While I know that just the name, Rahm Emanuel makes your stomach churn, you must admit that the rabid Democrat / Liberal faction still idolize him. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is one of the Democrat’s top strategists. He was the mastermind of the candidate recruitment strategy which led to the Democrats seizing control of the House in 2006 and he was also Barack Obama’s first chief of staff.
But he gave a message to Democrats about the next election cycle that they didn’t like. He told them that in Midterm elections the Party in power usually doesn’t end up faring very well. Will the GOP succumb to the same feat in 2018? Apparently, Rahm doesn’t believe so.
According to Breitbart:
“Emanuel said in 2016, “Now Democrats are in the lowest level since 1928 in the House of Representatives and the lowest level since 1925 in the state houses. Not really good.” adding,” It is hard to imagine it getting lower.”
Rahm further explained:
“You got to go out and create a farm team. In ’06 and ’08 everybody goes, ‘Oh that’s when we took back the House.’ You know I got a lot of crap for recruiting Iraq War vets, football players, sheriffs, and business people. I said well they are running in Republican districts. I wanted to take cultural issues off the table and I wanted to present economic issues. We as Democrats like to walk around ideally — No . . . you got to be ruthless enough. We recruited people who matched the district. If you’re running in a Republican district, you got to get at somebody who can win in a Republican district. Winning is everything. You don’t win; you can’t make the public policy. I say that because it is hard for people in our party to accept that principle. Sometimes you just got to win. Okay? Our party likes to be right even if they lose.”
“Democrats love doing a fire squad in a circle. Stop that. Don’t attack, they are too moderate. Forget about it. Stop it. This guy and these people are about to do something on the tax code, the regulatory environment and things that are more threatening than what a fellow Democrat might slightly disagree with you on. Stop it. We’re not strong enough to do that. It took us a long time to get this low. It ain’t gonna happen in 2018. Take a chill pill, man. You gotta be in this for the long haul. And if you think it’s going to be a quick turn around like that, it’s not.”
The Democratic base has become totally unhinged. They are demanding 100% resistance to the Trump agenda. And while denying Trump any support may help Red State Democrats ward off a primary challenge, fighting Trump on priorities such as the National Right to Work Act, legislation to stop illegal immigration, repealing Obamacare, and tax cuts while still paying homage to their brand of identity politics – could doom them with more conservative and working class votes.
Democrats face a particularly difficult Senate map for 2018 Election. While they just need to win 3 seats to install Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader, they must also defend 23 seats. Ten of which include states that Donald Trump won in 2016. Some pundits believe the GOP could capture enough seats to hold a filibuster proof majority starting in 2019. But holding on to the seats in the states Trump won could prove even more difficult difficult than previously thought and that is something that their Top strategist is telling them just won’t happen in 2018.
As the debate over repealing Obamacare intensifies, it’s important to remember the law’s most glaring failures.
Here are eight:
Despite repeated promises of premium reductions, Obamacare has delivered major increases.
In the employer-sponsored market, costs continue to increase. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average family premiums for employer-sponsored plans have increased almost 32 percent from 2010-2016.
In the individual market, where the bulk of Obamacare’s new rules and regulations have taken effect, the average nationwide premium increase has been 99 percent for individuals and 140 percent for families from 2013-2017, according to an eHealth report.
Deductibles keep rising, too, especially for Obamacare exchange plans. According to an analysis by HealthPocket, the average deductible for a bronze plan in 2017 is $6,092 for an individual and $12,383 for a family. The average silver plan deductible for an individual is $3,572 and $7,474 for a family.
2) Choice and Competition
Relative to the individual market prior to the law’s implementation, insurer competition has always been limited on Obamacare’s exchanges. However, competition has continued to decline, with 2017 being the worst year yet.
Forthcoming Heritage Foundation research finds that 70 percent of U.S. counties have only one or two insurers offering coverage on the exchange in 2017.
3) Exchange Enrollment
The Obama administration estimated that the average monthly effectuated enrollment in the exchanges was 10.4 million people in 2016. This is significantly below original projections from the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that 21 million people would be getting their coverage through the law’s government-run exchanges in 2016.
According to the IRS, in 2015, 12.7 million taxpayers claimed one or more exemptions from Obamacare’s mandate to purchase coverage and another 6.5 million taxpayers paid the penalty rather than sign up for coverage.
4) Exchange Websites
The federal government sent nearly $5 billion to states to set up their own health insurance exchanges. Despite the ample funding, the vast majority of states either didn’t want to set up their own, or tried and failed.
In 2017, only 11 states and the District of Columbia run their own exchange. The remaining 39 states use HealthCare.gov, which cost taxpayers at least an estimated $800 million to build. Recall that HealthCare.gov was only able to enroll six people on its launch date, Oct. 1, 2013.
5) If You Like Your Plan, but the Government Doesn’t, You Can’t Keep It
When Obamacare’s insurance rules and mandates took full effect in 2014, insurers were forced to cancel existing plans that didn’t comply with the new standards. A tally put together by the Associated Press shows that there were at least 4.7 million plan cancelations across 30 states.
6) Collapsed Co-Op Program
Obamacare provided for the creation of 23 new nonprofit health insurers through the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program. These insurers launched in 2014, using $2.4 billion in taxpayer-funded “loans.” Shortly thereafter, they began to collapse like dominos.
Some of the closures happened during the plan year, significantly disrupting coverage and the market. Thus far, 18 out of 23 have gone under, resulting in a combined $1.9 billion in government loans that taxpayers are highly unlikely to ever be repaid.
7) Dumping Millions Into Medicaid
Instead of reforming the over-stretched and unsustainable Medicaid program, Obamacare has dumped millions more people into it. After the first two years of Obamacare, an additional 11.8 million people were enrolled in the Medicaid program.
The law’s expansion is projected to add $969 billion in new Medicaid spending over the next decade, adding to existing Medicaid spending for a total federal cost of $3.8 trillion from 2017-2028.
8) Restricted Access to Providers
Obamacare’s increased costs have prompted narrow network plans to flourish on the exchanges—an unpleasant surprise for patients that desire broad access to providers. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation measured network size for plans sold in the 2014 exchanges, finding:
Fourty-one percent of networks are small or x-small: 11 percent of networks are x-small, meaning they include less than 10 percent of office-based practicing physicians in the area and another 30 percent are small, including between 10 percent and 25 percent of physicians. At the other end of the spectrum, 11 percent are x-large, which we define as networks including more than 60 percent of physicians.
For all these reasons and many more, Congress should repeal Obamacare as soon as possible to clear the way for health care reform that actually works for Americans.
By Alyene Senger http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/23/8-reasons-why-obamacare-should-be-repealed/
Leave it to the media, which spent the latter half of 2016 highlighting how outrageously expensive Obamacare premiums were becoming, to suddenly shift gears in 2017 and stress the health law’s many “pluses.”
Such was the case in a recent interview with Heritage President Jim DeMint, in which CNN anchor Carol Costello suggested that lawmakers would need to preserve the so-called benefits of Obamacare if they repealed it.
In Costello’s words:
For example, this is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve in Dallas. Preventative care provided by Obamacare … saves money and health care costs overall. In 2015, the cost of health care services increased 0.5 percent. The typical price increase before Obamacare, it was around 3 to 4 percent. Obamacare will lower the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years. So, there are pluses to Obamacare. So, how do you keep the pluses and get rid of the minuses?
DeMint shot back that those “facts” could fall “under the category of fake news.” This set Costello off to correct him that the numbers had come from the Congressional Budget Office.
Well, here’s what the Congressional Budget Office actually said about the cost of preventative care in 2009: “Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.”
For Americans paying premiums, this year’s price increases speak for themselves. According to the Obama administration, on the exchanges, the average increase this year in the benchmark plan premium is 25 percent across the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform. Certainly this cannot be considered a “plus,” even by the law’s most zealous supporters.
Indeed, in 2014, the Senate Budget Committee went back and used the Congressional Budget Office’s same scoring conventions and found that Obamacare would increase the deficit by $131 billion over the next decade.
Although the details of this year’s repeal bill are not yet known, the Congressional Budget Office’s latest score of an Obamacare repeal—based on the reconciliation bill passed by the last Congress, which repealed the law’s major spending provisions and tax increases—was projected to reduce federal deficits by roughly $516 billion over the 2016-2025 period, accounting for the economic benefits that would result.
But on CNN, Costello wasn’t finished. “So, all those 20 million people enrolled in Obamacare, they’re all going broke and it’s not working for any of them?” she asked. Actually, 20 million is a debatable enrollment figure, given that it is based on survey data that can be off by millions of people.
Using actual insurer enrollment data, which is only available through the end of 2015, there was an increase in coverage of only 14 million Americans from 2013 to 2015, with the vast majority (11.7 million) being pushed into Medicaid coverage.
Moreover, the actual net increase in private coverage during this period was only 2.3 million due to a decline in employment-based coverage, which offset the increase in the individual health insurance market.
Furthermore, Costello forgot about all of the people (over 10 million) who purchase coverage in the individual market and receive no Obamacare subsidy. These people have been getting hammered by premium increases caused by Obamacare every year and have to pay the full cost on their own.
Costello asked, “How do you take care of people much better than they’re taken care of now?”
Considering that many Americans are now facing fewer insurer options, higher insurance deductibles, and higher premiums than prior to Obamacare, the need for real cost relief is immense.
The first step in providing relief is to quickly repeal the law and then do the legislative work that will allow for patient-centered reforms.
As part of his quest to overhaul the American justice system, liberal billionaire George Soros is targeting local prosecutor races like the one in Harris County, a large jurisdiction that includes the city of Houston.
Morris Overstreet, a former judge who was the first African-American elected to statewide office in Texas since Reconstruction, was one of the beneficiaries. Overstreet received $100,000 from Soros in the race for Harris County district attorney.
But in a rare lost bet for Soros, Overstreet was defeated easily in the Democratic primary in March by Kim Ogg, a white woman from a prominent political family who has practiced law in Harris County, where she was born, for nearly 30 years.
Ogg had condemned the Soros donation to Overstreet intended to defeat her, calling it “a last-minute money dump to try to buy the nomination.”
Today, Ogg is the Harris County district attorney-elect after going on to beat the Republican incumbent, Devon Anderson. She won the general election with the aid of about $878,000 from the Soros-funded Texas Safety and Justice PAC.
Soros pledged allegiance to Ogg after his preferred candidate lost.
The money helped buy television ads accusing Anderson of botching a case in which the district attorney’s office ordered a rape victim jailed to guarantee she would show up in court to testify against her attacker.
Associates of Soros helped craft the message of the ads, Ogg’s campaign confirmed to The Daily Signal. The campaign said Soros’ contributions to Ogg equaled more than half of the $1.5 million she raised in total.
This past week, less than a month before she takes office, Ogg expressed a different view of Soros’ campaign contributions.
“Before, I was dismayed he was buying the election,” Ogg said in an interview with The Daily Signal, adding:
It was a last-minute dump [of funds supporting Overstreet]. In my instance, his people came to talk to me after I won the primary, so it was not a last-minute dump. Soros is only half of the story here. My agenda and platform was really set before he spent money in my race, but I am appreciative of the money, as I was with every other dollar.
On Jan. 1, Ogg will begin to try fulfilling the vision she ran on, promising a “significant culture change” defined by taking a more lenient approach to marijuana possession cases, focusing tax dollars on punishing violent criminals, and making it easier for defendants to get out of jail on bond in a county where 70 percent of inmates cannot afford to free themselves before trial.
It’s a set of goals that would seem to match Soros’ preference for how prosecutors do their jobs, using their powerful roles and vast discretion not only to protect public safety but also reduce prison populations and repeat offenses.
Despite these overlapping interests, Ogg insists she doesn’t have a mandate from Soros. In fact, she says she’s never spoken to or met with him.
“I don’t know George Soros,” Ogg said, then repeated: “I don’t know George Soros.”
“I made no promises to Soros or his supporters. The money that helped expose issues here is always a benefit, but I believe voters made their decision not based on the name or identity of a contributor, but on the poor policies and public safety record of my opponent. Plus, I have my own reputation here. In cases of David vs. Goliath, I often represent David. I believe my reputation is intact.”
‘Staggering Amount of Money’
Soros, 86, an American hedge fund manager and philanthropist, is No. 22 on the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires, with a net worth estimated at $20 billion. He finances a variety of liberal political causes, including ones related to education, immigration, climate change, and the environment.
Soros’ philanthropic network, the Open Society Foundations, has spent more than $13 billion over the past three decades on initiatives to defend human rights abroad and shape the democratic process in Eastern Europe.
Soros gave an unprecedented $27 million to various 527 groups trying to defeat President George W. Bush in his 2004 re-election campaign, describing the effort as a “matter of life and death.”
Soros also helped launch the Democracy Alliance, a group of major liberal donors seeking to advance progressive policymaking by investing in organizations such as Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, and Organizing for Action, which was set up to advance the agenda of President Barack Obama.
Soros has not personally spoken with or met any of the candidates he supported in district attorney races this year and last, his advisers say.
In most of the dozen prosecutor races he helped finance, Soros did not coordinate at all with the candidate he supported, they said. Instead, he operated independently by giving money to various state-level political action committees (PACs) and a national “527” unlimited-money group, each identified by a variation on “Safety and Justice.”
The form of his contributions depended on local and state campaign finance laws, Soros’ advisers say, and in some cases, as in Harris County, the collaboration was more direct.
“The amount of money we are talking about is STAGGERING.”
Joshua Marquis, National District Attorneys Association
Soros’ efforts are part of a new, broader push by progressives to locate, prepare, and fund challengers to unseat incumbent prosecutors. Such upsets are notoriously difficult to achieve in local district attorney races, where name recognition and outside interest are usually low and voters give deference to the candidate with a record.
“Criminal justice reform efforts must take many forms,” Whitney Tymas, an adviser on Soros’ project challenging sitting prosecutors, said in a statement to The Daily Signal. Tymas added:
Changing laws and redirecting funding streams is critical. Because of the enormous discretion vested in those who enforce the laws, including prosecutors, it is also important to elect officials who are committed to public safety and equal justice. These officials are a key leverage point in a complicated system.
David Alan Sklansky, a Stanford University professor and former federal prosecutor, told The Daily Signal that only a “handful” of races for the 2,500 district attorneys’ offices nationwide included candidates with “reform-oriented” agendas, and of those that did, most did not involve contributions from Soros.
“In a number of high-visibility district attorney races around the country, incumbents this year were unseated by challengers who promised a more moderate approach to criminal justice, backing away from a simple ‘tough on crime’ agenda and paying more attention to fairness, proportionality, and equity,” Sklansky said. “Many of these successful candidates also pledged to improve the investigation of police shootings, to rein in prosecutorial misconduct, and to be more vigilant in avoiding and correcting wrongful convictions.”
Still, Soros’ role in local prosecutor races is significant. It touches counties big and small, urban and rural; northern, southern, western, eastern, and midwestern. In total, Soros spent nearly $11 million on 12 district attorney races this election cycle, campaign filings show.
A Democrat candidate supported by Soros ultimately won in 10 of the 12 races.
The trend of outside funding worries opponents of Soros’ tactics, including veteran district attorneys who say the outsize contributions threaten prosecutorial independence, which is especially important in a role as powerful and all-encompassing as theirs.
“The amount of money we are talking about is staggering,” said Joshua Marquis, the district attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon, since 1994 and a board member of the National District Attorneys Association.
“And it’s amplified because it’s extremely difficult to raise money as a prosecutor,” Marquis told The Daily Signal, adding:
To ask for money when you are a prosecutor, there is something inherently icky about all of it. The argument on one side is this is good, and it’s just turning on a searchlight and looking at these issues. But that’s naive in the extreme because it’s the money that is funding debates and actual discussions. If you are able to pay for and tell your side of the story over and over again on television ads, you are going to win.
Matthew McCord faced an uphill challenge to counter his Soros-backed opponent.
McCord, a Republican who ran for district attorney in Henry County, Georgia, was not an incumbent and did not have a prosecutor’s record to run on.
He had $60,000 in his campaign fund and a supportive family, but in September he decided that wasn’t enough. McCord dropped out of the race after learning Soros had contributed $100,000 to a political action committee supporting his opponent, Democrat Darius Pattillo.
“The joke was people were saying to me, ‘You need to fight to the death,’ and I said, ‘To whose death, mine?’” McCord told The Daily Signal in an interview. “Soros apparently had a single-minded mission to make sure I was not successful. I couldn’t compete.”
McCord, a municipal judge and local lawyer, said he ran on a platform similar to Pattillo, a deputy chief assistant district attorney in nearby DeKalb County. McCord said both candidates called for relieving overburdened courts and crowded jails by providing more alternatives to prosecution for low-risk offenders as well as better community outreach.
Pattillo did not respond to a request for an interview from The Daily Signal.
“I am viewed as a fairly centrist conservative,” McCord said. “I don’t know there was much difference between my approach to justice and his [Pattillo]. When did progressives and liberals get a monopoly on the idea of criminal justice reform? Soros doesn’t even know me. He didn’t ask me what my views were or what I would do.”
Soros so far has backed only Democrats in district attorney races, but his advisers insist his support for candidates isn’t based on political party and say Soros would consider making a large contribution to a “reform-minded” Republican prosecutor.
McCord said he doesn’t know if he will run again for district attorney—his dream job. But he said he knows what would stop him from trying.
“I’d rather be a private citizen doing the right thing than be a bought man,” McCord said.
‘A Little Bit of Love’
Prosecutors drive critical decisions in the criminal justice system, choosing when, whether, and against whom to bring criminal charges, as well as making recommendations for sentencing and setting the terms of plea negotiations.
These decisions are receiving more scrutiny at a time where there is a growing bipartisan consensus around the need to reduce incarceration, provide more alternative punishments, and expand rehabilitation opportunities for low-level drug offenders.
As part of this effort, Soros, along with progressive groups advocating racial justice and gender equality, is trying to elect more minority prosecutors in response to what he sees as an insufficient response by incumbent district attorneys to the fatal shootings of black men by police officers.
Several candidates who Soros backed are members of minority groups.
The Reflective Democracy Campaign, an arm of the progressive Women Donors Network, found in a 2015 study that 95 percent of elected local prosecutors were white.
“Of course, what was happening with Black Lives Matter and police shootings was a huge wake-up call [for progressives, who began] realizing how much power these offices have and the need for us to be focused on getting great people elected,” Andrea Dew Steele, president of Emerge America, a candidate-training organization for Democratic women, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.
“District attorney races have historically just been completely ignored, like most down-ballot races, in the progressive and Democratic community,” Steele said. “I am just thrilled to see that if you give a little bit of love to these races, a small investment yields a huge outcome.”
In Chicago’s Cook County, Soros funded one of several groups that helped Kim Foxx, who is black, defeat the incumbent state’s attorney, Anita Alvarez, in the Democratic primary. Foxx then easily beat her Republican general election opponent.
Alvarez drew widespread criticism for her handling of the 2014 fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black 17-year-old. She took 13 months before charging the Chicago police officer who shot and killed McDonald, a delay that sparked protests.
“Soros’ funding was a big factor in my loss, obviously,” Alvarez, the first female and first Hispanic candidate to be elected as Cook County’s top prosecutor, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “Some people want to say I lost my election simply because of the McDonald video, but I felt this movement prior to my charging that officer. When you have these outside influences, it’s scary because they don’t know the climate—that Chicago has a serious violent crime problem, a serious gun problem.”
In Chicago’s Cook County, incumbent State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez was defeated by a candidate who received support from George Soros. (Photo: Abel Uribe/MCT/Newscom
Under Alvarez’s leadership, Cook County created a nationally recognized pretrial diversion program. Diversion is intended to promise low-risk defendants a second chance. Eligible individuals are not prosecuted, but instead receive supervision services such as counseling and job training, and can have their criminal record expunged.
Such diversion programs exist in almost every state, but Cook County’s is considered especially innovative because defendants pay no fee to participate, meaning poorer individuals can benefit from the services.
“It would have been a wonderful thing if George Soros actually would have looked at my record,” Alvarez said. “He probably would have liked what he saw.”
Soros’ money also helped Aramis Ayala upset incumbent Jeff Ashton in the Democratic primary for Florida state attorney for Orange and Osceola counties.
The Soros funding paid for TV ads and mailers accusing Ashton of carrying out racially disparate policies—a claim he denied.
Ayala, a black woman, became the first African-American elected as a state attorney in Florida.
“Race does not explicitly play a role, but in seeking candidates who understand the injustices of the current system, many of them turn out to be African-American or Latino, because it is people of color who have been disproportionately affected by those injustices,” Tymas, the Soros adviser, told The Daily SIgnal.
‘Couldn’t Stop Them’
Last year, Scott Colom took a risky approach to his run for district attorney in a four-county stretch in Mississippi.
Colom, who is black and a Democrat, promised voters he would promote more rehabilitation and less incarceration for drug offenders, especially young people—although he also said he’d be tough on violent criminals.
Voters validated Colom’s agenda. It also was backed by Soros, who gave almost $400,000 to a Mississippi PAC supporting Colom’s campaign to defeat a long-entrenched incumbent, Forrest Allgood, an aggressive prosecutor whose record had been heavily criticized.
That PAC also backed the re-election campaign of another local prosecutor, Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith.
Colom now has served a year as district attorney of Mississippi’s 16th District. He has implemented some of his proposed policies, including expanding eligibility for pretrial diversion to defendants arrested for offenses such as selling marijuana.
In an interview with The Daily Signal, Colom said personal experience shapes his worldview. He grew up in Columbus, Mississippi, and watched high school classmates go to prison.
While in law school, Colom interned with the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, witnessing poverty and gaining an understanding of how government policy can hold people back.
“I had the courage to run on this criminal justice reform message based on my own personal convictions, before I had any idea there would be any national money, or a George Soros, supporting me,” Colom said. “I decided to run this way having no idea on how it polled. This is how I believed I should be elected.”
Colom, like Ogg in Harris County, said he didn’t know how Soros learned about who he is and what his positions are.
Colom said he never has been in contact with Soros, or anyone associated with him—and does not plan to connect with him now. He said he learned about Soros’ contribution only after seeing and hearing television and radio ads supporting his election.
Colom said the nearly $400,000 in outside money likely helped him, but that he also raised $150,000 on his own and knocked on doors every day from 3 to 7 p.m. during campaign season.
“This was a trying experience,” Colom said. “The most difficult thing I have done was to run for this office. It is important people get the whole picture of how I ran, not just one aspect of it.”
I don’t know George Soros. Do I think his spending money to spread my message helped me? I think any time your message spreads to more people, that helps that candidate get their message out. But what I emphasize is, the message has to be something someone agrees with. The people agree with my message. The people understand if you can avoid sending someone to prison and avoid the scar of a felony record, you should do that.
Colom’s candidacy for attorney general in Mississippi’s 16th District was one of the first such races that Soros has supported. As the Soros effort spreads, Colom says, it’s a difficult thing for candidates to counter.
“His support is not even something I can accept or decline,” Colom said. “They spend money independent of me. I couldn’t stop them. Honestly, I wouldn’t know who to ask if I wanted them to stop.”
Overcoming ‘Radical Agenda’
Pete Weir was able to halt Soros’ momentum by winning.
Soros dedicated $1.2 million to defeat Weir, the incumbent Republican district attorney of Gilpin and Jefferson counties in suburban Colorado.
Soros contributed to a PAC running negative ads against Weir in support of Democrat challenger Jake Lilly, a former prosecutor and Iraq War veteran. One mailer said the incumbent “can’t be trusted to keep us safe from sex offenders.”
In an interview with The Daily Signal, Weir said he overcame Soros’ influence by emphasizing his 37 years of criminal justice experience. The record, he said, includes a longtime dedication to reform—the cause that Soros says he is promoting.
“There was a backlash and outrage over the negative ads directed to me and an outrage over the prospect of an East Coast billionaire trying to buy our justice system,” Weir said, adding of Soros: “He knows nothing about our community, and what the criminal justice issues are in our counties. But it didn’t change my tactics or the way we campaigned on a positive message, on my experience. What he could not overcome were the relationships we had built in the community.”
Weir said he spent about $80,000 on his re-election campaign, using that money to spread the message that his office is “progressive,” combining “aggressive prosecution when it’s called for with innovative, problem-solving courts.”
Weir is a member of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, which has helped pass state legislation reducing prison sentences for drug crimes.
He says he will continue to support reforms as prosecutor, because it’s what residents of Gilpin and Jefferson counties want. Even if he shares some of Soros’ goals, he said, those efforts should be dictated by local officials.
“It sounds immodest to say, but you would be hard-pressed to find another prosecutor in Colorado who has led reform efforts realizing we can do a better job in more areas,” Weir told The Daily Signal. “As a prosecutor community, we realize the system is imperfect and changes can and should be made. But to see some East Coast billionaire who has no idea of local interests acceding to a radical reform agenda at the expense of our democratic process is incredibly dangerous.”
‘Be More Political’
Soros and allied progressive groups say they will continue grooming and supporting prosecutor candidates who share their goals.
Steele, of Emerge America, says she already is looking ahead to the 2018 elections, with plans to recruit and train at least 25 Democratic women to run in district attorney races.
Women, she says, are uniquely sensitive to the consequences of incarceration and, as prosecutors, are likely to use their powers more carefully.
“I am hopeful that Emerge will have women running for district attorney in 2018 and make it onto Soros’ radar screen,” Steele said. “The George Soroses of the world can’t get the outcomes they desire unless you have great candidates. So what we are doing is a critical piece.”
She does not apologize for the aggressive outreach, arguing that because a state’s top prosecutors are elected, the process to become one is inherently political.
“All of these races are political,” Steele said, adding:
You have to run a race in order to win. I would say these races need to be even more political. Because the progressive community wants to see certain outcomes, less mass incarceration, that’s the outcome. In order to see that, we need to win races, and get qualified, good people running for these offices that had previously been uncontested.
Marquis, of the National District Attorneys Association, says he doesn’t doubt the sincerity of Soros and of progressive groups. He emphasizes that many members of the association, which represents state-level district attorneys across the U.S., support reform.
Indeed, the National District Attorneys Association made headlines earlier this year when it endorsed compromise legislation in Congress meant to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders in the federal prison system.
Yet Marquis said he worries that despite these efforts, some incumbent members of the association could lose their jobs to better-funded challengers.
“This is the source of great conversation among district attorneys,” Marquis said. “A lot of us are sitting around saying, ‘What if it’s me next? What if I am targeted?”
Who wants that idea hanging over their head all the time? Soros needs to be brought up on Charges and put in Federal prison.
A bad perception that President Trump can, and I believe will, set straight.
UN Security Council nations voted unanimously to condemn Israel’s settlements constructed in Judea and Sumeria, despite the fact that the same “Occupied Territories” were seized by the Israelis in a war they didn’t start.
Taken by the Israelis during the Six-Day War of 1967, the conflict began with an Egyptian act of war. Specifically, blockading the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to any Israeli-flagged vessels.
As reported by the Breitbart.com news portal, the Jewish State has announced they’ll be limiting its “work contacts” with Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Angola, Egypt, Ukraine, Uruguay and Spain.
AmericanThinker.com is also citing that besides the previously noted countries, Senegal, New Zealand, and Malaysi also cast their lot against Israel. As noted;
Six of those nations are clearly aligned with the West. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, and a quid pro quo could have been communicated to her. Egypt depends on Western subsidies. A bit of backroom dealing should have easily sunk this resolution.
Yet the vote was 14-0-1. What were France, the U.K., Japan, and Spain thinking? What possessed New Zealand to reintroduce the resolution?
Those nations now officially condemn Israel for constructing a number of Jewish communities in the region of Judea and Sumeria, commonly known simply as the West Bank. However, the same region is referred to by the Arabs and the liberal Western press as the “Occupied Territories.”
It’s long been the stance of the United States to veto any given Security Council move to condemn Israel. But it was different this go ’round.
As reported, the Jerusalem government isn’t taking the UN vote lying down; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled an upcoming visit by Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman planned for Tuesday and Wednesday, Interfax-Ukraine reported.
Furthermore, the Israeli leadership is pointing an accusatory finger directly at the White House;
The United States allowed the resolution to pass by abstaining on the resolution that called the settlements being built on lands claimed by the Palestinians as a “flagrant violation” of international law. It was the first U.N. resolution since 1979 to condemn Israel over its settlement policy. On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he no doubt that the Obama administration was behind the resolution, coordinated its wording and made sure it passes.
In a separate report from Breitbart, Netanyahu’s ambassador to the United States is threatening to “provide ‘evidence’ to President-elect Donald Trump that President Barack Obama was behind Friday’s anti-settlement resolution at the United Nations Security Council.”
Netanyahu’s spokesman David Keyes on Sunday told CNN that Israel had “solid information” of Obama’s alleged involvement in pushing the resolution.
“We have ironclad information, frankly, that the Obama administration really helped push this resolution and helped craft it, from sources internationally and sources in the Arab world,” Keyes said.
Despite the copious amount of ink spilled over the latest diplomatic snub, the various United Nations resolutions, to include the latest pronouncement, have no real teeth to it, regardless of its rather large bark.
None of the member nations have surrendered their sovereignty to the United Nation Charter, hence, the resolutions, along with so-called “international law” aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
As far as the United States is concerned, as per the US Constitution, international agreements are binding to the nation only when the POTUS introduces a proposed treaty to the US Senate, and the Senate must approve by a super-majority of two-thirds.
The latest that happened only proves two things:
The West has abandoned the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.
Barack Obama’s “hope and change” has been exposed for what it really is.
Some of Bundy’s generosity in bestowing money upon others was parochial—in particular a grant of $131,000 to eight members of Robert Kennedy’ s staff in 1969 to help them overcome their grief after Sirhan Sirhan had gunned down their boss. Those grants came under the rubric of “Broadening opportunities for young men and women who might otherwise be unable to develop their abilities.”
The politicized grants continued after that, as the Ford Foundation, particularly during the Nixon years, came to see itself as a government-in-exile, an engine for social transformation.
Bundy transformed the Foundation into a leading sponsor of left-wing causes such as the expansion of the welfare state, nuclear disarmament, environmental advocacy, and the creation of “civil rights” interest groups that emphasized ethnic identity and ethnic power, or “multiculturalism,” over integration and assimilation into the American culture.
Ford gave as much as $300 million per year throughout the 1960’s to support such causes. Ford’s sponsorship of these radical causes frequently proved destructive to those whom it was intended to help. In 1967, for instance, on the advice of academic radicals in New York, Bundy aligned his Foundation with members of the Brooklyn Black Power movement to establish a community-run set of schools in the borough’s predominantly black Ocean Hill-Brownsville section. Between 1967 and 1968, Ford gave more than $900,000 to fund schools as part of these so-called “community control experiments” in New York City.
In theory, the Ford-funded project was supposed to empower minority communities and improve inner-city education by giving minority parents full control over their school districts. In practice, it was a disaster. The mostly-black school board precipitated a bitter and drawn-out fight with the city’s teacher’s union when the board fired the mostly white teachers as part of the project and the union came to their defense. At the same time, many of the teachers who had been appointed as part of the program were not remotely qualified for the job. Often the Ford-backed schools were staffed with anti-white militants and anti-Semites who fueled racial tensions in New York. A poem by one of the teachers appointed through the Ocean Hill-Brownsville program allegedly read: “Hey Jewboy, with the yarmulke on your head/You paleface Jewboy, I wish you were dead.” (Many of the white teachers in the school district and the New York teachers’ union were Jewish.) Still other teachers were white graduate students with no teaching experience who were drawn to the project for political reasons. As a result, the quality of education at participating schools deteriorated markedly. When the project ended after three years, minority students at Ocean Hill-Brownsville schools actually performed worse on reading tests than they had performed before the project began.
Ford again bankrolled the Black Power movement when it steered grants to the Cleveland chapter of the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), to support its voter-registration drive among blacks. Indeed, Ford funds paid for black youths to attend classes at CORE’s headquarters. Ostensibly about black history and heritage, these classes actually stoked racial division by teaching what one black councilman described as “race hatred.” Most notoriously, in 1967, Ford grants to CORE helped tip the balance in Cleveland’s mayoral race to elect Democrat Carl Stokes—a politician linked with the radical Black Power movement—as the city’s first black mayor. In what many observers saw as a clearly partisan effort, Ford gave CORE a grant of $175,000, of which $30,000 went toward voter-registration efforts aimed exclusively at black voters. Buoyed by the registration drive, Stokes was able to prevail in a tightly contested race. These registration drives were the seeds that led to the creation of organizations involved in similar efforts nationally, such as the radical group ACORN, which eventually came under scrutiny for massive election fraud in behalf of Democrats in more than a dozen states.
Ford’s “march to the Left” would ultimately provoke a bitter falling out between, on the one hand, the Foundation’s staff and trustees, and on the other, Edsel Ford’s son Henry Ford II, the last member of the Ford family to serve on the Foundation’s board.
In 1976 a disillusioned Henry Ford II terminated his 34-tenure with a protest against the leftward course his family’s Foundation had pursued. In a stinging letter of resignation, Mr. Ford excoriated the trustees for using the Foundation’s funds to support left-wing causes while abandoning the commitment to free enterprise that had made possible the profits from which the Foundation was created. “The Foundation exists and thrives on the fruits of our economic system,” he said. “The dividends of competitive enterprise make it all possible. A significant portion of the abundance created by U.S. business enables the foundation and like institutions to carry on their work. In effect, the foundation is a creature of capitalism – a statement that, I’m sure, would be shocking to many people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the recipients of the foundation’s grant programs.” Mr. Ford also observed “that the system that makes the foundation possible very probably is worth preserving.”
Not only did Ford Foundation’s executives not heed Henry Ford II’s warning that its social investments were undermining the very system that underwrote its philanthropy, but they moved aggressively to create a network of progressive groups who would use their non-profit tax status to promote radical agendas.
Under McGeorge Bundy’s leadership, the Ford Foundation made it a priority to support what it considered “civil rights” causes, but which in fact were politically left-wing agendas within the civil rights movement. That task fell to Sanford Jaffe, the director of the Ford Foundation’s Government and Law Program from 1968-83. Prior to his appointment, Jaffe had served as executive director of the “Select Commission on Civil Disorder,” established in 1968 by New Jersey’s governor, Democrat Richard Hughes. Publishing a study that examined the underlying causes of the violent riots that had erupted in the predominantly black inner-city section of Newark in the summer of 1967, this Commission made policy recommendations for dealing with the problems facing inner-city communities. Like the “President’s Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders” initiated by President Lyndon Johnson, the New Jersey commission concluded that white racism and systemic inequities were the primary causes of the Newark riots. As Jaffe later put it, the riots had been sparked by “the inattention to the needs and aspirations of the black community, and the absence of opportunities available across the board.”
The Commission’s report, blaming the riots on poverty and racism, reflected a rapidly forming consensus on the left. Its prescriptions were of a similar cast, proposing vast increases in government welfare programs as a “solution” to the “root causes” of the violence — in particular lack of income. That both the riots and the poverty might have been the result of disintegrating family and community structures in the inner city, as warned by the Moynihan Report, a groundbreaking 1965 study of the African American family, was not part of the new political calculus.
The challenge faced by Jaffe and the other progressives at the Ford Foundation was to promote agendas favored by liberals and Democrats while camouflaging its political nature, so as to conform to the legal requirements of a tax-exempt organization. Aware that this was uncharted territory and legally problematic, Jaffe wondered how he might insulate the Foundation from “criticism both from some people on the Ford board and a lot of people from the outside?” The strategy he devised was to form a Public Interest Law Advisory Committee. Consisting of four ex-presidents of the American Bar Association, this Committee would assess the Foundation’s grants and lend the stamp of non-partisan prestige to an increasingly political grant-making strategy. When the Foundation’s grants then came under attack for their political nature, Jaffe could tell the Foundation’s board, “Look, I got the advice of these four people.”
The strategy was so successful, that it initially helped diffuse opposition even from critics on the board like Henry Ford II. In order to win Ford’s approval, Jaffe made William Gossett, Ford’s general counsel, one of the members of his Advisory Committee. As Jaffe would later recall, “That became a key element to say to Henry Ford if he had a problem, ‘Well, Bill Gossett, your lawyer, thinks that this is a worthwhile enterprise, he’s joining us in looking at it.”
Jaffe’s approach cleared the way for the Ford Foundation to fund the creation of left-wing public interest law firms when otherwise the Foundation’s board might have been reluctant to endorse such nakedly partisan grants. As further insurance, Jaffe made sure that every firm would have a “litigation committee” comprising the kind of white-shoe lawyers that served on Ford’s board. That way, if the firms which Ford backed endorsed partisan liberal causes, Jaffe could claim that it was all approved at the highest levels: “We’d say, ‘Now, wait a minute, they have a distinguished board and besides that they have a litigation committee and they cannot file a lawsuit unless the litigation’s committee’s approved it.’ Now look who’s on the litigation committee. Arthur Goldberg, you know, was a former Supreme Court justice, this person and that person are all senior partners at law firms.” As one critic notes, “The program’s officers did all they could to give this potentially explosive program a smooth, establishment veneer.”
Despite its authorization as a tax-exempt entity intended to promote the general (non-partisan) welfare, the Ford Foundation would go on to create an army of progressive “public-interest” law firms, designed to advance the agendas of the Left. In time, these groups would become a Shadow Party for the political Left, shaping policy and politics in America while disenfranchising the very groups they were created to represent. Among the most influential of these tax-exempt advocacy groups were the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Council of La Raza(NCLR),
New information from Wikileaks is about to shake up the Republican world. Republicans in name only, anyway. An email from John Podesta to Huma Abedin that was released as document number 1078645 is about to turn the speculation that certain prominent Republicans who opposed Donald Trump into the truth that they were, in fact, not just disloyal to Trump and the party but were on Hillary Clinton’s payroll.
The email, sent in July of this year, describes how funds were being diverted from Clinton’s campaign to the Super PACS of Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich. According to the email:
“JB, CF and JK PACS will be noticeably silent for the rest of the campaign. Each will receive a significant allowance from advertising budget. HRC is in the loop and has talked to all three personally. Eyes only.”
There were a lot of politicians who were opposed to Donald Trump. These three in particular all share a common bond, however: Trump humiliated them on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people around the world. This is more than just politics or conscientious objecting, this was revenge.
All three have congratulated the President-Elect since the election, probably to save face in case they decide to waste another $300 million running for president in 2024, but this new revelation all but ruins them in the eyes of the voters and assures that they will never see any kind of post in the coming administration.
It seems that every day, the job of President-Elect becomes more danger-filled for Donald Trump. It can honestly be said that it looks like the RINO establishment as well as the liberals are out to destroy his presidency before it even gets off the ground. As we have said for months, all signs are pointing to Hillary Clinton working behind the scenes to further this coup.
This revelation is nothing less than a bombshell in the swamp that is our U.S. Government in DC; with the curtains pulled back, it’s now clear precisely what has happened. Tragically, new evidence has emerged that shows that despite their public differences, both parties are largely different shades of the same corrupt mud.
Other emails that surfaced but do not refer to anything other than title have also surfaced that raised eyebrows. It seems at a glance that the Clinton Foundation, or as I am calling it, the Pantsuit Mafia, has bought off several key members of the Republican Party to push the Clinton agenda. Such as:
“He is on board, will retract the invitation to speak. Eyes only.”
This email was dated days before Speaker of the House Paul Ryan withdrew the invitation to Donald Trump to speak at an event in Wisconsin. Even though we do not have the ‘smoking gun’ to say it was him, no other logical conclusion can be assumed.
Other emails hint at the money being moved to Republican elected officials in the House and Senate. For instance FEC reports shows that two large donations from PACS and private sources in early October went to John McCain, right after he attacked Trump publicly and criticized him. That happened shortly after a slew of emails concerning moving money to support one candidate and move support from another.
Shortly thereafter, his challenger in this tight race, Kirkpatrick, lost several key donors and money and support lessened from the DNC and the DSCC in the last few weeks of the race. The thing to note is that McCain is one of the lead sponsors of a committee to investigate any Russian influence into the election.
Senator Lindsay Graham, another outspoken critic of Donald Trump and briefly candidate for President from July to December also it seems received help from the Clintons. An email that simply states, “Cleared the road for him in 2020,” could mean that there will be no strong or supported Democrat in the South Carolina Senate race when Graham is up for re-election. As with McCain, Graham has publicly called for a look into the Russian influence in the election.
There were a lot of politicians who were opposed to Donald Trump. These, in particular, all share a common bond, however: Trump humiliated them on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people around the world. This is more than just politics or conscientious objecting, this was revenge. Not just revenge. This was out-and-out treason. Our Representatives took an oath to support our Constitution and its laws for our benefit, not theirs. This is why gridlock is prevalent in D.C., the treachery and the corruption are on both sides of the coin.
Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing who the true Republicans are and who are the ones that are fronts for the Clinton machine. The number of emails is too overwhelming to easily sift through them all to find all of the turncoat RINOs. We must be diligent to ferret out those that have sold their souls to the Devil for power.
We the people will have no idea who is on our side and who is not. We will be left scratching our heads. The Roman Republic lasted for centuries in the hands of the people before falling to become the Roman Empire. That change did not happen by a foreign invasion or foreign intrigue. No barbarian or forceful enemy defeated that Republic over 2000 years ago.
It was defeated from the inside by the treachery of the Senate and the blood of the slain Julius Caesar. Just as Caesar was stabbed in the back by men he thought were his allies, Trump is facing the same treachery.
In the coming days and months, without our help and diligence, President Trump may also be gasping…..”Et Tu, Paul?”
Is Donald Trump truly outside the control of the globalists and neocons? And does he truly know what the “swamp” is and how to drain it? These are the issues that will tell us.
So, just what is a neocon? Remember again that Neocons are controlled by globalists. Therefore, the goal is Globalism. Here are six of the core issues that promote globalism. Here are the issues that form a common denominator among Neocons. When you observe your congressman or senator and they support these issues, you can be pretty SURE that they are really globalist-controlled Neocons or as some call them, RINO’s.
International “Free Trade” Deals
From GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) to NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) to TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), these so-called free trade deals are nothing more than international loopholes that discriminate against the manufacturing jobs and labor class of individual countries in favor of the billionaire class that conducts business internationally.
America has lost millions of manufacturing jobs, and now even high-tech jobs, due to these international “free trade” deals. There is nothing “free” about these “free trade” deals. Quotas are often established for American exports but NOT for foreign imports. Taxes, duties, tariffs, etc., almost always favor foreign imports and punish U.S. exports. U.S. businesses are forced to take their companies overseas to compete. Entire factories close down, resulting in millions of misplaced U.S. workers. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Following the implementation of NAFTA by Congress, our trade surpluses with partners Mexico and Canada quickly became trade deficits, soaring to nearly $200 billion. Over one million U.S. jobs were lost and illegal immigration doubled almost immediately. Beyond that, U.S. workers who were somehow able to maintain their jobs watched their wages shrink. That’s right, shrink.
In Mexico, NAFTA has wreaked indescribable havoc. Already depressed wages plummeted. The availability of goods did NOT increase; it substantially DECREASED. While, guess what? Prices INCREASED. It was the passage of NAFTA in 1994 that started the avalanche of illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico.
We watched neocon Republicans collaborating with globalist Democrat President Barack Obama to pass the preliminary version of another giant “free trade” bill, called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP–nicknamed Obamatrade). Many people have rightly called TPP “NAFTA on steroids.”
Not only did neocons Boehner/Ryan/McConnell enthusiastically promote TPP, they happily supported giving “fast track” authority to Obama. This allows Obama (or any President) to negotiate and sign a trade agreement without congressional approval–including language that may completely alter established U.S. laws. Subsequent trade legislation proposed to Congress by the President would not be subject to committee markups, and Congress would have only 90 days to approve it–and floor amendments would not be allowed. Does the word UNCONSTITUTIONAL come to mind?
Candidate Trump said he would kill NAFTA and TPP. But since winning the election, he is already back-pedaling on NAFTA and saying he’s not going to kill it, just “fix” it. It could possibly mean that this major plank of the neocon agenda may be left intact under Trump’s presidency. This might be because congressional neocons within the GOP have told Trump they will NOT overturn NAFTA and he is not willing to fight them over it. Hopefully, he is just playing nice until he is in power. Watch this closely.
The great goal of globalists is to blur or even eliminate national borders and the laws that protect them. These things are very burdensome to multinational traders. National borders restrict globalists in their pursuit of international wealth. Globalists envision a global economy–with a global government and global military in place to protect that global economy. Individual nationhood is an obstacle to that goal.
The EU is the quintessential prototype of the globalists’ dream of global government. Until individual states within the United States stopped it, Neocon Republican President G.W. Bush collaborated with Canada’s Paul Martin and Mexico’s Vincente Fox to establish an EU-type regional government in North America. It was called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). It was also called the “North American Community” and “North American Union.”
The goal of these anti-sovereignty partnerships is to erase national borders, establish a regional government with authority over participating nations and exercise authority over the flow of goods and services and immigrants between these countries. As an example, the current TPP passed by the Republican House and Senate and signed by Obama has copious rules that further circumvent America’s current immigration laws. Plus, the current invasion of illegal aliens from the Middle East into European countries is facilitated by the enactment of lax immigration policies established by the EU.
The SPP was the brainchild of what some regard as the top Neocon think tank of all: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Thankfully, public pressure from U.S. Border States (especially Texas and Oklahoma) derailed SPP.
Another way illegal immigration helps globalists remove national boundaries is to remove a country’s (any country’s) national culture and identity, thereby transforming it into a “sanctuary nation.” In the U.S., this includes removing our Christian heritage.
Anti-illegal immigration was Donald Trump’s number one campaign theme. We will see how much of his rhetoric on this issue will translate into meaningful action. One thing is for sure, the Neocons in D.C.–including some of those that Trump has placed in his presidential administration–will NOT passively sit back and let him put a stop to illegal immigration without doing everything they can to ensure that the borders remain wide open. We must remain very vocal and let President Trump know our feelings in order for him to override the neocons! Watch for this: the fight to maintain illegal immigration is going to come from within Trump’s very own administration. His resolve on this issue will be sorely tested.
Nothing rings the cash register for globalists like a war. War helps to replace recalcitrant national leaders who refuse to give international financiers (Rothschild, Morgan & Rockefeller types) carte blanche in their countries. War helps to redraw national boundaries that favor the global economy. War brings HUGE profit windfalls to the military-industrial-surveillance complexes that are mostly in bed with high-paying globalists. War causes citizens in free countries to accept more governmental authority (which always includes an international component) over their affairs that would never be the case in peacetime. They do this through the tactic of FEAR. War is also the perfect solution to resolve the economic problems of a sinking financial system.
In this regard, religious bigotry and intolerance make it easy for globalists to manipulate the passions of people in favor of war. Pitting Christians against Muslims and Muslims against Christians is the current tactic favored by globalists. And boy, is it working!
When GW Bush was President, the boogeyman was Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Obama, the boogeyman was Syria. And with Donald Trump’s picks for National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, it appears the new boogeyman will be Iran. This is all a manipulation of the globalists to keep the flames of war lit in the world’s only superpower: the United States of America.
Peace is the last thing globalists want. War profiteers lose trillions of dollars annually without the war machine generating limitless wealth for the global elite. Therefore, globalists rely on their war hawk toadies like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, the CFR, et al. to keep the war fires HOT. We will soon see whether Trump truly understands this part of the “swamp.” Trump hosted ultra-globalist Henry Kissinger at Trump Tower. The sovereignty and independence of the United States (not to mention global peace) has no greater enemy than Henry Kissinger. Does Trump have any idea who he is dealing with? We’ll have to wait and see. , President-Elect Trump said in North Carolina, “The United States is going to abandon its decades of policies promoting regime change in countries around the world.” He also pledged to “follow a policy of restraining U.S. military force around the world rather than unleashing it.” This policy, if implemented, would be a blatant attack against the globalist-neocon perpetual war doctrine. I doubt that generals Mattis, Flynn, and Kelly will be fans of such a dramatic reversal of this long-entrenched perpetual war doctrine; and for Trump to fulfill this pledge, he will be forced to deal head on with the warmongering Neocons from all over Washington, D.C. I hope he makes it known that he is the boss or he will need to say: “You’re fired”.
Someone said, “All wars are bankers’ wars.” I don’t believe that is strictly true, but I will say MOST wars are bankers wars. And people can start name calling all they want, but it is a cold, hard fact that “Banksters” are the head of the snake when it comes to International banking. For example, the U.S. Federal Reserve is controlled by the banks of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Lehman Brothers, Lazard Brothers, Israel Moses Seif, and Kuhn Loeb. In fact, the globalist banking system controls most of the financial institutions of countries throughout the world.
It is a no-brainer that international banking and global war go hand-in-hand. This is why you will notice that Neocon war hawks in Congress are also heavily financed by Zionists. If Donald Trump does not truly comprehend the role that Zionists banks play in the global war agenda of the Neocons, he will NEVER be able to successfully “drain the swamp.”
Freedom is detestable to the globalists; an armed citizenry is also. In order for globalism to succeed people must be restrained, they must be surveilled, they must be regulated and they must be controlled.
The so-called war on terror (including the federal “war on drugs”–especially marijuana) is the biggest ruse ever invented to put a Police State in place. False flag terror attacks, a plethora of seemingly “random” mass shootings, and a perpetual media barrage against the right of citizens to defend themselves. These are all tactics of globalists to reduce liberty and increase government dependence in a nation.
Neocons are the ones who are the loudest cheerleaders for war in the Middle East, increased surveillance of the American citizenry, the militarization of our local and State police agencies, and antagonistic policies against Russia.
To see if your congressman or senator is a Neocon (or controlled by neocons), look at his or her votes for The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA (sections 1021 and 1022), NSA spying, etc. Also look at their voting records regarding bills or amendments that would stop the federal government from supplying military armament to our local and State police agencies. You might be surprised to learn that YOUR congressman and senators voted to facilitate the burgeoning Police State in our country. Folks, these are either Neocons or are controlled by Neocons. Remember again, that being a conservative or liberal is completely irrelevant here.
Many of Trump’s statements regarding “stop and frisk” and other such notions are repugnant to anyone who believes in Constitutional government and Individual liberty. Several of the people Trump has chosen for his cabinet–including Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressman Mike Pompeo–have track records that greatly infringe on liberties protected in the Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights.
Historically, I have found THE FREEDOM INDEX of the New American Magazine to be the best resource that monitors how congressmen and senators vote in or out of accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Unlimited And Unconstitutional Government Spending
Neocons support government spending–HUGE government spending. And the vast majority of federal spending in Washington, D.C., is completely Unconstitutional. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump talked about getting rid of unnecessary federal departments, such as the Department of Education. Of course, he has already appointed a new Secretary of Education, so I am not sure what his plan is there. But the truth is, the Department of Education is just one of hundreds of unconstitutional alphabet agencies littering Washington, D.C., and sucking the wealth and productivity out of America–including the blatantly unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security (over which Trump appointed General John Kelly to head), the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation (Trump picked a CFR member to lead this unconstitutional agency), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (another unconstitutional agency that Trump has selected Dr. Ben Carson to lead), the diabolical Bureau of Land Management, the Naziesque Environmental Protection Agency (which Trump has appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head), and so on. Military men are not trained as policemen. Policemen operate under the authority of the Constitution, which protects the rights and liberties of American citizens. Soldiers operate under an entirely different set of protocols. Constitutional rights of individuals do NOT apply to a soldier’s modus operandi. Having a military general overseeing the largest domestic law enforcement agency (albeit an unconstitutional one) in the country should be disconcerting to every believer in our Bill of Rights. Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt seems to be a good choice to lead the EPA. He is a strong critic of this agency, which means he might be a good one to rein in this out-of-control federal leviathan. Do you remember how neocons John Boehner and Paul Ryan (with support from the vast majority of congressmen from both sides of the aisle) so quickly and easily raised the federal debt ceiling last time? But when they raised the debt ceiling, it was for not one but TWO YEARS. This, in essence, gave Barack Obama his ninth budget year in office. Why would they do this? They are neocons.
So, folks, forget party labels. Forget the left-right, liberal-conservative paradigm. Forget campaign rhetoric. These are the issues that neocons in Washington, D.C., are using to drive national politics and foreign policy–and these are the issues that are killing independence and freedom in the United States. Keep this list and use it to gauge your congressman and senators, as well as Donald Trump’s presidency. No matter what they call themselves or the rhetoric they use, if they facilitate these issues, they are either neocons or they are controlled by neocons.
Julian Assange always said Russian hackers were not his source for the emails that took down Hillary. He has never wavered, never changed his statement. His close associate, former British Ambassador (Uzbekistan) Craig Murray, has said the same. It was an inside job. Not Russian hackers!
These are the only two people in the world who know the source. Only two people who have actually met the source. Both deny Russian involvement. Both say it was a Clinton insider. After new calls from the democrats to investigate the leaks, a stunned Murray came forward again to set the record straight. He called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding:
They are absolutely making it up. As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened. America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.
The difference is that someone inside the DNC, a very close Clinton confidant, hates her more than Putin. Why else release evidence of her corruption and torpedo her coronation? Only someone close could have done this. And only someone close would have done this.
The California Republican congressman Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the Trump transition team, said:
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
The Washington Post reported that US intelligence agencies were skeptical about the possibility that hackers would have been able to systematically manipulate the results of the election. So, there you have it! It is all a bunch of NWO Globalist cabal goons in the CIA at it again! Do remember, there are still plenty of good guys still in there just biding their time to make their move!