during a nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices. The seized HEU was transferred to U.S. custody and is being held at a secure Department of Energy facility. In response to the Russian request, the Georgian Government authorized the United States to share a sample of the material with the Russians for forensic analysis.

The cable also states that “Given Russia’s reluctance to act so far, FBI Director Robert Mueller’s delivery of this sample will underscore to Russia our commitment to follow through on this case.”  It continues in stating, “Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives in Moscow on September 21.”

Robert Mueller — FBI Director — was “sent” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Moscow to personally deliver a sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU)!

The cable summarizes that, “We regret that the April visit by Director Mueller could not take place due to a scheduling conflict.” and makes a final request that, “We require that the transfer of this material be conducted at the airport, on the tarmac nearby the plane, upon arrival of the Director’s aircraft.”

Now knowing that the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton hid the FBI investigation into the Uranium One deal, this cable brings on new meaning and leads to numerous questions:

  • Why did Obama and Clinton agree to provide this uranium delivered by Mueller to Russia in the first place?
  • Another question is why did Clinton’s Secretary of State request that FBI Director Mueller deliver the sample of HEU to Russia and why was the transfer in April canceled and postponed to September?

The fact that Mueller needed to perform the transfer should raise numerous red flags.  It’s been widely reported about Mueller’s conflicts of interest with his recent appointment as special counsel in the Russia investigation.

This past week information was reported that prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium through the approved sale of Uranium One, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill.

Mueller was handpicked by Hillary Clinton’s State Department to deal uranium to Russia.

Summary

What is Mueller attempting to hide? Robert Mueller is really a brilliant individual. We wrote extensively about his personal and business history when he was first appointed as Special Counsel by President Trump. It is important to note that in his past business life, he initiated and was personally involved in multiple “speckled” circumstances in which he took dramatic and questionable actions that were never questioned by anyone! Well, almost no one questioned him. But Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert certainly did. Take a look back at our 4-part series on Mr. Mueller that started on July 28, 2018: “ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED Part One.“ 

It’s a simple fact: members of the proverbial “Deep State” — and Mueller certainly is actually a “Charter Member” of that group — are masterful and hiding, covering, and making excuses for the wrongdoings of each other. The Obama Administration was full of them! We’ve mentioned just a few names in today’s story, but know for certain there are dozens more that have a Deep State ID card in their wallet or purse.

Why oh why would the Director of the FBI be tasked by Hillary Clinton — then Secretary of State that had NO authority to dispatch anyone in the FBI to Moscow, especially not the Director — to take that HEU sample to Putin personally? The only answer can be this: Hillary had/has something on Mueller that she threatened to expose if he did NOT take care of that tidbit of necessity to ramp-up the closing of that Uranium One deal! “If” Mueller is as smart as most think he is, and “If” Mueller has the legal mind that most think he does, the ONLY explanation for his doing so was that he owed the Clintons something and they had something on him. Think about it: by taking that trip, he exposed himself as a Clinton sycophant!

In closing, know this: Washington D.C. and those who live and work in that swamp are known as the “quid pro quo” capital of the world. Nothing is done in that city unless somebody initiates it with a threat or blackmail, and in doing so, someone else then owes a favor to the initiator. Mueller in his charade press conference was out there not because he thought it was the right thing to do or that he wanted to do it, he was told by someone who has something on him to do it!

So what happens now? Let’s hope it all ends this way:

  1. Attorney General Barr releases the now unclassified documents that will show U.S. voters exactly what and who initiated the bogus Russia Collusion investigation;
  2. With the release, AG Barr starts letting indictments fly for all those implicated in those documents;
  3. Many of those indicted will “turn” on those above them — their “handlers” — by cutting a deal with the DOJ for immunity or negotiated sentences for their crimes;
  4. Inspector General Horowitz will fill the missing spots with details he’ll be shortly releasing of his investigation into the Clinton Campaign, the DNC server hack, the Clinton email server debacle, and Uranium One and the involvement (if any) by the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.

I doubt Attorney General Barr is going to let this all drag out. I feel strongly that he’ll push hard for indictments, prosecution, and sentence adjudications. He is a no-play federal attorney who knows his way around an investigation and corrupt political operations. And one other thing: he’s planning on retiring from prosecuting and I don’t think he will let this push his retirement back!

The last thing in this conversation, I hope President Trump will NOT get so angry, tired, and disgusted with the dysfunctional American political system that he decides to simply throw in the towel. Just how many Americans would stay in the line of fire as he has when every day he and every member of his family are denigrated in the vilest ways very publicly, often by people who are supposed to be honest and hard-working government servants? Not very many.

You can say much about Donald Trump. Yes, he is loud. Yes, he bloviates quite often. Yes, he is caustic. Yes, he brags a lot.

But as Deion Sanders once said to Howard Cosell in an interview when Cosell asked Sanders why he bragged so much about his capabilities on the football field. Deion famously responded, “Howard, it ain’t bragging if you can do it!”

Say what you will, but Donald Trump has accomplished a lot for Americans and our nation. Just imagine how much more he would have achieved if the Deep State and Never Trumpers had stayed out of the way?

 

Play

The Federal Reserve: A Necessary Evil

Before the Federal Reserve was founded, the nation was plagued with financial crises. At times, these crises led to “panics” in which people raced to their banks to withdraw their deposits. The failure of one bank often had a domino effect, in which customers of other banks rushed to withdraw funds from their own banks even if those banks were not in danger of failing. Banks needed a source of emergency reserves to prevent the panics and resulting runs from driving them out of business.

A particularly severe panic in 1907 resulted in bank runs that wreaked havoc on the fragile banking system and ultimately led Congress in 1913 to write the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve System, initially created to address these banking panics, is now charged with several broader responsibilities, including fostering a sound banking system and a healthy economy.

Although the need for banking reform was undisputed, for decades early supporters debated the delicate balance between national and regional interests. Nationally, the central bank had to make it easier to conduct financial transactions between businesses and individuals across regions of the country.

A stable central bank would also strengthen the United States’ standing in the world economy because foreign individuals, businesses, and governments have confidence in doing business within a country that has a responsible central bank and economic system. Regionally, the central bank would have to respond to the local needs for currency, which could vary across regions. A lack of available currency had caused the earlier banking panics.

Another important issue was creating a balance between the private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government. What emerged—the Federal Reserve System—was a central bank under public control, with many checks and balances.

Congress oversees the entire Federal Reserve System. And the Fed must work within the objectives established by Congress. Yet Congress gave the Federal Reserve the autonomy to carry out its responsibilities without political pressure. Each of the Fed’s three parts—the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed’s core responsibilities.

The Federal Reserve System was developed and continues to develop as an interesting blend of public and private interests and centralized and decentralized decision-making. As you continue reading, you will learn about the Fed’s structure and responsibilities—what the Fed is and what it does.

Who Runs the Federal Reserve?

At the core of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors, or Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., is a federal government agency that is the Fed’s centralized component. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. These Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions.

A Governor’s term is 14 years. It is possible, however, for a Federal Reserve Governor to serve a longer term. For example, William McChesney Martin Jr. served as a member and Chairman of the Board of Governors for nearly 19 years because he was appointed as Chairman to complete another person’s term and was then appointed to his own term.

Appointments to the Board of Governors are staggered—one Governor’s term expires every two years. Terms are staggered to provide the Fed political independence as a central bank, ensuring that one president cannot take advantage of his power to appoint Governors by “stacking the deck” with those who favor his policies. The Board of Governors must be nonpartisan and act independently. In addition to independence, the staggered terms enable stability and continuity on the Board of Governors. The seven Governors, according to the original Federal Reserve Act, should represent the nation’s financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests. Geography is a factor, too, as every Governor must be selected from a different Federal Reserve District. Recently Congress directed that at least one of the Governors have experience in community banking. (In general, community banks can be defined as those owned by organizations with less than $10 billion in assets.) The seven Governors, along with a host of economists and support staff, write the policies that ensure financially sound banks and a stable and strong national economy.

Governors actively lead committees that study prevailing economic issues—from affordable housing and consumer banking laws to interstate banking and electronic commerce. The Board of Governors also exercises broad supervisory control over certain state-chartered financial institutions, called member banks, as well as the companies that own banks (bank holding companies). This control ensures that commercial banks operate responsibly and comply with federal regulations and that the nation’s payments system functions smoothly. In addition, the Board of Governors oversees the activities of Reserve Banks, approving the appointments of each Reserve Bank’s president and three members of its board of directors. The Governors’ most important responsibility is participating on the FOMC, the committee that directs the nation’s monetary policy.

Who’s The Boss?

Jerome H. Powell Heading the Board of Governors are a Chairman and Vice Chairman, who are Governors whom the president of the United States appoints to serve four-year terms. The current Chairman of the Board of Governors is Jerome H. Powell. This is a highly visible position.

The Chairman reports twice a year to Congress on the Fed’s monetary policy objectives, testifies before Congress on numerous other issues, and meets periodically with the secretary of the Treasury. Other Board of Governors officials are also called to testify before Congress, and they maintain regular contact with other government organizations as well.

As the Federal Reserve’s centralized component, the seven members of the Board of Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions, study trends in the economy, and help forecast the country’s future economic direction. The Governors also participate in monetary policymaking on the FOMC. In addition, the Board of Governors is responsible for regulations to keep the banking system sound and for overseeing the operations of the 12 Reserve Banks.

The U.S. Currency

Did you know that Federal Reserve Banks place the currency you use to make purchases into circulation? Each bill has a number and a letter that denote the Federal Reserve Bank that accounts for that particular bill. For example, a bill with the number 8 will have the letter H (the eighth letter in the alphabet), which means it appears on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

For the recently redesigned $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 bills, the letter and number that identify the Federal Reserve Bank are beneath the left serial number on the face of the bill.

Who Owns the Fed

The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?

The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank’s board of directors.

Should the Federal Reserve be Abolished

The answers here are provided under the condition that US monetary policy is reformed, and that means that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would be repealed, and other new legislature would then specifically outline the steps to be taken with ending the Federal Reserve, or 3rd Central Bank of the U.S.

The Monetary Act, or Monetary Reform Act, could be enacted by Congress, could reform the monetary system in two basic steps:

  1. Abolish the Federal Reserve by repealing the act authorizing it (Fed Act of 1913), which also has illegally contradicted the Constitutional power given to Congress to coin money and control the supply of money.
  2. Authorize the Treasury to print US NOTES, equal to the value of currency also known as “Federal Reserve Notes,” and also as “dollars,” currently in circulation. US Notes would then become “dollars” as the currency.

Pros:

  • Since the amount of money in circulation is roughly equal to the amount of the national debt, the creation of U.S. Notes as a replacement to “Federal Reserve Notes,” would simultaneously eliminate the national debt (approaching $19 trillion).
  • The elimination of the debt would occur without inflation or deflation since the amount of Constitutionally mandated U.S. Notes printed to replace federal reserve notes would be equal, therefore, the money supply as a currency value would not change (hence, no inflation or deflation).
  • The almost $450 billion dollar interest payments on debt also be gone and so tax revenues that are currently wasted to pay interest could actually be used for say, infrastructure, and other expenses which many believe that taxes “pay for” now, except with the existing system, not all the interest can be paid annually. Therefore, all tax revenues go to just paying interest, and more money must be borrowed as deficit spending (borrowing from banks) to pay off just the remaining interest due, and also cover the federal budgets.
  • The US could cut all ties with the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, The Bank of International Settlements, ending association with some of the institutions that propagate on-going famine and impoverishment throughout the world, and the unethical domination of already-poor countries that accepted “aid” or “relief” during times of crisis, but then found out that it was money lent to them as debt. This leaves the already worst-off in many countries in an even more desperate state because of intentional destabilization and subrogation results when countries do not or can not pay their national debts.
  • The government would be controlled by the will of the people again, and not a group of independent bankers more powerful than the President, and the Congress. The lender is always more powerful than the borrower.
  • People seem to constantly scratch their heads about why, even though we all know that “change” would be good. And why is it that nothing ever does change, or why is it that government doesn’t seem to serve the interests of the people, the voters, but the bureaucratic machine, and what has to be nameless, faceless others? Why is the US in a state of constant warfare? The actual dissolution of the Federal Reserve would make it abundantly more clear, why it would be beneficial to do so.
  • Abolishing the Fed would put the money, provided for the needs of the people, would be back in the hands of the Congress, which is Constitutionally granted, and an illegal system that contradicts the mandates of the Constitution and the spirit of our national laws would finally be ended.

Consider:

-The Bank of England called in their loans on King George III who then took away colonial money (Colonial script) and forced English coinage onto the colonists with increased taxation. This was the major catalyst for the war for independence.

-Thomas Jefferson ended the First Central Bank of the U.S. as they tried to recharter

-The War of 1812, an almost forgotten war, was the result of the U.S. government’s refusal to recharter another central bank.

-Andrew Jackson ended then Second Central Bank of the US. He was shot at by a “lone nutjob” house painter who missed with both pistols.

-Abraham Lincoln printed Greenbacks to fund the Civil War to maintain the union, and that money was highly successful, with some greenbacks in circulation till the 1970s. He was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” John Wilkes Boothe.

-James Garfield staunchly claims that he would not allow for the recharter of another central bank in the U.S. He was shot and died of his injuries a week later by “lone nutjob,” Charles Giteau, basically forgotten (See: The Unforgiven, film, Clint Eastwood, won Oscar for Best Picture).

-In 1913, the Third Central Bank of the U.S. is authorized by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which promises full employment, and was signed by Woodrow Wilson (duped), while banking proponents and their shills feign opposition to their own Act as if it was a threat to banking interests.

-John F. Kennedy signs an order to authorize Silver Certificates to replace Fed Reserve Notes. Only weeks later, he was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” Lee Harvey Oswald.

-Ronald Reagan appears on national television and claims in his address that the Federal Reserve poses the greatest threat to the future of the United States. A couple of weeks later, he was shot by a “lone nutjob,” John Hinkley Jr.

Summary

The secretive Federal Reserve has remained a mystery for more than 100 years. Reading its history above shows at its creation there was a definite need for it to stabilize the U.S. economy. But it has been questioned for a long time as being essential. In fact, its purposes have been continually questioned by many. It seems to simply be an entity to which the United States Government owes huge amounts of interest dollars to simply for printing currency.

That being said, most financial experts will agree that whether or not the Fed remains useful, it is time for the U.S. to get away from fiat currency and back to a currency that is just a representation of the actual hard, tangible assets owned by the U.S. and its citizens — like gold. For many, a dollar bill is just that: a dollar bill that means nothing.

I was in Zurich, Switzerland the day the Swiss shocked the world and held a press conference to announce their termination of a long-standing practice of pegging the value of the Swiss franc to the value of the Euro. Why? Switzerland owned more gold than necessary to back its issued currency notes — francs — with tangible value instead of setting an artifical value pegged to another currency’s value. Though it rocked the world, it stabilized Switzerland’s currency. In today’s economically up-and-down currency markets, having a currency that itself represents a real asset like gold would give that nation’s citizens confidence in their government and its economic policies.

It’s time we do the same thing here in the U.S.

Play

Mueller Probe Was Bad — Really Bad

Now that the dust has settled after the two-plus years of the Mueller probe into Trump Campaign collusion with Russians and Obstruction of Justice, common sense dictates an objective look back to examine the probe’s function, its purpose, and objectively examine its findings.

Donald Trump early on named it a “Witch Hunt.” That term angered many and many of his followers adopted it. The Mueller findings in many ways confirmed that name was in some ways appropriate. But in the aftermath of its release and upon close examination a “Witch Hunt” may be too nice a term for it. One more appropriate may be a “Hit Job.” What am I talking about? Let’s dig in.

“In The Beginning….”

What was Mueller appointed to do? Investigate the alleged collusion between the Russians and members of the Trump Campaign during and for the purpose of impacting the 2016 presidential election for the benefit of Donald Trump. Remember this: Mueller signed on to the task AFTER the FBI had been on the case for quite a while. They had investigated the Trump Campaign for the same reasons. The FBI had already accumulated a plethora of evidence to which Mueller had unfettered access.

In that pile of evidence from the considerable FBI interrogations and documents already compiled was the infamous Steele Dossier. FBI and DOJ investigators had already been to the FISA Court and had obtained surveillance authorization to surveil electronically Carter Page and those with whom he communicated. The dossier was prepared by Christopher Steele, who we now know was an FBI paid informant. All of his interview materials, documents prepared by Steele for his “employer,” (FBI) were there for Mueller.

Why is this important?

Mueller knew from the very beginning there was NO collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians! 

If he didn’t know that on Day One, he knew it very shortly afterwards. Think about it: a good investigator — Mueller was a god of investigators according to Democrats and career FBI officials — would upon initiation of such an investigation first peruse all the evidence available so as to intelligently initiate whatever actions were deemed necessary to achieve the goal of the investigation. Again, Mueller knew quickly there was no Russian collusion.

From that, here’s the obvious question: Why did Mueller NOT inform the Department of Justice, the President, the FBI, or members of Congress?

Some will say that Mueller didn’t know early on for certain there was no Russian collusion. But even if he didn’t know early, in no more than a few days he knew. Remember the process of the DOJ that was used with Senator Dianne Feinstein? The instant the FBI knew that an employee that had been in her employment for years was actually a spy for China, they immediately informed Feinstein and that employee was terminated. 

But Mueller didn’t know who or what was happening illegally, right? And the FISA warrant was for surveillance of Carter Page. Still, the DOJ protocol was when an individual was being investigated, if there is evidence that individual is involved in any way with a government entity, the leader of that department or entity is immediately notified of that investigation and the evidence against that individual.

Why wasn’t Donald Trump notified by the FBI or the Mueller team about the suspicions of Carter Page and the FISA authorized wiretap? Could it be the purpose of the Mueller Witch Hunt was to look further for dirt on the Trump Campaign, or to maybe just keep the cloud of “suspicion of wrongdoing” over the heads of all people and all things Trump?

The Rest of the Story

Remember this: the FBI had just gone through the Hillary Clinton email investigation and simultaneously the investigation of the hacking of the Democrat National Committee’s servers. Strangely enough, NO expert at the FBI was given access to the DNC servers. Also, strangely enough, the FBI took for granted the Russians must have been the guilty party who hacked the DNC.

So how did Mueller get started with all of this stuff up in the air? Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” that hacked the DNC, and he deliberately excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view. Remember this: he was hired to investigate the Russians and their role in the 2016 election. He put 2 and 2 together and “assumed” the DNC attack and Russian collusion with Trump were connected. The key word in that sentence is “assumed.”

To that end, Mueller, as a matter of policy in his investigation, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did NOT commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did NOT interview the DOJ and National Defense IT expert for hacking: Bill Binney. He did NOT interview Julian Assange. Why Assange? Remember: part of the cloud of allegations against the Trump gang was that they got all the Hillary bad news and emails from Wikileaks and Assange. Mueller’s failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless in the minds of many experts domestically. And foreign intelligence IT officials are laughing at the Mueller Investigation ineptness!

Just one important note: It’s May, 2.5 years after the Trump Collusion investigation began. There has never been, by any U.S. law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.

That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:

“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”

Two Facts underline how incompetent the Mueller Report and his investigation are:

The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organization. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is far more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: therefore the information must have been downloaded to a local device, like a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.

Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy it’s actually laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the IT packets containing the information would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA. Explanation? It never happened!

Bill Binney is not a “deplorable.” He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report.

Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.

The second vital piece of evidence we have is from the Wikileaks “Vault 7” release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of key foreign material. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claims to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.

So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately not taking any steps to get evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had plenty of  time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.

Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales when compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on NO conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most importantly, he did NOT give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice AND a pre-determination of the results. That’s horrible police work!

Unbelievably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself. Mueller if honest should have certainly gone to London to interview Assange. Not doing so exposed Mueller’s investigation ”pre-judgment.”

It is also cowardly as Julian was held in silence with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.

Summary

How could such an experienced, well-respected career investigator take two years, 20 professional federal prosecutors, millions of pieces of evidence and spend $30 million doing so and not find wrongdoing by those investigated if there was wrongdoing going on in the first place? If there really was Russian hacking of the Clinton email server and the DNC, how could this reputable investigator NOT examine either server, nor have any IT expert examine them instead taking for granted what he was told about Russian hacking was true?

It makes NO logical sense.

But what really smells is the fact that after all this work, all this investigating, spending all this money, Mueller did NOT find evidence of collusion and did NOT find evidence to justify charges of Obstruction of Justice either. ”BUT”……..he DID feel compelled to give 248 pages of doubts of his own conclusions (or non-conclusions)!

Why would any prosecutor do so? After all, prosecutors are not charged under any federal laws to investigate the accused in an effort to prove they are NOT guilty of a crime. They begin investigations starting from “A Crime Was Committed.”   The investigation is to find evidence that proves who committed the crime.

THAT’S NOT WHAT MUELLER DID!

His perspective apparently was that a crime was “alleged,” and even with NO evidence that a crime WAS committed, he launched a 2-year fiasco that began with NO crime and NO evidence of a crime.

But he had an ALLEGED criminal offender: Donald Trump.

The only logical conclusion one can draw for those 248 pages of the Mueller report that followed the Mueller conclusion that there WAS no collusion and WAS no Obstruction of Justice is this: either Mueller was on a mission to take whatever actions were necessary to discredit the presidency of Donald Trump, OR Mueller was paying Mr. Trump back for NOT hiring him as FBI Director to replace James Comey, OR Mueller was using this sham investigation to avenge the firing of his close friend and buddy: James Comey.

One or all those three MUST be the explanation for the findings (or lack of findings) detailed in the Mueller Report.

One final thought: If the process of the Mueller investigation really was an honest effort, using honest and thorough investigative procedures, real evidence, and methods, and if the crew of attorneys Mueller collected for his team were really the best of the U.S. federal prosecutors, the United States Department of Justice and the entire Intelligence group of agencies are in really sad shape!

Bless Their Hearts!

 

Play

Drums of War

Thankfully, the U.S. stays away from wars. That is unless there seems to be no way out. Yes, I know that the basis for going to Iraq for those proven “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Saddam had turned out to be a bit iffy. Hindsight always being 20/20 indicates that war was probably a mistake — a “probable” mistake that cost 4500 Americans their lives. But that’s a conversation for another day.

The Drums of War have suddenly begun to sound again: this time again in the Middle East. Even as the Obama Administration quietly turned the U.S. into a “cash cow”  by sending $150 Billion to Iran as part of that Iran Peace Deal in an effort to coax the Middle East rogue nation out of their nuclear weapons activities, those drums continued to sound and are getting louder today.

The U.S. has tried many ways to nudge the leaders of Earth’s #1 terrorist power away from conflict. Current National Security Advisor John Bolton sent a mind-boggling message to Iran’s leaders in 2015 when it appeared Iran was preparing to attack American allies. Bolton’s message stated that to stop Iran from bombing, the U.S. should bomb Iran. Thankfully no bombing occurred on either side. But the sparring and rhetoric between both nation’s leaders is continuing and is escalating every day.

Meanwhile, the citizens of both countries are praying that the war stays away. This while American intelligence reports alerted military leaders once more that Iranian attacks may be imminent. The U.S. military has responded to this intelligence by sending an aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean to send Iran a message while getting close just in case Iran starts some type of military conflict.

At Home in Congress

While this is going on, many Americans look on in horror as several members of Congress continue their rhetoric targeted at the greatest ally the U.S. has in that part of the World: the nation of Israel. Last weekend, Palestinians lobbed more than 400 rockets into Israel that killed several Israelis. No one knows for sure if those rockets were actually provided by Iran, but such has happened on multiple previous occasions and experts deem their involvement in this latest incident as “probable.”

Muslim Extremism in the Middle East is once again the probable source of the latest conflict between Muslims and Jewish people. Such conflicts have existed for centuries. The U.S. has always in similar situations sided with Israel. But the new “look” in Congress may signal a change in that policy. This has many Americans concerned as well as are foreign leaders across the globe.

But one Muslim religious leader has decided to take-on these U.S. legislators who have been sending mixed signals regarding U.S. support for Israel.

That Iranian-born Australian Shia Muslim imam, known as the “imam of peace,” called out freshman Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib on Saturday for remaining silent amid that onslaught of Palestinian rocket fire into Israel.

“Remember that time Omar and Tlaib condemned Hamas’ terrorism?” Imam Mohamad Tawhidi tweeted. “Neither do I.”

Tawhidi, who is the president of the Islamic Association of South Australia, was responding to the nearly 600 rockets that have been fired into Israel from across the Gaza border this past weekend. The Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas has already claimed responsibility for three Israeli deaths, according to The Jerusalem Post. Neither Omar nor Tlaib have commented on the attack.

Omar and Tlaib became America’s first Muslim congresswomen when sworn into office in January. Their time in office has been full of allegations of anti-Semitism and anti-American sentiments.

Omar has defended anti-Israeli statements, such as ones invoking Allah to expose Israel’s “evil doings” and faced criticism from both sides of the aisle for promoting age-old anti-Semitic claims such as that Jews’ support of Israel is paid for and that they have dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel.

Tlaib has also received widespread criticism for her ties to anti-Israel and terror-affiliated activists. Pro-Hezbollah, anti-Israel activist Abbas Hamideh attended her swearing-in ceremony and private dinner, and Tlaib hosted in her congressional office Joe Catron, an avowed supporter of multiple Palestinian terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Hezbollah and Hamas.

She is also a member of multiple anti-Semitic social media groups, including the “Palestinian American Congress,” where members frequently demonize Jews and Israel. The founder of the aforementioned Facebook group, Maher Abdel-qader, is a Palestinian activist and was a key fundraiser for Tlaib’s congressional campaign.

Omar and Tlaib both fundraised with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a well-known pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups. The U.S. Department of Justice listed CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding millions of dollars to Hamas. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates named CAIR a terrorist organization along with al-Qaeda and the ISIS in 2014.

Both the Minnesota and Michigan congresswomen deny they are anti-Semitic. However, they promote the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to punish Israel by economically depriving the country for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Anti-Defamation League describes BDS as “the most prominent effort to undermine Israel’s existence.”

Tawhidi has condemned the duo’s anti-Semitism in the past, specifically while visiting the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.

“The American Congress should not be a platform for Islamist members of the American government to preach their hate against the Jewish people,” Tawhidi said in February. “The Jewish people will remain a minority and have remained a minority. If this situation continues then this minority will be persecuted once again and we need to make sure that this never happens.”

“It’s very sad to see what is happening within the American government,” he continued. “People like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, absolute frauds and Islamists, promoting hatred against the Jewish people.”

Is Anything Scarier?

The answer is a resounding “Yes.” We have recent history with war in the Middle East. America learned a lot from both wars in Iraq. And certainly much was learned from the drastic changes in contemporary war in the U.S. struggle with Syria and ISIS. War is different than ever before. It has changed. Yet its devastation and severe costs of human life, social and actual infrastructure, and dollars and cents keep most from testing it as being a logical answer for conflict. But still the strongmen of the World speak freely of war as not just rare possibilities but as near certain probabilities. It’s the same concept as the bully in the schoolyard staking out his territory and power.

But even with U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and drawing the line in front of Iran, the scariest potential war that faces the U.S. is NOT against a foreign foe or even several, it’s a war from within. Yes, the Drums of War that sound the loudest are those marking a second U.S. Civil War.

It’s easy to imagine that a second civil war might proceed like the first: two particular factions with state militaries against each other along specific strategic fronts. Generals would choose a side, those with the most troops and firepower at their disposal would claim victory. The outcome, we imagine, would likely be a winner-take-all restructuring of the United States.

But that’s not really how wars are fought in the 21st century. Indeed, much of the last century was about deconstructing the habits of large-scale, state-driven conventional warfare. As networks distribute power to the edges, warfighting shifts further away from a handful of central forces and towards a web of small actors. Warfare now often comes from ideologically and economically diverse communities whose suffering and fear is preyed upon by stealthy bad guys. They become guerrillas, rebel factions, proxies, and insurgencies. Sometimes they look more like tribal conflicts composed along racial, religious, or economic lines, often on top of crises that push violence to become a necessary solution. But they are rarely simple two-sided conflicts.

To dismiss this possibility here in the U.S. risks missing the signs of coordinated disruption and violence. If we keep thinking in terms of opposed armies, we’ll fail to develop successful strategies for recognizing and containing such a new hybrid type warfare.

For the United States, the shape of future internal conflicts will be as de-centralized. A 21st century homeland conflict would likely be made up of numerous diverse factions organized by digital tools around ideological networks. It would likely be a patchwork of affiliated insurgency groups engaging in light skirmishes along the edges of their networks, mixed with high-value terror attacks against soft and hard targets. Such groups are much smaller than conventional militaries and where they lack in firepower, they replace with ugliness and severity. As in Charlottesville and Berkeley, the fronts are less regional and far more ideological.

Furthermore, digital networks erase the boundaries of the state. Like the Islamic State and al Qaeda, any cell can access the literature, claim allegiance in some distant suburb, and start whipping up violence against their targets. Both Antifa and the Alt-Right are a mix of different groups loosely coupled under their respective brand names with local chapters spread across global networks. These are not top-down hierarchies. They’re stealthy and shapeless with the capacity to grow quickly then disappear.

As an example, consider ISIS. One simply cannot explain the speed and scale at which the Islamic State formed without that network effect. And it can happen again and in the United States.

Just as we risk missing the signs of networked violence, thinking in terms of a classic civil war can blind us to the many actors working to disrupt the U.S. from within and beyond our borders.

Behind the extremists are often additional layers of those who hate the liberty and freedom of the United States: oligarchs, transnational criminal networks, and foreign powers wielding them on both sides towards their strategic goals. We’ve seen this with Russian-backed Facebook groups organizing right wing protests in the U.S., and in the increasing regularity of information warfare originating from adversarial governments. They don’t want or feel the need to invade the U.S. from the outside, but to use these types of networking to attack the U.S. from within using angry and disenfranchised Americans!

With this in mind we can picture what a modern U.S. civil war might look like. More sporadic and unexpected conflicts but with fewer deaths. Factions popping up like mushrooms, taking different forms but coordinated across invisible networks. Waves of information warfare. Chaos and accelerated violence with a healthy immune response from the local and national authorities. The outcome (and probable goal) would likely be a split of the republic into smaller, more manageable alliances, though it may just as easily harden an increasingly unilateral federal government. This is essentially how Russia waged its internal war against Ukraine.

To counter this threat in America it’s critical to establish more formal practices for identifying and tracking domestic extremism — with an honest recognition that young, white males on both ends of the political spectrum are the most likely to commit violence. In doing so there must be inclusion in looking for likely participants from all factions. Likewise, we must formalize intense network analysis to map and track these groups across their digital territories and to identify their backers, funders, and agitators. Finally, there needs to be a very serious conversation about how to regulate Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter as platforms for influence, instigation, propaganda, and recruiting.

For now, America is held in line by the strong rule of law and a good-enough economy that most people still have something to lose by choosing violence. But as our government and corporate leaders continue to attack the rule of law and economic opportunity, the norms deteriorate  and the space for evil spurred by anger becomes bigger.

Are we headed to the second U.S. Civil War? My gut says the likelihood of a second U.S. civil war in the next five years is between 20 and 40 percent but trending upward significantly. And with the vitriol and hatred being spewed daily by the 2 dozen in number and growing Democrat presidential candidates, the possibilities for anger rising to the level of internal war are steadily increasing. God help us!

This 65 year old grandfather of 6 does not want to sit on the sidelines and be forced to pray every day for the safety of my 6 grandsons while they wage war, especially against fellow Americans. War is the direct product of Men and Women who simply refuse to discuss resolutions to differences because of hardness in their hearts. Burying a few teenage children is too great a price to pay for the pride that instigates those deaths. But stopping a civil war is a process that requires mutual agreement. I’m fearful that there aren’t enough people in D.C. that really care to do the right thing in regard to many issues we are dealing with today, yet alone to stop a war.

“Wisdom dictates reasoning, reasoning dictates compromise.” Hopefully that will be the song this in Washington will sing in this circumstance.

 

Play

Blurred Lines

Does anyone else have problems distinguishing what politicians really believe, disbelieve, support or stand against? Legislation, social concerns, and issues, criminal justice, Constitutional matters, foreign policy, which laws we should enforce, which we should not, etc: all very important areas in which elected officials make very important determinations every day. In each, those decisions are more often than not critical decisions.

Many of those politicians prefer to keep their positions quiet — until for political purposes, their specific issue revelations are absolutely required. Why the secrecy? It feeds the narrative in Washington politics: “Blurred Lines:” keep quiet until you absolutely must weigh-in because usually, those revelations turn half of the voting populace against them. Remaining quiet as long as possible keeps voters guessing!

Great way to run a country, isn’t it?

Honestly, it’s a SAD way to run a home, a business, a state, and certainly the U.S. government. We can NEVER trust what we see and hear our leaders tell us. Bill and Hillary Clinton when serving two terms in the White House were against same-sex marriage. But they saw the light, didn’t they? Barack and Michelle Obama were against same-sex marriage. They too saw the light — the same light as the Clintons.

Federal laws passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by the President banned possession and use of marijuana. Barack Obama told his Justice Department head — Attorney General Eric Holder — to NOT prosecute marijuana offenders. Further, the U.S. has pretty specific laws against illegal immigration. Yet dozens and dozens of members of Congress, the entire Democrat Party including members and leadership, and pretty much everyone in the U.S. media want open borders with virtually unlimited illegal immigration. But that’s the way it goes: “Blurred Lines.”

Yep, “Blurred Lines.” That’s a famous song sung by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. I love the sound — love the beat. But even that song is controversial to many. It actually made it to #1 on the Billboard Music charts long before it was understood that its veiled message was about rape and the brutalization of women:

If you can’t hear, what I’m tryna say
If you can’t read, from the same page
Maybe I’m going deaf
Maybe I’m going blind
Maybe I’m out of my mind

OK, now he was close
Tried to domesticate you
But you’re an animal
Baby, it’s in your nature
Just let me liberate you
You don’t need no papers
That man is not your maker
And that’s why I’m gon’ take you

It’s a really catchy song. But unless you isolate the words and think things through, it would sound simply like another catchy 21st-century pop song.

That’s kinda what’s happening to Americans today. All those veiled messages, like the ones hidden in “Blurred Lines,” are finding their way into every critical part of the American infrastructure: government, social media, media, the Church, and especially into our schools. We’ve already talked about government. Let’s take a peek at those other categories.

Social Media

Facebook and Twitter both took the entire world by storm. And they’re not alone. There are a plethora of social media sources for all to use. There are plentiful statistics one can find that reveal just how dependent are people in the world — especially in the U.S. — on Social media. I’ve got to be honest: I spend too much time surfing Twitter and Facebook myself.

Isn’t it odd that we all without thinking let the posts we read impact the way we think? Certainly, there are many goods that result from social media. But there are probably more bad than good. But that’s a conversation for a different day. Today we are discussing how everyday things that we use and depend on impact the way we think and the decisions we make.

How many times have you read a long post from a legitimate “source” that you simply believe and accept as factual and real without thinking about its source or any real reasoning? We do that all the time! Those situations impact even the hard and set-in-stone standards in our lives. Why? Because we allow them to.

Think of the current ills being exposed almost daily of Facebook especially, and how they apparently have policies that directly impact First Amendment rights that give everyone the right to say and/or write anything they choose to express their thoughts and opinions for anyone and everyone to see. Remember: Facebook is a media giant whose top brass are petrified that the federal government is going to step in and restrict some of the things they allow AND disallow on their platform. Yet we hear almost daily that Facebook does that EXACT thing themselves by editing what people CAN and CANNOT post on THEIR pages.

“Blurred Lines!”

The Church

Don’t misunderstand me: “The Church” is not Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, or Presbyterian. “The Church” we are referring to is all the people together who from different denominations combined comprise the total group of Christians — or “The Church.”

Christians take as their roadmap The Holy Bible. They believe it is God’s word and that it gives all people the guidelines and instructions of how to best live for Christ.

Yes, there are various interpretations of different parts of The Holy Bible, but there is too an abundance of absolutes: “Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Steal…….” Those are a couple of the Ten Commandments. There too are other instructions for Christians throughout the 66 Books contained in it. And some are “interpretive” while others are “literal.” Let’s look at a topic that most Christians have for centuries felt is an absolute that some Christians have today decided is NOT absolute but is “interpretive.”

Homosexuality is one of the most controversial topics today that even perplexes many Christians. It isn’t specifically referenced in the Ten Commandments, but it is many times elsewhere: Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:9-10. (We won’t take the time to detail each, but I suggest you look those up yourself)

In those specific scriptures, homosexuality is deemed to be wrong. I know that statement is controversial and I’ve heard all the hundreds of explanations of those who believe homosexuality is OK. We’re not today going to argue that point. What we ARE pointing out is the “Blurred Lines” that are exposed in this controversy. Are you a practicing Christian? Do you believe The Holy Bible? Do you believe it is God’s Word?

If your answer to those is “Yes,” then for you to OK homosexuality requires you to turn away from your belief in The Holy Bible and that it IS God’s Word. How do we reconcile that?

Before I answer that question, let me say this: I have homosexuality in my personal family — for 40+ years. My family is comprised entirely of people who were raised in the church, believe The Holy Bible and that it is God’s Word, but still, are involved in homosexuality. Two obvious questions pop-up immediately: 1) How do THEY reconcile their beliefs with the scriptures, and 2) How do I reconcile and accept their homosexuality?

The answer is also two-fold: 1) the scriptures tell us that we are ALL to “Work out our salvation in fear and trembling.” They’re handling it however they choose is between them and God. 2) I don’t have to reconcile it because it’s none of my business! THEY answer to God for their choices and not to me. I answer to God for my choices and not anyone else.

But here’s where the lines get blurred: we are taught today by many sources that anyone that does NOT believe in homosexuality and all that goes along with it, is homophobic, and that homophobia is evil. In other words, a segment of society considers their opinion on homosexuality to be superior to someone else’s opinion. Yet many of those people will loudly proclaim their belief in The Holy Bible.

“Blurred Lines!”

(There are a number of similar Biblical topics that we could touch on here to further examine this process, but for the sake of time we will not. Feel free to express your thoughts on the front page of this website or drop me an email at dan@TruthNewsNet.org and ask questions, and express your opinions. If we receive enough, we’ll do another story for this and let YOU write it with your comments!)

Schools

I must be honest: I am horrified at what I see played out every day in our schools. Principles that once were pillars of living in the U.S. have been obliterated by educators, only to be replaced by other “principles” presented by teachers and professors as “Gospel.”

  • Excellence in achievement is now painted to be unfair and too restrictive. It’s been replaced with “participation trophies.”
  • American government — especially Capitalism — is no longer the pillar of financial freedom and personal accomplishment students should push to achieve. Capitalism is now an evil threat to American democracy and should be replaced ASAP by Socialism. Those same teachers that damn Capitalism and give Socialism heavenly diety fail to teach the structure of Socialism to our students. They certainly never mentioned in class that there is not ONE Socialist country on Earth today or even in the history of the World that has succeeded in any way. Professors certainly do not explain any socialist failures in those countries were and are direct results of the structure of Socialism itself. The fundamental principle of Socialism is that all people are treated equally in every way. BUT….the government is given autonomy over every part of the citizens’ lives to determine what is right and what is wrong regarding use of the elements of life: education, healthcare, finance, retirement, etc. What Big Brother says always goes. But in every case, Big Brother takes too good care for himself and lets the citizenry suffer. That’s why Socialism fails.

“Blurred Lines”

The Media

Last, but not least, is today’s Media. Where do we start? Let’s start with the role that Media played in a country that fawned over its government, its healthcare, and its Media….and was destroyed: Germany.

Propaganda within Nazi Germany was taken to a new and frequently extreme level. Hitler was very aware of the value of good propaganda and he appointed Joseph Goebbels as head of propaganda.

Propaganda is the art of persuasion – persuading others that your ‘side of the story’ is correct. Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular to challenge, etc. In Nazi Germany, Dr. Joseph Goebbels was in charge of propaganda. Goebbel’s official title was Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment.

To ensure that everybody thought in the correct manner, Goebbels set up the Reich Chamber of Commerce in 1933. This organization dealt with literature, art, music, radio, film, newspapers, etc. To produce anything that was in these groups, you had to be a member of the Reich Chamber. The Nazi Party decided if you had the right credentials to be a member. Any person who was not admitted was not allowed to have any work published or performed. Disobedience brought with it severe punishments. As a result of this policy, Nazi Germany introduced a system of censorship. You could only read, see and hear what the Nazis wanted you to read, see and hear. In this way, if you believed what you were told, the Nazi leaders logically assumed that opposition to their rule would be very small and practiced only by those on the very extreme who would be easy to catch.

Is the U.S. Media directed by the U.S. Government as was the German Media under Hitler?

Certainly not. They disdain America’s current leader. They fawned over Barack Obama. So what’s wrong today? Where are the lines Blurred?

Today’s Media has become in the U.S. what Hitler and Goebbels were in WWII Germany. The U.S. Media today pick WHAT the U.S. should see and hear and what they should not. THEY determine what is good and what is bad. Take news from that liberal bastion of Americanism out West: San Francisco.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed said Wednesday she supports a decision by two judges allowing police to search freelance journalist Bryan Carmody’s home and office, as the first city official spoke out against the raid.
The raid last Friday was part of a criminal investigation into what the San Francisco Police Department says was the illegal release of its report about the Feb. 22 death of Public Defender Jeff Adachi. Carmody said a confidential source gave him the police report, which he then sold to several news outlets.
“Our role is to follow the law, and the judges ultimately make the decisions,” Breed said. “They made the decision. And so at this point, you know, I support their decision.”
But Supervisor Hillary Ronen disagreed: “The police have gone about this completely wrong.”
“I don’t love that (Carmody) took this document that should never have been released in the first place and sold it off to news outlets as a salacious story to hurt Jeff’s legacy and his family,” Ronen said. “But that doesn’t mean that we undermine one of the most important hallmarks of our democracy because we don’t like what this individual is doing.”

Did the New York Times or Washington Post put this story on the front page? Nope. You’d think that such an intrusion of the First Amendment rights would be blasted everywhere. But not regarding California’s flagship Sanctuary City regarding a member of its press. The “State” felt it was best to just let sleeping dogs lie. The Media chose who was right and that in this case freedom of the press was no good.

Then there was this:

Mr. Trump made his animus toward the news media clear during the presidential campaign, often expressing his disgust with coverage through Twitter or in diatribes at rallies. So if his campaign is any guide, Mr. Trump seems likely to enthusiastically embrace the aggressive crackdown on journalists and whistle-blowers that is an important yet little understood component of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy.
Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.
Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

This was an editorial in the New York Times. It is noteworthy and topical here today because it is an editorial and NOT a news story. This paper and almost every other paper in large American cities felt that Barack Obama could do no wrong. But, in fact, just below this sentence we have listed a link to a story that lists the 11 times President Obama unilaterally attacked the First Amendment while the American press looked away:

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2017/02/17/11-times-barack-obama-abused-press-freedom/

“Blurred Lines!”

Summary

Here’s the danger that we are today living in: this blurring of lines across our society has become so rampant, so egregious, but so “normal” that Americans just automatically look the other way. Every time it happens it’s just no big deal. THAT’S HOW HITLER ROCKED GERMANS TO SLEEP, TOOK OVER THEIR MEDIA, THEIR MILITARY, THEIR CHURCHES, AND SYSTEMATICALLY RAN ROUGH-SHOD THROUGH EUROPE SLAUGHTERING PEOPLE LEFT AND RIGHT! Even the German people did not really think there was a systematic killing of people that were “different” from most Germans: the Jews that lived in Germany and elsewhere. And, certainly, the German press never mentioned it at all.

In every area of American life, the power junkies are routinely bending the truth to fit their specific narratives. But let’s be real: their doing so is NOT unique; it is NOT without precedent, and it is NOT without the full knowledge of the power junkies in charge.

But now it MUST be put directly in the faces of the American people. And that must happen quickly. One more national election in which those who are part of whatever this is find themselves stacking the deck of government with those who will further blur the lines between good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice find themselves in power. Too many are there now. Americans can afford no more.

 

Play

All Alone

Normally we tackle the negativity and ridiculousness of the muck in Washington D.C. in American politics. We do so at the expense of some of the most costic, bombastic, and self-centered Americans in politics who have no real concept of what Nationalism and the Rule of Law really are. The U.S. Constitution? They “say” they love it, but their actions say differently. But today we are taking a different path. We’re not even going to talk about politics. We’re today having a conversation about “real” life.

There’s pretty much no worse feeling than to find oneself totally alone. Whether you’re a soldier who is part of a platoon on a combat mission who finds himself separated from his unit, or a single mother who daily faces the choices of not eating herself just to be able to feed her babies, being alone is usually very frightening.

Those instances in which we find ourselves alone often result in the feeling of loneliness. Loneliness is a complex and usually unpleasant emotional response to isolation. Loneliness typically includes anxious feelings about a lack of connection or communication with others. Loneliness often is heightened by fears of solitude extending into the future.

Research has shown that loneliness is common throughout society, including for people in marriages, relationships, families, veterans, and those with successful careers. It has been a long explored theme in the literature of human beings since classical antiquity. Loneliness has also been described as social pain—a psychological function meant to motivate an individual to seek social connections. Let’s face it: when a person is alone — especially for quite a while and with few or no connections with others — the results are seldom positive and often morph into unpleasant happenings.

Here’s a thought: are those who seem to have everything going their way — a great family, good job, wide circle of wonderful friends — ever susceptible to loneliness?

Gustavo Paez

Gustavo is the pastor of a large and thriving church in Central America. He is an amazing pastor, his congregation is large and growing rapidly every day, and he is a prophet and evangelist in great demand throughout the world — but especially in the United States. As great a minister and pastor as he is, he is a greater husband and father. Yet he too battles loneliness.

I was with him yesterday in the midst of a meeting with hundreds of Americans who were hanging on his every word. He speaks with knowledge of how tough life can and often is, and also how to beat life’s foes while simply being human and fighting for survival each and every day.

Yet late in his message, he stated this: “Sometimes when I speak to thousands of people and see dramatic changes and results in their lives from what I am able to share with them, I find myself — even though they hang on every word and shout and applaud and want to know more and more —  later alone in my hotel room wishing I could just have a hug.”

We see and here story after story about famous folks who end up dying alone, victims of self-inflicted drug overdoses or other suicides. But we’re not speaking today about that type of loneliness. We’re talking about situations in which people get stuck, and those dire circumstances come directly from choices in which they have no or very little responsibility.

Folks Alone

I wrote a column in my college newspaper: the Tech Talk. I think the best one I wrote in my years there was titled “Alone: All, All, Alone.” Why was it “good?” Not because of the writer, believe me! It was so right-on and representative of those situations of being alone that are not the direct results of OUR actions. Maybe they’re the result of some action or inaction of another. In my case, it came as the result of the nasty divorce of my parents and the quick and horrible results for me from that. I’ll give you the “10,000-foot perspective” of it, just to build the basis this specific perspective of loneliness.

I was 16 at the time. We lived in a small town in south Louisiana. My Dad was the pastor of a small church that couldn’t pay him a fulltime salary. So he worked in construction about 45 miles away, commuting daily. Times were tough financially, but — from a kid’s perspective — things were good…until December 22, 1969. Dad left that day.

I had listened over the past months to Mom and Dad argue. I never saw any verbal or physical abuse. I never thought my Dad was involved with another. I thought those arguments came from the fact that Dad was holding down two jobs, driving to one at 5 AM Monday through Friday, getting home at 9 PM daily, and pastoring a church of 50 people at the same time. Certainly, those factors weighed heavily. But for whatever reason or reasons, Mom and I spent Christmas Day in 1969 alone.

Things went downhill from there. Mom had a nervous breakdown; I couldn’t take the stress and left home and moved to a friend’s garage apartment in the town in which I grew up, 45-miles away. I finished my junior year in high school while working parttime at a radio station.

Things changed dramatically that Spring. (That’s another story worthy of not just a TNN column, but a book! We’ll share that in the future) But the next Fall found me as a freshman at Louisiana Tech University, the home of the “Tech Talk.”

In the 20-months between Christmas 1969 and late August 1971, I discovered what REAL, “non-self-inflicted” loneliness was all about. I will say this: God miraculously intervened in my life in the interim. My story would well have ended tragically if He hadn’t. In fact, circumstances were amazing for me, and those circumstances kept me alive and moving forward.

But what those wonderful occurrences could NOT do was change the fact that I had lost my family as a result of decisions made by two others in which I had no input, that changed the course of my lifetime. That’s not even mentioning that the relationships I had with my mother and father were permanently altered. I found myself on a university campus in Ruston, Louisiana having no idea what life ahead could possibly be. I was alone.

Just Getting-By

For most of that almost 2 years, I tried my best to just make it. I was just a kid. I had no idea what life objectives even looked like. Moms and Dads — especially when kids are in high school — usually give kids some life templates from which to choose about this time. I simply struggled to put the pieces of life together that I found each day popping up AS they popped up. Thankfully God put people in my life that were there for me! Things would probably have gone unimaginably wrong without them. Yet that emptiness and hollowness that resulted from my loneliness showed up every day. And I had to deal with it every day.

I guess my youth, already-present entrepreneurial spirit, and the love of an unofficially adopted family factored heavily in keeping me on the road to successful real life, thank God! And things turned out really good. I’ve had 65 pretty good years, have a great immediate family and a wonderful extended family. But in all that, I’ve never been able to totally eliminate thoughts of that dark, hollow, achy, and gut-wrenching loneliness — especially as it hit home for the first time about 8 AM, December 22, 1969.

So what’s it all about?

People are simply not made to be alone — PERIOD. Human beings are social beings. And even though — social experimentation being what it is — people attempt the manufacturing of social scenarios in which Superman doesn’t need Superwoman or Super Kids or Super Friends, or anyone at all; that “all I need is ME” to live a happy, fulfilled, and contented life, that doesn’t work. PEOPLE NEED PEOPLE!

Summary

No, I am not a Shrink: I have NO psychological or psychiatric expertise or training. And I am NOT trying to give any psychological advice to anyone, or at least advice to do anything specific in or because of life circumstances. I am simply pointing out that sometimes, life is not fair. Sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances not of our own making that are horrendus, and that come with loneliness as a great part. What I am saying is that when this loneliness pops-up in our lives and our heads, we MUST find ways to get through them. And we can.

This would normally be the spot where a journalist would make some monumental and impactful suggestions, like “Here are 5 sure ways to guarantee you’ll never be loney,” or “Do you want to know how to always be fulfilled and happy?” I’m not going to do that. I don’t think there’s a magic prescription or pill that takes care of that. There certainly are people who maintain there are such panaceas for loneliness.

But what I WILL say and what I DO know is this: being alone is NOT fun — when it comes from bad circumstances that one inherits from decisions not their own or were not based on their own selfish motives. And loneliness is NOT the kiss of death.

But finding one self alone and its resulting loneliness and staying there almost always results in despair. And despair often initiates drastic measures.

Isn’t it ironic though that when someone as a result of loneliness and resulting despair commits suicide or worse, kills someone else, how many people who really care show-up in the aftermath? It happens a lot.

What if those who enter the picture only at a wake or funeral who weep for the deceased and cry “If only I had known” had been an initiator of helping that person when alive to work-through their loneliness?

A suggestion: Be open to all those in your life. Keep the lines of communication clear. Make certain ALL of those you care for understand that they can speak to you about anything with the certainty there will be no chastisement or disdain on your part for their simply sharing their feelings of loneliness and its results with you.

Most of the time doing so will be costly. Sometimes doing so will even hurt — and hurt deeply. But there’s a truth that makes that process pretty clear. It’s best revealed in the title of a song my brother — my “adopted” brother from the family that took me into their family in 1970 — wrote years ago: “Anything word having is worth hurting for.”

Truer words have never been spoken.

Why not try it: it probably will work. And if your trying doesn’t save a life, it will probably make someone’s life a whole lot better.

 

Play

The Truth About All-Things Congressional

You must believe me when I say it seems that everything being done in Washington in and by this Congress is a mess. The House Democrat freshmen members are steadily pulling the Democrat Party farther and farther to the Left while Senate Democrats have joined with House Democrat leaders to spurn the exhaustive Mueller Report and replaced it with their incessant demands for testimony before their committees regarding anything and everything to do with Donald Trump. They simply refuse to accept the fact that Mueller and his 20 Democrat attorneys who all despise this president in 2.5 years could not find anything on which Congress can use to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump. And they are going nuts.

TruthNewsNetwork turned to Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA) to get some answers. He paused to answer some of our questions and share his thoughts on all of these and other critical issues.

Congressman Johnson is in his second term in the House. He’s heavily involved in the legislative process, details of which you are about to hear, and serves on several House committees that each have critical roles they play in government. Two of those committees are knee-deep in two of the greatest political issues of the day that dominate the news 24/7. Those committees are the House Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. It is safe to say Congressman Johnson sees in a bit more detail than we when looking into those committee’s two critical issues: the Mueller Investigation and Illegal Immigration.

We pause here but will be back with Congressman Mike Johnson in a few minutes at Truth News Network.

(The balance of today’s offering is in our interview of Congressman Johnson. Please join us on the Podcast for that conversation.)

Play

The Barr Explosion

The guy (whose picture is to the left) is under a most vicious attack by Senate Democrats. Attorney General Barr testified for several hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He faced a barrage of professional and personal insults and verbal assaults from Democrat Committee members. The attacks and insults were no surprise at all. It was all a setup. The setup culprit? The Washington Post.

“Mueller complained to Barr about the memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative of the March 24 letter and Barr’s public explanation made it clear: he had NO intent to summarize the Mueller Report at that time — he couldn’t in a simple statement or letter. But Barr wanted to get the Report released publicly ASAP: which he did.

It comes as no surprise that the day before the Attorney General is to testify, the Washington Post would invite reporters to come to their offices to “read” Mueller’s letter. They wouldn’t send reporters away with a copy of the letter! Why? It’s our opinion that The Post editorial staff was thinking ahead about possible prosecution for “leaking” classified documents to the media. 

Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s 400+ pages – the “nature and substance” of the report. Barr explained publicly why he COULD NOT in a summary discuss the report — THE REPORT IS TOO LARGE! And to that end, Barr (though he didn’t have to) released the full report just hours after that press statement to the public, as he promised.

This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. Here’s Mueller’s letter:

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel’s report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release—a process that our Office is working with you to complete—that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of the investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. 609(c) (“the Attorney General may determine that public release” of congressional notifications “would be in the public interest”).

Sincerely Yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

What is the Hoo-Ha From Democrats against Barr?

That question can best be answered by former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy who stated:

“The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public.

Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line:

‘When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.’

So even Mueller conceded, through gritted teeth, that Barr’s letter was accurate. The diva was just worried about the media coverage.”

A Mueller Question or Two

  • Have you heard anyone state who actually wrote the Mueller Report? Certainly, the Special Counsel was involved in its preparation. But there is far too much political angling in it for it to be penned by him. Though as of today I have no evidence to confirm my thoughts on that, the Mueller Report seems eerily similar to the past writings of one of the worst federal prosecutors in U.S. History. Who is that? Andrew Weismann. Weismann is known to be a proverbial bulldog that will do anything to find justification for prosecution and conviction of everyone involved in every case on which he works. Not only does the verbiage and structure of the report reek of his methods, the pre-dawn raids with armed FBI SWAT agents at Manaforte and Roger Stone’s homes were certainly orchestrated by Weismann. Who is he?
  • Andrew Weismann, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissmann shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined. Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi. Additionally, Weissmann has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election- night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weismann was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans. Weismann was hired by Mueller — even with that shady history — to be the “aggressive” investigator/ prosecutor on his team. I guarantee he not only wrote the Mueller Report, but he also penned the Mueller letter we’re discussing today AND leaked it to the Washington Post THE NIGHT BEFORE BARR’S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS! TruthNewsNetwork researchers will NOT rest until we get firm answers to the question: who edited (if not wrote) both the Mueller Report and the final Mueller letter to Barr. Certainly, we will share out findings. I doubt we’ll be able to confirm who leaked it to the Washington Post.

It Gets Wilder!

Do Democrats really care about the truth, facts, and the 2-year, $25 million Mueller Investigation and its findings? That report in its classified and unredacted form that includes ALL that Democrats demanded from Mueller has been in a secure room in the Senate available for any member of Congress to examine in its entirety. There are 535 members of the House and Senate. Do you know how many have gone to that room and read the unredacted report? TWO! AND BOTH WERE REPUBLICANS! Can anyone say, “HYPOCRISY?’

Let’s just face facts: Congressional Democrats have NO regard for anyone who stands in support of this president — it’s that simple. Further, they have no regard for an Attorney General (or a Special Counsel, for that matter) who stands in support, not of a president, but “The Rule of Law.” That was best illustrated in that committee hearing by Hawaii’s U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono. We are showing the agonizing 7 minutes of her “questioning” of the A.G. in its entirety. The word “questioning” is in quotation marks because Hirono absolutely did NOT ask Mr. Barr any questions — she simply insulted his professional and personal integrity and his capability and qualifications to serve as Attorney General:

The Senator from Hawaii illustrated my reasoning for the first sentence of this story today. Further, the 3 Democrat 2020 presidential candidates on the committee did themselves NO favors with their questioning. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Corey Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris (D-CA) embarrassed the citizens of their respective states with their obviously coordinated drilling of the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, I was embarrassed for the citizens of Minnesota, New Jersey, and California. The very carefully coordinated questions asked by those 3 showed how desperate Democrats are to take this president down. And, also, that hearing was another bit of confirmation for what we have stated again and again at TruthNewsNetwork: Congressional Democrats are dead-set on the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

No matter that Special Counsel Mueller found no Russian collusion and no specific grounds of Obstruction of Justice against President Trump. The truth, facts, evidence (or lack of), and the Rule of Law are lost on Senate Democrats.

I am ashamed at what we watched play out on national television as probably the smartest person in the hearing room embarrassed those Leftist Democrats with his answers in which he held close to facts and the Law. Isn’t it ironic that any American citizen — Me — would even have a thought that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would literally bend the truth, ignore facts, demean a career federal attorney now Attorney General simply because he works for Donald Trump — a president that each of those Senators hates?

Summary

Our final thoughts today are concise and very simple: It is obvious that Democrats in Congress are certainly headed for House Impeachment proceedings. There is NO doubt they are petrified of a Donald Trump second term as President. But it became very clear in that hearing that Congressional Democrats — at least Senate Democrats — are all-in for getting rid of Attorney General William Barr!

Think about that: he served once before as Attorney General. He is known by thousands of attorneys and judges through the U.S. — especially judges — as one of the top legal minds in U.S. Law. And he is a brilliant Constitutionalist. His record is impeccable. Yet a dozen or so Democrat Senators spent hours on Wednesday saying the vilest things making continual vicious unfounded allegations against Mr. Barr.

How did he respond? He NEVER raises his voice; he NEVER impugned any Senators for their questions, their attitudes, or their reasoning for their vitriolic demeanor during the hearing. I could never be as civil, controlled, and certainly compliant with their questioning under those circumstances.

Donald Trump made a brilliant move by appointing William Barr as Attorney General. And one thing more: certainly you have heard this, “The hen that clucks the loudest is almost always the one that lays the egg?” Based on the limited facts in the public about this AND what America saw and heard in that Senate Judiciary hearing, I would not be surprised if several of those Senators sitting on the Left side of that hearing table are the subject of several of those 70,000+ sealed federal indictments that many are waiting to watch start being executed.

Do you think maybe there was some “hen-clucking” going on in Congress during that hearing?

Play

Reparations: Yes or No?

Reparations for slavery is the idea that some form of compensatory payment needs to be made to the descendants of Africans who had been enslaved as part of the Atlantic slave trade. The most notable demands for reparations have been made in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Caribbean and African states from which slaves were taken have also made reparation demands. These reparations are speculative; that is, they have never been paid. They can be contrasted with compensated emancipation, the money paid by some governments to some slave owners when slavery was abolished, as compensation for the loss of the property.

Talks in the U.S. of reparations have ramped up the last few years. Groups like Black Lives Matter along with the NAACP and even members of the Congressional Black Caucus have begun to push for (at least) serious conversations about reparations. And with the 2020 presidential election just around the corner, several of the already declared 20 Democrat presidential candidates are beating the “reparations drum.”

Is it time to have serious discussions about reparations?

We at TruthNewsNetwork think it is a bit premature to do that. Why? Because hardly anyone has looked into the history of slavery, asked all of the important questions to be able to knowledgeably get answers for those questions, so as to understand “If, What, and How” the United States can even seriously consider reparations.

So today we begin the first “serious” conversation about Reparations.

Support For Reparations

Within the political sphere, only one major bill demanding slavery reparations has been proposed, the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act,” which former Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) proposed unsuccessfully to the United States Congress every year from 1989 until his resignation in 2017. As its name suggests, the bill recommended the creation of a commission to study the “impact of slavery on the social, political and economic life of our nation.”

In 2014, American journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates published an article titled “The Case for Reparations,” which discussed the continued effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws and made renewed demands for reparations. Coates makes reference to Rep. John Conyers Jr.’s H.R.40 Bill, pointing out that Congress’s failure to pass this bill expresses a lack of willingness to right their past wrongs.

In September 2016, the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent encouraged Congress to pass the aforementioned H.R.40 Bill to study reparations proposals, but the Working Group did not directly endorse any specific reparations proposal. The report noted that there exists a legacy of racial inequality in the United States, explaining that, “Despite substantial changes since the end of the enforcement of Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights, ideology ensuring the domination of one group over another, continues to negatively impact the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of African Americans today.” The report notes that a “dangerous ideology of white supremacy inhibits social cohesion among the US population.”

In 1999, African American lawyer and activist Randall Robinson, founder of the TransAfrica advocacy organization, wrote that America’s history of race riots, lynching and institutional discrimination have “resulted in $1.4 trillion in losses for African Americans.” Economist Robert Browne stated the ultimate goal of reparations should be to “restore the black community to the economic position it would have if it had not been subjected to slavery and discrimination.” He estimates a fair reparation value anywhere between $1.4 to $4.7 Trillion, or roughly $142,000 for every black American living today.

Opposition For Reparations

Opposition to slavery reparations is reflected in the general population. In a study conducted by YouGov in 2014, only 37% of Americans believed that slaves should have been provided compensation in the form of cash after being freed. Furthermore, only 15% believed that descendants of slaves should receive cash payments. The findings indicated a clear divide between black and white Americans on this issue. The study summarized their findings, noting: “Only 6% of white Americans support cash payments to the descendants of slaves, compared to 59% of black Americans. Similarly, only 19% of whites – and 63% of blacks – support special education and job training programs for the descendants of slaves.”

Earlier this year (2019), Democratic Party presidential primary candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders was asked about reparations and responded that there are “better ways” to address the crisis in African American communities than “writing a check.”

Conservative writer David Horowitz wrote a list of ten reasons why “Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea for Blacks – and Racist Too” in 2001. He contends that there isn’t one particular group that benefited from slavery, there isn’t one group that is solely responsible for slavery, only a small percentage of whites ever owned slaves and many gave their lives fighting to free slaves, and most Americans don’t have a direct or indirect connection to slavery because of the United States’ multi-ethnic background.

Conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza argues that African Americans are “vastly better off than they would have been had their ancestors not endured captivity and European rule.” He bases this assertion on the better economic conditions for African Americans than Africans, on average. In addition, columnist Stanley Crouch equated reparations with a form of “victim studies,” and described demands for reparations as a “…racial complaint that has existed since the early ’60s.”

In 2014, in response to Ta-Nehisi Coates’s article, “The Case for Reparations,” conservative journalist Kevin D. Williamson published an article titled “The Case Against Reparations.” Williamson explains, “The people to whom reparations are owed are long dead; our duty is to the living, and to generations yet to come, and their interests are best served by liberty and prosperity, not by moral theory.” He goes on to argue that African Americans’ political interests can be corrected through equality under the law, and their economic interests can be served through “…a dynamic and growing economy, preferably one in which the labor force is liberated from the dysfunctional, antique Prussian model of education that contributes so much to black poverty.”

Another article opposing reparations to slavery was also published in 2014 by Canadian-American neoconservative political commentator David Frum. In his article, titled “The Impossibility of Reparations,” he makes a five-point case against slavery reparations.

  • First, he predicts that a program providing reparations to Blacks would be a slippery slope, for soon other historically discriminated minorities, such as women or Hispanics, would make similar demands.
  • Second, he explains that deciding who qualifies for reparations would be an embittered, borderline impossible process.
  • Third, he argues that a reparations program would produce enormous side effects. For example, Frum notes that providing reparations to Blacks may be de-incentivizing them from working and expose “…one of America’s least financially sophisticated populations to predatory practices….”
  • Fourth, Frum points out that the program could further exacerbate inequalities, for “…when a government spends money on complex programs, the people who provide the service usually end up with much more sway over the spending than the spending’s intended beneficiaries.”
  • Fifth, Frum argues that a reparations program would quickly lose legitimacy, for simply too many logistical problems would arise in deciding how to implement the distribution of money.

Before we get into serious discussions about the process of reparations, let’s look at the sources of slavery in the U.S., how and where it started, and its specifics.

Slavery History in the United States

  • American plantations were dwarfed by those in the West Indies. About a quarter of U.S. slaves lived on farms with 15 or fewer slaves. In 1850, just 125 plantations had over 250 slaves.
  • U.S. slaves were further removed from Africa than those in the Caribbean. In the 19th century, the majority of slaves in the British Caribbean and Brazil were born in Africa. In contrast, by 1850, most U.S. slaves were third-, fourth-, or fifth generation Americans.
  • Slavery in the U.S. was distinctive in the near-balance of the sexes and the ability of the slave population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction.
  • Unlike any other slave society, the U.S. had a high and sustained natural increase in the slave population for a more than a century and a half.
  • In 1860, 89 percent of the nation’s African Americans were slaves; blacks formed 13 percent of the country’s population and 33 percent of the South’s population.
  • In 1860, less than 10 percent of the slave population was over 50 and only 3.5 percent was over 60.
  • The average age of first birth for slave women was around 20. Child spacing averaged about 2 years.
  • The average number of children born to a slave woman was 9.2–twice as many in the West Indies.
  • Most slaves lived in nuclear households consisting of two parents and children: 64 percent nuclear; 21 percent single parents; 15 percent non-family.
  • Mother-headed families were 50 percent more frequent on plantations with 15 or fewer slaves than on large ones. Smaller units also had a disproportionately large share of families in which the father and mother lived on different plantations for most of the week.
  • Few slaves lived into old age. Between 1830 and 1860, only 10 percent of slaves in North America were over 50 years old.
  • Children entered the labor force as early as 3 or 4. Some were taken into the master’s house to be servants while others were assigned to special children’s gangs called “trash gangs,” which swept yards, cleared drying cornstalks from fields, chopped cotton, carried water to field hands, weeded, picked cotton, fed work animals, and drove cows to pasture. By age 7, over 40 percent of the boys and half the girls had entered the workforce. At about 11, boys began to transfer to adult field jobs.
  • At the beginning of the 18th century, it was common for small groups of slaves to live and work by themselves on properties remote from their masters’ homes.
  • Half of all masters owned five or fewer slaves. While most small slaveholders were farmers, a disproportionate share were artisans, shopkeepers, and public officials.
  • Prices of slaves varied widely over time. During the 18th century, slave prices generally rose. Though they fell somewhat before the start of the revolution, by the early 1790s, even before the onset of cotton expansion, prices had returned to earlier levels. Prices rose to a high of about $1,250 during the cotton boom of the late 1830s, fell to below half that level in the 1840s, and rose to about $1,450 in late 1850. Males were valued 10-20 percent more than females; at age ten, children’s prices were about half that of a prime male field hand.
  • By 1850, about 64 percent of slaves lived on cotton plantations; 12 percent raised tobacco, 5 percent sugar, 4 percent rice.
  • Among slaves 16-20, about 83 percent of the males and 89 percent of the females were field hands. The remainder were managers, artisans, or domestic servants.
  • Growing cotton required about 38 percent of the labor time of slaves; growing corn and caring for livestock 31 percent; and 31 percent improving land, constructing fences and buildings, raising other crops, and manufacturing products such as clothes.
  • Slaves constructed more than 9,500 miles of railroad track by 1860, a third of the nation’s total and more than the mileage of Britain, France, and Germany.
  • About 2/3s of slaves were in the labor force, twice the proportion among free persons. Nearly a third of slave laborers were children and an eighth were elderly or crippled.
  • Between 1790 and 1860, 835,000 slaves were moved from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
  • Slaveholding became more concentrated over time. The fraction of households owning slaves fell from 36 percent in 1830 to 25 percent in 1860.
  • If the North and South are treated as separate nations, the South was the fourth most prosperous nation in the world in 1860. Italy did not achieve the southern level of per capita income until the eve of World War II.
  • During the Civil War, 140,500 freed slaves, and 38,500 free blacks served in the Union Army.

Is there any way to make it work?

This is the 900-pound gorilla in the “Reparations room.” Who would qualify for reparations and how? From where would the money come? Why is such a system of collective repayment even being considered by a civilized society? Perhaps more fundamentally: Why is anyone alive today deserving of compensation for servitude imposed upon their ancestors, so many generations ago and why should any living American be financially penalized for a system in which their distant ancestors may, or may not, have participated?

Wealth Redistribution Disguised as Justice

Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California – both Democrats – have signaled support for reparations for slavery, though both presidential candidates have been vague on how such a proposal would work.

Harris spoke to The New York Times of “taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.” Warren told the paper: “We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations. We need systemic, structural changes to address that.”

Nobody seems to be suggesting a system of specific payments to individuals, which would be an entirely unworkable idea. So, it appears that the senators are pushing a redistribution of wealth and resources at the community level and justifying it by using the specter of slavery. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Julián Castro, is also in favor of reparations. (Castro, another Democrat, has thrown his hat into the ring for 2020)

How could such a system of government-imposed wealth redistribution along racial lines be considered just? Consider the statistical horrors of simply declaring that all white people, because of their race, must bear the guilt of slavery and that all black people, by virtue of their race, are the victims of this horrible system.

Assigning Blame is Not a Black and White Issue

To begin with, interracial relationships go back to the time of slavery and, obviously, became more common after the ending of segregation. According to 2017 figures from the Pew Research Center, 10% of children in America are mixed race. How many adults are of mixed race, whether they are aware of the fact or not? So, how many white Americans have ancestors who were, themselves, slaves and how many black Americans have ancestors who were slave-owners?

Then, of course, there is the obvious fact that a percentage of blacks living in America today immigrated long after slavery was abolished and the last child of the last slave died. Perhaps they were actually born in the U.S., but their parents or grandparents immigrated to America. Those blacks were never victims of American slave-traders or slave-owners.

…a percentage of blacks living in America today immigrated long after slavery was abolished…

There are even more statistics that illustrate the unfairness of a blanket assignment of racial victimization: While the percentage of whites in America who actually owned or rented slaves is unverifiable, there is no dispute that, even in those states where the owning of slaves was most common, less than 50% of white families owned slaves. In many other states, that percentage was far lower.

Across all the slave states combined, only about a quarter of the white population owned slaves and, on a national scale, that figure falls to something under 10%, though those figures are uncertain, since some people on both the political left and the right offer different numbers to either increase or decrease the impact of slavery. Also, historical research reveals that, in 1830, some 3,700 blacks – themselves, freed slaves – owned a combined total of almost 13,000 slaves.

Historical Sins Cannot be Erased by Dollars

“If” there is any moral justification to direct funds and other resources from certain states and communities to certain other states and communities – based on some unprovable notion of who was and was not implicated in the slave trade – is simply impossible to justify or implement. More importantly, we cannot alter the past. No amount of reparations will ever undo the human catastrophe that was the slave trade or erase the collective disregard that one group of humans had for another.

If the “Reparations Pandora Box” for slavery is opened, that same door is open for many other similar instances: indentured servanthood being chief among those. Then there are Native Americans and the way they were treated. Like the Nazi holocaust, slavery should never be forgotten, but it is a wrong that can never be put right and any suggestion that modern society can somehow retroactively erase slavery’s injustices from history is entirely disingenuous.

The whole concept of reparations to one racial group completely discounts individual rights and imposes collective rewards and punishments based upon which demographic group is favored. It is an idea that can only further aggravate racial tension, mistrust, and even open animosity. There was a time when conscientious Americans proudly used the term “post-racial.” Today, it appears that “Reparationists” are hell-bent on dividing Americans along racial lines to a degree not seen since the 1960s.

We are far away from knowing all of the in’s and out’s that would somehow allow serious consideration of Reparations. To get there, civic and political leaders need to somehow get in a room without the guns and knives, leaving the animus of racial injustice at the door, and discuss realistic ways of looking at this issue. Unless and until that happens, multiple generations of Americans, none of which were ever slaves, will be daily living with that 900-pound Gorilla still running around the room looking for answers.

This issue will probably STILL be an unresolved issue in 2050. (But if AOC and Beto are right, it will not matter: AOC says we won’t be here in 12 years, Beto sees the end in just 10 years!)

 

Play

Death By Terror

I as most Americans will never forget exactly where I was when I was notified about the first plane flying into the World Trade Center in southern Manhattan. That day changed America forever. And that day brought terrorism to the shores of the greatest country on Earth. 3000 unsuspecting Americans in Manhattan, at the Pentagon in D.C., and in a field in Pennsylvania lost their lives at the hands of Muslim terrorists: 19 terrorists in those 9/11 attacks. There were 5 terrorists on each of the planes that flew into the Trade Center, 5 on the one at the Pentagon, and 3 on the flight that crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

Since that horrible day in American history, questions of “Why?, “Who was responsible?,” “Was there a conspiracy?,” and “Can such an attack happen again?” have been asked numerous times by numerous people. And we still are NOT certain of the correct answers to any of those questions and some others.

One thing is certain: terrorism DID exist prior to that day in 2001, but has definitely escalated dramatically since, at least in part because of those September attacks. Whether the increase is a direct or indirect result of 9/11 really does not matter. What matters is that terrorists of all kinds in many nations senselessly take far too many lives of innocent people in the name of some religion or some political group.

Of course, the discussions that spring up every time there is such an attack anywhere in the World are almost always political discussions. And the question that is asked immediately when terrorism occurs is “Who is responsible?” Sadly, most deaths by terrorists in the last 20 years have come at the hands of Muslim terrorists. ISIS takes credit for most. ISIS is simply a group of Muslim extremists who have adopted a tiny sliver of Islam regarding “Death to the Infidels” to the extreme. And they slaughter innocents in the name of their god.

But you know what is most tragic? In the aftermath of most terrorist acts, most of the time the first thing that happens is political finger-pointing and name-blaming. And if it wasn’t so serious, the reporting process regarding such attacks in America would be comical. Leftist news media almost always point fingers away from ISIS and other Muslim groups. And when there is an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated by a white person, those media outlets report the killings almost with glee. Additionally, there are regular battles in the media about terrorists who kill: “Was it a White Supremacist or was it a Muslim?”

Always buried in their stories — at least initially — is the one simple fact that matters: people were slaughtered for the most ridiculous reasons by extremists. That should be enough, but sadly it’s not. The blame game ALWAYS begins in earnest.

Let’s look at a few Media examples and also polling results.

Whodunit?

First, let’s look at the report from statistics compiled by a liberal political organization: New America Foundation.

“Since 9/11, white right-wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have, according to research by the New America Foundation. In their June study, the foundation decided to examine groups ‘engaged in violent extremist activity’ and found that white extremists were by far the most dangerous. They pointed to the Emanuel AME Church shooting in Charleston, S.C., and the 2012 attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, as well as many lesser-known attacks on Jewish institutions and on police. They found that 48 people were killed by white terrorists, while 26 were killed by radical Islamists, since Sept. 11, 2001.

The study also found that the criminal justice system judged jihadists more harshly than their non-Muslim counterparts, indicting them more frequently than non-jihadists and handing down longer sentences.”

(I encourage you all to review statistics on this as compiled in this segment of New America Foundation’s findings on the matter, “Terrorism in America After 9/11“: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/

 

The Popular Myth That Right-Wing Extremism Kills More Than Islamic Terrorism in the U.S. Since 9/11

It may have all started with the opinion piece “U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists,” which was echoed by journalist Sally Kohn. NPR interviewed the authors of the CNN story under the headline “Right-Wing Extremists More Dangerous Than Islamic Terrorists In U.S.”
The New America study was the basis for the reported statistic, which is repeated widely. The study is hosted by the International Security Program, whose backers include George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Before proceeding any further, it should be mentioned that Politifact examined the New America statistic and stated that it was “half-true.”

So, is the claim true? A professor at Florida State College at Jacksonville recently dissected the terrorism cases and has shredded the finding that right-wing extremists are deadlier than violent jihadists in the United States. Professor Andrew Holt lays out why the coding criteria, and thus, the comparisons are apples-to-oranges:

“The problem with this source, as I see it, is that the count is wrong. In International Security’s listing of the 45 deaths due to Islamic extremism, they attribute them to only nine incidents since 9/11. These include the more well-known attacks, such as San Bernardino (14 dead), Chattanooga (5 dead), Fort Hood (13 dead), the Boston Marathon Bombing (4 dead — with 264 additional casualties, I might add), as well as the Washington and New Jersey killing spree (4 dead), but also the Oklahoma beheading of 2014 (1 dead), the Little Rock Shooting of 2009 (1 dead), the Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting of 2006 (1 dead), and the Los Angeles Airport shooting of 2002 (2 dead).

So this is where they stop, but if we are comparing Islamic extremism to right wing extremism, apples to apples (and, to give credit to International Security, they acknowledge this is subjective on their website) then there are several others incidents that should be included in this total. Professor Holt finds at least six more events that the study did not attribute to violent jihadism.”

The professor discovered that when you add in the numbers from several terrorism cases driven by Islamist intent, the scales tip. Via The College Fix:

  • In June of 2006, in Denver a man shot four of his co-workers and a swat team member, killing one. He later claimed he did it because it was “Allah’s choice.”
  • In December of 2009 in Binghamton, a Saudi Arabian graduate student named Abdulsalam S. al-Zahrani killed Richard T. Antoun, a non-Muslim Islamic studies professor who served on al-Zahrani’s dissertation committee, in revenge for “persecuted” Muslims. Prior to the killing, one of al-Zahrani’s roommates tried to warn the university administration that he had been acting “like a terrorist.”
  • In 2012 in Houston, in two separate incidents in January and in November, two people were shot to death by a Muslim extremist for their roles in his daughter’s conversion to Christianity.
  • In March of 2013 in Ashtabula (Ohio), a Muslim convert walked into a Christian Church during an Easter service and killed his father, claiming it was “the will of Allah.”
  • In August of 2014 in Richmond (California) a man killed an Ace Hardware employee by stabbing him seventeen times, claiming he was on a “mission from Allah.”

These six murders are irrelevant, if you take the New America study at face value, yet tilt the balance towards jihadists being deadlier than right-wing terrorists: 50 fatalities to 48, respectively. Why the discrepancy?

The New America study does not count violent jihadist attacks from self-radicalized or “lone wolf” terrorists who swear allegiance to Islam in the same manner as terrorist attacks committed by a card-carrying member of Islamist terror organizations. If a terrorist yells “Allahu Akbar!” before going on a murder spree, you see, that’s not enough.

However, when right-wing terrorist attacks are coded by New America, those are attributed in a loose manner to mere statements made by the perpetrators that fit the left-wing’s shibboleth that racist or anti-government views define someone as a “right-winger.” Thus, the conclusions are not only questionable, they are borderline deceptive. The professor concludes:

“Right wing terrorism is more deadly for Americans only if you add a number of very limiting parameters (e.g. excluding the victims of 9/11, ignoring “lone wolf” attacks without solid connections to groups like al-Qaeda and their affiliates, etc…). But if you lift those limitations, and apply equal standards, then the raw and unfiltered numbers of deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism in the United States over the last fifteen years dwarf the numbers attributable to right wing extremism by a ratio of over 62 to 1. Even if you leave out 9/11 victims and just focus on the ideological statements and goals of the attackers, then the deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism still outnumber the deaths attributable to right wingers (which reveals an even greater disparity when compared with population groups). If we move beyond America’s borders, then the disparity becomes far greater, with somewhere around 90% of the world’s terrorism related deaths attributable to Islamic extremism, and only a fraction of 1% attributable to right wing extremism.”

The professor’s findings are consistent with terrorism incidents listed at non-partisan sources like the Global Terrorism Index and the Global Terrorism Database. It is certainly not true that “right wing extremists” kill more Americans than jihadists, or that they are “deadlier.”

Jihadi Terrorists Attacks Outside the U.S.

Such radical Islamist attacks, unfortunately, more common, more prevalent, and more violent than those seen in the U.S. Since we are discussing terrorist attacks in the U.S. compared to white radical attacks, it makes sense to factor in similar situations elsewhere in the World. Islam is MUCH more widespread outside the U.S. than within, so the numbers of jihadist attacks are staggering. Let’s take a look:

Saudi Arabia: November 20, 1979, at The Grand Mosque in Mecca. 244 died and 180 were seriously injured.

Lebanon: October 23, 1983, the deadly bombing of the U.S. barracks. 307 died and 75 were seriously injured.

Lebanon: September 20, 1984, at the United States Embassy. 24 were killed.

Indonesia: January 21, 1985, at The Buddhist Borobudur temple in Java. No one died.

France: December 1985 — September 1986, a series of over a dozen bombings. 13 died and 225 were seriously injured

Israel: July 7, 1989, Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 suicide bomber attack. 16 died and 27 were seriously injured.

We started to give you the numbers of Jihadist terrorist attacks with deaths and serious injuries from 1990 through today. The list is exhaustive. Let it suffice to say, since July 7, 1989, more than 20,000 citizens from more than 20 countries have been executed by Muslim terrorists. Some were mass slaughters; some were single random killings. But all were terrorist acts conducted in the name of the Muslim god.

see the complete list of those acts with details at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Summary

The purpose of this story is to get away from the “It was Muslims….No, it was White Supremacists” finger-pointing. Let’s just simply face one major factor: terrorism of ANY kind is deplorable, especially when people are killed at the hands of others simply because of their skin color and/or religious beliefs. But what makes these horrors even more egregious is the actions of media zealots to point fingers at some group of individuals to simply place blame and expand division between people of different races, cultures, and religions for one reason and one reason only. And it’s NOT for a news story: it’s to drive wedges between people to foment hatred and bigotry. And we have waaay too much of that already.

The culprit in all of this is Identity Politics. Sadly, American politicians on the Left have perfected the use of specific groups to use for their singular political benefit. And they continually caste those groups without factual knowledge and certainly with no specific proof that would in any way justify the nastiness they spew.

People are humans. And it doesn’t take much to light the fires of hatred between those of different races, religions, sexual preference, nationalities, or political perspective. And today’s Leftists have made doing so an art: and they are pretty successful selling their wares to unsuspecting people.

I am fearful that we are stuck in this cycle of divisiveness. And I fear it will take the lives of many more people. It is unthinkable that when each terrorist act is perpetrated, it seems political leaders — especially those in the United States — ignore the hurt and anguish of the surviving victims and family members of those killed. They immediately rush to the “political narrative of the day” to further their causes. Isn’t it sad that political leaders in America would even consider using these despicable acts of human slaughter for any type of political advantage? But it is happening more and more every time such an attack occurs.

Where does this go? Such attacks seem to have only increased in number and severity. Media reports only fuel the fire of additional headline-seeking mass murderers. It is sad that any religion would teach adherents there are glory and righteousness along with heavenly rewards for donning a suicide vest and killing as many non-Muslims as possible when committing suicide. But it does. And it is horrific.

Unfortunately, I see no end in sight. But what MUST end is the glorification in news coverage of these events. It’s time that today’s media commit to showing the world the horrors of murder. And they need to do so using NO political narrative and reporting with NO editorial comments about details of each event. People’s lives are far more important than a network pushing for ratings to turn into advertising revenue.

As far as God is concerned in all this: “By this will all men know that you are my children — by the love you show for each other.”

I doubt jihadists or white supremacist terrorists score very high in God’s eye — even IF they are promised 72 virgins for those murders.

Play