For The Greater Good?

It is common knowledge that the Left in America feel the country is in a downward spin socially, economically, environmentally, in healthcare, immigration, and foreign policy in the Trump Administration. It is also common knowledge that the Left in America is beyond absolute certainty that “They” have all the answers for any and all of the absurd policies thrust on Americans by the Trump Administration.

But who is to determine if The Trump Administration is correct or is the Left?

Great news: IT’S US!

As of this moment, we have not seen any solution from the Left to right the great ship America which, by their definition, is sinking with Donald Trump at the helm. And the Left demands a new captain. Right now there are 20 Leftists who each feel they are the best “hire” to replace the guy now in charge. But, as of today, not one of the 20 has offered any tangible package of proposed solutions to “fix” all those horrible Trump policies. But they claim their’s —whatever they are — will make America the great ship she once was and they think should be once more. AND, they each claim they are the best qualified to bring to Americans all the “things” that are “For The Greater Good.”

So, Let’s look closer.

Economically: Tax Cuts

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of all Americans received a tax cut under TCJA, averaging approximately $2,200. Tax rates are lower at every single income level, especially those at low-to-middle income levels, with 80.4 percent earners receiving a tax cut––including 91.3 percent of the middle class–– while only 4.8 percent of the population saw their taxes go up, most of which are higher-income earners living in high-tax states.

In addition to the analysis from the Tax Policy Center, H&R Block recently reported that the average taxpayer saved roughly 25 percent on their tax bill and that refunds are up 1.4 percent compared to last year. These savings happened because the TCJA let families keep more of their money through a doubled child tax credit, doubled the standard deduction, and lower rates across the board. Those changes combined with bold pro-growth cuts to the corporate tax rate, estate tax or “death tax”, alternative minimum tax, and creation of a new 20% small business deduction have increased take-home pay for families and improved the economy.

BUT….Take what then-House Minority Leader now Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicted about TCJA when she said passage would mean “Armageddon” for America and that the bill “is probably one of the worst bills in the history of the United States of America.” Or when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman guaranteed a “global recession, with no end in sight.”  The unrepentant gaslighting that has taken place over tax reform is rooted in dividing Americans for political gain or more clicks, rather than reporting facts.

Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and former VP Joe Biden want to dump the Trump tax cuts. In fact, Kamala Harris said she would repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “on day one.”

Harris said:  “On day one, we gonna repeal that tax bill that benefited the top one percent and the biggest corporations in this country. Get rid of the whole thing,” Harris said.

Economically: “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

Remember James Carville making the above statement during Bill Clinton’s campaign for his second term? He was asked if the Clinton impeachment would be THE reason voters rejected Mr. Clinton. In response, he made his famous statement above. And Clinton won re-election.

Those 20 Dem candidates are wanting to replace the Trump Economic Agenda. Hmm…..

As of 4/30/2019, The U.S. has:

  • lowest African American unemployment in history.
  • The lowest unemployment among Women.
  • The overall US unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent in April 2019 from 3.8 percent in the previous month, below market expectations of 3.8 percent. It was the lowest jobless rate since December 1969.
  • Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates declined in April for adult men (3.4 percent), adult women (3.1 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Asians (2.2 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent). The jobless rates for teenagers (13.0 percent) and Blacks (6.7 percent) showed little or no change. Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 186,000 over the month to 2.7 million.
  • Hourly wages increased 3.2 percent over April of 2018.
  • Gross Domestic Product in the first quarter of 2019 blew the doors off expectations: 3.2% was well ahead of the consensus 2.3% estimated, which itself had been cranked up from the sub-1% expectations many analysts had been expecting prior to Q1 earnings season. 2019’s First Quarter GDP was the strongest Q1 read since the 3.3% we saw in 2015.

Healthcare: “Medicare For All”

The President in the 2017 Congress backed the repeal and replacement of Obamacare — the current healthcare FINANCE plan that has cripple American healthcare. One last-minute vote by former Arizona Senator John McCain prevented the House-passed version to go the Senate floor for debate. The House bill (and the President’s promise to voters during the 2016 campaign) was dead at the hands of a few Republicans. However, as the cost to Americans of Obamacare continue to skyrocket, a conservative healthcare plan is set to be rolled out after the 2020 election if not sooner. In the meantime, 2020 candidates are pushing hard for the largest and many say the most egregious legislative item in U.S. History: Medicare for All. The cost of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-VT) bill? $32 Trillion over 10 years. (Sanders proposed the plan years before did Alexandria Ocasio Cortez)

First, the plan. Just a few bullet point mentions of what we KNOW Medicare for All would do:

  • Rationed Healthcare for All. An immediate shortage of physicians would occur because of the massive reductions in payments for services by doctors, who would run for the exit to new careers. Just like as in the U.K and Canada, patients would find themselves waiting for months for a heart procedure, knee replacement, or eye surgeries. Though U.S. Leftists rail against claims of a “Death Panel” that might be installed in such a plan, that would probably occur. There would be (because of healthcare finance reductions) unelected bureaucrats — not patients with their doctors as is the practice today — determining which patients should receive certain procedures, including some life-and-death procedures.
  • Costs. The unbelievable costs for such a plan would be astronomical. All Americans would be covered with medical costs being paid by the government. Where does the government get that money? Higher taxes. Tax revenue in our government would have to be more than doubled to pay for healthcare costs. That means the average American taxpayer would see their federal income tax bill increase by approximately 150%. That’s above the astronomical premium increases under Obamacare — sometimes doubled — when Obama promised the average premium cost per U.S. family would be reduced by $2500 per year.

There is no doubt there needs to be financial changes in our healthcare system — but not at the expense of destroying American healthcare.

Immigration

”We HAVE a crisis at the southern border.” President Trump

We are on track to the apprehension of more than 1 million illegals this year crossing our southern border. Add that to whatever the number of those who Border Patrol agents do NOT apprehend that get in! Imagine what that number is. But……

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro doubts there’s a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border so much he’s calling it “B.S.” When asked about the growing situation of immigrants trying to enter to the U.S. illegally and the president mulling closing the southern border temporarily, Castro tossed it aside.

“I don’t believe their narrative,” he said. “I don’t believe the B.S. that women and children who are fleeing dangerous circumstances present a national security threat to this country.”

Who knows for certain how many illegals are in the U.S. today? Estimates range from 10 to 60 million. Either number would be a travesty. Regardless of what you hear, the drain on the entire U.S. national infrastructure is happening at a far too rapid pace just because of massively increased numbers drawing from those resources. Public schools, criminal justice, subsidized food, healthcare, and housing, cost the U.S. today billions of dollars. Our social system is stretched to the max.

But then there’s the obvious thought: “Aren’t those who cross into our country illegal breaking the law?” 

Environment

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated factually that the World as we know would be over in 12 years unless we immediately initiated plans to do away with all fossil fuels, make every building in the U.S. green efficient, do away with cars, airplanes, and jets, and find ways to stop cows from farting. 19 of the Democrat candidates for President have signed-on to that deal. AOC’s Green New Deal is being touted as the only solution to emissions problems for the U.S. and that they’re fatal.

Then there’s this: the U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are at their lowest levels since 1950. 2017 U.S. per capita CO2 emissions were 15.8 metric tons per person, their lowest levels in 67 years. Overall U.S. carbon emissions are at their lowest levels since 1992 and have declined 13 percent since 2005.

But according to the Green New Deal’s author, we are all to become extinct in 12 years without the deal. It’s cost? $72 Trillion.

Where do the candidates stand?

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted “I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal proposal. We must address the existential crisis of planetary climate change.”
  • Sen. Cory Booker likened the GND to fighting Nazis and going to the Moon.
  • Sen. Kamala Harris, via C-SPAN: “We have to have goals. It’s a resolution that requires us to have goals and think about what we can achieve and put metrics on it.”
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that she is “excited” to back the GND after initially saying she backed the general “idea” of it.
  • Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “I see it as aspirational, I see it as a jump-start. So I would vote yes, but I would also if it got down to the nitty-gritty of actual legislation as opposed to, ‘Oh, here are some goals we have,’ that would be different for me.”
  • Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand: “It’s got this aspirational goal of net zero carbon emissions in ten years.”

Foreign Policy

Trump’s shortlist of Foreign Policy achievements:

  • Leaving or announcing intention to leave globalist agreements, including the UN Population Fund, Global Compact on Migration, Paris climate agreement, and UNESCO.
  • Reducing U.S. contributions to the UN and challenging other NATO states to increase their contributions.
  • Reversing the Obama Administration’s lenient Cuba policy.
  • Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
  • Leaving or announcing intention to leave the United Nations Human Rights Council, Global Compact for Refugees, Iran nuclear deal, and the Universal Postal Union, and taking a tough stance against the International Criminal Court.
  • Giving another strong pro-sovereignty speech at the UN General Assembly.
  • Taking steps to reduce foreign aid when not in U.S. interests, such as to Pakistan and the PLO.
  • Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  • Taking an increasingly tough stance on China, criticizing South Africa’s leftist land policy, and promoting ties with Latin America’s conservative leaders.
  • Created a coalition which has all but eliminated ISIS.

For The Greater Good?

Tax Cuts. Do they really want to repeal those tax cuts that have put more money back in the pockets of Americans and increased wages 3.2%? Yes, they do.

Employment. Do they really want to do away with the Trump policies that have dropped unemployment to historical lows and put more Americans in the workforce than ever before in history? Yes, they do.

Immigration. Do they really want to abolish ICE, do away with border patrol, and allow the continued massive increases in illegals coming into the U.S. costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year? Do they really want open borders which effectively is no borders? Yes, they do.

Healthcare. Do they really want Medicare for All which will result in certain rationed care, long waits for things as simple as X-rays and heart caths, sometimes as long as 1 year and cost $32 Trillion? Yes, they do.

Environment. Do they really want the Green New Deal at the price of $72 Trillion that will take away all cars and airplanes, all fossil fuels, mandate 100% clean energy-efficient buildings throughout the U.S. and create massive tax increases on all Americans? Yes, they do.

Foreign Policy. Do they really want the amazing foreign relationships Trump has rebuilt with the numerous American allies that under Obama had been destroyed to be eliminated to be replaced by the Obama “American Apology Policy” with no trust in the U.S.? Yes, they do.

Summary

Each of the Left’s announced candidates promises to (if elected) overturn each of the policies implemented in the Trump presidency. Why? Doing so — according to each of them — would be better for every American than those in place today.

“For The Greater Good” is a phrase that Gellert Grindelwald used to justify his horrific actions in the 1940s global wizarding war and it was engraved over the entrance of Nurmengard, the prison he constructed to house those who opposed him. The Leftist candidates claim that doing away with each of those Trump policies would be “For the Greater Good.”

It sounds like Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, California Rep. Eric Swalwell, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Kamala Harris, ex-San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. John Delaney, Miramar, Fla., Mayor Wayne Messam, author Marianne Williamson, and former tech executive Andrew Yang, might all be taking a page from Gellert Grindelwald’s playbook.

In the hearts and minds of most Americans, making such a change would NOT be “For The Greater Good.”

What do I say? In Louisiana we have a special way of responding to that: we say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

Play

Nazism Attacks in U.S. Media

It seems that every time something noteworthy happens that’s good in the Trump Administration, the Mainstream Media call it White Supremacy, Racism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Islamophobia, or Nazism. Americans have become numb to their doing so in 2.5 years. But wait: there’s far more to it all than just benign name-calling. There’s a REAL threat in this against the fiber of America: The United States Constitution. What is it?

Nazism is real…and it doesn’t come from Donald Trump!

There certainly ARE Nazi sympathizers in America. Mostly they are cloaked in secrecy or deception. Their being secret about their political perspective is one thing. But their deception has led to serious threats to America. Let me explain.

Have you ever heard of ANTIFA? The group’s name is meant to be short for “Anti-Fascism.” The 100+ year old group has become a lightning rod for dissidents on the Left looking for justifications to attack conservatism. But there’s a bit of irony there:

If the group is really against the oppression of Fascism and Nazism that historically work hand in hand, WHY WOULD THEIR RIOTING AND DEMONSTRATIONS WOULD ALL HAVE BEEN AGAINST PROPONENTS OF AND FREE SPEECH SPEAKERS AT COLLEGE UNIVERSITIES? At those events, ANTIFA members fight to STOP those supporting the First Amendment! They just like Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy are actually SUPPORTING TOTALITARIANISM in which no citizen has the freedom to say or think anything THEY don’t want thought or said. That is the very definition of FASCISM AND NAZISM!

Hitler’s Control of Germany’s Media

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

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

As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks:

1. To ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party.

2. To ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible.

To ensure success, Goebbels had to work with the SS and Gestapo and Albert Speer. The former hunted out those who might produce articles defamatory to the Nazis and Hitler while Speer helped Goebbels with public displays of propaganda.

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

The same approach was used in films. The Nazis controlled film production. Films released to the public concentrated on certain issues: the Jews; the greatness of Hitler; the way of life for a true Nazi especially children, and as World War Two approached, how badly Germans who lived in countries in Eastern Europe were treated. Leni Riefenstahl was given a free hand in producing Nazi propaganda films. A young film producer, she had impressed Hitler with her ability. It was Riefenstahl who made “Triumph of Will” – considered one of the greatest of propaganda films despite its contents.

Does any of this sound eerily familiar? No, there is no dictator in power or seeking power in the U.S. today — though we often hear the Media falsely claim that Trump wants to be a dictator or a “lifetime American president.” But there certainly are censorship activities underway in the nation: Facebook, because it is a private and not a government entity, has unilateral power to regulate its content. So do Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. Those entities almost daily reveal just how far they lean left with their political ideas. They do not hesitate to pull the posts of conservatives from their sites, block conservative authors, and do so while “saying” they are “in full support of the First Amendment.” They, of course, are rubbing our faces in their claims of protecting “Free Speech” while restricting the free speech of numerous conservatives. (Actor James Woods has been banished from Twitter and Facebook.)

Hitler and Goebbels couldn’t have enacted German censorship any better than these American social networks.

In America, it all began with Donald Trump inventing and calling out “Fake News.”

The Price of “Fake News”

Donald Trump as “Candidate Trump” made famous the term “Fake News.” Of course, every American who heard him say that knew exactly what and who his references were made about. For a very long time, every major media news outlet in the nation has made it quite clear to its audience which side of the political spectrum they lean toward. And for just as long, Americans have known for certain who fits in which mold: Liberal-leaning or Conservative-leaning.

As the media heat quickly came to a boil in 2016, one could almost watch (literally) as every major news organization made it instantly clear (if they had not already) which was Conservative and which was Liberal: pro-Hillary or pro-Trump. And there weren’t many Conservative outlets — and still, aren’t.

And the “Leftist” media outlets have been (and are still) paying a deep price for their reporting — not so much for their news “content,” but rather for their “Leftist mantra.” Let’s define that — better yet, let’s use an example to identify that “mantra:”

“CNN on Friday corrected an erroneous report that Donald Trump Jr. had received advance notice from the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks about a trove of hacked documents that it planned to release during last year’s presidential campaign. In fact, the email to Mr. Trump was sent a day after the documents, stolen from the Democratic National Committee, were made available to the general public.”

One more example of Leftist “mantra:”

“The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump’s recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.

The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year’s 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.

Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.

We could spend all day looking at example after example of the thousands of attacks on conservatives from the Left by today’s media. Of course, there are conservative stories which contain inaccurate stories. Some of those are too “fake” by design. But many times more come from the Left.

The Leftist media inaccuracies are plentiful and mind-boggling — especially because many are unnecessary and so ridiculous that the only reasoning for their issuance MUST be for partisan purposes.

Journalism really IS dying. I can remember a time when a national newspaper printed a story with an error or two the nation was shocked. Of course that newspaper immediately printed a story to either retract the original or correct the record. Not so today.

Sadly though, as this practice of releasing incorrect news stories increases in number, Leftist news outlets themselves have in increasing numbers implemented attacks against — not conservative individuals or groups, but — news outlets that have adopted the practice of reporting from either the center or center-right political perspective. That’s scary! And it’s even getting scarier.

Attacks against Conservative Internet: Staggering

Poynter, the journalism institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online. The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for a journalism organization funded by prominent liberal billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.

Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”

Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.” That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites —  Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.

These sites stood next to conservative organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented baker Jack Phillips in the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. While the ADF is not a news site, it was likely targeted because Golding works for the SPLC. The ADF is considered a “hate group” by the SPLC and is marked on the “hate map.” The Washington Post even questioned SPLC’s “political activism” and “bias.”

SPLC has been dropped by Twitter from its Trust and Safety Council and slammed by the mainstream media after multiple scandals rocked the organization. Its hate map even helped shooter Floyd Lee Corkins find the location of the Family Research Council, where he shot and wounded one person.

Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, liberal billionaire George Soros’ massive foundations, as well as the Omidyar Network. The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.” Funds were sent to Poynter specifically to establish the International Fact-Checking Network. The ‘UnNews’ list was started to help fact-checking organizations determine what was “unreliable.”

That anti-conservative mindset was apparent throughout the incoherent and inconsistent report. Conservative organizations were included throughout but liberal groups rarely were. The National Review and Heritage were removed from the list but Heritage’s Daily Signal was on it. That combined to create a shameless double-standard. It specifically targeted conservative media watchdog groups and didn’t include liberal ones.

The goal of the report is clear. Poynter is recommending that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list. It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete. Golding wrote that, “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”

Poynter has a longstanding history as an anchor in the journalism business. Its board of trustees includes  execs from The New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC, and The Washington Post. Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its fact-checking programs.    

Summary

It’s here, folks! Nazism is alive and thriving in the U.S. Poynter in their publishing of the “undesirable” list of news outlets is a recommendation for readers/listeners to NOT support those news outlets its managers have determined are not worthy.

Let’s assume that Facebook, Twitter, Poynter, and the home of “Fake News” — CNN — with their censorship are honestly doing so for the best interest of Americans. Censoring News, literature, books, etc. because of censoring content IS AN ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! And many Americans today (just like in Hitler’s Germany) are blind to it happening right in front of them.

We encourage you to speak up. There are millions of Americans who have swallowed the Leftist propaganda and really do believe these lies. The fact that Poynter would even contemplate publishing such a list proves that there are journalist and editors who either ignore what their acts are actually doing or are really Nazis trying to imitate the Third Reich in World War II.

It can’t be by chance. It’s for either of the reasons above. OR IT MAY BE BOTH! But it certainly is real….and dangerous.

 

The Truth About All-Things Congressional

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

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

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

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

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

Play

Death By Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whodunit?

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jihadi Terrorists Attacks Outside the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Play

Liberalism vs. Conservatism

Have you ever puzzled over the differences between Liberalism and Conservatism? Make no mistake: there are DRASTIC differences between philosophies and stark differences between Liberals and Conservatives.

I’ve wondered for years myself. Here at TruthNewsNetwork we have written several times about one major difference between Liberals and Conservatives: “When a Conservative disagrees with a political policy of a Liberal, the Conservative doesn’t like the policy. But when a Liberal disagrees with a political policy of a Conservative, the Liberal HATES THE CONSERVATIVE!”

I know that is probably a stretch. But often it seems that way. One thing is certain: Liberals are much more adamant and vocal about their ideas than Conservatives are their own. And Conservatives are more accepting of differences between themselves and Liberals. Those differences are never unseen and certainly are NEVER unheard.

But after diving into research and investigation, we have determined there is a more fundamental reason for these differences. Those differences are layered: some lie deep within one’s soul and intellect while others are closer to the surface and held not so tightly. Some are more visible than others.

What am I talking about?

“In The Beginning”

It is far simpler for people to deal with others if those “others” are part of a group. Certainly, even in a group of people, there are as many differences between those as there are people. But for centuries people have often just grouped people together under one sign. And through the centuries while Man has become more educated, more sophisticated, and more civil regarding social norms, Man has become more committed to put people in groups. Nowhere can this trait be illustrated better than here:

In that incident, a presidential candidate in the 2016 election — Hillary Clinton — created a group in which she put half of the other candidate’s followers: Donald Trump. It is certain that those she put in that group shared at least one thing — support for Mr. Trump. All of those people (and it turned out to be 62 million in total which means “half” by her characterization would be a 31 million member group of ”deplorables”) were simply “one” in Hillary’s mind.

And she wasn’t the first.

Think about it: human nature guides us all to at least perceptually group people who have similar characteristics together: racially, historically, religiously, geographically, spoken language, educational similarity, hobbies, professions, etc. Human nature being what it is leads us to do that. But human nature does NOT automatically grade those in those groups: people do.

Historic “Groups”

In the Bible the groups in similarity were everywhere. Even then people with similarities “hung” together. For the Jewish people, descendants of Ishmael — Abraham’s illegitimate son — became the Arab people. They could not bear Jews and the feeling was reciprocal. In fact, almost without fail, people ALL feel that “their” group is superior to other groups with which they interface.

Remember the Crusades? Almost universally Crusades are remembered as a time when Christians wanted to impose Christianity in the Holy Land. Actually, the “first” Crusades were started by the Muslims in the year 630 A.D. when Muhammad invaded and conquered Mecca. Later on, Muslims invaded Syria, Iraq, Jerusalem, Iran, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Italy, France, etc. all because those ”groups” were different.  The Western Crusades started around 1095 to try to stop the Islamic aggressive invasions.

We’re not here to debate who did what, who was right and who was wrong. We are simply pointing to the history of one group, (that was created by “someone”) that was marked by those of another group, (that too was created by “someone”) and then taking actions  against that “other” group because that group was better than the other.

It’s happened hundreds if not thousands of times.

American History

There had to be an America established before there could be American History. Why did that happen?

In short, in England groups of upper class people (Royals) looked at groups of low class people (Commoners) and treated them in ways that were literally less than humane. Those Commoners had enough. They wanted to seek somewhere else to live that was free from “group society.” They fled to America.

Then they wanted freedom from the tyranny under which they were forced to live even in a New World. As tyranny does, it followed them to their new land and forced its way into their society from the beginning.

They determined to force that group of Royals to give them total independence. It resulted in the American Revolution from which was birthed an independent and free America that became the United States of America.

The U.S. has been embroiled in numerous “group wars” through its history: President Thomas Jefferson actually declared war on the Barbary Pirates. Why? U.S. ships conducting trade with Northern African countries were being attacked and held by the Barbary Pirates for ransom. (Those Pirates were Muslim slave traders.) The American President refused to pay the ransom to mthat “other” group. War decided it.

There was the French and Indian War and the War of 1812. But the greatest example of American “group war” was the Civil War. What were the groups? Those for slavery and those against.

The war was brutal: 600,000 people died. But slavery was put down in the U.S. But the “grouping” never stopped. Those Africans that had been brought to America and were the subject of the Civil War were freed, but in most respects that freedom was just talk. Legally they were free, but were still part of a “group” that was considered by many to be “less than” others. Though slaves were legally free, their “group” was NOT equal in any way. That racial difference and resulting “group think” has kept the difference fires burning for generations. Citizens of the greatest country on Earth can simply not put that war to death.

There are those from one group who have never accepted the Civil War outcome. There are those from the other group who have never felt like the war ended. They react to the other group in many ways, few of which are positive.

Politics

Politics has been with us for who knows how long. Men created it. Why? To draw lines between groups, of course! Politics has played a very significant role in American history, much of which has not been positive for the country. Nevertheless, the differences between people have dictated its perpetuation for generations. And politics is the chief fuel for creating and growing differences between people.

Politically, Conservatives and Liberals have pretty much dominated U.S. politics. (There you go: groups that Men decide who has to be part of which one) Since World War I, the two major political parties have been Republican and Democrat. Though the policies of differences between those in each group have changed in many ways, fundamentally they each have kept a fairly specific core of principles. The party that has mastered the art of grouping and that dwarfs its counterpart in structure and political ideals is the Democrat Party.

Members of the Democrat Party have always excelled in politically acting in group fashion far more than Republicans. Unification in policies, ideals, who’s in and who’s out, who is credible and who is not, who is worthy and who is not, has pretty much over decades remained the responsibility of party leaders.

Republicans on the other hand have operated more independently regarding party structure. They have shared core values for a long time, but there has never been unity as the Democrat Party has.

(We’re not here to discuss specifics of those differences, just to give us basis for the balance of today’s conversation.)

Groups

What are the modern day groups that Democrats and Republicans have created? To be honest there are far more groups than just those created by politicians. But for this conversation we’ll concentrate on those political creations, and only a few of those.

Religious groups: primarily Christian and non-Christian. Regardless of what some politicians maintain, America was established on well defined Christian principles. For whatever reason, the last few decades many on the Left (the Democrat side) have fought against those principles.

Not only have there been attacks by the Left against Christian principles, there has been massive support of other religions in the World at the expense of Christians and Christianity.

Islam and the Muslim faith has been growing exponentially everywhere on the Globe — even in the U.S. Political support from the Left for the religion and those who embrace it has become dramatically obvious. Democrat leaders have in almost total unity shown massive support for the Muslim faith and Muslim people. Their support has never been so obvious than when horrors are perpetrated by Muslims both in the U.S. and in other nations.

There are multiple examples. But the most recent came from Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar who recently described the 9/11 attacks and that day in this way: “Some people did some thing.” She very obviously did NOT use the term “terrorists” or “terrorism” in her statement about the slaughter of 3000 Americans that day. Further, she did NOT refer to the perpetrators as “Islamists” or “Muslims” or “Terrorists.” She referred to them as “Some People.”

Democrat leaders refused to censure her or even make a unified statement against her characterizations. Why? “Group-Think” and Unity.

To further illustrate how this has become so prevalent, Easter Sunday more than 300 Christians were murdered by a series of suicide bomb attacks against worshippers in 3 churches and several hotels in Sri Lanka. While most Republican leaders when issuing statements about the horrible slaughter of primarily Christians worshipping God in their churches on Easter Sunday — the most holy day of the year for Christians, former President Obama and Hillary Clinton in their statements refused to use the word “Christians” when describing who were murdered.

It is important to note that both aggressively damned Islamophobia when a white Christian from Australia several weeks earlier killed a number of Muslims in New Zealand in a Mosque. Ms. Clinton tweeted her outrage: “We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists (another “group” created by Democrats) must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”

She made sure to condemn “Islamophobia,” but she wrote not a word about the far more destructive and widespread hatred of Christians in the Muslim world, seen in Muslims’ virtual elimination of the Christian communities in the Middle East, the regular murder and kidnappings of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and the murder of Christians in Nigeria. She calls on “leaders everywhere” to condemn “white supremacist terrorists,” one of the smallest hate groups on Earth, but never calls on leaders everywhere to condemn Islamist terrorists, the largest hate group on Earth.

Essentially, the Left’s rule is that nothing bad — no matter how true — may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing good — no matter how true — may be said of Christians or Christianity.

Obama and Clinton refused to use the term ”Christians” when referring to those killed opting to both use the exact same term ”Easter Worshippers” instead. Think there was some Democrat talking-point coordination?

Racial groups: The most obvious time of racial unity in the U.S. came with the attack on Pearl Harbor. It seems that such horrors bring people together rather than divide them. For years Americans dropped (in most cases) all the garbage that came for years from racial groupings and all the resulting tension and uproar between Americans. It has become commonplace for African Americans and Caucasians to be incessantly in conflict with each other. It seems there’s very little effort to find commonalities and concentrate on those rather than concentrating on differences. (That’s not just in racial groups and their differences but between ALL groups)

I would be remiss if I did not point out some dangerous results from this regarding intentional blurring of racial truths. Democrats have always branded Conservatives (Republicans) as the bad guys when it comes to dealing with racial differences. Of course that means Democrats are the good guys. And there are plenty of lies in that regard that have been perpetuated for decades:

  • Democrats did NOT end slavery as many maintain. Abraham Lincoln led the Civil War to end slavery. He was a Republican;
  • Democrats did NOT give African Americans the right to vote. In fact, in great majority Democrats voted against the Constitutional Amendment giving them voting rights. Republicans voted it in;
  • Democrats did NOT pass the Civil Rights Act in the early 1960’s. President Johnson (a Democrat) could not get close to a majority of Congressional Democrats to vote for it. Republicans with a majority of THEIR votes passed the law;
  • Democrats did NOT get approval for blacks to serve in the U.S. military. Former General and President Dwight Eisenhower (a Republican) led the charge to get Republicans to approve that bill that eventually became law.

Here’s where the Democrats (who are masterful at getting its members in locked-step to back the party’s positions, policies, and actions) have really messed up: getting their adherents to believe in almost anything and most everything their leadership puts out has resulted in millions of Americans to believe untruths. Benign and blind following not only finds Democrat followers walking down the wrong paths, they’re walking hand in hand with other Democrats who because of the group they are in blindly agree to those paths.

Summary

We can go much farther down the road in this conversation, but I’m certain you understand what’s happening around us in this regard. No doubt there are “group-thinkers” in the Republican Party. Why? There are simply many people who prefer to blindly follow than to creatively dig to find facts on their own to believe.

And there is no doubt the Republican Party is full of people who are wrong about many things they believe. That is a product of human nature. Human nature is what powerful politicians have discovered in its weakness, it can be exploited to assist in a political party in achieving Mob Rule, sometimes called “Group-Think.”

I am NOT a Republican nor a Democrat. I am registered in my state as “Other.” But don’t be naive: there are plenty of people in the U.S. and the World who put people like me and those in the “Other” designation with me as a “group.” Some think those in our group are good people while others certainly think those in that group are evil.

What we must learn is that such has always occurred and always will. What we must also learn is responsibility to impact our world by teaching independent thinking and feeding the hunger of the quest for the Truth.

I am convinced that Truth is available for all those who diligently seek it and those who refuse to settle for less. That doesn’t mean everyone must think the same about everything. Such determination must be individual and will always draw from one’s personal circumstances and environment. But Truth is NEVER to be something that is a result of the denigration of anyone else. Your worth is never changed by anything that someone else thinks, says, or does.

God made us all individuals. And there’s no one on Earth identical to you!

Fear and Loathing

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS ‘72 is a book written by Hunter Thomson. It was a sequel to the original, “FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS.”

The  ‘72 book focuses almost exclusively on the Democrat Party’s primaries and the breakdown of the party as it split between the different candidates. Of particular focus was the manic maneuvering of the George McGovern campaign during the Miami convention as they sought to ensure the Democrat nomination despite attempts by the Hubert Humphrey campaign and other candidates to block McGovern.

Thompson began his coverage of the campaign in December 1971, just as the race toward the primaries was beginning, from a rented apartment in Washington, D.C. Over the next 12 months, in great detail, he covered every aspect of the campaign, from the smallest rally to the raucous conventions.

The War

It is uncanny the many parallels between the 1972 election and the upcoming 2020 election as Dems already at 20 in number have begun what is already a vicious battle for the Democrat Party spot to face-off against Donald Trump. Each of the already declared Dem hopefuls certainly dreads that the tactics used against McGovern in 1972 and similarly in 2016 against Bernie Sanders to make certain he would not take the party nomination away from Hillary might reappear in 2020. But stranger things have happened.

There already is a war of agreement between the declared Democrat candidates. Their war? It’s against capitalism and all who stand for it — especially Donald Trump. A large part of the Democrat Party actually has been brainwashed to some mystical magic in Socialism. Those people are fearful that capitalism will remain in the U.S. It’s funny: every GOOD thing we have in America is a direct result of capitalism and its opportunities for all. Socialism? There’s no example in World history of Socialism EVER surviving. Why? To quote former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “Socialism always fails because you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.”

That being said, the skeletal pieces of the Democrat Party platform are so outlandish (at least so far to most Americans) it remains to be seen when the internal attacks among these candidates that are certain to show up during their primaries will begin. But there is plenty of ammunition they can use.

Fear

There certainly was fear in 1972 among Democrats. Half of Democrats feared McGovern winning their nomination and the other half were afraid of Humphrey doing so. The loathing was divided the same way. It had been quite a while that Dems were split and so divided. Remember: they had been through a glorious decade that began with the installation of “Camelot” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. JFK’s personal magnetism and populist message united Democrats in a way unseen decades. His tragic death left a massive hole that none could plug until Bill Clinton.

Clinton put Democrat fears to rest for a while. Democrats seized the opportunity for power. Clinton led the takeover of the American government while conservatives slept in America. By the time George W. Bush took the oath of office, Democrats had transformed every government agency in D.C. to operate simply as a tool for Democrat leaders. The tool used to seize benign support was the hunger by those politicos to be invited “in” to partake of the freebies of unimaginable magnitude that accompanies unfettered power and control of every part of U.S. government. I’ve often wondered why the Democrats so adore Bill Clinton, especially with the plethora of examples of corruption during his 8 years. He created and implemented the methodology that literally took the U.S. government control away from “we the People” and gave it to the leaders of the Democrat Party. Probably 95% of the middle class that are members of the Democrat Party have no idea how that other 5% use hundreds of processes created by their hero and his minions in the 90s to stealthily take control of our government. It’s so bad today that the only thing left for the American people is the right to vote. And Dems have watered down what our vote means or if it means anything at all. And to regain all the power they lost they desperately fight to eliminate the electoral college which is the only protection from the government the American voters still “own.”

Democrats fear American conservatives and conservatism itself. Why? Those Americans and conservatism are the only 2 things that can “steal” back that power that Democrats have “stolen” from Americans. They fear the truth that they see and hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, FOX News, Breitbart, Bongino, and the few conservative newspapers in the country that are believed by Americans who went to sleep regarding the political process 20 years ago. They fear the Truth! They fear that the sleeping giant of “government, by, of, and for the People” will awaken Americans to the sneaky giant of Big Government who has already wrestled D.C. power away and has initiated an all-out war to hold onto it.

Leftists fear Donald Trump. Why? Not one national politician in recent history has ever won a presidency and given to the American public what they promised during their campaigns: Democrat OR Republican! Donald Trump is the first since Reagan. And they are scared to death of the wins during the young Trump presidency that includes his campaign promises.

How could their missionary appointed to send Trump packing using the fake Steele Dossier as evidence of Trump colluding with Russians in 2016 fail in that one simple task? How could Mueller with an unlimited budget, staff, and access to all things Donald Trump fail to find enough evidence against Trump to jumpstart Impeachment? They are so afraid that their determination was to simply ignore their hero’s findings of “No there-there” and decided to just pick up the mantle of “dumping Trump” themselves, and with their newfound control of the House investigate everything and everybody that has any Trump connections into oblivion!

That’s how fearful they all are.

Loathing

Loathing defined: “extreme disgust: detestation, aversion, disgust, distaste, horror, nausea, repugnance, repulsion, revulsion.”

We’d be here all night if we listed everything and everybody Democrats loathe. Let’s just bullet point a few.

Democrats Loath:

  • President Donald Trump.
  • Everyone who works for the President.
  • Every member of his family.
  • Attorney General William Barr.
  • Republican leadership in the House and the Senate.
  • Every elected Republican or Conservative in Congress.
  • FOX News and every other honest news reporting entity.
  • Republican National Committee.
  • The “Rule of Law.”
  • Equal Justice Under the Law.
  • The U.S. Constitution.
  • The electoral college.
  • National Borders.
  • U.S. Immigration in its entirety.
  • ICE and all those who work within ICE.
  • Immigration Laws.
  • Campaign finance laws.
  • Tax Reductions on corporations and Americans personally

What do Liberals (Democrats) loathe the most? Americans who voted for and support Donald Trump.

Here’s where they are headed. They certainly have very obviously shown their total rejection of the findings of their “darling” Robert Mueller. Their fear and loathing just launched their processes of “going after all things Trump” into a Part 2. Oh, they’re going to impeach this president. We at TruthNewsNetwork have maintained that since the day the Mueller probe was announced. After all, Donald Trump has attacked their gravy train of unadulterated power. And the one tool that Trump has used to bring success in that process is something that horrifies Democrats and liberals who are even farther Left than Dems: Totalitarianists. And remember that those Far-Leftists are pushing the Democrat Party farther left than it has ever been in American history.

How will they get to impeachment if Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction of justice? In closing, rather than us giving you our summary and answer that question, let’s turn to one of the ringleaders of the process of “dumping Trump,” Representative Jerold Nadler (D-NY) who is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. That’s where (if Democrats do launch formal impeachment actions) Articles of Impeachment must be created. Listen closely to what he says in this conversation with ABC’s George Stephanopolous:

Nadler, an attorney who NEVER practiced law after he got his law degree in New York, who has been a politician his whole life, who in this interview in error calls Robert Mueller Special “Prosecutor” rather than “Counsel,” which is what Mueller was, will ultimately drive the impeachment train of Congress to perpetuate this dark chapter in American history, which is the largest and most obvious attempt by one large group of people to overturn the results of a legal and just election of an American president without a shred of evidence supporting their doing so.

Play

Russian Hacking: It’s True Part 2

In Part I of this revelation, we proved to our readers/listeners that there actually WAS Russian hacking attempts that in some cases were successful during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. There really is “there-there.” Today as promised we go into “who” and “how” it happened.

This is really important information — stuff Americans need to understand. Read and listen closely! And make certain you look-in to our Summary at the completion of this story.

Leaks and Counterfeit Profiles

Russia has been quite open about playing its hacking card. At a conference in Moscow, a top cyberintelligence adviser to President Vladimir Putin hinted that Russia was about to unleash a devastating information attack on the United States.

“We are living in 1948,” said the adviser, Andrey Krutskikh, referring to the eve of the first Soviet atomic bomb test, in a speech reported by The Washington Post. “I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having something in the information arena that will allow to us to talk to the Americans as equals.”

Mr. Putin’s denials of Russian meddling have been tongue-in-cheek. He allowed that “free-spirited” hackers might have awakened in a good mood one day and spontaneously decided to contribute to “the fight against those who say bad things about Russia.” Speaking to NBC News, he rejected the idea that evidence pointed to Russia — while showing a striking familiarity with how cyberattackers might cover their tracks.

“IP addresses can be simply made up,” Mr. Putin said, referring to Internet protocol addresses, which can identify particular computers. “There are such IT specialists in the world today, and they can arrange anything and then blame it on whomever. This is no proof.”

Mr. Putin had a point. Especially in the social media realm, attributing fake accounts — to Russia or to any other source — is always challenging. The Central Intelligence Security Agency concluded“with high confidence” that Mr. Putin had ordered an influence operation to damage Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and eventually aid Donald J. Trump’s. Facebook published a public report on information operations using fake accounts. It shied away from naming Russia as the culprit until when the company said it had removed 470 “inauthentic” accounts and pages that were “likely operated out of Russia.” Facebook officials fingered a St. Petersburg company with Kremlin ties called the Internet Research Agency.

Russia deliberately hides its role in influence operations, American intelligence officials say. Even skilled investigators often cannot be sure if a particular Facebook post or Twitter bot came from Russian intelligence employees, paid “trolls” in Eastern Europe or hackers from Russia’s vast criminal underground. A Russian site called buyaccs.com(“Buy Bulk Accounts at Best Prices”) offers for sale a huge array of pre-existing social media accounts, including on Facebook and Twitter; like wine, the older accounts cost more, because their history makes hacking harder to spot.

The trail that leads from the Russian operation to the bogus Melvin Redick, however, is fairly clear. United States intelligence concluded that DCLeaks.com was created in June 2016 by the Russian military intelligence agency G.R.U. The site began publishing a collection of hacked emails, notably from George Soros, the financier and Democratic donor, as well as a former NATO commander and some Democratic and Republican staffers. Some of the website’s language — calling Mrs. Clinton “President of the Democratic Party” and referring to her “electional staff” — seemed to contradict its pose as a forum run by American activists.

DCLeaks would soon be followed by a blog called Guccifer 2.0, which would leave even more clues of its Russian origin. Those sites’ posts, however, would then be dwarfed by those from WikiLeaks, which American officials believe got thousands of Democratic emails from Russian intelligence hackers. At each stage, a Large group of Facebook and Twitter accounts — alongside many legitimate ones — would applaud the leaks.

During its first weeks online, DCLeaks saw no media attention. But The Times found that some Facebook users somehow discovered the new site quickly and began promoting it on June 8, 2016. One was the Redick account, which posted about DCLeaks to the Facebook groups “World News Headlines” and “Breaking News — World.”

Melvin Redick’s Facebook Profile

Inconsistencies in the contents of Mr. Redick’s Facebook profile suggest that the identity was fake.

  1. Neither Central High School nor Indiana University of Pennsylvania has any record of Mr. Redick attending.
  2. According to his profile, Mr. Redick was born and raised in Pennsylvania, but one image shows him seated in a restaurant in Brazil, and another shows a Brazilian-style electrical outlet in his daughter’s bedroom.
  3. Mr. Redick’s posts were never of a personal nature. He shared only news articles reflecting a pro-Russian worldview.

The same morning, “Katherine Fulton” also began promoting DCLeaks in the same awkward English Mr. Redick used. “Hey truth seekers!” she wrote. “Who can tell me who are #DCLeaks? Some kind of Wikileaks? You should visit their website, it contains confidential information about our leaders such as Hillary Clinton, and others http://dcleaks.com/.”

So did “Alice Donovan,” who pointed to documents from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations that she said showed its pro-American tilt and — in rather formal language for Facebook — “describe eventual means and plans of supporting opposition movements, groups or individuals in various countries.”

Might Mr. Redick, Ms. Fulton, Ms. Donovan and others be real Americans who just happened to notice DCLeaks the same day? No. The Times asked Facebook about these and a half-dozen other accounts that appeared to be Russian creations. The company carried out its standard challenge procedure by asking the users to establish their bona fides. All the suspect accounts failed and were removed from Facebook.

On Twitter, meanwhile, hundreds of accounts were busy posting anti-Clinton messages and promoting the leaked material obtained by Russian hackers. Investigators for FireEye spent months reviewing Twitter accounts associated with certain online personas, posing as activists, that seemed to show the Russian hand: DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, Anonymous Poland and several others. FireEye concluded that they were associated with one another and with Russian hacking groups, including APT28 or Fancy Bear, which American intelligence blames for the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails.

Lee Foster, who leads the FireEye team examining information operations, said some of the warlist Twitter accounts had previously been used for illicit marketing, suggesting that they may have been purchased on the black market. Some were genuine accounts that had been hijacked. Rachel Usedom, a young American engineer in California, tweeted mostly about her sorority before losing interest in 2014. In November 2016, her account was taken over, renamed #ClintonCurruption, and used to promote the Russian leaks.

Rachel Usedom’s Twitter account was taken over and used to post political leaks.

Ms. Usedom had no idea that her account had been commandeered by anti-Clinton people who used her account to spread propaganda . “I was shocked and slightly confused when I found out,” she said.

Notably, the warlist tweets often included the Twitter handles of users whose attention the senders wanted to catch — news organizations, journalists, government agencies and politicians, including @realDonaldTrump. By targeting such opinion-shapers, Mr. Foster said, the creators of the warlists clearly wanted to stir up conversation about the leaked material.

J. M. Berger, a researcher in Cambridge, Mass., helped build a public web “dashboard” for the Washington-based Alliance for Securing Democracy to track hundreds of Twitter accounts that were suspected of links to Russia or that spread Russian propaganda. During the campaign, he said, he often saw the accounts post replies to Mr. Trump’s tweets.

Mr. Trump “received more direct replies than anyone else,” Mr. Berger said. “Clearly this was an effort to influence Donald Trump. They know he reads tweets.”

Only a small fraction of all the suspect social media accounts active during the election have been studied by investigators. But there is ample reason to suspect that the Russian meddling may have been far more widespread.

Several activists who ran Facebook pages for Bernie Sanders, for instance, noticed a suspicious flood of hostile comments about Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Sanders had already ended his campaign and endorsed her.

John Mattes, who ran the “San Diego for Bernie Sanders” page, said he saw a shift from familiar local commenters to newcomers, some with Eastern European names — including four different accounts using the name “Oliver Mitov.”

“Those who voted for Bernie, will not vote for corrupt Hillary!” one of the Mitovs wrote on Oct. 7. “The Revolution must continue! #NeverHillary”

While he was concerned about being seen as a “crazy cold warrior,” Mr. Mattes said he came to believe that Russia was the likely source of the anti-Clinton comments. “The magnitude and viciousness of it — I would suggest that their fingerprints were on it and no one else had that agenda,” he said.

Both on the left and the pro-Trump right, though, some skeptics complain that Moscow has become the automatic boogeyman, accused of misdeeds with little proof. Even those who track Russian online activity admit that in the election it was not always easy to sort out who was who.

“Yes, the Russians were involved. Yes, there was a lot of organic support for Trump,” said Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media. “Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.”

Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts “Kremlin trolls” based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.

“Hillary’s a warmonger,” said Marilyn Justice, 66, who lives in Nova Scotia and tweets as @mkj1951. Of Mr. Putin, she said in an interview, “I think he’s very patient in the face of provocations.”

Another of the so-called Kremlin trolls, Marcel Sardo, 48, a web producer in Zurich, describes himself bluntly on his Twitter bio as a “Pro-Russia Media-Sniper.” He said he shared notes daily via Skype and Twitter with online acquaintances, including Ms. Justice, on disputes between Russia and the West over who shot down the Malaysian airliner hit by a missile over Ukraine and who used sarin gas in Syria.

“It’s a battle of information, and I and my peers have decided to take sides,” said Mr. Sardo, who constantly cites Russian sources and bashed Mrs. Clinton daily during the campaign. But he denied he had any links to the Russian government.

But if Russian officials are happy at their success, in 2016’s election and beyond, they rarely let the mask slip. In an interview with Bloomberg before the election, Mr. Putin suggested that reporters were worrying too much about who exactly stole the material.

“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?” he said, in a point that Mr. Trump has sometimes echoed. “The important thing is the content that was given to the public.”

Summary

In the wake of the nonstop claims from absolutely everyone on the Left about Russian meddling in 2016 and even some Republicans, it’s good to finally have verification that it really happened. Even though the world knew the Russians were proficient and committed to diligently working to thwart the wills of voters not only in the U.S. but in other countries, it has been extremely puzzling to locate, identify, and confirm factual occurrences of their election tampering attempts. It’s even more difficult in the case of the 2016 U.S. election to find factual confirmation of any of their efforts having any substantial impact yet alone that they changed or affected actual vote counts.

But what it most certainly has done is alert Americans — ALL Americans — to the fact that several countries have been and are trying to interfere with our elections. I’m certain part of their hopes in doing so is to distract Americans and the government from foreign policies that impact their countries directly. Let’s be honest: the U.S. has consistently and diligently worked hard to do the same things in the elections of our foreign foes.

Intelligence spying capabilities throughout the world have far exceeded the capabilities that in the 1970s were seen and heard only in James Bond movies that we all thought were impossible and would never be achieved. Yes, in part we conduct such activities to keep Americans safe and our country free from outside interference from other countries. But let’s be clear about this: we are at a tipping point in how we not only listen-in and watch through spying and electronic surveillance the activities of our foreign enemies, we found out daily just how much our government is using these tactics in the name of the Law to monitor every aspect of AMERICANS’ lives. No matter what the leaders of the “Spook” agencies tell us, that capability with very little accountability to Americans is deadly. The scary stories contained in Orwells 1984 are actually reality today and have been for much longer than we even thought was possible.

What about Russia? No doubt they’re our #1 enemy. Even with our weakened economy for 8 years from Obama Administration financial starvation, we still have the #1 military on Earth. With the rebuilding of the military and our intelligence infrastructure being cleaned of those who have perpetrated these frauds on our public, we’re well on our way to putting significant space between us and Russia. But we better be smart. Unearthing their attempts to tamper with our elections is a big victory for us, but only if we take demonstrative actions.

Let their secrecy from those in the Obama Administration going unseen by our CIA, NSA, and FBI during the 2016 election cycle a warning. Unless we take care of our own country using every opening available to ferret out their foreign intelligence ploys, they will be here in great force very soon. Vladimir’s greatest desire is to instigate processes through KGB leftover ideas that dismantle the intelligence structure of the U.S., thereby forcing us to our knees. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he promised to rebuild and re-establish the American military might and he’s started that process with a vengeance.

We close with this: did Russia change by their actions any votes from Hillary to Trump in 2016? We probably will never know. But what we DO know is they could have and almost certainly will going forward unless we take demonstrative steps to prevent those.

I know secrecy is critical regarding many elements of these efforts by our intelligence community. But certainly there are ways of communication they can use to make Americans feel comfortable that these agencies are really working for us. And instead of Congress chasing cameras all day every day to talk about Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment, how about they instead pass meaningful legislation to make and keep America safe?

And they might start with stopping the aliens from storming our southern border. Those aliens are actually breaking the law!

Mueller Time!

Attorney General Barr appeared with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to give his “final” report about the presentment of the Mueller Report to Congress and the American people. The report in full (with minimal redactions for legal purposes) was released 2 hours later to Congress and the public.

We are NOT going to go through the details of the report. This story today is simply to point out some facts about the process and how those facts and the process itself play into the future of the U.S. To that end, let me say this: the Mueller Report and Mueller’s entire process of putting his team of attorneys together, the methods they used for interrogations, grand juries, and even making arrests have never been seen in American history in past Special Counsel or Special Prosecutor cases. 

We did predict here the release of his findings would certainly NOT end the noise about Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with Russia and also alleged obstruction of justice. In fact, Mueller’s findings and the structure of his report left the door open for all those on the Left to simply ratchet-up their investigation threats, subpoenas, and more allegations. In our Summary, we’ll detail exactly where we are. Let’s put all this in bullet points to make it easy to follow (and keep it brief):

♦Collusion

“The Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations.

“First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.”

The report said there was no collusion found between Donald Trump or any member of his campaign and the Russians regarding manipulation of the 2016 election.

♦Conspiracy

The report said there were numerous contacts between members of Trump’s circle and Russia and that the campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

But it said the efforts did not amount to criminal conspiracy.

“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

♦Obstruction of Justice

The report said the special counsel investigated numerous actions by Trump “that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice.”

These included “public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

“The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct.

“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

“Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

♦Efforts to Remove Special Counsel

The report detailed an effort by Trump to have the special counsel removed.

“On June 17, 2017, the president called (White House counsel Don) McGahn at home and directed him to call the acting attorney general and say that the special counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

“McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.”

The determination by the Special Counsel was that President Trump could not be legally implicated in any action to remove Special Counsel Mueller.

♦The “Rest of the Story”

I know, the above is really brief. And what it does is summarize all of the “meat” — if one can call it meat — in the report. But, believe me, there’s plenty more “stuff” in the Mueller Report.

Again, we will not detail it all — there’s a bunch of stuff that basically seems to be included to in some way justify the $25 million + of taxpayer dollars spent and the 2 years of constant daily political uproar regarding the president and nothing more.

The report highlights most of the areas of question American have had and still have, even with the release of the report. Questions regarding the possible influence many felt the President tried to use to “influence” Michael Cohen in his multiple testimonies to Mueller’s team were included in the report with “no finding of wrongdoing.

Conventional wisdom states that in spite of the bottomless budget of taxpayer dollars used in this investigation, in spite of millions of pages of documents, numerous subpoenas, and testimony, 37 indictments (none of which implicated Mr. Trump or his campaign for Russian collusion), Donald Trump is walking away with no “baggage.” But is he?

Mueller may be done, but Congress is not. Members of Congress — all Democrats — who hold very critical jobs heading committees are still beating the drum of  “Collusion and Conspiracy.”

♦“Russia, Russia, Russia!“

Who’s guilty of still carrying the “Russia” torch?

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA)

March 27, 2017: The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said on MSNBC there is evidence that is “not circumstantial” of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

August 5, 2018: Rep. Schiff said there is “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight” regarding the Trump campaign and Russia.

March 25, 2019: “There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY)

March 24, 2019: “Obviously, we know there was some collusion,” he said during an appearance on CNN. “We know the president’s son and campaign manager were involved in a meeting with the Russians to receive what they thought was information stolen by the Russians from the Democratic National Committee, as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help Trump in the election.” (It was later shown in sworn testimony that the meeting was called to make available “Opposition Research” materials to the Trump team which was perfectly legal and used by every campaign in the 2016 election)

(One note here since we’re speaking of Congressman Nadler: in the Clinton Impeachment Starr Report that Starr released without redactions to the public. Nadler and 13 other Congressman currently still in the House all fought AGAINST its release at the time. But Nadler’s committee is demanding continuously for the Mueller Report to be released without any redactions)

Calling the comparison “apples and oranges,” Nadler said his remarks on the Starr report concerned the release of grand jury information to the public rather than to Congress.

Nadler did not take a position on whether the full Mueller report could contain grounds for impeachment, saying “there could be grounds for impeachment, there could be grounds for other actions, there could be things the American people ought to know.”

Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA)

March 25, 2019: Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, is quoted from a March 2018 interview on CNN saying, “In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion.” He was referring to his panel’s Russia investigation. That inquiry took place when the House Intelligence Committee was in GOP control and concluded there was no collusion.

March 26, 2019: Swalwell told Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, that all the evidence points to the president being a “Russian agent” and that he has not seen “a single piece of evidence that he’s not” a Russian agent. He stood by those claims on Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum.

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

March 4, 2019: Senator Mark Warner said there are “enormous amounts of evidence” linking the Trump campaign to Russia — the same day House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said there’s “direct evidence” of collusion between the two.

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)

March 6, 2017: Liberal Delaware Senator Chris Coons caused a stir when he indicated during a televised interview that yet-undisclosed transcripts of recorded phone conversations conclusively prove that elements of the Trump campaign explicitly colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA)

March 24, 2019: “Here you have a president who I can tell you and guarantee you is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy,” Waters said.

Waters predicted in December 2017 that Mueller’s report is “going to lead right to, not only collusion, obstruction of justice, money laundering.”

♦Summary

As we warned, Democrats are just getting started. And their attack dogs — the Leftist Media — moments after the completion of Barr’s presentation summary of the now released report showed America what Democrats are totally about for 2020: NOTHING NEW. Sadly for their base, they have nothing to offer the nation other than “Get Donald Trump.” STILL!

We close today with the most troubling revelation in the Mueller report. There is stark proof that the President’s terminology of the Mueller investigation as a “Witch Hunt” was and is warranted. It’s contained in the following statement from the report:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent present difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”

By making this statement as THE basis — not for their findings but for their NO-findings — Mueller and his staff of “13 angry Democrats” (as termed by Sean Hannity) have categorically reversed a fundamental  guarantee given in the U.S. Constitution. According to Mueller, the inability of such a mass of investigators with such a mountain of evidence never before seen in any other federal investigation could not find evidence to justify charging President Trump with a crime. Yet they end the report by saying they could not conclusively determine that no criminal conduct occurred! 

It either DID occur or it DIDN’T occur. If it happened, a crime was committed. If it didn’t happen, NO crime was committed.

The Mueller gang just stomped all over the fundamental that millions of people charged throughout American judicial history in civil and criminal trials alike have relied on for fundamental fairness in their prosecution: The Presumption of Innocence. That presumption clearly states that those charged are “Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty.” 

It’s sad that a sitting president who in the 2016 presidential election demolished a career-political opponent who was a shew-in for the White House was NOT given the Presumption of Innocence.

Maybe that is the “new” way for the Judiciary in America to operate now. Maybe it’s so just in politics.

Or maybe — just maybe — this was Robert Mueller’s parting shot at President Trump for NOT offering him the FBI Director’s job in that Oval Office meeting with Rod Rosenstein which was purportedly a job interview for Mueller.

Is that what Due Process in America has come to?

 

 

Play

The 30,000 Foot View

Have you ever heard the saying “You can’t see the forest for the trees.” For years my company managers heard me say this quite often: “Just skip the ‘stuff’’ and give me the executive summary.” Both pretty much mean the same thing. And just in case you don’t understand either of these, let’s make it easy: Often we get so caught up in the nitty-gritty of what we’re doing that all of our attention is given to JUST what we’re doing at the moment and not what the overall picture is supposed to look like. For that reason, it’s often better to occasionally back away from the detail to make certain to see or imagine what the final result is to be.

So it is when we look at something from 30,000 feet in the air rather than from ground level. Stand on a street in Durango, Colorado and you are simply standing on the street of a small town in southwest Colorado. Fly over that same street at 30,000 feet in altitude and look out the plane window, you’ll see you’re above the Rockies. That street in Durango is still there, but it’s just a blip on the map you are looking at. Both are true, but each has different perspectives.

The picture at the top of this story is of Beirut, Lebanon was taken from a  jet. Imagine how different Beirut looks from a downtown street than from looking at it from a plane.

So which view are you using today to look-in on the American political world? If we’re honest with our answer to that question, most of us will answer, “I can’t see the forest for the trees.” And today’s American political “forest” is pretty nasty.

Perspective

Would you like to change your perspective? Honestly, it’s probably driving you crazy. I’ve asked hundreds of times in the last decade or so why we cannot easily discern the truth about our political landscape. We certainly don’t hear the truth about it from politicians, political pundits, or the media. Everything THEY say is skewed from their political perspective and their political agenda.

Remember Bill Clinton and his response during his impeachment process when under oath he answered a question by saying, “It depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is!” How are we to know today’s political truths so as to shape OUR perspectives to prepare us for whatever changes we should and could make going forward? We’re a year and a half away from elections for Congress and the presidency, and there are already 20 Democrat candidates announced to run. Talk about noise and confusion! Not only are our perspectives flavored by what we hear those candidates say about their ideas and plans, but the media also takes those ideas and puts their spin on them to filter for Americans who watch, read, and listen. Political perspectives are certainly problematic for the process of voters making educated choices. How can we shape our perspectives based only on facts? That’s a really hard one, but it’s one that we MUST find a way to implement.

Facts

The foundation of shaping a factual perspective is to find facts. Contrary to what today’s media wants you to believe, there are NOT different versions of the truth of any issue, political position, statistic, or policy. Each is absolute. Our problem in getting facts is the methodologies used in today’s politics in distributing facts. Why so?

Newspapers sell newspapers. Radio and television shows sell 30 and 60-second ads. Their goal is readers, subscribers, and viewers. Facts are secondary (at best) to the media!

How do we make certain we really get the facts? In reality, we may not get all the facts from our current politicians and candidates for future office. But if WE are honest and if WE are diligent, there are ways to find MUCH of the facts. And we can ferret those out minus the filter of bias that engulfs ALL of what we see, hear, and read about them from the media. How?

  • Read. Reading is almost a lost art. The internet and electronics have just about destroyed it. Baby-Boomers grew up in an environment that encouraged reading to obtain information. We had no other option. Unfortunately for finding facts, we must sort through the noise, and reading gives us the best vehicle for doing so. Get your hands on as much of the writings available directly from the candidate or politician you are looking into. That’s possible using today’s media vehicles. Look for quotes. Search for legislation for which they have expressed their support or have written themselves. Find some of their historical writings and/or speeches. Getting it from the horse’s mouth is the only way to find the truth.
  • YouTube. I think it is asinine for today’s politicians to say one thing or take a controversial position on a matter when many know they’ve previously expressed the exact opposite. It’s as if they have forgotten in this YouTube generation, everything is on video. It may take some time, but use your search engine to look for their writings and speeches. Again, getting it from the horse’s mouth is the best way to know for certain what they say is where they stand OR if they’ve changed positions on a matter. And then find out why and when they made those changes. Examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton years ago called themselves Pro-Life. They changed. Barack and Michelle Obama AND the Clintons were all against same-sex marriage. Now they support it. How do I know that? YouTube!
  • Interviews. It will be tough and require careful timing, but we all should certainly be willing to find and watch or listen to as many interviews as possible for as many candidates as possible who are running in 2020. Unfortunately, the liberal media outlets have proven again and again they have an intense bias for conservative candidates while being “in the tank” for Democrats who are running. But watch and listen — not so much to the interviewers as you do how candidates respond and the content of what they say. Make some notes, especially when something they say gives rise to another question you may have for them.  Because there are so many candidates already that have declared for a presidential run in 2020, you will have ample opportunity to examine their answers on specific positions that interest you. Start early: soon they’ll start dropping out like flies. That in itself will open the door for new questions. Typically, the closer we get to nomination time, candidates began to firm their positions. Comparing policies closer to conventions with those candidates hold today will tell you something about their character.
  • Town-Halls and Debates. This is going to be an even more contentious season of Town-Hall meetings and candidate debates. Candidates will find it more and more necessary to begin to harden on their stances on controversial issues like Pro-Choice/Right-to-Life, Same-Sex Marriage, Immigration, Healthcare, taxes, First and Second Amendments, and even more. They will do this when it becomes more and more necessary to showcase the reasons why they would for voters be a better choice for each office than would their opponents. Town-Halls are typically better at garnering facts because they are usually more inclusive of audience members and questions and answers are more in number and allow more follow-up after the candidates respond to questions. This season will be much more difficult to watch regarding these public displays, but buckle down and stick in there because seeing and hearing what they say checked against details of their policy positions that are already in the public domain will be very important.
  • Endorsements. This is always a tough one. It’s tougher now because of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the “Citizen’s United” case. It pretty much allows unlimited financial contributions to PACs and SuperPACS. It’s impossible to know who in total have made campaign donations to any candidate because these organizations are not required to identify contributors as the candidate’s campaigns must. But the telltale sign of some of those contributors is endorsements. Two examples are the NRA and Planned Parenthood. Each organization has specific political agendas that are extremely controversial: the NRA private citizens’ gun rights and Planned Parenthood abortion rights. Checking endorsements for candidates from these and other organizations against their stated positions an be a sure signal of candidate’s truthfulness.
  • Speeches. One might think this is an unnecessary practice because candidates will almost always use the contents of speeches carefully so as not to raise alarms regarding policy conflicts. That is true MOST of the time. But often candidates find themselves caught up in the excitement of campaign rallies and giveaway certain ideas that just may conflict with their previously stated policy positions. We’re often guilty of relying on the media to point to such conflicts for us. But as we’ve seen so many times, Leftist media are quick to give Democrat candidates passes on conflicts while slaughtering Republican candidates. They typically call GOP folks “Liars,” while covering for Democrat candidates for their “mistakes” in the conflicts they expose.

Summary

Wow! That sounds like a lot of stuff to do and keep track of. It is. And it is true that most Americans are not willing to pay the price to find facts and confirm those facts are real. Here’s what most of us do: we say “I’m too busy to watch that debate, listen to or read that speech, Google the position on taxes and healthcare that they promoted when they ran for state office and see if they’ve changed. I’ll just wait until tomorrow morning and catch the analysis on CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or FOX News.”

That’s the REAL danger! Answer this: why are so many Generation Z members so open to socialism and so against capitalism? It’s because they’re going to high schools and universities who most of their teachers and professors are hardcore Liberals from the 60s and 70s. Those educators hated conservatism and despised capitalism then and demonstrated for socialist and even communist causes. What do you think they are going to teach our kids but their own ideas?

Here’s the scary part of the above scenario: these educators know that these kids were raised in a freer environment than did Baby-Boomers. They abhor personal accountability and responsibilities. Their parents were and are enablers. These students are sponges and therefore subject to what they are exposed to for the duration of their formative years. Those kids get all their information from 24/7 electronic news, the internet, and cable television. For the most part, most of the information and “news” disseminated to them comes from news anchors and reporters who are the same 60s and 70s people as are those teachers and professors! 

So how do we spend most of our time at the 30,000-foot level and get all this information we need to absorb that’s at ground level?

We can get just as absorbed and distracted at 30,000 feet as we do on the ground in the middle of everything. To ferret out the facts we need, let’s face it: we MUST engage. But we must do so without letting the “noise” at ground level drown out the realities and truth that we find there.

Organization and planning are the keys. I know, I know: we too can get caught up in electronics, in “instant news,” and in letting social media shape our political positions. We’re NOT saying we cannot take advantage of those to “assist” us. But we must use them as nothing more than “A” tool rather than “THE” source of our information. Use them to confirm what we have learned.

Honestly, it is much easier for conservatives to simply listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Tucker, and FOX News for information. On the most part, they do give out conservative info. But I don’t agree with everything THEY say. I DO agree with certain things I see and hear from MSNBC, CNN, Rachel Maddox, and Chris Matthews — granted, it’s not much though!

It ‘s unbelievably important for us to find facts and use every resource we have to do so. And we cannot always verify that every “fact” we surmise is really true. But I promise, if we truly investigate objectively and organize our doing so, we can then form objective opinions based on facts rather than emotions.

Remember this: there are many people around the World who still believe the world is flat! How is that possible? I’ve actually flown around the world, and it really is round! But everyone has done that. We form our “facts” based on our own experiences. And doing so is the ONLY WAY WE CAN KNOW FOR SURE.

I guarantee you that November 2020 election results need to be based on facts of policies. If results are based on emotion and “maybes,” we may find ourselves soon speaking in Chinese.

Over The Top

According to Rasmussen Reports, as of Thursday, April 11, 2019, 50% of Americans approve of President Trump’s job while 49% disapprove. In light of the incessant negative noise that permeates throughout the United States from media reports, achieving that 50% approval number is significant.

While we are considering thoughts about the President, what about Congress? According to Real Clear Politics polling division, as of April 9, 2019, just 18% of Americans approve of the job performance of members of Congress while 61% disapprove. Why do you think that is? And do you think the media might have something to do with that low approval number for members of Congress?

Let’s look at what Americans think about the media. Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year. Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

To those of us at TruthNewsNetwork, the combined low approval ratings by Americans of members of Congress AND the media are tied directly together. In objectively reviewing both groups, one can reasonably compute that American distrust of its elected leaders AND validity of what the media disseminate daily go hand in hand.

Why?

Great question. Under today’s circumstances, it is critical for Americans — including those in Congress AND the media — to finally and in earnest open discussions to “right the ship” of the distrust of Americans for both groups. Can those honest conversations begin? Will they begin?

If we base our hopes on what happened yesterday (Wednesday) and the day before (Tuesday) that set fires previously unseen in the media and in Congress, our hopes are already dashed! Attorney General Barr in yesterday’s Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing lit the fire when said this:

He actually used the word “Spying!” His saying that has set the media world on fire, also among Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, who said that Attorney General William Barr was “going off the rails,” citing his public testimony over the past two days that appeared to support President Donald Trump’s claims that his campaign was spied on by the intelligence community in 2016.

“How very, very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails,” Pelosi said at the start of Democrats’ annual retreat. “He is the Attorney General of the United States, not the attorney general of Donald Trump,” she said. 

Pelosi’s comments, which followed an Associated Press interview featuring similarly harsh criticism of Barr, followed two days of appearances by the attorney general on Capitol Hill in which he said he wouldn’t provide Congress with an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and raised concerns that the government was “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016.
It came as no surprise that media outlets took the lead from Congressional Democrats and started in on Barr with furor unseen in quite a while. CNN got things started:

CNN — Congressional Democrats are furious over Attorney General William Barr’s statement Wednesday that Donald Trump’s campaign was spied on, accusing the attorney general of mischaracterizing the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation in an effort to please President Donald Trump.

Barr’s comments are likely to ratchet up Democrats’ unease over the attorney general that’s already simmering over Barr’s role in the Mueller investigation and the decision there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice.
“I’m amazed that the AG would make that kind of statement, I think it’s in many ways disrespectful to the men and women who work in the DOJ, and it shows, I think, either a lack of understanding or willful ignorance on what goes into a counterintelligence investigation,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN. “He almost seems to be endorsing one of these theories that have been debunked time and time again by the various, even House Republican-led, investigations trying to show some kind of resentment,” Warner added.
Not to be left out of the relentless attacks on the Attorney General, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) piped in:
Chuck Schumer accused Attorney General William Barr of spreading conspiracy theories on Wednesday after the Justice Department chief said he thinks “spying did occur” on President Trump’s 2016 campaign. In a terse tweet, Schumer demanded a retraction from Barr.

“AG Barr admitted he had no evidence to support his claim that spying on the Trump campaign ‘did occur.’ AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up. Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Reality

If anyone wonders about American distrust of Congress and the media, this back-and-forth unanimous attack by Democrats and members of the media illustrate the reason for the distrust better than any one person can explain. What Congressional Democrats AND members of the media have not even mentioned are the “facts” that are known already. These “facts” are those that have appeared over the last two years as the basis for the investigations of all things going on regarding tampering in the 2016 Election. And there are plenty of pieces of evidence of such that have resulted in ongoing (yet quiet) investigations by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz and former Federal Attorney Jim Huber out in Utah. Those investigations have been quietly underway for more than a year. And the “facts” that initiated those two investigations are the “facts” on which AG Barr based his “Spying” comments in his testimony. Obviously, Democrats and the media ignore those two investigations AND those widely known facts.

What are they? Here are some “Facts:”

  1. The Steele Dossier.  We will not even discuss the details of that expose prepared by former FBI informant Christopher Steele on behalf of the Clinton Campaign who paid Steele for what they called “opposition research.” It was nothing more than a fake story that we just found out had existed for years, but was reshaped and edited to implicate Donald Trump for the Clinton Campaign. We know for certain that dossier was an important part of the FISA warrant application if not THE important information that began the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign that later became a key element of the Mueller Investigation. Former FBI Director Comey testified before Congress that the FBI knew that dossier was unverified as to its truthfulness. Christopher Steele himself testified in court that HE could not verify its validity. And he’s the one who wrote it!
  2. Trump Campaign Surveillance. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers may have notified Team Trump of Obama’s Intelligence Community (James Clapper and John Brennan) spying on their activity. As you look at the FISA request dates below, it’s important to note that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers would be keenly aware of both the June request – Denied, and the October request – Granted.  Pay specific attention to the October request. “October”!.

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

♦ On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held.  Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.

♦ On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

♦ On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.

Remember, historically The Washington Post is the preferred outlet for the CIA and Intelligence Community within Deep State to dump their “leaks” and stories.  The State Department “leaks” to CNN for the same purposes.

♦ On Saturday November 19th Reuters reported on the WaPo Story and additional pressure by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper to fire Mike Rogers.

Many feel that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers didn’t want to participate in the spying scheme (Clapper, Brennan, etc.), which was the baseline for President Obama’s post presidency efforts to undermine Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into the Obama labyrinth underlying his remaining loyalists.  After the October spying operation went into effect, Rogers unknown loyalty was a risk to the Obama objective.  10 Days after the election Rogers travels to President-Elect Trump without notifying those who were involved in the intel scheme.

Did NSA Director Mike Rogers wait for a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) to be set up in Trump Tower, and then notify the President-elect he was being monitored by President Obama?

Summary

It is clear to Americans that there IS plenty of detail exposed to the public in the two-plus years of the Mueller Investigation that it is likely something was going on regarding some type of “spying” on the Trump Campaign. What is still unknown is who did it, what was its purpose(s), and if its implementation and operation was justified under U.S. laws that regulate surveillance of Americans.

It is further clear to Americans that Democrat leadership and media pundits are obviously in the tank for Democrats. How else can one explain how they can possibly justify ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room that has already pooped on the floor? Attorney General Barr simply made it clear that, when he was asked, an investigation into the specific details of that already known surveillance was legal and legitimate.

But the media and Democrats both ignore his revealed purposes AND have done nothing but attempt to destroy the impeccable reputation he developed and earned from both Republicans and Democrats over decades. That’s the way they operate.

“If” they had really listened to the attorney general, and “If” they really cared about truth, they would be instead of attacking Mr. Barr nonstop would be talking about what he stated further into that testimony. As always, we at TruthNewsNetwork have it all for you:

“Later, Barr was asked twice whether he wanted to clarify his statement. Barr first said he wanted to make sure no ‘unauthorized surveillance’ occurred, and then offered up his own clarification at the conclusion of the hearing.

‘I just want to make it clear, thinking back on all the different colloquies here, that I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred,’Barr said. ‘I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.’

When Barr spoke of ‘spying,’ according to a source familiar with his thinking, he meant it in the ‘classic sense’ of intelligence collection. The source said Barr doesn’t view the term as ‘pejorative’ and is focused on where there was proper ‘predication’ for any surveillance. The source said Barr did not use the term ‘spying’ in order to throw red meat to Trump and those who have voiced concerns over surveillance tactics.”

Here’s the sad part of this entire story. Our elected officials — and NOT just Democrats in Congress, but every member of Congress — each take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States. Taking care of U.S. citizens and protecting everything to do with our nation is their Job #1. To that end, they each should be concentrating on those things that come into the lives of Americans that attack the one thing that differentiates our government from other world governments: “The Rule of Law.” That means anytime any law enforcement agency uncovers such a possible attack, prudence AND their oath of office dictates that a true and full investigation must be conducted to either prove the attack was not real and was not going to happen, or to vett details, determine the specifics of the wrongdoing, and guarantee those responsible are brought to justice.

But in this case we watch as members of the media and Congressional Democrats go stark raving crazy because the senior law enforcement official of the United States — Attorney General William Barr — when asked in a Congressional hearing states he is making certain that the acts of surveillance that occurred against the Trump Campaign that are known to have happened were legal, warranted, and conducted in the legal and proper manner. Something’s not right about that!

Would Democrats and the media prefer that even though it is known that such surveillance occurred to turn a blind eye and just ignore the possibility of such surveillance being illegal in nature? Normally the answer would be “Certainly not!” Sadly though, it appears that Democrats and the media don’t want the truth of the matter to be confirmed OR that they want the possible wrongdoing to remain hidden.

THAT’S THE REASON WHY AMERICANS DON’T APPROVE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND DON’T TRUST THE MEDIA TO TELL THE TRUTH!

Play