How Legitimate is the Nobel Peace Prize Nomination for President Trump?

Here’s another certainty: regarding President Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, Americans are all 100% positive that he should win or 100% positive he is NOT worthy of the award. I think it’s safe to say that there is nothing in the United States today more polarizing than Donald Trump!

Trump supporters have as justification for such a reward the fantastic accomplishments on the part of the President despite the nonstop onslaught by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, and, don’t forget, the Democrat Party messaging arm, the “Lamestream Media.” Just imagine if he had even modest support and even a tidbit of recognition for his accomplishments. I cannot find any comparison regarding specific, verifiable, and positive results in four years by any of his predecessors. Yet, none of those above have given Trump credit for even one of the hundreds of positives for Americans on his watch!

Trump detractors are quick to say, “It’s a prize for accomplishments in World peace. Donald Trump is destroying the opinion of the United States among citizens from every other country on Earth!” Nay: that’s where their allegations lose all semblance of credibility. Donald Trump has diligently and effectively set much of the chaos on Earth from the last decade on its ear. In fact, despite the turmoil on U.S. streets, many foreign leaders look jealously at Trump’s accomplishments, especially BECAUSE of the tortuous non-stop flood of untruthful news and almost daily allegations of “new” wrongdoing by this President uncovered by those bastions of honesty and integrity: the American Media.

So far, the President has notched up two nominations. How can that even be possible? Americans heard NOTHING about each other than a CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC news anchor snicker or two. Yet, the Middle East is seeing a quiet but sure calming of the constant war of words leveled at the nation of Israel. How is it even possible that any U.S. president — especially Donald Trump — could broker not one but two peace deals between Muslim countries and Netanyahu’s dominion? We appear to be witnessing a memorable moment in the Middle East, a region that has left successive U.S. presidents battered, bruised, and bitter. Now, in the space of two months, Trump has secured agreements from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize relations with Israel, with more Arab and Muslim states expected to follow.

It is fair for Trump’s detractors to point out these alliances have developed over time and are, in part, driven by the common threat of a nuclear Iran. But if we recognize that Trump disregarded decades of bipartisan “wisdom” about the Middle East, is that not THE reason we are seeing the most positive outcomes in the Middle East for decades? The dreaded question, then, is: what if, somehow, Trump was right? Come on, Man! Trump is the guy who has laughed nonstop in the face of conventionalism in pretty every historical “wisdom” not just about the Middle East, but with countries from every section on the globe. And, in many cases, it has worked.

Of course, Trump can’t be right because the “smart people’ — the foreign policy establishment, the academics, the political hacks, the globalists “we know everything” crowd — said at every juncture that his foreign policy would lead to catastrophe. When Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran deal, the smart people called it an act of betrayal on a global scale and said: “Few recent presidential decisions have been proved to be so spectacularly wrong in such a short period of time.” When he took out Iranian terror chief Qasem Soleimani, the smart people called it “extreme” and part of “an increasingly dangerous game of chicken.” When he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. embassy there, the smart people called it “an act of diplomatic vandalism.” They said the President had “lit the fuse” on “a ticking time bomb” and predicted that “no one will benefit from it, or at least no one interested in peace.”

When he recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the smart people said: “This is utterly irresponsible, and risks stoking more extremism and instability in the region.” When his administration recognized Israeli settlements as “not inconsistent with international law,” the smart people called it an “indefensible decision” which had “recklessly sacrificed, at least as long as Trump remains president, the last shreds of the U.S.’s claim to be a broker of peace.” When he brought forward his peace plan, the smart people termed it “a framework that may well have hung a closed-for-the-season sign both on a viable peace process and America’s credibility as a fair and effective broker.”

Why are we still listening to all these responsive tidbits of wisdom from the smart people? Trump broke with their consensus, even though in an erratic and conflicting “Trumpian” way, and now the AK-47’s are leaning against the wall in the closet. Kosovo and Serbia are normalizing economic relations, the Kosovo is recognizing Israel, Serbia is designating Hezbollah a terrorist group; Malawi is opening a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem and Chad is reportedly planning on doing the same. Iran, which Barack Obama sought to appease with the failed JCPOA, looks increasingly isolated. Don’t even think about $150 billion dollars, the last of which Obama loaded on a plane in cash and slipped it to Iran during the night.

Not bad for a reality TV star.

Even if these achievements hold up, Trump will likely fall victim to the foreign policy termed a “Reaganism.” When Ronald Reagan spoke of defeating the “Evil Empire,” the smart people said it was impossible; when the Evil Empire fell within a decade, they said it was inevitable and Reagan had nothing to do with it. Trump is not Reagan. Trump does not exist in the same universe as Reagan. Trumpism lacks the moral foundation and intellectual understanding of Reaganism. It took a drastic worldview to guide the 40th president. For Reagan, American greatness was fateful and optimistic; for Trump, it is backward-looking and resentful.

This enrages the American Left: a Queens builder and developer with no formal political training, has stumbled upon answers to questions that have stumped the smart people for years. The Council on Foreign Relations, American international political experts, even the previous Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama all got it wrong while a vulgar nationalist got it right. A Nobel Peace Prize might seem not only in order but positively poetic.

The Nobel Committee has a history of passing out the prize as a political downpayment, expecting some quid pro quo will keep the recipient in line with the Committee’s policy preferences. This doesn’t always work out. Eight months into his presidency, the Committee awarded Obama the Nobel for his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” How’d that work out for those Nobel folks? Five years later, Obama cut the non-proliferation budget by 20 percent and increased spending on nukes by 6 percent. Trump seems even less likely to be influenced once the initial bragging rights wear off. Besides, the Nobel Peace Prize lost its luster when they gave one to the terrorist Yasser Arafat.

Whether Trump gets the prize matters less than whether the smart people can bring themselves to learn the lessons of his presidency: that the United States can be a steady, constant, and unswerving friend of Israel and an honest broker for peace in the Middle East. Sometimes the running-charge of a Donald Trump gets better results than a dozen peace meetings with a dozen foreign leaders at Camp David. Now it seems that a foreign policy elite committed to doing NOTHING, unwilling to relent on any foreign policy failure, and are consistently reluctant to make any “new” foreign suggestions fail in the shadows of a Queens Television Cowboy. Smart people are essential to foreign policy-making but they need leadership, decisiveness, and, every now and then, a spot of dangerous non-conventionalism.

Who knows what will be the longer-term consequences of a reorienting Middle East. The United States under this President’s foreign policy might be earning itself more and better allies, or it could be making itself less relevant to a new diplomatic bloc. But regarding peace in the World TODAY, cooperation, and strengthening the anti-Iran forces, this president has achieved what the previous one could not and perhaps did not really want to. It sticks in the craw to admit it, but Trump outsmarted the smart people.

How’s that making those Foreign Policy elites feel?

NOW Let’s Get the Truth About Fraud in Mail-In Voting: It’s Real!

The factual conclusion is in: there IS mail-in voter fraud throughout our nation. And there’s NO good reason to allow mail-in voting to occur, other than for absentee balloting that is already in place.

Mail-in ballots have become the latest flashpoint in the 2020 elections. While President Trump and the GOP warn of widespread manipulation of the absentee vote that will swell with COVID polling restrictions, many Democrats and their media allies have dismissed such concerns as unfounded.

But the political insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he fears prosecution, said fraud is more the rule than the exception. His dirty work has taken him through the weeds of municipal and federal elections in Paterson, Atlantic City, Camden, Newark, Hoboken, and Hudson County in New Jersey, and his fingerprints can be found in local legislative, mayoral, and congressional races across the Garden State. Some of the biggest names and highest officeholders in New Jersey have benefited from his tricks, according to campaign records.

“An election that is swayed by 500 votes, 1,000 votes — it can make a difference,” the tipster said. “It could be enough to flip states.”

The whistleblower — whose identity, rap sheet, and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns were confirmed — says he not only changed ballots himself over the years but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania — a critical 2020 swing state.

“There is no race in New Jersey — from City Council to United States Senate — that we haven’t worked on,” the tipster said. “I worked on a fire commissioner’s race in Burlington County. The smaller the race, the easier it is to do.”

A Bernie Sanders die-hard with no horse in the presidential race, he said he felt compelled to come forward in the hope that states would act now to fix the glaring security problems present in mail-in ballots. “This is a real thing,” he said. “And there is going to be a f–king war coming November 3rd over this stuff.  If they knew how the sausage was made, they could fix it.”

Mail-in voting can be complicated — tough enough that 84,000 New Yorkers had their mailed votes thrown out in the June 23 Democratic presidential primary for incorrectly filling them out. But for political pros, they’re a piece of cake. In New Jersey, for example, it begins with a blank mail-in ballot delivered to a registered voter in a large envelope. Inside the packet are a return envelope, a “certificate of a mail-in voter,” which the voter must sign, and the ballot itself.

That’s when the election-rigger springs into action.

Just Make Your Own “fake” Ballots 

The ballot has no specific security features — like a stamp or a watermark — so the insider said he would just make his ballots. “I just put [the ballot] through the copy machine, and it comes out the same way,” the insider said. But the return envelopes are “more secure than the ballot. You could never recreate the envelope,” he said. So they had to be collected from real voters.

He would have his operatives fan out, going house-to-house, convincing voters to let them mail completed ballots on their behalf as a public service. The fraudster and his minions would then take the sealed envelopes home and hold them over boiling water. “You have to steam it to loosen the glue,” said the insider.

He then would remove the real ballot, place the counterfeit ballot inside the signed certificate, and reseal the envelope. “Five minutes per ballot tops,” said the insider.

The insider said he took care not to stuff the fake ballots into just a few public mailboxes but sprinkle them around town. That way, he avoided the attention that foiled a sloppy voter-fraud operation in a Paterson, NJ city council race this year, where 900 ballots were found in just three mailboxes. “If they had spread them in all different mailboxes, nothing would have happened,” the insider said.

USPS Employees Compliticit in Voter Fraud?

The tipster said sometimes postal employees are in on the scam.

“You have a postman who is a rabid anti-Trump guy, and he’s working in Bedminster or some Republican stronghold. He can take those filled-out ballots, and knowing 95% are going to a Republican; he can just throw those in the garbage.”

In some cases, mail carriers were members of his “work crew” and would sift ballots from the mail and hand them over to the operative.

In 2017, more than 500 mail-in ballots in New York City never arrived at the Board of Elections for races that November — leaving hundreds disenfranchised. They eventually were discovered in April 2018. “For some undetermined reason, some baskets of mail that were bound to the New York City Board of Elections were put off to the side at the Brooklyn processing facility,” city elections boss Michael Ryan said at the time of discovery.

Elder Care Facilities

Hitting up assisted-living facilities and “helping” the elderly fill out their absentee ballots was a gold mine of votes, the insider said. “There are nursing homes where the nurse is actually a paid operative. And they go room by room by room to these old people who still want to feel like they’re relevant,” said the whistleblower. “They literally fill it out for them.”

The insider pointed to former Jersey City Mayor Gerald McCann, who was sued in 2007 after a razor-thin victory for a local school board seat for allegedly tricking “incompetent and ill” residents of nursing homes into casting ballots for him. McCann denied it, though they did admit to assisting some nursing home residents with absentee ballot applications.

“That’s Not You!”

When all else failed, the insider would send operatives to vote live in polling stations, particularly in states like New Jersey and New York, which do not require voter ID. Pennsylvania, also, for the most part, does not. The best targets were registered voters who routinely skip presidential or municipal elections — information that is publicly available.

“You fill out these index cards with that person’s name and district, and you go around the city and say, ‘You’re going to be him, you’re going to be him,’” the insider said of how he dispatched his teams of dirty-tricksters.

At the polling place, the fake voter would sign in, “get online and vote,” the insider said. The imposters would simply recreate the signature that already appears in the voter roll as best they could. In the rare instance that a real voter had already signed in and cast a ballot, the impersonator would just chalk it up to an innocent mistake and bolt.

“Wanna Make a Few Bucks?”

The tipster said New Jersey homeless shelters offered a nearly inexhaustible pool of reliable — buyable — voters.

“They get to register where they live in, and they go to the polls and vote,” he said, laughing at the roughly $174 per vote Mike Bloomberg spent to win his third mayoral term. He said he could have delivered the same result at a 70-percent discount — like when Frank “Pupie” Raia, a real estate developer and Hoboken big cheese, was convicted last year on federal charges for paying low-income residents 50 bucks a pop to vote how he wanted during a 2013 municipal election.

Organizationally, the tipster said his voter-fraud schemes in the Garden State and elsewhere resembled Mafia organizations, with a boss (usually the campaign manager) handing off the day-to-day managing of the mob soldiers to the underboss (him). The actual candidate was usually kept in the dark deliberately so they could maintain “plausible deniability.” With mail-in ballots, partisans from both parties hash out and count ballots at the local board of elections — debating which ballots make the cut and which need to be thrown out because of irregularities.

The insider said any ballots offered up by him or his operation would come with a bent corner along the edge of the voter certificate — which contains the voter signature — so Democratic Board of Election counters would know the fix was in and not to object. “It doesn’t stay bent, but you can tell it’s been bent,” the tipster said. “Until the certificate is approved, the ballot doesn’t matter. They don’t get to see the ballot unless they approve the certificate.”

“I invented bending corners,” the insider boasted, saying once the fixed ballots were mixed in with the normal ones, the bed was made. “Once a ballot is opened, it’s an anonymous ballot.”

While federal law warns of prison sentences of up to five years, busted voter frauds have seen far less punishment. While in 2018, a Texas woman was sentenced to five years, an Arizona man busted for voting twice in the mail was given just three years probation. A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation found more than 1,000 instances of documented voter fraud in the United States, almost off of which occurred over the last 20 years.

“There is nothing new about these techniques,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Heritage who manages their election law reform initiative. “Everything he’s talking about is perfectly possible.“

Summary

Are you nauseated at the plethora of lies being told by leaders in the Democrat Party, Democrats in Congress, and the Mainstream Media: “Those who say mail-in voting is full of corruption are nothing more than conspiracy theorists! They are all lying?”

What you just read proved our already-existing voting system has problems that have not been corrected for several reasons. As stated above, the Heritage Foundation proved more than 1,000 cases of voter fraud in the U.S. We at TruthNewsNetwork have reported on almost 300 of those voter fraud cases.

So how widespread will be the probability of voter fraud November 3rd? Predictions at this point are just guesses. But it should be understood and accepted by every American that there will certainly be voter fraud underway in November. And those who indicate otherwise — I don’t how vehemently they denigrate Republicans or how nasty they are — are telling Americans lies!

Forgetting about absentee voting, for the “new” version of mail-in voting that several states have instituted for the upcoming election, 44 million voters in nine states and the District of Columbia are already set to vote by mail! 44 million! Just one percent of those votes intercepted and altered and replaced by the schemes detailed above that have been in place for years can turn an election!

Do Democrats really care?

That answer is simple: NO! “If” they did care, Democrat Party Leadership in Congress would NOT suggest mail-in voting without a massive planning and preparation process put in place over at least two election cycles. And those two elections would be placed under a microscope to guarantee Americans that NO illegality, vote-changing, or vote-buying was taking place.

Not only does the Nancy Pelosi proposal offer NO plan, NO intentions of creating a plan, NO methods to assure the safety of such a system, Speaker Pelosi demanded that the federal government assume total power over the operation of our entire election system. Why would she do such a thing? To strip MORE power from the states to give the federal government (which she plans on turning 100% of government control to members of her party) to facilitate voting results to the favor of the Democrat Party and to guarantee that NO state will ever have the opportunity to change their election process in the future.

“You’re just a conspiracy theorist, Dan!

If you feel this way, do us all a favor: write your explanation for the Democrat Party insistence on a national mail-in voting system to be implemented with NO plan, NO preparation, NO funding, and to do it so quickly. Send your 600-word explanation to Dan@TruthNewsNet.org. We will print each response we get in their entirety between now and election day. We will NOT edit any for content (other than profanity) but will correct misspelled words and punctuation when necessary.

Each weekday through November 3rd, we will open a live segment on TNN Live from 9:30 – 10:00 AM Central Time to allow any callers to share their votes about this sham proposed mail-in voting system.

Send us your rebuttal for our conclusion. Starting tomorrow, we will print them, and give us a call between 9:30 – 10:00 AM Central tomorrow and any day through November 3rd to discuss your thoughts live on TNN Live.

I can’t wait to read and hear the explanation for why Nancy Pelosi so brazenly demanded such a system. She and her fellow-Democrat co-harts are lusting for Power!

“white” Folks Ain’t Woke — Until Now

Just when we get to the point where we in America think we have things all together and we understand everything, we don’t. Just when we think we’ve reached a point where everyone knows how to address people of every race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, we don’t. But God knows we certainly know what it is to be Woke! You are not going to believe this, but the “real” journalists in our media have just turned the corner on exactly how to prove one is Woke: it’s how you spell two critical words in the English language.

What you are about to read will probably turn your face red — if not red then white, and your temperature will skyrocket. But here’s a critical promise you MUST make before continuing to read: don’t stop reading until you get all the way to the end! If you will not commit to that, simply click off this story and go to CNN or MSDNC online! It’s a story written by a reporter named Jarvis Dupont. We’ll tell you about Mr. Dupont at the completion of his offering to us all today. (Don’t forget: you MUST read all the way through)

Jarvis Dupont

The Associated Press — without question the oldest and formerly most reputable national newsprint disseminator — recently posted an announcement on their website detailing their decision to capitalize the “B” in Black when used in the context of race and culture.”These changes align with the long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American, and Native American,” writes AP’s Vice President for Standards, John Daniszewski in a blog post on the AP website.

The following day a further announcement was made explaining why they had taken the decision to continue to use a lowercase “w” in “white” when used in the same context.

Predictably, this has upset a lot of white people (or as I like to call them “racists”) who obviously cannot understand that when it comes to race, they really need to stay in their lane and get used to not “capitalizing” (haha!) from the labor of Black and Minority Ethnic people.

“There was clear desire and reason to capitalize Black,” explains Daniszewski in a second blog post. “Most notably, people who are Black have strong historical and cultural commonalities, even if they are from different parts of the world and even if they now live in different parts of the world. There is, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color.”

What John Daniszewski is saying here is that white people come from a wide range of cultures and social backgrounds, whereas Black people are one homogenous group with the same outlook and experiences and only one distinct identity: Black. Every Black person I know enjoys rap music and supports Black Lives Matter. I am fairly sure of this. When it comes to white people, their likes and dislikes are all over the place. You just can’t pin them down to anything specific. It’s like trying to nail ants to a wall. Horrible mess.

“We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore those problems,” Daniszewski continues.

From this, we can deduce that although white people come from many different cultures and backgrounds and experience no meaningful shared experience regarding their skin color…they DO share a propensity towards slave-ownership, white privilege and racism due to their, well, skin color. This makes perfect sense. white people benefit universally from Black slavery, they each have a duty to accept and dismantle their white privilege, they need to recognize the injustices that their lack of melanin have brought against Black people and strive to make amends. Only last week I made my grandfather go to his nearest KFC and apologize to any Black people he came across (apparently they can’t get enough of fried chicken which is another shared experience of theirs) for the death of George Floyd. He’s 83 and suffers from dementia, so he ended up telling a black Labrador that he killed George Foreman. The Labrador didn’t seem to pay him much heed but I still feel this was a valuable step towards making reparations.

So with all this in mind, I fully support the non-capitalization of the word ‘white’ when used in conversations surrounding race issues. white people need bringing down a fair few pegs, and this would be a damn good start. In fact, I think it would benefit us greatly if we took this a bit further and have outlined a few suggestions for a less white-oriented society:

  • Petition paint companies to not capitalize the word “white” on any of their products;
  • Create a typeface that automatically makes the “w” smaller when used before the letters “h”, “i,” “t,” and “e;”
  • Get rid of the “w” altogether so that the term “hite people” contains fewer letters than “Black people;”
  • Force editors to print the word “Black” in gold lettering on all magazine and newspaper articles, and have the word “white” handwritten in cheap crayon;
  • Completely remove the word “white” as a descriptive term, so that when we are discussing matters of race, the conversation becomes centered on “people,” and “Black people.”
  • Capitalize every letter in “Black” on everything everywhere to address the inequality and oppression BLACK people deal with every day.

I feel confident that we will begin to make huge strides towards true racial equality once we learn to treat people differently according to our preconceived notions regarding their skin color, and I would like to thank the Associated Press for taking that first brave step.

Summary

No doubt at some point during the Jarvis Dupont story you felt some disgust, probably some anger, and certainly screamed at your computer screen. You probably thought something like this: “How can this guy — and how can the Associated Press relent to the ‘Woke-Mongers’ and bow to the Black Lives Matter and do something so trivial which is nothing more than symbolic at best with NO substance?”

Jarvis Dupont

I’ll answer your question and give you some context this way: Jarvis Dupont is a fictional character who is either “a” person or “some” people who via Twitter have in large part headed this Social Justice Culture that pretty much totally controls the United States! Supposedly, Jarvis, fake-pictured to the left, is a transgender woman who exclusively uses Twitter to spread the LGTBQI, Woke, BLM, message using racial, ethnic, and bigotted language.

The Associated Press decision to, in all reports, keep the word “white” lower-case while capitalizing “Black” is true. USA Today and its network of 260 media outlets announced the plan to do the same last week. NBC News, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times are expected to follow suit quickly.

I could rant and rave about every part of this: the use of a fake transgender Twitter character, lighting ANOTHER fire of racial anger spelling “Black” and “white” in all reporting to disparage all white people, certainly pours gasoline on an already raging inferno.

Isn’t this what the U.S. needed in the shadows of the vilest racial violence and political upheaval of the last 50 years? It’s as if some political terrorist leader sitting at a table with henchman having a beer and laughing said, “What else can we do to create news to perpetuate the already existing hatred, anger, and divisiveness so this chaos will continue and even get worse? Hey, let’s think of something we can get Jarvis to dump on Twitter that will take this to an even higher level!”

Maybe that terrorist leader is Jarvis Dupont! Maybe, it’s George Soros or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin. Heck, it might even be Hillary. But whoever it is and whatever their plan is it has certainly succeeded so far. The fires of hatred and anger burn brightly in many of our major cities. Sadly, it appears that REAL violence might break out quickly in deadly fashion.

Play

The New York Times Gives In to the Mob. All the Adults are Gone!

Saying that “Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” New York Times columnist and editor Bari Weiss resigned yesterday with a scathing letter to the paper.

Weiss, one of the few centrist voices at The Times, said she faced bullying at the paper for her views, and that the free exchange of ideas on the opinion pages was now dead. The search for truth has been replaced by “orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

In the letter addressed to publisher A.G. Sulzberger, Weiss bemoans how the Times has strayed from the ideals laid out by Adolph Ochs in 1896, that the paper should publish “all shades of opinion.”

In part, here is Weiss’ resignation letter:

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it.

What’s Going On?

Weiss was an unusual fit at the New York Times. It is a rare occurrence when a young writer at that paper still maintains a sense of providing its readers looks into both sides of political policies — not just that of the Millennials who gorge daily on Twitter and Snap Chat. Weiss honored the institution of Journalism. She is not a patsy and never hesitated to pen her thoughts on any applicable subject.

But she also allowed for considerable room for readers to hold an OPPOSITE opinion. After all, Journalism is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas.

The marketplace of The Times is anything but open to multiple ideas on ANY subject.

“Bari Weiss’s letter was tame,” a New York Times insider said. She could have named names. She could have said, “There are dozens of other instances of bullying and harassment. Because there are.”

What took Weiss so long? Prominent writers at the Times never accepted her as a colleague. Instead, her colleagues on the opinion page sniped and leaked against her on Twitter from the first. Was it “tall poppy syndrome” – resentment of a young writer who, in an era when legacy media seem to be in perpetual crisis, landed a plum job at the Times? Or, as Weiss implies in her resignation letter, was it something nastier than mere jealousy – an ethical and legal failure that my source calls a ‘hostile workplace culture’?

The resignation letter she released on Tuesday alleges that Weiss, a liberal centrist who also happens to be a prominent Jewish supporter of Israel, has been called a “racist and Nazi” in her place of work and on Slack social media channels on which senior Times management are regular presences. She also says that the Times’s publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, and ‘other Times leaders have “stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage.” Her letter is restrained, but still, what sources call “the actual horror of her daily life at her job” again comes across.

“It’s astounding, but it’s also instructive,” one source says. “This is what happens when management doesn’t lift a finger to defend you.”

As Weiss herself says, her verifiable claims could amount to a costly compensation case for the Times: “unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge.” The Times’s management may also have breached Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964), by failing to protect Weiss from “discrimination based on certain specified characteristics” including “race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.”

Weiss’s online enemies are already assuming that she jumped before she was pushed. That alone would confirm the impression of ethical collapse at the Times. The radical left is running the paper, and no dissent is tolerated – not even from a US senator. But the truth is that she left in disgust.

‘This was obviously her decision. It was just, “What am I doing here anymore? The place has gone mad.”’

It won’t stop with Weiss. Colleagues on the opinion pages and in the newsroom have ratcheted up their disdain for moderates and conservatives. Who’s next?

It’s harder to get rid of a weekly columnist than an editor like Weiss. It’s a much bigger stink if a columnist leaves. But the fish stinks from the head, and the owners have no guts.

Summary

In her resignation letter, Weiss blathered what must have been devouring her insides for months. She made clear what the internal issues are at the formerly top newspaper not just in the U.S. but in the World. Today, it is far from that. Why is that?

The Times editors and publisher have stepped to the side in silent approval of a pronounced swing to the far left — not just far-left politics, but far-left social and moral mindsets that heretofore been subjects of columns like those from Weiss. Today, they are nothing more than ho-hum tweets from pimple-faced teens opining about their barrage of tweets that embarrassed, humiliated (or both) subjects of their attacks.

With Weiss gone, The Times has relented to be little more than an extension of Twitter. Maybe the paper should change its prominent building signage in Manhattan. Based on what Americans see today, an applicable sign on their building would say: “Twitter-East.”

The Adults Have Left the “Twitter-East” Building!

The Boogaloo: Extremists’ New Slang for a Coming Civil War

boogaloo cover adl

It’s not often an old joke evolves into a catchphrase for mass violence, but that’s just what’s happened this past year when a variety of extremist and fringe movements and subcultures adopted the word “boogaloo” as shorthand for a future civil war.

From militia groups to white supremacists, extremists on a range of online platforms talk about—and sometimes even anticipate—the “boogaloo.” The rise of “boogaloo,” and its casual acceptance of future mass violence, is disturbing. Among some extremists, it may even signify an increased willingness to engage in violence.

“Boogaloo” has its roots in decades of jokes about an old movie: the 1984 breakdancing film Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. Almost from the moment of the movie’s release, people exploited the format of the movie’s title for humorous purposes, replacing “Breakin’” with some other film, event or person of their choice.

These jokes included “Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo” references, made every so often by gamers and history buffs, among others.  But its most recent, and most serious, iteration caught on and spread very quickly. Though some still use the phrase as a joke, an increasing number of people employ it with serious intent.

Gun Rights Activists Threaten Violence

This new usage seems to have started with gun rights activists intimating or promising violence if the government were to “come for their guns.”  The full phrase has been used this way before; for example, in June 2018 someone started a Reddit thread titled “Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo” featuring a 2012 Facebook post by Gavin Newsom, then California’s lieutenant governor, telling the National Rifle Association, “we ARE coming for your guns.”  The implication made by the poster was clear—that any such effort would result in civil war.

In 2019, usage spread widely among pro-gun activists on a variety of online platforms, so much so that it was quickly pared down simply to “boogaloo” or “the boogaloo.”  In August, a Twitter user warned others to buy whatever guns and ammo they wanted now, because soon the ability to do so would be “severely curtailed,” adding, “Button up for the #boogaloo. Now.” That same month someone else tweeted the hashtag #boogaloo, warning about 100 million “active shooter” situations “when the cops try to do nationwide gun confiscations.”

A range of boogaloo-related phrases also emerged this year, as the term became more popular, including: “showing up for the boogaloo,” “when the boogaloo hits,” “being boogaloo ready” and “bring on the boogaloo.”  Boogaloo-related hashtags have surfaced, including #boogaloo2020, #BigIgloo (igloo-related images are now also used as boogaloo references), #boojahideen, and #boogaloobois.

Some people predicted that proposed “red flag” laws (laws allowing the temporary seizing of firearms from individuals deemed to present a danger to themselves or others) would bring on the boogaloo. Boogaloo-related hashtags now often appear along firearm-related tags, such as #2a, #gunrights, and #ShallNotBeInfringed. Many boogaloo references are directed against the “alphabet boys” or “alphabet gang” – federal agencies like the FBI and ATF – which people assume would assist in any gun confiscations.

In September, then-presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke called for a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons, sparking a rash of boogaloo references. “You realize your gun confiscation plan would set off the boogaloo, right?” one person asked O’Rourke on Twitter in October.  “Do you know that you will start a boogaloo?” demanded another.  “Once Beto starts taking the guns away, the boogaloo will start,” asserted a third.

The boogaloo meme soon spread from angry gun-rights activists to the militia movement and survivalists.  The Telegram channel “Boogaloo: How to Survive” claims to show “how to survive in a post society world through understanding the psychology of violence, attaining resources, and organizing to accomplish post society tasks.” It currently has more than 1,700 members. A militia movement-related website now sells a “Boogaloo 2020” t-shirt—and it is hardly alone.  Now one can buy boogaloo-related clothing and accessories from a variety of online marketplaces, including Amazon. Items include patches, pins and apparel (such as “Big Igloo” t-shirts).

The boogaloo meme has spread to other movements with anti-government beliefs, primarily minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, which are essentially conservative alternatives to anarchism, as well as a few apparent anarchists. Use of the term by adherents of these philosophies often refers to violence against the state and its institutions, especially law enforcement.

White Supremacists Take Up the Term

White supremacists have also adopted the boogaloo concept. A particularly disturbing boogaloo t-shirt (currently available online) features the word boogaloo under a photograph of John Earnest, the white supremacist who opened fire at a synagogue in Poway, California, in April 2019, killing one person.

Whereas the militia movement, radical gun rights activists typically promote the boogaloo as a war against the government or liberals, white supremacists conceive of the boogaloo as a race war or a white revolution. Some promote boogaloo-related phrases alongside hashtags such as #dotr or #DayOfTheRope, both of which are references to neo-Nazi William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, a novelized blueprint for a white revolution.

Accelerationist white supremacists are particularly apt to use “boogaloo” – they seek the violent collapse of modern society in order to bring about a new, white-dominated world. Among them is Paul Nehlen, who gained notoriety by running for U.S. Congress in Wisconsin in 2016 and 2018. After the Poway synagogue shooting, Nehlen embraced both accelerationism and the term boogaloo and has even posted photos of himself wearing the John Earnest/boogaloo shirt.

In August, the accelerationist “Terrorwave Refined” Telegram channel posted the following call to arms:

If they are ever dumb enough to come for your guns, let the executive, legislative, and judicial workers and their kike handlers know that they had better confiscate all the manure and trucks in America…because the first places you’ll visit will be the courthouses, legislatures, barracks, and next, their personal homes, their parents [sic] homes, their kids [sic] homes…and it will truly be the beginning of the White Man’s Boogaloo.

The reference to manure and trucks is likely an allusion to Timothy McVeigh’s use of an ammonium nitrate truck bomb to destroy the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

The white supremacist (and accelerationist) group Feuerkrieg Division recently posted a song about a race-war boogaloo to its official Telegram channel. A sampling of the lyrics makes its thrust clear:

Do the Boogaloo!

Kill the kikes, and save the whites

Come on, it’s time to go!

Do the Boogaloo!

Plug a pig, and then a Yid

Let’s do the Boogaloo, all together now!

Care must be taken when evaluating boogaloo-as-civil-war references, as some people—even those in extremist movements—still use the phrase jokingly, or to mock some of the more fanatical or gung-ho adherents of their own movement.

Summary

Just what we need: another fringe group. Yep, more divisiveness in America. Who thought we could become even further divided!

Is there any solace anywhere in the U.S. today? Is there any hope for “Liberty and Justice for All?”

All of the American “isms” do little more than confuse those of us in Middle-America. Are you like me growing rapidly sick of having to try and remember all the politically correct nomenclature for each of the groups who demand their own separate identities?

I must be honest and tell you that when the LGBT movement added the “Q” at the end, I thought for many months the “Q” stood for “Queer.” Imagine my horror when one young adult very loudly in front of others corrected me. How stupid could I be! Everyone knows the “Q” in “LGBTQ” stands for “Questioning.”

And now we have the Boogaloo movement. I may be too old to remember a lot of things, but I know factually that during my sophomore year in high school, the boogaloo was a dance that I desperately tried to learn but failed. How can I remember that? The girl in school that I dreamed would become my first real heartthrob laughed at me when I demonstrated just how incompetent I was with the Boogaloo. I guess now to do the Boogaloo you have to carry an AR-15.

No, none of this is funny. But it’s all sad. “One Nation Under God” used to mean something. Today it is just a slam against every religion but Christianity and is certainly xenophobic, islamophobic, racist, and every other “phobic” or “ism” one can think of.

I have a novel idea: why don’t we simply call ourselves “Americans?” That would certainly make it easier.

Wait, we can’t do that. It would alienate the 11- 20 million people who call the U.S. home that are here illegally. And we certainly cannot label them as “illegals,” even though that’s what they are.

I wonder if THEY know the old meaning of the word “Boogaloo?” I bet they’re better dancers than I am.

Wait a minute: I can’t say that — it’s racist!

“Could’ve, Should’ve, Would’ve”

Now that it appears that the nation has turned the corner on coronavirus, let the blame game begin. After all, isn’t everything that’s happened in the last 3.5 years the direct result of Donald Trump? Wait: I said “everything.” That can’t be right. Let’s restate that: “…isn’t everything BAD that’s happened in the last 3.5 years the direct result of Donald Trump?” There’s a BIG difference there. As a matter of fact, if you listen to anybody that even leans a bit left politically, not very much good HAS happened since 2016. Anything that happened that was good was because of the policies of Barack Obama, Democrats in Congress, and because those Democrats beat back the attempts of the GOP to hurt the American people.

It may not be quite like that. But if it’s not an actual representation of how the political ride of this administration has been, it’s awfully close.

Now, the Left has another arrow in their quiver with which to attack Donald Trump: Coronavirus.

“Tony, Boy”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, known to the world as THE infectious disease expert of all experts. He knows it all when it comes to measles, whooping cough, and pandemics. No one has more street cred on these subjects than does Dr. Fauci.

Who will ever forget that meeting in early January in which Dr. Fauci predicted the tragic results of COVID-19 we’ve seen in our country in the last few months? Indeed, that day in January will go down in history. That was the day when Dr. Fauci gave the advice to the White House to eliminate social contact between Americans as best as possible and to quickly close schools, tighten down on human connection in every other gathering, and avoid human contact altogether. I’ll never forget the doctor’s press briefing in which he told Americans there was hope, that if we did everything he said for us to do, we’d get through this with minimal losses. (I think that was in mid-January) Surely CNN and MSNBC will replay those press conferences to illustrate how the President ignored the specialist’s warnings.

Here’s the latest Dr. Tony Fauci headline: “White House coronavirus expert Dr. Tony Fauci said Sunday lives could have been saved if the US had been shut down earlier. Speaking on CNN, the immunologist said the US could start to reopen next month, but warned a second wave of the virus could still hit the country.’

Here’s the rest of Sunday’s CNN story about Dr. Fauci’s interview:

During the interview, Fauci revealed that the government had been advised to begin social distancing measures in February. President Trump announced plans to roll out “self-isolating” in mid March.

“We look at it from a pure health standpoint,” Fauci said. “We make a recommendation, often the recommendation is taken, sometimes it’s not. But it is what it is.”

Fauci was then asked if lives could have been saved if stay at home measures had started in February, rather than almost a month later. “Obviously you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier you could’ve saved lives, obviously,” he replied. “No-one is going to deny that. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.”

“Could’ve, Should’ve, Would’ve”

Here’s a partial timeline of the U.S. governments direct actions at the beginning of Coronavirus:

Jan. 6, 2020: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns Americans to take precautions if traveling to China.

Jan. 7: The CDC’s Emergency Operations Center activates a COVID-19 Incident Management System,  used to direct operations, deliver resources and share information.

Jan. 8: The CDC issues an alert about the coronavirus, saying it is “closely monitoring” the disease and that there are “no known U.S. cases.”

Jan. 14: The World Health Organization issues a statement about the first COVID-19 case outside of China, saying, “There is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

Jan. 17: The CDC holds its first COVID-19 telebriefing. Officials say that the agency will start screening passengers on direct or connecting flights from Wuhan. However, they said that they are not aware of measures regarding exit screening in Wuhan.

Jan. 21: The first case of the coronavirus in the U.S. is confirmed in a patient near Seattle.

Jan. 29: Trump announces the creation of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force to lead the “United States government response to the novel 2019 coronavirus and with keeping him apprised of developments.” The White House said the task force was being led by Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar.

Jan. 31: The Trump administration suspends entry into the United States by foreign nationals who traveled to China within the last 14 days (excluding Hong Kong and Macau). This does not apply to lawful U.S. residents and family members/ spouses of U.S. residents or citizens. Azar declares a U.S. public health emergency for COVID-19. The declaration was retroactive to Jan. 27.

Feb. 6: The first U.S. citizen diagnosed with the coronavirus dies in Wuhan, China, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing says.

Feb. 7: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announces a U.S. pledge of $100 million to help China and other countries combat the coronavirus. The pledge is also mentioned in an HHS press briefing with members of the coronavirus task force.

Feb. 18: The CDC issues an order requiring airlines to provide information about any passenger coming from China within 14 days of their entry into the U.S.

Feb. 24: The White House asks Congress for $1.25 billion in new funding to help with coronavirus response. The administration also asked to move $535 million more from an Ebola preparedness account.

Feb. 26: Trump announces that Vice President Mike Pence will head the U.S. response to the coronavirus outbreak.

Feb. 29: First U.S. death related to the coronavirus is announced after an individual in Washington state dies from the illness. That same day, Trump and Pence announce additional travel restrictions involving Iran and an advisory against traveling to certain parts of Italy and South Korea.

March 2: Trump and members of the coronavirus task force meet with pharmaceutical companies to discuss speeding up the development of a vaccine and treatments for the coronavirus. Trump claims some of the companies said that a vaccine would be ready in three to four months. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, later clarified that a year to a year and a half would be a more accurate timetable.

Trump signs an $8.3 billion spending package to combat the coronavirus. This comes a day after the Senate approved the House-passed legislation.

Trump travels to CDC headquarters in Atlanta and at one point says he “wouldn’t generally be inclined” to cancel travel and social gatherings.

This timeline was produced by a news source that is almost exclusive anti-Trump in its stories. Therefore it comes as no surprise they did NOT mention one very important dig at the President in their timeline: Where is the day in which Dr. Fauci recommended to the President (or any other member of the task force) that we needed to begin social distancing?

In hindsight, there we probably “could’ve” had fewer U.S. cases and subsequent deaths if we had much more information. And if we had that information from the experts at the time, President Trump “would’ve” announced the necessity for social distancing. And if he had all that information along with Dr. Fauci’s recommendation and did NOT push for social distancing, he certainly “should’ve.”

With Dr. Fauci’s CNN interview comment that “we certainly could have saved lives if we began social distancing sooner” “could’ve” been true. In retrospect, that social distancing policy “should’ve” been given to the general public. We’ll never know factually, but if the social distancing policy would have been better explained along with its grave importance to the American people, it probably “would’ve” saved more of our citizens from coronavirus death.

Blame Game

Stop right now and do a Google search: “The first announcement promoting social distancing in coronavirus pandemic.”

The earliest I can find is by Dr. Fauci in a March 20th interview on PBS. In that interview, he did NOT make a demonstrative statement about social distancing or even recommending any type of strict guidelines. He was asked what was his fear about the virus and its impact on Americans and he replied, “I’m worried that too many people will not adhere to staying away from big groups, going to restaurants and bars, and putting themselves and other Americans in harms way.”

There was NOTHING in that interview nor was there ever any indication to the public by Dr. Fauci or any other member of the task force that social distancing was a necessity to stop its spread.

And then Sunday, April 12, Dr. Fauci deflected any accountability for there being NO earlier warning to “others” in government — without saying it, he meant the President.

And the Sunday news media have taken stories about that to the moon.

Experts

Remember when the President ordered the travel ban on January 31 for anyone coming to the U.S. from China? Remember what Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), both said about it? Both called it “unnecessary, political, rash, racist, xenophobic, and unconstitutional.”

“Experts” have repeatedly stated that travel ban probably saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans who would have been exposed to additional entries from China of those carrying the virus. 400,000 travelers from China entered the U.S. in the 90-days before the travel ban!

It certainly made a difference. Yet for that sensible decision — in defiance of the World Health Organization — Mr. Trump was criticized by Democrats such as Joe Biden as xenophobic, and by China as racist.

“This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia — hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering,” said Biden the day after the travel restrictions were imposed.

CNN ran a story warning that “the US coronavirus travel ban could backfire” and have the effect of “stigmatizing countries and ethnicities.”

The Chinese Communist Party’s official mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, called the ban “racist.”

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned it would increase “fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”

What it DID do was stop thousands from being exposed.

Most Americans applaud the President’s early actions. But those early actions initiated by Mr. Trump and others in his administration are rarely mentioned in today’s media. They no longer just ignore the good things and great results and accomplishments by this administration; they make up stories that feed the narrative of a now-dwindling group of “expert” politicians and news journalists.

Has anyone thought this through?

January 15, House Democrats delivered two articles of impeachment to the United States Senate. Democrats knew the Republican-controlled Senate would not have enough votes to convict President Trump. But that didn’t deter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) from wasting government time, resources, and attention for months in a doomed effort to remove Donald Trump from the White House. Six days later, on January 21, the first known case of novel coronavirus (COVID-19, or the Wuhan virus) was reported in the United States. There was a little matter of those impeachment articles being handed over to the Senate for an impeachment trial. Pelosi sat on them for two weeks!

How much did you hear from Democrat leaders during that time regarding their coronavirus concerns? Nothing. But we listened to a lot about impeachment: NONSTOP. Come to think of it, what have we heard from Democrat leaders when they continuously attack the President for not doing soon enough enough that the President SHOULD be doing? NOTHING.

It’s not about leadership to the Left. It’s about the politicization of what they see as one more opportunity to impeach Donald Trump, either literally or figuratively.

While the Left predictably gathers steam to condemn Trump for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, congressional Democrats have escaped any accountability for ignoring the early stages of the outbreak. And, with no sense of irony, the very journalists and pundits who cheered impeachment are the same folks now blasting the president for “not doing enough” to stop the spread of COVID-19.
Some things never change in Washington. The greatest of those things is that Democrats attack every person in any position in life who refuses to bow at their altar of Identity Politics. How’s that going to work out for them in November?
Play

Emergency: Very Important Message!

I’m writing this in the middle of the night after a day and one-half of fighting the fallout of the COVID-19 chaos that has now become part of all Americans’ lives.

I have a critical message to share with you today. But it will take me until 12:00 noon Central time to be able to present it. It will be ONLY in podcast audio format. Please come back at 12:00 noon Central today and plan on using your smartphone or computer to listen to a brief, information filled 1-minute podcast: no frills, no music, just frank talk.

It’s grim in America.

I’ll see you Saturday, March 14 high noon.

 

Dan

Presidential Endorsements: Media Failed Again

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

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

Why do newspapers make endorsements at all?

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe Readers Feel Newspapers no Longer Report the News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click Here

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Play

“Yeah…But…”

Roadblocks, losses, rejection, failures, being not good enough: all these are things that most of us can relate to. It is rare when someone — ANYone — can say honestly, “I’ve not experienced any of those.”

Going through these things are normal occurrences. And each contains unique elements that do no impact everyone the same way. That makes it almost impossible to create a perfect how-to manual with accurate instructions one can use to solve the problem. Because of that, many just throw-in-the-towel.

Thankfully there has always been a sense of “anyone can do anything if they try hard enough” spirit in the U.S. That encourages many to dust themselves off after failures and go after the same objective again or go tackle a new one.

Have you known anyone that seems bullet-proof? No matter what they face that doesn’t work out, they just move on to a different way of doing it, or they just move on to something else.

Have you ever faced one or two of these circumstances? How did you handle losing or not being good enough or rejected? Did you give up or stop trying?

Today just might be a magical few minutes that change your life and maybe even many others through you. What follows is a video that is timed perfectly for this topic and today especially.

LSU faces Clemson tonight in the College Football National Championship. These are without question the best two college football teams in the nation. That means each roster is bloated with phenomenal athletes. Each has a quarterback that most experts feel are not just the best two college quarterbacks this season, but maybe the best two QB’s to play at the same time in college history.

I’m an LSU fan: a Louisiana “lifer.” I’m excited that the Tigers — “our” Tigers — are facing Clemson’s Tigers for the trophy. More than the chance to win that championship, I am ecstatic that for the last two years I have personally witnessed one of the most amazing responses to adversity ever seen in college athletics. Take a few minutes and watch this video then let’s get back together for two minutes.

Meet “Joe.”

Joe when not allowed to play at Ohio State knew he had failed. He kept trying. He worked hard to be the best at quarterback. He never quit.

After things like this happen to most of us and we choose to give up, we quit. But worse, most of us want to place blame for our failure.

“Your wedding didn’t work out and you divorced your husband.” Our response to that: “Yeah…But….”

“You were fired at your job.” Our response: “Yeah…But…”

It’s the “Yeah…But…” that destroys millions of lives yearly. How? Just look at Joe Burrow.

He was benched again and again at his dream college, Ohio State. He kept working. He kept getting better. He never gave up. He never quit. His friends and teammates taunted him and maybe his position opponents talked down to him. He almost certainly heard this: “Hey, man. You aren’t good enough. You got permanently benched. You’ll never play quarterback.”

Joe could have said, “Yeah…But…” and rattled off a list of excuses. He didn’t do that. He simply found a way to push through. He transferred to LSU and began a college football historical run that is probably long from over.

If Joe had listened to and accepted what the Ohio State coaches said and did to him, he’d be somewhere working today, probably in the private sector. Instead, Joe Burrow leads LSU tonight into the college championship game. And in a couple of months, he’ll undoubtedly be the first college quarterback taken in the NFL draft — maybe even the #1 player drafted — and begin what portends to be a dramatically successful NFL career.

Joe never said “Yeah…But…” When anyone said any of those things to him, he probably just looked at them and smiled.

Geaux Tigers!