CURE THIS DISEASE!

In the furor of the last five days regarding the necessity to stabilize the U.S. economy that is in freefall, almost lost is the absolute necessity to make haste to find the cure for COVID-19. Yes, doctors are treating ill patients in dramatic numbers that are now seeming to double daily. Those certainly are the priorities of our amazing American hospitals, clinics, and specialists. I do not diminish treatment necessity at all. But while doing so, we need to take dramatic steps in preventions and to get those in place, functional, operating, and monitored ASAP.

Our “social distancing” in most cases, is working well. Multiple states have issued orders that have closed all businesses but those which are essential. That has put tens of millions of American workers on the sidelines. That horror has been consuming almost all the oxygen in the atmosphere. But we cannot ignore our requirement to find a cure.

And there may already be one. Watch and listen to this message from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko of New York:

At a Fox News “virtual town hall” Tuesday in the Rose Garden, Vice President Mike Pence was asked by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the popular TV doctor, how the distribution of the hydroxychloroquine treatment can be accelerated. Pence said, “there is no barrier,” explaining the FDA already has approved “off-label” use, meaning the drug used to treat malaria also can be prescribed to treat COVID-19. The vice president said the administration is working with Bayer on increasing the supply of the drug as clinical trials are being conducted.

“Doctors can prescribe that medication, which, as you know, is a perfectly legal malaria medication,” Pence said.

Oz asked Pence if he would allow himself to be treated with hydroxychloroquine if he were infected with the coronavirus. “I would follow the advice of my physician, and I would recommend everyone do that,” the vice president replied.

Oz has called chloroquine “the biggest game-changer of all,” with the potential of preventing the U.S. from “becoming Italy.”

Chloroquine

President Trump announced Monday that clinical trials for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine would begin in New York on Tuesday. He said 10,000 units of chloroquine would be distributed in the state. Studies in China, Australia, and France have found the combination of chloroquine and azithromycin treated the coronavirus within six days with a 100% success rate.

In an interview, Dr. Peter Costantino, the chairman of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, was asked to comment on Dr. Zelenko’s reported results. “I’m very, very optimistic about this,” he said. “This is not a controlled study, but the number of patients represented by Dr. Zelenko is very significant.”

Costantino noted there were no hospitalizations, intubations, or deaths among Zelenko’s 350 patients. As many as 40 admissions would have been expected, he said, along with possibly two or three deaths.

Summary

Isn’t it sad that as this that is a logical and working treatment to stop coronavirus has been all but lost in the noise of politicizing for power and money this pandemic? Americans should be outraged at how many in Washington have been playing a game with coronavirus. While playing with the disease, they have put the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans at risk.

Pelosi’s bill offers a minuscule amount of taxpayer funding for curing this disease while filling the coffers and pockets of political party backers and federal workers that do nothing but cause the national debt to skyrocket: $2 Trillion!

I’ve been asked dozens of times the last week, “Is there anything we as American voters can do to shut down this lunacy in Congress? Can we stop this senseless wasteful spending?”

What have we at TruthNewsNetwork been harping on for five years now regarding American government: wasteful spending, political fraud, nepotism, and corruption — all for the quest for unilateral political POWER.

For those of you who have been skeptical, take a stroll to the corner of the two busiest streets in your town or city today. Look down both roads and notice NOBODY’S HOME!

We are close — so VERY close — to losing the greatest nation on Earth.

Wake Up America!

Pelosi Blackmail: The “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act”

It is impossible that Pelosi, along with workers from her office were able to put the “Take REsponsibility for Workers and Family Act” together in just a few days. Pelosi knows that a “major” COVID-19 stimulus bill was in the offing, has been planning for the opportunity to jump into the fray at the last moment, and hold Americans hostage to a pork-ulus bill that is bulging with Democrat goodies. And that’s just what she has done, knowing that time is now on her side and that Republicans have very little power regarding whether or not to approve her bill.

I watched throughout the day on Tuesday as Democrat after Democrat found a television camera in front of which they to a person stated the Pelosi bill has NOTHING in it but measures to stop the coronavirus, funding emergency measures necessary to stop the virus spread while treating those already infected, assisting with measures to prevent further spreading, and economic stimulus measures for the American people. Each of those Democrats not only lied, but they in doing so are also trying to hijack the American financial system while piling up goodies that Democrats can use like Mardi Gras beads coming from a float in New Orleans. Every Mardi Gras, “Give me something, Mister!” is the common phrase for Louisianians to illustrate the pandemonium of Mardi Gras parades. It’s appropriate to say that “Give me something, Ms. Pelosi!” is the relevant cry being answered by the House Speaker with this package.

Her bill is 1400+ pages in length. It is packed full of pork. Because it is so long, she is confident there is not enough time for Republicans to read and digest its measures, determine which of the measures included are legitimate and which are partisan fodder for her party and their financial supporters. She’s done pretty well with that process in her House Speaker career. Who can forget how she rammed down the throats of Americans another bill about the same length a few years ago. When asked what was in that bill, she famously answered, “We don’t know what’s in the bill. We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in the bill.” That bill was Obamacare.

We’ve done the dirty work for you. Here in bullet point, we have identified almost every one of the items included in the bill. As you digest these, remember when asked yesterday was there a bunch of pork in the bill, this was her response:

“Every measure in the House Coronavirus bill is to support the necessary medical needs to stop the virus while shoring up the American economy for workers. We MUST assist American workers in keeping going without finding themselves in dire financial circumstances and without fear of the virus.”

Keep that in mind — you will not believe what you are about to see.

  • $100,000,000 to NASA
  • $20,000,000,000 to the US Postal Service to payoff their debt
  • $300,000,000 to the Endowment for the Arts
  • $300,000,000 for the Endowment for the Humanities (I’ve never heard of it)
  • $15,000,000 for Veterans Employment Training
  • $435,000,000 for mental health support
  • $30,000,000,000 for the Department of Education stabilization fund
  • $200,000,000 to Safe Schools Emergency Response to Violence Program
  • $300,000,000 to Public Broadcasting / NPR
  • $500,000,000 to Museums and Libraries
  • $720,000,000 to Social Security Admin, of which ONLY $200,000,000 goes to recipients. The balance is for “Administrative Costs” — $520,000,000.
  • $25,000,000 for Cleaning supplies for the Capitol Building (I know it’s unbelievable. You can find it on page 136)
  • $7,500,000 to the Smithsonian for additional salaries
  • $35,000,000 to the JFK Center for Performing Arts
  • $25,000,000 for salary increases  for the House of Representatives
  • $3,000,000,000 to upgrade to the IT department at the Veterans Administration
  • $315,000,000 for State Department Diplomatic Programs
  • $95,000,000 for the Agency of International Development
  • $300,000,000 for International Disaster Assistance
  • $300,000,000 for Migrant and Refugee Assistance (pg 147)
  • $90,000,000 for the Peace Corp (pg 148)
  • $13,000,000 to Howard University (pg 121)
  • 9,000,000 Miscellaneous Senate Expenses (pg 134)
  • $100,000,000 to Essential Air carriers (pg 162)
  • $40,000,000,000 goes to the “Take Responsibility to Workers and Families Act.” (Pg 164)
  • $1,000,000,000 Airlines Recycle and Save Program (pg 163)
  • $25,000,000 to the FAA for administrative costs (pg 165)
  • $492,000,000 to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) (pg 167)
  • $526,000,000 Grants to Amtrak to remain available if needed through 2021 (pg 168)
  • $25,000,000,000 for Transit Infrastructure (pg 169)
  • $3,000,000 Maritime Administration (pg 172)
  • $5,000,000 Salaries and Expenses for the Office of the Inspector General (pg 172)
  • A clause that ratifies there is No voter ID necessary to get a ballot to vote. It also establishes and makes legal the anonymous “ballot harvesting” process (pg 650)
  • $2,500,000 for Public and Indian Housing (pg 175)
  • $5,000,000 for Community Planning and Development (pg 175)
  • $2,500,000 for the Office of Housing
  • $1,500,000,000 for the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Office of Public and Indian Housing, $billion of which can be used as “additional administrative and other expenses.” (pg 176)
  • $720,000,000 to the public housing fund (pg 177)
  • $100,000,000 for Community Block Grants for Native Americans (pg 183)
  • $250,000,000 for Housing Block Grants for Tribes (pg 182)
  • $130,000,000 for AIDS Housing (pg 185) $20,000,000 of which goes to “one-time grantees”  (pg 186)
  • $15,000,000,000 for the Community Development Fund (pg 188)
  • $5,000,000,000 in Homeless Assistance (pg 193)
  • $100,000,000,000 for Rental Assistance (pg 198)
  • An additional $7,000,000 to enforce the Fair Housing Act (pg 203)
  • $227,000,000 for grants to States for “youth activities” (pg 80)
  • $261,000,000 for grants to States for dislocated worker employment and training activities, including supportive services and needs-related payments (pg 80)
  • $10,000,000 for the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker program
  • $100,000,000 for ‘‘Job Corps.’’
  • $15,000,000 for ‘‘Program Administration’’
  • $6,500,000, to the ‘‘Federal Wage and Hour Division.’’
  • $30,000,000, to OSHA
  • $10,000,000 for Susan Harwood training grants
  • $1,300,000,000, for ‘‘Primary Health Care’’
  • $75,000,000, for ‘‘Student Aid Administration’’
  • $9,500,000,000, for ‘‘Higher Education’’

NOTE:

  • In this bill, Paid Family Leave for Sickness is two paid work weeks (pg 213). “Emergency Family Leave,” and now applies to all employers, not just for companies with over 500 employees (pg 208)
  • Guarantees paid leave to employees who have an in-law who gets sick (pg 209)
  • Opens up leave for some you are in a “committed relationships with” (pg 212)
  • $1,000,000,000 for more Obamaphones!

Odds and Ends…

  • $9,000,000,000 is allocated to colleges and universities
  • $100,000,000 to juvenile justice programs
  • It suspends various aspects of the enforcement of immigration laws
  • Hidden in these provisions is hundreds of billions of dollars in Green New Deal subsidies. Also hidden is the “ACCESS” Act that imposes requirements for states to allow early voting, voting by mail, and requires the mailing of absentee ballots to everyone.

NOTE TWO:

In this bill, only $10 billion is set aside for infrastructure for fighting infectious diseases (pg 191), AND…

Hidden on page 174 the Secretary of the Treasury has only seven days from the date this bill is signed into law to allocate the funds & notify Congress

Summary

Plain and simple: I’m nauseated. I have never in my lifetime seen a more corrupt, dishonest, and massive display of evil in any branch of the U.S. government than this. And as deep as what we outlined for you, the underlying truth in each is eviler than its bullet point!

I was asked on Tuesday, “Why is Speaker Pelosi taking this action?” I have thought through this again and again, and I resolve the question in only one answer I can puzzle to: She wants to crash the U.S. economy and the lives of 300+ million Americans.

But why would she do that?

Could it be that she is so driven to and so set on destroying this presidency that she would take the entire nation down with President Trump?

Before you respond with, “No Way! — think it through. Remember this, HBO host Bill Marr has one more than one occasion stated he’d be fine if that happened just to rid the nation of Donald Trump.

Now: are you nauseated, too?

Stock Market: Congress’ Illegal Piggy Bank

For decades, members of Congress have taken advantage of financial details garnered from pending legislation or from those who are directly involved in specific business negotiations with Congress. It has been prevalent through the years for members to enrich themselves with suspect stock market transactions that could only have happened by their access to and then using that info.

Who would have thought that Coronavirus would have opened a door for our federal employees — members of the House and Senate — to take advantage of a pandemic that has 330 million Americans hiding under desktops in fear for their lives? But that is happening today. (Details of these just ahead)

Remember the words of President Obama’s Chief of Staff and later Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel:

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

That’s precisely what current members of Congress have been secretly doing. But it has happened often in the past but mostly just to make a lot of money by playing the Congressional Monopoly game!

“Let’s Make A Deal”

What’s happening now is NOT new. It’s been going on for decades. Before we tell you the latest, let’s look back a few years.

Then Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), President Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary, when just a nominee was under siege — the harsh lights of a Senate hearing upon him. News reports showed he had bought shares in a tiny biotechnology company while sitting on committees that could influence the firm’s prospects. A colleague, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), had tipped him off to the investment.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, Republican of Colorado, bought shares of the same tiny Australian company, Innate Immunotherapeutics. Within two days, three more members also bought in — Republicans Billy Long of Missouri, Mike Conaway of Texas, and John Culberson of Texas. Conaway added more shares the following week.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat who sits on the Senate HELP Committee, which oversees health care, is a substantial investor in pharmaceutical stocks. As lawmakers closed in on a bipartisan deal over a significant medical research bill called the 21st Century Cures Act, Whitehouse bought shares in the pharmaceutical firms McKesson, Gilead, and Abbott Labs ten days before the bill was made public. Whitehouse and his wife bought additional stock in Gilead and Amgen two days before the House voted on the bill. The day President Barack Obama signed the bill into law, Whitehouse started a series of three sales of shares in those companies.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, was a guest speaker at Prescient Edge, a small research and technology firm with Defense Department contracts, in January of 2016. When the company raised private capital later that year, Kinzinger bought in to the tune of $20,002. Kinzinger was a member of theHouse Foreign Affairs Committee, which oversees issues affecting Prescient Edge.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Republican of Tennessee, served on the health care appropriations panel. As then-Vice President Joe Biden was pressing lawmakers to approve funding for his “Cancer Moonshot” proposal in the summer of 2016, a Fleischmann family account invested in two companies, Juno Therapeutics, and Celgene, which were developing new cancer drugs. One of the investments was made a week before the Obama administration announced new measures that would speed up approval for cancer therapies.

384 House members and senators who served in the 114th Congress made no stock trades over two years. Meanwhile, the lawmakers who are active in stock trading conducted a total of more than 21,300 trades during the same two years, but a small group of very wealthy lawmakers accounted for a significant share of those trades.

Texas Republican Rep. Mike McCaul reported approximately 7,300 stock transactions in an array of industries over the two years. Oregon Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader made a substantial number of trades in companies that have an interest in the committee’s health and energy work. Schrader made close to 700 stock trades over two years.

Instances of insider trading by members of Congress are not difficult to find. For example, in 2008, then-Congressman Spencer Bachus shorted the U.S. stock market one day after attending a confidential meeting with Henry (“Hank”) Paulson and Ben Bernanke, who at that time were the secretary of the Treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve, respectively. At this meeting, which took place on Sept. 18, Bachus and other members of Congress were given material nonpublic information about the extent of the risks that were facing the financial system at that time.

John Boehner and Dick Durbin, both Senators at the time, also attended that closed-door meeting. Both of them placed orders selling shares in mutual funds the following day.

These are just a pittance of examples of those who have been found involved in unscrupulous stock dealings in the past. Discovering these transactions (which are publicly reported if one cares to dig to find them) show there is a strong propensity for many lawmakers to take advantage of “insider information” obtained by just being a member of Congress.

House and Senate members who are active traders insist their buying and selling is a normal part of managing their finances, as with any American who wants to save for retirement or put their kids through school. But their colleagues don’t seem to agree. The clear majority of lawmakers avoid potential conflicts of interest by buying mutual funds, putting their portfolios in blind trusts or simply staying out of the stock market. Wouldn’t that be the wise and ethical approach for those who have access to information that could possibly be used for self enrichment?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), when just a Representative back in 2012, was slapped on the wrist by Congress for participating in several obvious personal enrichment transactions committed by her husband Paul Pelosi. Both the Senate and the House passed a bill —The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or “STOCK Act.” The measure made it illegal for members of Congress to engage in insider trading. The act was passed in April 2012, during the presidency of Barack Obama.

The STOCK Act was fondly termed the “Pelosi Rule” by Republican members of Congress. Americans were happy that it appeared that a stop had been crafted for greedy public servants who seemed to always leave Congress as multi-millionaires when being just average economic Americans when entering Congress.

But, WAIT!

  • The STOCK Act outlawed insider trading by members of Congress.
  • The law was passed in April 2012 with strong bipartisan support.
  • In April 2013, key provisions of the law were weakened, reducing the safeguards against insider trading.

Does any of that surprise you?

“I’m deeply concerned,” said Minnesota Democratic Rep. Tim Walz, an early supporter of the Stock Act who does not himself trade stocks. “If you buy stock and then do something that changes that stock, you’ve got to know what’s going on.”

Trouble on  the Hill: “Busted!”

What’s happening in Washington right now? We got through the Mueller Investigation, the impeachment trial of President Trump, and we’re eight months away from a presidential and Congressional election. What could possibly go wrong now? Coronavirus! 

Do you remember the statement above of Rahm Emanuel?

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Coronavirus is certainly a horror for every American. But several in Congress in the shadow of the current pandemic found a way to make a few quick bucks. If you haven’t heard, it’s because you’ve been asleep or are fasting news coverage.

Four senators dumped millions of dollars worth of stock while Capitol Hill was being briefed on the threat of coronavirus but before the markets tanked as infections soared, disclosure records have revealed.

Republicans Richard Burr, Kelly Loeffler and James Inhofe and Democrat Dianne Feinstein collectively offloaded up to $11 million in stock between late January and early February, according to disclosure records.

Burr, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee that was directly briefed on coronavirus, sold up to $1.7 million in stock including in hotels, according to reporting from ProPublica. To put Burr’s actions in context, his last financial disclosure form filed with the Senate showed his total net worth at $1 million. Yet, ProPublica reported he sold $1.7 million. Why and how could the Senator sell stock he reportedly did not own? Did he come into stock ownership to that level between the time of his disclosure statement and the coronavirus attacking the stock market? 

Burr’s spokeswoman said in a statement to DailyMail.com that Burr filed his financial disclosure form several weeks before the markets showed ‘volatility.’

Feinstein, a member of the same committee, sold up to $6 million in stock including in a biotech firm.

Loeffler dumped up to $3.1million in investments starting on the day the Senate Health Committee, which she sits on, was briefed by the CDC. Meanwhile, James Inhofe sold up to $400,000 in stock, including real estate.

Loeffler and Feinstein have defended themselves, saying their stocks are invested in trusts and portfolios that they have no personal control over. Inhofe has not commented.

Summary

Numerous times you have witnessed TruthNewsNetwork asking a question in stories and podcasts, “What’s Going On?” We’re asking it again.

It is obvious that politicos in Congress have bountiful opportunities for self-enrichment once seated in the House or Senate. It cannot be happenstance that so many enter Congress with modest net worth only to leave their post years later worth millions. That is NOT normal and is obviously based on enrichment opportunities not available to the general public. And they are OUR employees.

That “Pelosi Rule” that was passed and signed into law by President Obama was little more than a straw gift given to Americans to show “We in Congress are going to police ourselves and make sure NO ONE cheats regarding stock trading.”

They lied.

In YOUR world, do you know of any other public entity (like Congress) in which workers can cheat, take advantage unethically and illegally to make money and there’s no accountability to anyone for those actions? In many respects, it reminds me of that old saying, “That’s kinda’ like the prisoners, not the guards, guarding the prisoners.” Self-policing seldom works, especially when it comes to someone else’s money.

What is most objectionable to me about this has not changed since I first discovered it. These 535 elected officials took an oath of office to serve us — all of us. They’re paid well — far better than are average Americans. Doors they certainly would never know of open to them as they meet and interact with those in business while in office. That’s normal. But there’s NO honest explanation for the actions you are hearing about from these today.

In the REAL world, here’s how this would be structured:

  1. Before taking the oath of office, each member of Congress would be required to either divest 100% of their personal holding other than a retirement plan already in place and then to place ALL of their personal and business assets remaining in valid Blind Trusts in which they nor their spouses or children have any knowledge of or control of any kind.
  2. No member of Congress would be allowed to receive any compensation of any kind — other than their published Congressionally controlled income and expenses while serving their term in office — PERIOD.
  3. NO lobbying of members of Congress or any person serving in the White House or a cabinet position can participate in any type of lobbying as defined in existing U.S. law. Under NO circumstances can any member of Congress receive any kind of compensation from lobbyists. That includes payment of any kind — direct, indirect, or even in-kind. That prohibition applies to the immediate family members of those in Congress.
  4. Finally, and most importantly, any member of Congress found to have violated any of these will immediately be removed from their office in Congress. Further, the Department of Justice will immediately file charges for felony violations against those former members of Congress AND any person or persons who participated in facilitating this illegal process.

Does that sound somewhat radical? What is the role of serving in Congress? TO REPRESENT US…PERIOD. No longer should Americans feel that “serving in Congress” is really “serving.” Being in Congress really means “obtaining unscrupulous if not illegal opportunities to personally enrich oneself, trying to gain as much wealth as possible by walking as close as possible to the ‘felony line’ without stepping across it.”

Here’s a challenge: ask your members of Congress from your district and state if they would support a law that prohibits “extra” compensation based on the points above? Most will say, “I’d have to see the bill before I could commit to support it.” When they say that, ask them this, “Would you create such a bill and promote it in Congress?”

I guarantee the answer will be a resounding “No” with a plethora of excuses.

Sad, isn’t it. Sad mostly that so many take advantage of it and us. But it’s saddest that so many do it at all and think nothing of doing so.

That says a lot about them. Who in God’s name have we put in charge of creating the laws of our nation?

Play

CoronaLying

It’s regrettable that during this real national emergency during which we have been urged by our government to “pull together for the common good,” that there are those who continue their continuous efforts to divide the nation along political, racial, gender, and religious lines. But it continues.

I just watched New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who, in a news conference, actually acted contritely. The Governor seemed tired. He indeed, despite his historical continued vitriolic partisan attacks on the Trump Administration, said the following:

“We’re not Democrats. We’re not Republicans. We’re all Americans facing an American issue. It’s time for us to pull together for the common good of all Americans. It’s essential states and the federal government work together to fight this crisis.”

Isn’t it amazing how attitudes morph when the realities of life push to the front of the consciousness of politicians?

I’ve stated this on numerous occasions in writing about the vast and concerted efforts by many on the Left to blame everything wrong in America on Conservatives: “Will it take another war, another horrific earthquake, an attack against Americans by foreign enemies like 9/11 to rally Americans in unity once more?”

It looks like we are on the eve of such an occurrence.

When Andrew Cuomo in an act that seems almost his “final straw,” it appeared that what he was saying was, “I give up. Maybe the President’s right. Maybe I’m wrong. But for certain, New York needs the help of the Trump Administration, as hard as it is for me to admit it.”

Cuomo, in curbing his animus for Donald Trump, joins another Trump “governor enemy” in changing tunes about the President. California Governor Gavin Newsom has also paused his rancor at Mr. Trump in the wake of emergency assistance from the Trump Administration to help his state.

When the cruise ship with numerous coronavirus-infected passengers was held offshore at San Francisco, the governor reached out to Washington for help. Donald Trump personally intervened. Newsom had nothing but good to say about assistance offered to California by the President.

“We had a private conversation, but he said, ‘We’re gonna do the right thing’ and ‘You have my support, all of our support, logistically and otherwise,'” Newsom told reporters at a Monday news conference.

“He said everything I could have hoped for,” the governor asserted. “And we had a very long conversation and every single thing he said, they followed through on,” he noted.

Newsom said that he had received “consistent” support from Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the administration’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

Maybe, just maybe, politicians may be coming around to understanding and accepting that President Trump and his coronavirus tactical team know what they’re doing and that this administration has the welfare of the nation at heart. Maybe they can all just drop the partisan rhetoric and finger-pointing and get along for the common good of the country for a while.

I’m not so sure about the media, though. The attacks rife with lies just keep on coming.

A New York Times editorial board member has graduated from not understanding basic arithmetic to telling lies on social media about the White House’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

The New York Times’s Mara Gay tweeted Monday afternoon, “Trump told governors this morning they are on their own: ‘Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,’ Mr. Trump said to the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times.”

Her tweet, which has been shared by more than 5,000 social media users, is a lie of omission.

President Trump did not tell the governors they are on their own. He told them they can streamline their respective responses by taking specific actions at the state level. He also made sure to tell them they have the support of the White House.

The note that Gay shared with her more than 72,000 followers includes a link to the New York Times’scollection of live updates on the COVID-19 virus. That collection includes the relevant portion of Trump’s remarks to governors.

It reads: “Mr. Trump told a group of governors that they should not wait for the federal government to fill the growing demand for respirators needed to help people diagnosed with coronavirus.”

Trump told them specifically, “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves.”

“We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves,” he said, according to the New York Times. “Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself.”

This is nowhere near what Gay’s tweet suggested the president had said to the governors. There is no other way to characterize her tweet than to call it “fake news.” It is intentionally false information, disseminated broadly on social media with the explicit intent of misleading people. The only real difference between Gay’s tweet and the sort of stuff the Russians pumped onto social media during the 2016 presidential election is that Gay is an American citizen.

(Published 3/16/2020 by the Washington Examiner)

It’s not just the New York Times. Want another example?

  • On Feb. 28, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tweeted out, “Remember this moment: Trump, in South Carolina, just called the coronavirus a ‘hoax.’ ” The tweet has since been “liked” more than 162,000 times. Milbank subsequently wrote a column repeating the claim. But anyone watching Trump’s rally in the Palmetto State that day knows this wasn’t what Trump said. “Trump said that when he used the word ‘hoax,’ he was referring to Democrats finding fault with his administration’s response to coronavirus, not the virus itself,” noted FactCheck.org, which generally leans left.
  • The Washington Post accused GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of fanning “the embers of a coronavirus conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts,” namely that the Chinese may have engineered the virus in a lab. But as Cotton noted on Twitter, he was merely laying out one among several hypotheses about the virus’ origin, including that the virus may have originated from a well-known biological testing facility in the Wuhan region — a possibility that can’t be ruled out, even though Cotton admitted it was unlikely. The Washington Post appeared more determined to slap down GOP lawmakers for airing hypotheses than, you know, investigate the Beijing regime.
  • The New York Times quoted anonymous sources to say the White House was “muzzling” Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. This prompted Fauci to cry fake news. “I have never been muzzled, ever, and I have been doing this since the administration of Ronald Reagan. I am not being muzzled by this administration.”
  • On the heels of the president’s announcement of a sweeping travel ban from other countries and declaration of emergency, a Sunday CNN chyron (Headline on-screen graphic) read: “Trump on Coronavirus: From ‘Hoax’ to National Emergency.”The trouble is that Trump never called the coronavirus a “hoax” — this is an inaccurate and misleading distortion of what he has said, created and propagated by major media. And CNN won’t stop repeating it.
  • Politico Reported President Trump called Coronavirus a Liberal Conspiracy. Their reporters Nancy Cook and Matthew Choi also mislead readers with the headline, “Trump rallies his base to treat coronavirus as a ‘hoax.’” Their report further stated, “He sought to deflect blame at a time when many Americans sought leadership and scientific facts,” the story reads, ignoring the multiple press conferences Trump held with the Centers for Disease Control officials to explain new travel restrictions and other precautions.
  • New York Times called it ‘Trumpvirus.’ In a not so subtle headline, New York Times Columnist Gail Collins suggests who is to blame for the coronavirus. Hint: It’s not China, where the outbreak all started.
  • Washington Post A columnist said the Media isn’t doing enough to combat Trump on Virus information. Margaret Sullivan took the “blame Trump” storyline a step further when she charged the media with “helping him spread” his lies. Sullivan lamented Trump’s “disdain for scientists, medical experts, intelligence officials, journalists and others who deal in a fact-based reality.” Nevermind the White House’s coronavirus task force, and Vice President Mike Pence’s appointment of Ambassador Debbie Birx as the new response coordinator. Birx is a “physician, researcher, and former HIV/AIDS program chief at the Department of Defense and then at the CDC,” where she is respected for her “unparalleled leadership of the lifesaving global AIDS program first established by President Bush in 2003″ and under both the Obama and Trump administrations. (Sounds qualified to me)

We could continue with example after example how the Media continue to show their number one objective — of almost all the Mainstream Media — is to simply abandon journalistic integrity and any commitment to truth in reporting when anything regarding Mr. Trump’s handling of Coronavirus might be beneficial to the American people. Just go after him with guns blazing! We’re not going to do that. Rather than continue to throw rocks at television screens and grab the radio knob to change stations, let’s take a short break and come back with something inspiring to show and let you listen to. A doctor has found a method that is successful in killing the coronavirus with HEAT! You surely don’t want to miss this.

Watch and listen closely:

Can you say Wow!

Summary

Do you have a bunch of questions? You bet I do!

  • Why haven’t we heard of this? The Cold Arrest Procedure IS TRADEMARKED! It’s been tested successfully in actual use in 55 other countries.
  • Dr. Dimme seems to know what he is saying. I’ve heard for years that the reason influenza dies off almost always in late Spring is because the influenza virus cannot withstand the heat of Summer. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

Now, let me fill you with a yesterday-for-me conspiracy theory. I, through research, discovered this video and prepared it for this story. I was excited. I even shared it with several friends. However, last evening when I went to YouTube to download the video for re-broadcasting here, IT HAD BEEN REMOVED! On the blank screen where that link took a viewer, there was this written across the screen: “This video has been removed for violating our community guidelines.”

“Oh, Dan, you’re just a conspiracy theorist!” Ok. You try it yourself. Here’s the link. Click on it and see what YOU get: https://youtu.be/TfKmOeZbVV4

Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it for a while! Fortunately, I found it hidden at two other sources and downloaded both.

I’m not confident in what’s going on. But something’s going on. I’m doing my best to find out and will let you know if I do and what it is.

In the meantime, it might be a good idea for us all to spend a few hours in the sauna!

Play

Political Infuence’s Boss: The Grim Reaper

Harvey Weinstein heard his fate from a New York judge on Wednesday. Harvey is old, riddled with medical complexities, and is facing 20+ years in prison for rape and sexual assault. Without some type of pardon, Harvey will probably die behind bars.

That was not supposed to happen to Harvey. He, for decades, had significant political influence. No one on Earth contributed more money through the years to the Clintons than did Weinstein. Beginning with Bill’s first run for the White House, then for Clinton’s second term in office, Hillary’s Senate campaigns and then her two runs for president, Weinstein just handed his wallet over to the pair. But he did more than just that. When he reached his legal maximum in contributions, he began bundling for the Clintons. He is personally responsible for millions of campaign dollars for the Clintons’ various campaigns through three decades. In return, he planned to cash-in his political chits called “Influence.”

Where is Harvey’s political influence today? He’s going to die in jail.

Influence

Political influence flows through the streets of Washington, like floodwaters. It seems today that everything there is for sale. And it all has a price. Members of Congress may not sell their votes on specific issues. But when the lobbyist calls who three years ago got one’s grandson an internship that paid 15% more than it should have, that member of Congress is going to take that call — and listen. The lawmaker sold his or her political influence.

In the early 90s, I had just turned the corner with my newly formed company that had taken off after three typical years of struggling to get started. I was an active young man in our community that was well known, and (I thought) had a promising future. One day, three gentlemen walked into my office to meet with me. All three were good friends. One was a local school superintendent, one was a real estate developer, and the other was a longtime State Representative who was leaving that office to run for governor.

I was surprised but pleased to see these three. But I was shocked when I heard the reason for their visit: they wanted me to run to replace the representative in state government!

It took me a few moments to come back to Earth. I sat in silence for a moment and felt unexpected nausea rising in my throat. I didn’t understand and didn’t know then why I said what I said next, but I do know why now.

“There is NO way I will run for that office and I will NEVER run for ANY political office!”

That night I shared the experience with my wife. She looked at me with wide-eyes and asked, “Why did you say no?”

I had thought it through after the three left my office and reached a conclusion for my nausea and quick declination. I shared this with my wife: “I would always feel obligated to someone if I was a politician. And I don’t think I could ever get accustomed to that.”

I’m not a superhero or some perfect soul, by any means. But after their question and my answer sunk-in, I reasoned why I told my wife what I did: I could most definitely NOT have run a successful and winning campaign for the House of Representatives using just the money I had. There wasn’t much money available! A run for that office — ANY office — would require my asking for campaign contributions. I could not (and still cannot) envision a scenario in which I would be able to say “No” to a person who had contributed to my campaign if and when asked for a favor of any kind.

Several years later, I heard Rush Limbaugh respond on-air to a caller who asked him why he did not run for political office. His response was very similar to mine.

Don’t get me wrong: campaign contributions are necessary for today’s political system. There are certainly those who can access the political contribution system well and can then legislate with no arbitrary sense of obligations to supporters who may have contributed. I’m glad there are those public servants. I didn’t think I could do that!

There’s a multi-billion dollar industry that exists for one reason only: to use money and favors to purchase political influence from American politicians. It’s housed in law firms and marketing firms, almost all located on K Street in Washington, D.C.

Let’s take a quick look at just one race: the 2016 presidential general election race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump:

Hillary Clinton raised $866.6 Million from individuals and companies; $201.5 Million from SuperPacs = $1,068,100,000 (that’s “Billion”)

Donald Trump raised $453.1 Million from individuals and companies; $59.1 Million from SuperPacs = $512.2 Million  (Trump of that amount personally donated $100 Million of that number)

Think about just how much money was contributed to those in the same election who ran for the House and Senate, to candidates for governor, mayor, state legislators, local city council seats and even dog catchers! The total must be tens of billions of dollars.

Let me ask this question: knowing how the process exists, knowing WHY it exists, and, more importantly, knowing that “The love of money is the root of all evil,” why is this entire process still allowed in the United States?

The Process

I am a strict capitalist. I have started several companies. When doing so, I, in advance, puzzled through all the obvious obstacles I would face, determined when moving forward what was my overall objective of the company, how to achieve it, and then carefully put in place all the necessary resources for that objective. Those resources included infrastructure, personnel, operating necessities, and, of course, capital to power the ship.

The beauty and untarnished concept of capitalism worked perfectly in my case: all those companies did not succeed as hoped and as planned. But what determined their success or failure had nothing to do with anything but me and how I missed or hit the right stages in building and growing that company. What was at the end of a win in doing so? Financial freedom, a tremendous sense of accomplishment and value along with numerous OTHER opportunities.

Politics is not different at all. Someone seizes the same thoughts, ideas, and plans. The same requirements are there to build that idea and make it grow. It requires opportunity, infrastructure, personnel, operating necessities, and of course, capital. The difference between an entrepreneurial startup company and a life in politics is found in one word that is a necessity in both: money.

Political capital is raised by creating an environment structured to secure contributions. That environment is usually a combination of funding sources that include individuals, PAC’s and SuperPac’s, and from the candidate personally. Other than those, campaign contributions are restricted. To see just what those restricted contribution sources include, click on this link: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

This process was created to keep as much of the graft and political influence as possible from impacting elections. Money is the single largest energy source to make possible a win.

How do we stop all these dollars flowing into elections to, in essence, buy election results?

That has been addressed over and over again, year after year, decade after decade, for several hundred years! The most recent solution was “Campaign Reform.” Total reform seemed to be the only way to stop our steady move to an environment in which the candidate with the most money would win every election.

Let me throw a monkey wrench into the thinking on that. Take a listen to George Will, who explains what Campaign Reform is:

 

Wow! So is there any way to keep the political influence that results from campaign contributions impacting election results?

The answer is to eliminate SuperPacs. The problem in accomplishing that is the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled in a famous case called “Citizens United” that SuperPacs can open the cash register at will to fund elections!

A super PAC is a modern breed of a political action committee that’s allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, individuals, and associations to influence the outcome of state and federal elections. The rise of the super PAC was heralded as the beginning of a new era in politics in which elections would be determined by the vast sums of money flowing into them, leaving average voters with little to no influence.

A Political Action Committee (PAC) compared to a Super Pac

The most important difference between a super PAC and traditional candidate PAC is in who can contribute, and in how much they can give.

Candidates and traditional candidate committees can accept $2,700 from individuals per election cycle. There are two election cycles a year: one for the primary, the other for the general election in November. That means they can take in a maximum of $5,400 a year — half in the primary and a half in the general election. Candidates and traditional candidate committees are prohibited from accepting money from corporations, unions, and associations. Federal election code prohibits those entities from contributing directly to candidates or candidate committees. Super PACs, though, have no limitations on who contributes to them or how much they can spend on influencing an election. They can raise as much money from corporations, unions, and associations as they please and spend unlimited amounts on advocating for the election or defeat of the candidates of their choice. Also, Super Pacs, in some cases, do NOT have to reveal sources of contributions.

Summary

How do we stop this crazy spending on elections to assure elected candidates are those best qualified for the job and not just the one with the most “connected” campaign funding sources? Get rid of SuperPacs! Since the Supreme Court already ruled in Citizens United that cannot happen, how can we rid the system of those SuperPacs? With a new law.

Who makes those “new” laws? Congress. And the fact that members of Congress are the chief beneficiaries of SuperPacs, it will be tough at best to get a change.

In the interim, I suggest you pay close attention to all those who run for elections that directly impact you: from the White House, Congress, your state and city. When you find a candidate with whom you agree, get the facts of their campaign contributions and contributors. If those dollars come chiefly from SuperPacs, be cautious.

There is no panacea for this. Americans need to pressure members of Congress to write a NEW law that addresses each of the reasons for the SCOTUS overturn of Citizens United. That needs to happen NOW.

The grim Reaper gleefully looks in using money to change our lives to be the way HE wants them to with no regard for you or me.

Play

Have Dems Forgotten About Their Threats to Impeach Donald Trump Again?

  • President Trump hinted that he believes that Democrats have only just begun in their impeachment frenzy to run him out of the White House.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said Thursday that Trump investigations will go on.
  • House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York said after his impeachment acquittal that it’s “likely” the Ukraine probe will go on. His committee also has been investigating any Trump-Russia election conspiracy.
  • Mr. Trump said of Mr. Nadler: “I always beat him, and I had to beat him another time and I will probably have to beat him again because if they find that I happen to walk across the street and maybe go against the light or something, let’s impeach him.”

Meanwhile,

  • “Of course, they’re going to try again,” said Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and member of the president’s Senate trial defense team, on Fox News.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)

Still pending is a wide-open probe launched by Rep. Adam Schiff, California Democrat. Mr. Schiff has been investigating President Trump, his family, and businesses, the Trump Organization, over the congressman’s suspicions of blackmail, money laundering, and bribery. Republican staffers say the inquiry was put on hold last fall, pending the Ukraine impeachment proceedings led by Mr. Schiff. But there is no sign Mr. Schiff has given up trying to prove Mr. Trump is corrupt, and if the president is impeached again, the charges would likely come from this probe, informed sources said.

Schiff, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, announced an anti-Trump staff investigation on February 6, way back in 2019. That’s the date he took control of the committee. Some of his allegations mirror claims pushed by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn Simpson — organizers of the discredited Democratic Party-funded dossier spread all over Washington.

Schiff’s Trump plans came one month before former special counsel Robert Mueller released an extensive report whose bottom line was: no Trump-Russia election conspiracy.

Schiff’s allegations, which remain under investigation:

Money laundering. Schiff said: “During the prior Congress, the Committee began to pursue credible reports of money laundering and financial compromise related to the business interests of President Trump, his family, and his associates. The President’s actions and posture towards Russia during the campaign, transition, and administration have only heightened fears of foreign financial or other leverage over President Trump and underscore the need to determine whether he or those in his Administration have acted in service of foreign interests since taking office.”

The Mueller report didn’t mention any financial ties between Trump and the Kremlin. The President’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, told the committee he knew of no Russian money flowing into the Trump Organization, the president’s real estate development firm.

Russia conspiracy. Schiff said: “The extent of any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, administration, or business interests, in furtherance of the Russian government’s interests.”

Blackmail. Schiff said: “Whether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Donald Trump, his family, his business, or his associates.” He continued: “Whether President Trump, his family, or his associates are or were at any time at heightened risk of, or vulnerable to, foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion, or have sought to influence U.S. government policy in service of foreign interests.”

In the year since Mr. Schiff released this road map, there have been no leaks to the media, perhaps an indication he had not found evidence before he shifted to impeachment. None of these allegations surfaced in the Mueller report nor during the Schiff-led impeachment drive.
Rep. Schiff’s spokesman didn’t respond to the message seeking comment.

They Just Keep On Keepin’ On!

GOP staffers say that Schiff has not given up on proving money laundering, which supposedly revolves around President Trump’s bank, Deutsche Bank, and Russia, or perhaps around an aborted bid to build a hotel in Moscow in 2015-16.

“Schiff will try to redeem himself by continuing his investigations, accompanied by the usual slew of misleading leaks to masochistic reporters, into Trump’s connections to both Russia and Ukraine,” one Republican staffer. “He’ll probably go back after Trump-Russia money laundering, which is one of Schiff’s favorite conspiracy theories. He doesn’t know if it’s Russians laundering money for Trump through the NRA, Trump properties, Deutsche Bank, or the Trump Tower Moscow project, but he’s convinced that somewhere, somehow, something happened.”

One of Fusion GPS’s allegations is that Russians provided illegal campaign donations to the National Rifle Association’s political action committee. The NRA denied this in letters to the Senate.

Rep. Jarrold Nadler (D-NY)

Meanwhile, Mr. Nadler put together a legal staff that has accused Mr. Trump of transgressions outside the Ukraine storyline. Lawyers Norman Eisen and Barry H. Berke have depicted Mr. Trump as a criminal and liar involved in several conspiracies. They wrote that Trump people could be implicated in Russian online trolling and for “aiding and abetting” computer hacking.

Nadler also has been investigating whether the President obstructed justice in the Mueller probe, but did not include that offense in his impeachment articles. Mueller brought no conspiracy charges against any Trump ally.

Nadler has not announced an end to these probes.

“Just because President Trump has been acquitted by the Senate, paradoxically that doesn’t mean the congressional investigations will end,” J.D. Gordon, a Trump campaign national security adviser said. “The House committees will keep on pursuing obstruction allegations related to Trump-Russia, and keep digging for new details on Trump-Ukraine. That’s in addition to their wide-ranging probes on his taxes, bank loans, and financial history. Plus, anything else that might help build a case in the media for a historic second impeachment. There is nothing stopping them.”

Meanwhile, the Rest of the Dems?

A growing number of House Democrats seem to have abandoned their ongoing investigation into the Trump administration’s official dialogue with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Fewer Democrats have made new witness requests and filed subpoenas since the Senate impeachment trial acquitted President Donald Trump of abusing power and obstructing justice on Feb. 5.

The lack of interest in continuing the probe came even though the Democratic Party had claimed the president’s foreign policy was risking national security and the integrity of the next general election to be held on Nov. 3.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) suggested his fellow party members have moved on the belief the president cannot be found guilty of abusing power and obstructing justice.

“There is nothing that Donald Trump can do that would cause Senate Republicans to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said, according to Fox News. “So that has caused everybody in the House to take a deep breath and figure out what our next steps are.”

Democrats also appear to have noticed the results of a recent Gallup poll that revealed support for the president and Republican Party has soared, following the recent appointment of Vice President Mike Pence to a new task force handling the nation’s response to the novel coronavirus.

“A poll says that 77 percent of U.S. adults have confidence in their government’s ability to handle the coronavirus (number one) compared to other health threats,” the president said on Twitter. “Confidence was 64 percent for zika, 58 percent for ebola others way down on the list.”

The president believes the poll results also show health professionals are doing a “great job.”

“Gallup poll numbers on the handling of this situation are outstanding, the best,” he said on Twitter. “Thank you.”

These results prompted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to concede he expects the incumbent president to defeat the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee on Election Day.

“The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,” he said.

Schiff also hinted he regretted focusing too much on Russia instead of delivering results for people living in his Californian district.

“As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we do not have to fight Russia here,” he said.

Summary

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the coronavirus would be the “thing” that would wreck Democrats’ impeachment Part Two hopes to rid the nation of a “President” Donald Trump? Keep that thought in the back of your mind. Why?

  1. Democrats need a “foil” — an excuse with which they thought they could morph it into Articles of Impeachment.
  2. They thought they had one: “President Trump has shirked his responsibilites as Commander in Chief by not taking steps in time to prepare the Nation for coronavirus. His lack of vision and knowledge of how to govern cannot be allowed to stand. He’s already shown the world he’ll attack any foreign adversary that has angered him taking no thought of its potential damage to Americans. Now he’s letting a pandemic sweep across the country while telling us all not to panic!” (It isn’t working)
  3. Americans have awakened to the hypocrisy of the Left: African-Americans, Latinos, wealthy, middle class, Christians, Jews, Muslims, native-born and immigrants have realized that his promises are steadily making life better for Americans — ALL Americans. They, for the first time in a long time peering through the veil of elitism and the propaganda of the Press and are rejecting the lies.

The Left is in panic mode. They’ve tried everything they could think of to take Trump down. But they forgot about one crucial factor: Americans. They have exposed what the Ruling Class thinks of you and me. They believe we’re if not dumb, a bit slow: at least slower than are they. They feel we trust them without question. That is because, for decades, many Americans did and did so blindly.

We at TruthNewsNetwork told you the first day we went live two years ago with our podcast that we would always give you the truth. We understand that all you need are facts. Facts tell the story — the entire story! That’s something we have seldom heard from Washington in a long time. We have been spoon-fed just the tidbits they want us to have: just enough to keep us reliant on them.

They have had us blinded. Every day they realize Americans have slowly awakened and are now in rapidly growing numbers recognizing the differences between propaganda and facts. President Trump’s clear message to Americans has opened the doors of political consciousness among the U.S. citizenry that has slept for many years. And Democrats and those farther left are petrified to know that now WE KNOW!

You Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Will Set You Free

Play

Presidential Endorsements: Media Failed Again

One would think that the mega-media newspapers in the nation would have every necessary resource from which to draw to give the public educated and accurate predictions of election outcomes. And if you read or listen to them toot their own horns, you know for certain THEY know it all in this political game! But, once again, the Lamestream Media stepped on their dresses with their pre-Super Tuesday endorsements. And they missed miserably.

“It’s too early to say they missed with their endorsements!” No, it’s not: the candidates they endorsed to win have withdrawn from the contest!

Why do newspapers make endorsements at all?

I’ve always thought it’s kind of weird that newspapers endorse candidates. The rest of the time they report the news and maybe print a few opinion pieces, all the time claiming objectivity and neutrality. Then, every few years, they take up at least a full page to explain why they think you should vote for a particular person. Why does anybody do it?

Some major newspapers have ended the practice. David Haynes of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explained why his paper stopped endorsing candidates: “It really boils down to this notion of independence. We work very hard each day to provide a balance of views on our pages and on our website increasingly and mobile devices as well. And we work hard to be open-minded and approach issues that we’re going to editorialize on independently. We pull good ideas from both major schools of political thought, and we’re pragmatic. We back ideas we think will work. Ideology is really immaterial.
 So then, we do all that for 364 days of the year and turn around and choose sides in a bitter partisan election? I think that tends to undermine this whole idea of independence, and it really undermines this idea of being an honest broker of opinion. Again, that forum, that’s our real mission. The editorial is a part of that.”

He is on to something; distrust of the media is at an all-time high in the United States. One 2018 study found that many of those surveyed blamed bias. You can’t help but wonder if part of that is because newspapers waste their credibility by endorsing a candidate with one hand and then claiming not to be biased in their reporting with the other.

Newspaper endorsements have been a “big deal” for a long time. That has never interpreted into election success, however.

Remember Gretchen Carlson, former morning co-host of Fox and Friends on the FOX News channel? She piped in on this years ago and her words still ring true:

Maybe Readers Feel Newspapers no Longer Report the News

For the last 100 years or so the opinion and editorial sections of every major newspaper have been completely separate entities. The people who decide who to endorse report to different people than do the journalists who write the news. The journalists often don’t know who is getting endorsed until you do.

However, despite those who adamantly justify endorsements by their papers (on which many of those explainers write opinions and endorsements), many people still fail to grasp this fact. The mass belief by the public of this misunderstanding is why USA Today doesn’t endorse anybody — at least they did not UNTIL 2016 when they endorsed Hillary Clinton. Maybe that endorsement was just of “whoever ran against Donald Trump.”

Rather than speculate at the reasoning for newspaper endorsements, I find it easier to simply analyze those who are the pundits who MAKE these endorsements. Most often they are editors, columnists from the paper, and sometimes even publishers who weigh-in. Americans are not so vapid to the political persuasions of those who opine their politics through editorial endorsements — and ALL endorsements are editorial, opinion-based declarations.

Case in point: The Shreveport TIMES is owned by Gannett — a newspaper mega-conglomerate. Shreveport nestled in the pines of northwest Louisiana is a largely conservative community. Louisiana has for a longtime been a red state — especially the northern parts of the state. One would think that the newspaper of a city and sector of a Southern state that bleeds bright red would make an endorsement based on what the paper knows is the choice of the majority of its subscribers. I do not remember a state or national election in the last decade in which The Shreveport TIMES endorsed a Republican. By the way, not a single editor in the paper is from this area and all in their other writings lean left.

I for decades have tried to understand the reasoning for doing so. Maybe Gannett doesn’t care about the leanings of a majority in the Shreveport market. Or maybe they don’t know the leanings in the market! One would think it would be certain suicide for a newspaper to do such over and over with no concern for the newspaper’s subscribers’ opinions regarding any endorsement.

Maybe that’s why the paid circulation of the paper has reportedly dwindled to 50% of its former self. Of course, they maintain it’s because of online instant news access.

Do you want a look at the newspaper endorsements for 2020  presidential candidates before Super Tuesday?

Did you notice the New York Times endorsements? They endorsed two candidates, which has never been done before. Those two, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, certainly knew that endorsement was probably the kiss of death.

But it’s not just the Big Apple paper. Look at those from other major markets that jumped out picking winners and losers: The Charlotte Post and Boston Herald endorsed Michael Bloomberg. The Boston Globe endorsed hometown Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Klobuchar wiped up on endorsements. In addition to the co-endorsement from the New York Times with Elizabeth Warren, She knocked home runs with the nod from the Las Vegas Sun, Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, and Seattle Times. Mayor Pete racked up the endorsements of El Paso Times and Orlando Sentinel.

It may have been because of his extreme socialistic views, but Bernie Sanders received an endorsement from just one large newspaper, The San Francisco Bay Guardian.

None of these endorsements made a difference — at least not in the Super Tuesday primaries.

So why do you think voters ditched the ideas and choices of the nation’s leading newspapers and voted for the only real moderate in the field while spurning the nomination of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist? I can certainly answer that question, and I will. But, understand, what I’m about to say is pure speculation. Granted I have significant data to prove it. But of late, data and evidence in America don’t seem to be very valuable.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out to you that in the 2016 election, of the top 25 polling news sources, only one — just one — correctly predicted Donald Trump’s win in the presidential election. And it was NOT a bastion of big time news organizations. It does not have correspondents covering the international major cities or even U.S. major cities. In fact, it’s not even a newspaper. It’s a university journalism department: that of University of Southern California — the only one who predicted a Trump 2016 victory.

Summary

Here’s the problem that newspapers today face regarding whether or not to make endorsements for presidential candidates. Even though most editorial page editors insist an endorsement is NOT a recommendation for readers to vote for that candidate, most readers don’t believe that. Most of those readers feel that’s exactly what the paper is doing! If that’s not the purpose, what could their purpose be?

In my humble opinion, there’s only one other option: newspaper editors are a dying breed — leftovers from a news era in which newspapers really did reflect the senses of those in their respective communities. There was no internet, no social media, no news but theirs and that from the three television broadcast networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC.

I remember a day not too long ago when every morning, my Jack Russell couldn’t wait for me to open the front door and run to the street with me to fetch our daily newspaper. That was less than a decade ago. By the same time each day that my dog and I formerly made the paper trek, today I’ve already read the morning news from about 20 different online news sources, including that from the three local network television stations and our local news radio station, all online. And I can say I have NO clue who our newspaper endorsed in our November governor’s race nor the mayoral race either. I really don’t care. I’m not one who has ever put much stock in the opinions of editors. I’ve always felt my opinion was just about as valid as theirs. But I had one thing they never had and never will: my perspective. 

After the Super Tuesday endorsement gaffes made by so many newspapers around the nation, I wonder if they’ll back out of the endorsement game for November? Surely they’ve learned they’re going to be wrong at least half the time and hack-off the readers they still have half the time by endorsing. Why not just let their readers (who all have high-speed internet and social media accounts) make their voting decisions based on the facts their paper publishes regarding each candidate in each important race? 

They can’t do that. After all, Americans are generally too lazy to find out on their own who the best candidates are for specific offices. That’s why we have CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Whoopi Goldberg. We need somebody — ANYBODY — to tell us what to think!

Bullet Points: Saturday, March 7, 2020

We could publish bullet point headlines for weeks using just stories that have developed during the last week! Fortunately, we’ve every day published the top stories of the day. Not surprisingly, they all seem to originate in Washington, D.C. Today’s offering is no different. Let’s get started.

Bullet Points

  • Americans love to travel internationally. It’s really neat to grow up in a great country that is huge and so diverse. But it’s wonderful with an opportunity to take-off and see some of the rest of the world. But now, not so much. Long trips on commercial jets are now not only expensive but dangerous. How dangerous? No one knows for certain. But in close quarters with people who you don’t know for hours, the fear of coronavirus is making people think twice and even three or four times. Do you know who takes the biggest hit in all this? The airlines. Get that picture specifically about Southwest Airlines. For complete details click arrow:
  • Coronavirus is certainly front-and-center in every news report from every news reporting outlet across the World. How to prevent its spread, how to cure its infected, and how to treat those exposed to the virus but have not yet been diagnosed are consuming medical professionals and politicians and government officials in almost every nation. China found a way to insert non-humans in this process to eradicate coronavirus in hospitals — robots! For complete details, click arrow:
  • SuperStores in the UK have found a NEW way to ensure shoppers don’t bring coronavirus into those stores when shopping. COSTCO in London just sprays everyone with a disinfectant liquid as they come into the store! For complete details with a video, click arrow:
  • What is essential for every person, no matter in what country one resides? You gotta’ have toilet paper! In the recent hoopla in Venezuela where the world has watched in horror as its citizens are fighting for food and other basic survival needs. One thing they miss that is common with coronavirus panic is toilet paper. And in the coronavirus worries about food and necessary items, toilet paper has become a hot commodity — worldwide. For complete details, click arrow:
  • U.S. scientists are reported to be just days away from finding a vaccine for coronavirus. Finding that vaccine and getting it through clinical trials and approved for public consumption by the FDA is NOT just days away. Estimates now are from 12 to 24 months before it reaches all Americans. However, in the rush to find solutions, there is one method of producing vaccines that has historically been effective at facilitating that process: Blood Plasma. It just might do the trick to effectively treat the virus. For complete details, click arrow:
  • We’ve all watched this week as the coronavirus scare has attacked the Stock Markets here and abroad. The uncertainty of its financial impact on every segment of society has Market watchers glued to news reports grasping for any tidbit of news that might expose either good or bad coronavirus news to give them a chance to save or make a dollar or two. No one gave much attention to the monthly employment report expected this week was just assuming it would be bad because of the viral impact. Imagine to everyone’s surprise the Labor report brought fantastic news! For complete details, click arrow:
  • Four Democrat presidential contenders dropped out of the White House race this past week. Although Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is still in, no one has seen or heard from her in a week or so. All this means it looks to be a heads-up race between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and former VP Joe Biden for the Democrat Party nomination. Sanders going into Super Tuesday seemed to be a shoo-in for the nomination. But voters from ten states showed their lack of excitement of support for Bernie’s love for Socialism and gave Biden their delegate votes. Where do we go from here? Who looks to be in the best shape to win in Milwaukee in July at the Democrat Convention? For complete details, click arrow:
  • It’s no secret that even though being a network anchor carries a huge responsibility to not just communicate facts, know and understand facts that one is about to give to an audience. Mike Bloomberg spent millions of dollars on advertising for Super Tuesday. He did that after spending twice as much previously on campaign ads. MSNBC’s lead anchor — Brian Williams — lost some math skills in joining an on-air guest to explain precisely what Bloomberg’s spending meant in comparison to average American’s income. For complete details, click arrow:
  • New York City Mayor Bill deBlasio has orchestrated major measures for law enforcement to take it easier on crimes in the city. Criminals in the city paid attention to those changes, and, in the last year, have done what most Americans expected would happen with all of his changes: increase their illegal actions. In February, crime as compared to that in February of 2019 soared. For complete details, click arrow:
  • Another whistleblower is in the news. An insider from Washington D.C.’s police department has come forward with evidence of a concerted effort for D.C. police to downgrade the nature of actual crimes in their reports. In other words, crimes, as reported in D.C., have been much more serious than as reported. For complete details, click arrow:

Summary

Folks, it’s full speed ahead in politics all the way through November. I promise there will be something new every day and something explosive every two or three days. Democrats find themselves back in a corner: Republicans control the White House and Senate and appear to be on target for a repeat. They are deathly afraid they’ll lose the House, too.

Lock-in on TruthNewsNetwork. We’ve launched into the all-ahead mode and will be there through the elections. (We put an “s” on that because there’s not just one election, but hundreds at federal, state and local levels)

If you have suggestions or questions for which you need answers or suggestions, don’t hesitate to share with us. You can post in the comments section or send to us privately at Partner@TruthNewsNet.org. Your input is appreciated. We respect the opinions of all who look and listen-in.

Thanks for being a part of this!

Dan

Two-Tiered Political Justice: For Elites and “Us”

You can have stark differences with the President. That’s easy for many to do. But one thing that cannot be said about him is that he runs from a fight. No one in my life in any White House has worked so diligently to expose the corruption among Washington elites. Yes, they exist. Yes, there is a Deep State. Yes, Their justice under federal law is different from mine. If you want to argue that point, pull up a chair. There are far too many specific examples for me to share with you than you think exist. We’re going to be here a while.

Americans believe that the two-tiered justice system has existed for a long time. But no one has been able to nail it down. Or maybe we haven’t seen proof of it because no one WANTED to nail it down. (The latter is probably correct) Want some recent examples?

  • Attorney General Eric Holder. When Obama took office, the DOJ had already launched a very public investigation into the racial election intimidation by two Black Panthers in a wealthy, mostly white suburb of Philadelphia. The two on election day stood in front of the door to the polling precinct in full militant garb. Voters were petrified. The Bush DOJ ramped up that investigation. Holder, on orders from the NEW president, terminated the case. Was it racial? You be the judge. But it certainly was an example of two-tiered justice.
  • FBI Director James Comey. The fact that he lied several times while under oath is uncontroverted. Additionally, he leaked classified information purposely to a “friend” for the express purpose of leaking it to the press. His doing that was a felony. Comey was severely chastised in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report for numerous offenses while in office. He committed federal crimes — no charges made, no investigation, no charges pending.
  • Hillary Clinton. She transmitted for several years classified emails to and from numerous government officials using an illegal personal server that had not been registered with the State Department, had not been examined by State Department IT officials, and was not certified for use regarding classified information. Each instance of an email being sent or received on that server was a felonious action.
  • Barack Obama. That Clinton email server? Obama, during his presidency, corresponded using a secret Gmail email name. He frequently sent to and received from Ms. Clinton classified emails — dozens if not hundreds. Again, each such transmission broke a federal felony statute.
  • Andrew McCabe. The former FBI #2 was outed in the Horowitz investigation for lying to investigators. Horowitz referred McCabe for prosecution. A grand jury looked at the charges and investigated. Nothing happened for several years, and subsequently, the case was dropped.
  • John Brennan. Brennan, as CIA Director, lied while under oath in his Senate testimony. When asked by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), if the CIA had ever electronically surveilled members of the Senate, he answered they had not. It was later proven the CIA did just that and did it with not only Brennan’s knowledge but at his direction.

We could keep going throwing out names of past members of the government, several members of Congress, and numerous individuals that worked for the government but not in appointed positions. That list is exhaustive. There’s no need for us to do that. We all now know — especially after three years of the Mueller Investigation replete with constant lies and misrepresentations — members of the federal government, for the most part, get different and very partial treatment regarding being held accountable for illegal actions on their part.

This once again became front and center with the craziness of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday when he with a bullhorn spoke to a crazed crowd in anger regarding a case the Court heard at that exact moment. The case was regarding a Louisiana law that requires all doctors who conduct abortions in the state have Admitting Status with a hospital close to the abortion clinic being used. The law’s purpose is to mandate immediate medical help for anyone that requires emergency treatment as a result of the abortion.

Schumer using the bullhorn threatened Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh if they chose to support that law. If you didn’t see or hear those few words of his threat, here it is again:

The current Senate Minority leader threatened the two Justices — an unprecedented act committed by the Number two U.S. Senator.

Thursday, on the floor of the Senate, all expected an apology from Schumer. He did NOT apologize. He gave “reasons” for his saying so — “excuses.” One could easily reconcile that Schumer was caught-up in a heated political demonstration about the most polarizing political policy in American history — abortion –, but that would be disingenuous. By federal statute, he broke the law in making those threats.

We at TruthNewsNetwork decided to turn to a professional — a lawyer AND a sitting member in the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA). He had some very enlightening things to say about not only Sen. Schumer’s actions, but the current state of “Equal Justice Under the Law” in the U.S. Click on the link below to hear Congressman Mike Johnson answer my questions:

Click Here

Summary

Congressman Johnson more than just agrees our justice system is in danger. He also agrees that we have problems that are evident, serious, and need to be addressed. He lives in the mess we call “The Swamp” and knows first-hand how the elitest tags given to certain people who are part of the Swamp allow them to live and abide by different rules than other Americans.

All the wrongdoing listed above by those political insiders will NEVER be prosecuted!

Just imagine if you were James Comey, Eric Holder, Andrew McCabe or even Chuck Schumer and you did just one of the many things those were guilty of. If you did, you’d spend a long time in jail! This is not the way this nation was founded. In fact, our leaders through decades have let the sharp edges of Justice carve out specific guidelines called “Laws” by which we are governed and by which we live. They prayed our nation would never slip into the merry-go-round of partisanship in which we find ourselves today.

Thankfully, it has been exposed. That is the beginning of getting this issue resolved.

Remember this: it did not happen quickly — it will not be repaired quickly. Patience is not much of a virtue for many of us. But our opinions on timing are immaterial. It is OUR responsibility to remind our government members of their commitments to the Rule of Law. And if they continue to perpetuate that second tier of justice, we need to at the ballot box remove them from their power seat and replace them with those who will honor their oaths of office and complete the restoration of our nation to a Justice for All America!

Play

Hillary Ordered to Court & Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices!

Seldom do we get two such compelling stories at the same time — especially involving a former Secretary of State and presidential candidate, but the Senate Minority Leader. But they’re both here in the TruthNewsNetwork bullseye.

Hillary in Trouble

This goes all the way back to the FBI’s “investigation,” if you can call it that, into the misuse of her private email server in transmitting and receiving classified emails from a host of government officials. And we thought the “Hillary 2016 Madness” was over!

It stems from alleged security breaches involving a former foreign policy adviser to former President Barack Obama.  They will be revisited in court after a judge agreed to allow further questioning on March 2.

D.C. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth has granted a request from conservative nonprofit Judicial Watch to order Hillary Clinton to deliver a sworn deposition about allegations the former secretary of state used a private email address to handle official government matters.

The approval came despite Clinton’s claim that she should not be required to answer the allegations since she had already done so, and no charges were made against the Democratic presidential candidate for the 2016 general election.

“As extensive as the existing record is, it did not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct [U.S.] State Department business,” Lamberth said. “Those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. , put her responses left many more questions than answers.”

The main point of contention is there is no way to confirm exactly how the former secretary of state came to the understanding the State Department would protect her private emails. She “assumed” record management employees working for the department knew her private email server. They had no such knowledge and had not (as was required) tested and approved that private server.

It was also unclear how Clinton could argue that using a private server to perform State Department business was not against the law. Think about it: not only was the Secretary’s emails sent and received with NO internet security at all, President Obama using a private Gmail address communicated with her on that same server. That means his emails were “up for grabs” by anyone who could grab them. And numerous 14-year-old U.S. computer hackers could do so with NO difficulty. Imagine what the Chinese and Russians were able to do.

The judge was also not in favor of allowing Clinton to answer questions in writing because there was no guarantee the method would not “muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind.”

“It would also fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further,” he said.

The court has also allowed Judicial Watch to subpoena Google for documents and records that might shed light on Clinton’s email activity. At the same time, she was secretary of state between the years 2009 and 2013.

The judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s earlier explanation that the court has enough evidence to decide whether the state performed an “adequate search.”

“This claim is preposterous, especially when considering state’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails,” Lamberth said according to a statement. “Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The court is especially troubled by this.”

Judicial Watch welcomed the judge’s decision and hopes revisiting the case will provide answers in the public interest.

Judicial Watch uncovered the Clinton email scandal, and we are pleased that the court authorized us to depose Mrs. Clinton directly on her email conduct and how it impacted the people’s ‘right to know’ under Freedom of Information Act,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in the statement.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): A Felony?

Wednesday, as the Supreme Court heard arguments about a Louisiana case, Sen. Schumer in front of the Court ranted, raved, and threatened Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. You make a determination for yourself if his words are actual threats:

It was so disturbing, it prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to respond to Schumer saying,

“This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

It quickly became apparent that Schumer committed a “boo-boo.” His office released a response to Justice Roberts in the form of a memo:

“Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,” Goodman claimed. “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”

What does the Law Say?

Threatening government officials of the United States is a felony under federal law. According to the federal statutes, there are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another. Schumer’s rant was definitely made in public and seen on television and online, (“transmission in interstate commerce”) He definitely threatened both justices, (“a communication containing the threat”). The only question is about section iii, “must be a threat to injure the person of another.” This statement may add clarity to this: “In determining what constitutes a true threat, the courts hold that what must be proved is that a reasonable recipient of the communication would consider it a threat under the circumstances.”

The bottom line is that a court would be the true arbiter of whether Schumer actually broke the law. His staff rushed to issue a response to the Chief Justice to prevent any legal action being instigated. But their statement is riddled with lies. He did not refer to the Republican Party or Congress. He waved over his head at the Supreme Court building!

Summary

We have two serious incidents we are looking at today: committed by former Senator, former Secretary of State, and two-time presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader. Hillary is facing a judge (for the first time) for her gross mishandling of classified top secret communications with dozens of senior government officials, one of whom was President of the United States. Schumer actually threatened what could only be physical action against Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Both indeed deny any wrongdoing. But who would expect less than that from the pair? Both surely knew when conducting their business in such a fashion that they were in the wrong. Hillary used the secret server to prevent her electronic communications from being part of the trove of official State Department documents. Schumer was being Schumer: a proud, arrogant elitist who acts out daily his role as being above the Law. Neither feels any responsibility for their actions being wrong. They both made horribly egregious actions on their part ordinary in each situation.

And these were and are two of the most influential people in Washington!

I love communications today — especially the ability for us to see and hear items of importance as they happen 24/7. “Swamp People” who feel they own Washington are almost daily exposed for their actions that are at least disgraceful and possibly illegal — over and over and over. And they don’t care how it impacts all Americans.

You can bet we are just scratching the surface of the evil in Washington. I’m confident that President Trump knew of wrongdoing in D.C. before his inauguration. I bet he had NO idea how deep was the Swamp and evil are the “Swamp People!” As critters who live in the Swamp are prone to do, these are daily fighting the guy who is committed to rid the Swamp of all the critters who live there. Their methods so far have failed. And he keeps peeling back the layers of the onion, revealing more and more of the horrors lying beneath.

Will Hillary survive this trip to the Judge’s whipping chamber? Will Schumer skate from his not-so-subtle veiled threats against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

Answer: If you did any of the things alleged of Hillary or if you on a bullhorn standing in front of the Supreme Court said what Schumer said, you’d awaken in jail tomorrow and every other tomorrow for years to come. Hillary and Chuck are bureaucratic and liberal stars in the Swamp. If anything happens to them, it will be the first such REAL legal action to be taken against any “Swamp People” in my recent memory.

Clinton and Schumer should be held accountable for breaking federal laws and committing felonies. Clinton and Schumer MUST be held accountable: “Equal Justice under the Law.”

Is it really Equal?

Play