LIBERALS ARE
LIKE
GLOW STICKS
Sometimes I want to
snap
them and shake them
until
the light comes on.
God bless
JohnnyD
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Report: Growing Islamic Extremism In Latin America Poses ‘Major Security Threat’ To US
From: Daily Caller
By - Peter Hasson - March 30, 2017
Growing Islamic extremism in Latin America constitutes a “major security threat” to the United States, according to an analysis published this month by the National Center for Policy Analysis.
“The threat from Islamic extremists in Latin America remains an overlooked aspect of U.S. national security strategy,” NCPA senior fellow David Grantham argued.
Grantham noted that “Saudi Arabia has invested millions to construct mosques and cultural centers in South America and Central America that expand the reach of its rigid version of Islam, known as Wahhabism.”
“The international spread of Saudi dogma, which the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities worldwide, Farah Pandith, called ‘insidious,’ has laid the foundation for likeminded radicals to thrive in other areas of Latin America,” he explained.
Later in the brief, Grantham noted that the “threats to U.S. security in the Greater Caribbean region are even more alarming in Trinidad and Tobago. The small island nation off the coast of Venezuela, once the target of an overthrow by Islamic militants, has also become a breeding ground for ISIS — 70 of the 100 Latin Americans known to have joined ISIS originated from the small country.”
The ease of mobility Islamic extremists have in Latin America is also cause for concern.
“Islamic extremism thrives where there is illicit finance and relative ease of movement across national and international borders. The mobility of terrorists throughout Latin America poses a serious problem,” Grantham stated.
Perhaps the greatest Islamic extremist threat in Latin America, though, is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Grantham said could potentially strike the US from Latin America as a retaliatory act.
“The Islamic Republic has the capability and infrastructure to strike
the United States from Latin America, but experts disagree over whether
it would take that risk,” Grantham writes. “Experts consistently
discuss the likelihood of a preemptive or first strike attack on the
United States, though, which creates too high a standard. Instead, the
argument should focus on the prospect of retaliatory attack.”
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton also warned of Iranian sponsored terrorism through Latin American “proxies” during a 2013 off-the-record speech to Goldman Sachs employees that was made public by WikiLeaks.
“If we had a map up behind us you would be able to see Iranian sponsored terrorism directly delivered by Iranians themselves, mostly through the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the operatives, or through Islah or other proxies from to Latin American to Southeast Asia,” Clinton said.
“The growth of extremist activity in Latin America is a major security threat. The prospects of retaliation from Iran, in particular, should not discourage action against Iran where necessary but should heighten awareness regarding the high probability of revenge attacks,” Grantham concluded. “Iran’s influence in Latin America and extremists, in general, demand new national security strategies in the region. Such an approach could begin with U.S. support to allied governments that improves their intelligence capabilities, and with targeted financial interdiction strategies.”
The brief can be read in its entirety here.
By - Peter Hasson - March 30, 2017
Growing Islamic extremism in Latin America constitutes a “major security threat” to the United States, according to an analysis published this month by the National Center for Policy Analysis.
“The threat from Islamic extremists in Latin America remains an overlooked aspect of U.S. national security strategy,” NCPA senior fellow David Grantham argued.
Grantham noted that “Saudi Arabia has invested millions to construct mosques and cultural centers in South America and Central America that expand the reach of its rigid version of Islam, known as Wahhabism.”
“The international spread of Saudi dogma, which the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities worldwide, Farah Pandith, called ‘insidious,’ has laid the foundation for likeminded radicals to thrive in other areas of Latin America,” he explained.
Later in the brief, Grantham noted that the “threats to U.S. security in the Greater Caribbean region are even more alarming in Trinidad and Tobago. The small island nation off the coast of Venezuela, once the target of an overthrow by Islamic militants, has also become a breeding ground for ISIS — 70 of the 100 Latin Americans known to have joined ISIS originated from the small country.”
The ease of mobility Islamic extremists have in Latin America is also cause for concern.
“Islamic extremism thrives where there is illicit finance and relative ease of movement across national and international borders. The mobility of terrorists throughout Latin America poses a serious problem,” Grantham stated.
Perhaps the greatest Islamic extremist threat in Latin America, though, is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Grantham said could potentially strike the US from Latin America as a retaliatory act.
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton also warned of Iranian sponsored terrorism through Latin American “proxies” during a 2013 off-the-record speech to Goldman Sachs employees that was made public by WikiLeaks.
“If we had a map up behind us you would be able to see Iranian sponsored terrorism directly delivered by Iranians themselves, mostly through the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the operatives, or through Islah or other proxies from to Latin American to Southeast Asia,” Clinton said.
“The growth of extremist activity in Latin America is a major security threat. The prospects of retaliation from Iran, in particular, should not discourage action against Iran where necessary but should heighten awareness regarding the high probability of revenge attacks,” Grantham concluded. “Iran’s influence in Latin America and extremists, in general, demand new national security strategies in the region. Such an approach could begin with U.S. support to allied governments that improves their intelligence capabilities, and with targeted financial interdiction strategies.”
The brief can be read in its entirety here.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
God bless America
John Wayne 1970
Legendary actor John Wayne in a clip from 1970 on the TV variety show he hosted celebrating America’s history. Many famous actors and actresses are featured in this video singing God Bless America including Ann Margaret, Lucille Ball, Jack Benny, George Burns, Johnny Cash, Roy Clark, Bing Crosby, Phyllis Diller, Lorne Greene, Bob Hope, Forrest Lewis, Dean Martin, William Shatner, Tom Smothers, and many more. What a classic video.TURN ON YOUR SPEAKERS.
God bless,
JohnnyD
THE REAL 'RUSSIAN SCANDAL' (AND IT DOESN'T INVOLVE TRUMP)
Russia scandal? Inside the Obama-Clinton uranium deal
Hillary OK'd sale as cash flowed to foundation, Bill's pockets
From: World Net Daily
by - Art Moore - March 28, 2017
Trump tweeted: “Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech.”
He followed up with: “… money to Bill, the Hillary Russian “reset,” praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!”
Meanwhile, Congress is examining allegations that the president and his aides colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
The 2010 deal for a majority stake of Canadian-based Uranium One – which required approval from Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies – and its plausible connection to major donations to the Clinton Foundation was exposed by author Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash and confirmed in a 3,000 word, front-page story by the New York Times.
Former Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer was among several individuals connected to the deal who made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Telfer made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million, the Times reported.
The donations flowed as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013. Snopes and other “fact checkers” who insist there was no quid pro quo have argued that most of the donations were made in 2008, before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. But she was running for president at that time.
The origin of the deal traced back to 2005, when mining financier Frank Giustra traveled with Bill Clinton to work out an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for mining rights.
Giustra has donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In June 2010, shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton personally received a speaking fee of $500,000 from a Kremlin-tied Russian investment bank connected to the uranium deal.
The Times pointed out that the Canadian tax records show the contributions to the Clinton Foundation were not publicly disclosed, which violated an agreement Clinton signed with the Obama administration when she became secretary of state to disclose all foreign donations.
Meanwhile, the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group reported last week Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman, John Podesta, may have opened himself up to a Russian “influence campaign” designed to temper his views of the Kremlin. Podesta possibly violated federal law when he failed to fully disclose his membership on the executive board of an energy company that accepted millions from a Vladimir Putin-connected Russian government fund.
Russia ‘conquers the world’
After Rostatom finally secured 100 percent of Uranium One in 2013, the Russian-government news website Pravda declared: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The acquisition of uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain, the New York Times said.
In an interview after the U.S. government approved the deal, Putin sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko.
“Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Kiriyenko told Putin.
The agreement came as the Obama administration, led by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, famously was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia.
Because uranium is considered a strategic asset that has implications for national security, the agreement had to be approved by a panel of representatives from a number of United States government agencies, including the State Department.
The Times noted that both Rosatom and the U.S. government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians, but the promises were repeatedly broken.
The Times commented that while it can’t be proved that the donations had a direct impact on the approval of the uranium deal, “the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”
When the Times prepared its story during the 2016 election campaign, it obtained a statement from Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon, who insisted no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”
Fallon argued that the Canadian government and other U.S. agencies also had to sign off on the deal.
“To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he said.
The appearance of undue influence, however, prompted the Clinton Foundation to announce changes, including limiting donations from foreign governments and barring Russia from giving to all but its health care initiatives.
But the Times noted the foundation continued to “accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.”
The Times got insight into the significance of the deal from Michael McFaul, who served under Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to Russia.
“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” he said.
“Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”
Bill Clinton at his side
Russia’s acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where Canadian mining financier Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal.
Bill Clinton, strategically, was at his side, the Times noted.
“Clinton Cash” author Schweitzer explained the importance of Clinton’s role, in an interview with Breitbart News Daily in March 2016.
Giustra had wanted a large uranium concession in Kazakhstan but had never been able to get it from the country’s repressive dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev.
“Bill Clinton shows up, declares at a press conference that Nazarbayev is a wonderful leader, should actually lead an international human rights organization,” Schweizer said. “And lo and behold, a couple of days later, Nazarbayev gives Frank Giustra this uranium concession.
“A few weeks after that, Bill Clinton’s Clinton Foundation gets more than $30 million from Frank Giustra.”
The Times noted Bill Clinton undercut “American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.”
Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal with Kazakhstan giving the company stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
UrAsia merged in 2007 with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, which soon began purchasing companies with assets in the United States.
By June 2009, Uranium One’s stock had dropped 40 percent, but Russia, lacking domestic uranium reserves, was eyeing a stake in the company.
That’s when Uranium One pressed the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan, which was under Hillary Clinton’s authority, to talk with Kazakh officials about clearing the way for a deal.
American cables show the U.S. Embassy energy officer met with Kazakh officials, and three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One.
Within a year, Russia sought a 51 percent controlling stake.
The only obstacle to the deal was that the U.S. government, namely the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, had to sign off on it.
The Times pointed out that when a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington. Officials were worried about the mine’s proximity to a military installation and the possibility that minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control.
The U.S. officials killed the deal.
Schweizer pointed out that when the Uranium One deal was under way, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” took place.
“These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation,” he said.
The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation but about American dependence on foreign uranium sources.
While the U.S. gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only about 20 percent of the uranium it needs, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”
“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” Katusa told the Times. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”
Giving the Russians control
Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern about the Uranium One deal. Two more began pushing legislation to kill it, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wy., who wrote to President Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
The Times observed: “Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.”
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, told the Times that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence:
“Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”
Two months later, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States began its review.
Did the committee weigh the U.S. desire to improve bilateral relations with Russia against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States?
That information has never been disclosed, but the deal was approved in October after, the Times said, citing two people involved, “a relatively smooth process.”
God bless,
JohnnyD
Friday, March 24, 2017
Journalist Blows The Lid Off Obama’s Criminal Conduct
From: Great American Daily
There is a large scandal brewing in Washington.
It involves illegal leaks of classified information.
And one journalist explains how it could lead to members of Barack Obama’s team going to prison.
Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was one of the reporters who broke the Watergate story.
He recently appeared on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor to discuss the bombshell revelations from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that members of the Trump team had been under surveillance and their identities had been illegally passed around the intelligence community.
Woodward said this was a gross violation.
Nunes is alleging there was no foreign intelligence value to some of the communications he observed.
Passing around this information is illegal.
Even keeping information with no intelligence value collected through a FISA warrant is illegal.
When Trump first accused Obama of spying on him, Robert Barnes wrote on LawNewz blog that there were two possible criminal violations by the Obama team:
And Bob Woodward is right. People could end up in jail.
God bless,
JohnnyD
There is a large scandal brewing in Washington.
It involves illegal leaks of classified information.
And one journalist explains how it could lead to members of Barack Obama’s team going to prison.
Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was one of the reporters who broke the Watergate story.
He recently appeared on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor to discuss the bombshell revelations from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that members of the Trump team had been under surveillance and their identities had been illegally passed around the intelligence community.
Woodward said this was a gross violation.
When an American citizen is picked up communicating with an individual under a FISA warrant, their identity is supposed to be minimized, unless there is foreign intelligence value attached to the communication.Woodward calls what Obama Team did "A Gross Violation" then states:"This will be Criminal for those who said let's name these people" #Nunes pic.twitter.com/7Qip0cle8r— STOCK MONSTER (@StockMonsterUSA) March 23, 2017
Nunes is alleging there was no foreign intelligence value to some of the communications he observed.
Passing around this information is illegal.
Even keeping information with no intelligence value collected through a FISA warrant is illegal.
When Trump first accused Obama of spying on him, Robert Barnes wrote on LawNewz blog that there were two possible criminal violations by the Obama team:
“…it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press. This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.
Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law. Obama’s team’s admission it could be classified lower, yet taking actions to insure its broadest distribution, could even put Obama smack-middle of the biggest unlawful surveillance and political-opponent-smear campaign since Nixon.”Nunes’ revelations make it clear that members of the Obama team committed both of these crimes.
And Bob Woodward is right. People could end up in jail.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Serious claim: FBI's Comey 'falsely' denied surveillance
'Orwellian Big Brother' intrusion on Trump, other citizens in public and private sector
From: World Net Daily
by - Bob Unruh - March 22, 2017
It’s become a major issue following President Trump’s assertion that he and Trump Tower were spied upon by the federal government, and the subsequent denials by intelligence and law-enforcement officials, including FBI Director James Comey, who famously cleared Hillary Clinton on accusations she mishandled classified information as U.S. secretary of state.
Klayman has been working with Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA and Central Intelligence Agency contractor who “left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified.”
Montgomery then “sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”
Explained Klayman: “Working side by side with former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who lied in congressional testimony, and former Obama Director of the CIA, the equally ethically challenged John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed ‘up close and personal’ this “Orwellian Big Brother’ intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.”
But he said the testimony has been essentially ignored.
Now, however, with the issue pending before Congress, there even are media reports that appear to substantiate the general claims that the government has been spying. The New York Times in January referenced wiretapping at Trump Tower, and just this week ABC News documented that the FBI monitored Trump Tower.
The report claimed, “But it was not placed at the behest of Barack Obama, and the target was not the Trump campaign of 2016. For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York.”
It resulted in the indictments of more than 30 people, ABC said.
Explained the report: “The FBI investigation did not implicate Trump. But Trump Tower was under close watch. Some of the Russian mafia figures worked out of unit 63A in the iconic skyscraper – just three floors below Trump’s penthouse residence – running what prosecutors called an ‘international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring.'”
Klayman, a Washington watchdog who repeatedly took on the Clinton political machine to investigate suspicion of wrongdoing, explained in his letter to Nunes, which was copied to other members of Congress, that he previously won a judgment from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon preliminarily halting the “illegal, warrantless, and massive surveillance of U.S. citiznes and lawful residents” in 2015.
As part of Nunes’ hearing on claims of government spying, he invited “anyone who has information about these topics to come forward.”
Klayman said that is exactly what Montgomery has done.
“There is a myriad of evidence, direct and circumstantial, of the illegal and unconstitutional surveillance disclosed to the FBI by Montgomery,” said Klayman, describing how his client made an on-camera interview with the agency about the misdeeds some time ago.
He said Montgomery “holds much of the roadmap to ‘draining the swamp’ of this corruption of our democracy.”
Montgomery, Klayman said, has information “that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”
During Montgomery’s interview with FBI General Counsel James Baker, under grants of immunity, he “laid out how persons like then businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration.”
“He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, where illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.”
But that interview, “conducted and videotaped by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened since.”
Klayman wrote that it appears to have been “buried” by Comey, possibly because “the FBI itself collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance.”
He said he previously visited with a staff lawyer, Allen Souza, to inform Nunes of questions that needed to be put to Comey while under oath.
“My expressed purpose: to have Chairman Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee ask Comey, under oath, why he and his FBI have seemingly not moved forward with the Montgomery investigation while, on the other hand, the FBI director recently claimed publicly, I believe falsely, that there is ‘no evidence’ of surveillance on President Trump and those around him by the Obama administration.
“Indeed, there is,” he wrote.
He tells members of Congress that Comey needs to be grilled during a subsequent hearing, now set for March 28. He asks Nunes to respond by March 24 to let “the American people, and Mr. Montgomery … know where you and the other members of your committee stand.”
“Do you intend to get at and investigate the full truth, or as has regrettably been the case for many years in government, sweep the truth under the carpet?”
Other recipients of the letter were Reps. Adam Schiff, Mike Conaway, Peter King, Frank LoBiondo, Tom Rooney, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Michael Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rich Crawford, Trey Gowdy, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd, Jim Hines, Terri Sewell, Andre Carson, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Joaquin Castro and Denny Heck.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Will Russiagate Backfire on the Left?
From: Town Hall
by - Pat Buchanan - Mar 21, 2017
The big losers of the Russian hacking scandal may yet be those who invested all their capital in a script that turned out to based on a fairy tale.
In Monday's Intelligence Committee hearings, James Comey did confirm that his FBI has found nothing to support President Trump's tweet that President Obama ordered him wiretapped. Not unexpected, but undeniably an embarrassment for the tweeter-in-chief.
Yet longer-term damage may have been done to the left. For Monday's hearing showed that its rendering of the campaign of 2016 may be a product of fiction and a fevered imagination.
After eight months investigating the hacking and leaking of the emails of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta and the DNC, there is apparently no evidence yet of Trump collusion with Russia.
Former Director of National Intelligence Gen. James Clapper has said that, as of his departure day, Jan. 20, he had seen no evidence of a Russia-Trump collusion.
Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell also made that clear this month: "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. ... There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it." Morell was a surrogate for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
But while the FBI is still searching for a Trump connection, real crimes have been unearthed -- committed by anti-Trump bureaucrats colluding with mainstream media -- to damage Trump's presidency.
There is hard evidence of collusion between the intel community and The New York Times and The Washington Post, both beneficiaries of
illegal leaks -- felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
While the howls have been endless that Trump accused Obama of a "felony," the one provable felony here was the leak of a transcript of an intercepted conversation between Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
That leak ended Flynn's career as national security adviser. And Director Comey would neither confirm nor deny that President Obama was aware of the existence of the Flynn transcript.
So where do we stand after yesterday's hearing and eight-month FBI investigation? The Russians did hack Podesta's email account and the DNC, and while the FBI has found no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, it is still looking.
However, the known unknowns seem more significant.
How could DNI Director Clapper and CIA Director Morell say that no connection had been established between Trump's campaign and the Russians, without there having been an investigation? And how could such an investigation be conclusive in exonerating Trump's associates -- without some use of electronic surveillance?
Did the FBI fly to Moscow and question Putin's cyberwarfare team?
More questions arise. If, in its investigation of the Russian hacking and a Trump connection, the FBI did receive the fruits of some electronic surveillance of the Trump campaign, were Attorney General Loretta Lynch, White House aides or President Obama made aware of any such surveillance? Did any give a go-ahead to surveil the Trump associates? Comey would neither confirm nor deny that they did.
So, if Obama were aware of an investigation into the Trump campaign, using intel sources and methods, Trump would not be entirely wrong in his claims, and Obama would have some 'splainin' to do.
Is the FBI investigating the intelligence sources who committed felonies by illegally disclosing information about the Trump campaign?
Comey would not commit to investigate these leaks, though this could involve criminal misconduct within his own FBI.
Again, the only known crimes committed by Americans during and after the campaign are the leaks of security secrets by agents of the intel community, colluding with the Fourth Estate, which uses the First Amendment to provide cover for criminal sources, whom they hail as "whistleblowers."
Indeed, if there was no surveillance of Trump of any kind, where did all these stories come from, which their reporters attributed to "intelligence sources"?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any role in the Russian hacking scandal. But the Justice Department should demand that the FBI put the highest priority on investigating the deep state and its journalistic collaborators in the sabotage of the Trump presidency.
If Comey refuses to do it, appoint a special counsel.
In the last analysis, as Glenn Greenwald, no Trumpite, writes for The Intercept, the real loser may well be the Democratic Party.
If the investigation of Russiagate turns up no link between Trump and the pilfered emails, Democrats will have egg all over their faces. And the Democratic base will have to face a painful truth.
Vladimir Putin did not steal this election. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lost it. Donald Trump won it fair and square. He is not an "illegitimate" president. There will be no impeachment. They were deceived and misled by their own leaders and media. They bought into a Big Lie.
God bless,
JohnnyD
by - Pat Buchanan - Mar 21, 2017
The big losers of the Russian hacking scandal may yet be those who invested all their capital in a script that turned out to based on a fairy tale.
In Monday's Intelligence Committee hearings, James Comey did confirm that his FBI has found nothing to support President Trump's tweet that President Obama ordered him wiretapped. Not unexpected, but undeniably an embarrassment for the tweeter-in-chief.
Yet longer-term damage may have been done to the left. For Monday's hearing showed that its rendering of the campaign of 2016 may be a product of fiction and a fevered imagination.
After eight months investigating the hacking and leaking of the emails of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta and the DNC, there is apparently no evidence yet of Trump collusion with Russia.
Former Director of National Intelligence Gen. James Clapper has said that, as of his departure day, Jan. 20, he had seen no evidence of a Russia-Trump collusion.
Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell also made that clear this month: "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. ... There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it." Morell was a surrogate for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
But while the FBI is still searching for a Trump connection, real crimes have been unearthed -- committed by anti-Trump bureaucrats colluding with mainstream media -- to damage Trump's presidency.
While the howls have been endless that Trump accused Obama of a "felony," the one provable felony here was the leak of a transcript of an intercepted conversation between Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
That leak ended Flynn's career as national security adviser. And Director Comey would neither confirm nor deny that President Obama was aware of the existence of the Flynn transcript.
So where do we stand after yesterday's hearing and eight-month FBI investigation? The Russians did hack Podesta's email account and the DNC, and while the FBI has found no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, it is still looking.
However, the known unknowns seem more significant.
How could DNI Director Clapper and CIA Director Morell say that no connection had been established between Trump's campaign and the Russians, without there having been an investigation? And how could such an investigation be conclusive in exonerating Trump's associates -- without some use of electronic surveillance?
Did the FBI fly to Moscow and question Putin's cyberwarfare team?
More questions arise. If, in its investigation of the Russian hacking and a Trump connection, the FBI did receive the fruits of some electronic surveillance of the Trump campaign, were Attorney General Loretta Lynch, White House aides or President Obama made aware of any such surveillance? Did any give a go-ahead to surveil the Trump associates? Comey would neither confirm nor deny that they did.
So, if Obama were aware of an investigation into the Trump campaign, using intel sources and methods, Trump would not be entirely wrong in his claims, and Obama would have some 'splainin' to do.
Is the FBI investigating the intelligence sources who committed felonies by illegally disclosing information about the Trump campaign?
Comey would not commit to investigate these leaks, though this could involve criminal misconduct within his own FBI.
Again, the only known crimes committed by Americans during and after the campaign are the leaks of security secrets by agents of the intel community, colluding with the Fourth Estate, which uses the First Amendment to provide cover for criminal sources, whom they hail as "whistleblowers."
Indeed, if there was no surveillance of Trump of any kind, where did all these stories come from, which their reporters attributed to "intelligence sources"?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any role in the Russian hacking scandal. But the Justice Department should demand that the FBI put the highest priority on investigating the deep state and its journalistic collaborators in the sabotage of the Trump presidency.
In the last analysis, as Glenn Greenwald, no Trumpite, writes for The Intercept, the real loser may well be the Democratic Party.
If the investigation of Russiagate turns up no link between Trump and the pilfered emails, Democrats will have egg all over their faces. And the Democratic base will have to face a painful truth.
Vladimir Putin did not steal this election. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lost it. Donald Trump won it fair and square. He is not an "illegitimate" president. There will be no impeachment. They were deceived and misled by their own leaders and media. They bought into a Big Lie.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Thursday, March 16, 2017
The Teflon Don Grinds Down #TheResistance
From: Town Hall
by - Kurt Schlichter - March 16, 2017
History will record that once upon a time there was something that called itself #TheResistance, and it was President Trump’s bestest buddy because it provided him the cover to ruthlessly dismantle everything Barack Obama and Team Libfascist tried to build. Whining, virtue signaling, and figuratively choosing to die on strategically insignificant hills while dressed like lady parts; these were its methods. Yet instead of defeating him, it only made Donald Trump stronger, and helped ensure his crushing of its members’ liberal dreams.
See, the problem for #TheResistance is that it is composed of stupid people who think they are smart people, parochial bigots who consider themselves open-minded cosmopolitans, and meritocrats who really didn’t merit anything except contempt. They refuse to see that their hero Obama left in his miserable wake a country on the verge of being torn apart, and a teetering legacy built of wishes and fraud that is collapsing before our eyes. When Trump is done, it will be like The One had never even been there. History will label Obama “The Zero” – zero accomplishments, zero achievements, zero return on America’s eight-year investment in fake hope and change for the worse.
All that will remain of President Obama’s reign, besides a few cheesy biographies straining to place him up there with those real presidents on Mt. Rushmore, will be the lingering stench of his utter failure.
Breathe it in, normals. It smells like victory.
Every day Trump gets stronger; every day #TheResistance gets weaker – and more embarrassingly pathetic. One by one, these liars’ memes are falling apart. One by one, the Obamacronies are being dismissed from their D.C. sinecures and replaced with competent patriots – a nice change from the last eight years of rule by a pack of smug, genderfluid Tracey Flicks.
Savor their pain as their hopes for some sort of deus ex scandalabra rescue from Election Day’s cruel accounting crumble, leaving them with nothing but ashes and the certain knowledge that every regulatory power grab and legislative ploy they thought was locked-in is going to be herded to the kill floor and converted into hamburger. Make mine animal style, with a side of the free market and a tall, icy glass of liberal tears.
Say goodbye to the regulations that impoverish our miners, to the codes that skyrocket our electric bills in the name of the weird liberal weather religion, and to rules declaring that puddle in your backyard one of the “waters in the United States” and allowing some bureaucrat with a clipboard and a sneer to tell you where you can and can’t build a tool shed. Slowly but surely, it’s all going away.
Every day, the Trump administration gets stronger, more embedded, and
does more damage to liberals' dreams; every day, the liberal elite gets
weaker, less relevant, and more ridiculous.
Their organized system of lies and deceit is expiring in front of us. Sure, the whole Russian thing was fun while it lasted – a bunch of vague allegations ultimately shot to bits by James Clapper after Trump forced him to either ‘fess up that it was phony or admit the Obama administration was Watergating all up in there. Look, I – and a lot of other folks – are absolutely convinced the Obamaites either hard-tapped Trump’s comms or illegally accessed whatever was swept up by the NSA (which, according to the myriad leaks and defectors under President Faily McWorsethancarter’s watch, is everything). But proving that in court doesn’t matter; what does matter is the “Don + Ivan, sitting in an onion dome” meme is now a smoking crater, a nutty theory on par with chemtrails, UFOs, and the idea that Lena Dunham is hot.
Donald Trump: Doing the job the catamite media won’t do.
Let me be perfectly clear, to quote someone who I can’t seem to remember anymore: it’s all caving in on them. Look at St. Preet and the 86ings of Obama’s ambulance chasers. Any news report that did not begin with something like “Donald Trump demanded the resignations of all Obama U.S. attorneys today, something every single new president does every single time…” was a hack lie and just more dictation taken by eager Democrat partisans. You never got that baseline truth from the mainstream media – you only got it from the alternative and social media worlds. The bad guys can’t contain the truth anymore – the news is going to get out no matter how hard the media tries to contain it. And now, everyone knows their game.
You can hear the Brian Stelters and Chris Cuomos and all the rest of
these rump-nosing weasels howling in agony as all the power and glory
they struggled to achieve turns to dust. Imagine – you work for years,
struggle and toil, then finally get your own CNN show, and now that you
have it all you get is grief from jeering conservatives tweeting memes
comparing you to Baghdad Bob. The media mediocrities are nothing but a
joke now, a whiny, silly joke: “So, Rachel Maddow walks into a bar with a
safety pin, a genital beanie, and a tax return...”
No one’s listening, no one’s caring. The Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers can bunt the softballs their lackeys loft at them 24/7, and the needle just doesn’t move. No one’s watching.
But it gives Trump cover, the cover he needs to be ruthless. When you go at a guy like Trump locked and loaded, with the volume turned to 11, howling for blood, then you can’t expect him to ask for, or give, quarter. Softboy Jeb would’ve folded and whimpered under your onslaught, sobbing and begging to submit, but not Trump. He fights, and you fools left him with no choice but to go for your throats or lose. You made it a cage match, the Thunderdome, so that’s how he’s fighting. Two men enter; one man leaves. There’s no room for mercy – you saw to that – so your beloved liberalism won’t get any.
You gave Trump the excuse he needed to be the most conservative
president since Calvin Coolidge, and now he’s doing it. He couldn’t not
do it – you left him no way to compromise, and you made sure that any
act of magnanimity or graciousness would be rejected. Even if he wanted
to moderate his policies, that would just create an opening we all
absolutely know you would exploit. So there won’t be any détente with
the liberal elite, no peace accords with the snooty left.
Thanks #TheResistance. You made it do or die, so enjoy it when this guy picks “do” for conservatism, and “die” for liberalism.
God bless,
JohnnyD
by - Kurt Schlichter - March 16, 2017
History will record that once upon a time there was something that called itself #TheResistance, and it was President Trump’s bestest buddy because it provided him the cover to ruthlessly dismantle everything Barack Obama and Team Libfascist tried to build. Whining, virtue signaling, and figuratively choosing to die on strategically insignificant hills while dressed like lady parts; these were its methods. Yet instead of defeating him, it only made Donald Trump stronger, and helped ensure his crushing of its members’ liberal dreams.
See, the problem for #TheResistance is that it is composed of stupid people who think they are smart people, parochial bigots who consider themselves open-minded cosmopolitans, and meritocrats who really didn’t merit anything except contempt. They refuse to see that their hero Obama left in his miserable wake a country on the verge of being torn apart, and a teetering legacy built of wishes and fraud that is collapsing before our eyes. When Trump is done, it will be like The One had never even been there. History will label Obama “The Zero” – zero accomplishments, zero achievements, zero return on America’s eight-year investment in fake hope and change for the worse.
All that will remain of President Obama’s reign, besides a few cheesy biographies straining to place him up there with those real presidents on Mt. Rushmore, will be the lingering stench of his utter failure.
Every day Trump gets stronger; every day #TheResistance gets weaker – and more embarrassingly pathetic. One by one, these liars’ memes are falling apart. One by one, the Obamacronies are being dismissed from their D.C. sinecures and replaced with competent patriots – a nice change from the last eight years of rule by a pack of smug, genderfluid Tracey Flicks.
Savor their pain as their hopes for some sort of deus ex scandalabra rescue from Election Day’s cruel accounting crumble, leaving them with nothing but ashes and the certain knowledge that every regulatory power grab and legislative ploy they thought was locked-in is going to be herded to the kill floor and converted into hamburger. Make mine animal style, with a side of the free market and a tall, icy glass of liberal tears.
Say goodbye to the regulations that impoverish our miners, to the codes that skyrocket our electric bills in the name of the weird liberal weather religion, and to rules declaring that puddle in your backyard one of the “waters in the United States” and allowing some bureaucrat with a clipboard and a sneer to tell you where you can and can’t build a tool shed. Slowly but surely, it’s all going away.
Their organized system of lies and deceit is expiring in front of us. Sure, the whole Russian thing was fun while it lasted – a bunch of vague allegations ultimately shot to bits by James Clapper after Trump forced him to either ‘fess up that it was phony or admit the Obama administration was Watergating all up in there. Look, I – and a lot of other folks – are absolutely convinced the Obamaites either hard-tapped Trump’s comms or illegally accessed whatever was swept up by the NSA (which, according to the myriad leaks and defectors under President Faily McWorsethancarter’s watch, is everything). But proving that in court doesn’t matter; what does matter is the “Don + Ivan, sitting in an onion dome” meme is now a smoking crater, a nutty theory on par with chemtrails, UFOs, and the idea that Lena Dunham is hot.
Donald Trump: Doing the job the catamite media won’t do.
Let me be perfectly clear, to quote someone who I can’t seem to remember anymore: it’s all caving in on them. Look at St. Preet and the 86ings of Obama’s ambulance chasers. Any news report that did not begin with something like “Donald Trump demanded the resignations of all Obama U.S. attorneys today, something every single new president does every single time…” was a hack lie and just more dictation taken by eager Democrat partisans. You never got that baseline truth from the mainstream media – you only got it from the alternative and social media worlds. The bad guys can’t contain the truth anymore – the news is going to get out no matter how hard the media tries to contain it. And now, everyone knows their game.
No one’s listening, no one’s caring. The Nancy Pelosis and the Chuck Schumers can bunt the softballs their lackeys loft at them 24/7, and the needle just doesn’t move. No one’s watching.
But it gives Trump cover, the cover he needs to be ruthless. When you go at a guy like Trump locked and loaded, with the volume turned to 11, howling for blood, then you can’t expect him to ask for, or give, quarter. Softboy Jeb would’ve folded and whimpered under your onslaught, sobbing and begging to submit, but not Trump. He fights, and you fools left him with no choice but to go for your throats or lose. You made it a cage match, the Thunderdome, so that’s how he’s fighting. Two men enter; one man leaves. There’s no room for mercy – you saw to that – so your beloved liberalism won’t get any.
Thanks #TheResistance. You made it do or die, so enjoy it when this guy picks “do” for conservatism, and “die” for liberalism.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Democrat Insurrection on Steroids!
America has come full circle - the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it’s “We the People” against a tyrannical party that would rather peddle propaganda and use force than honor decisions made at the ballot box
From: Canada Free Press
By Dennis Jamison - March 13, 2017
The unvarnished history of the “Democratic” Party reveals the history of a political party with leaders willing to rely upon fear, force, or terror to wield political power. While It is natural to assume that Democrats prefer to have their party’s history written in more palatable and sanitized versions, a more relevant examination of such serious corruption and quest for power has not been easily undertaken. Unfortunately, the illusion persists that contemporary Democrats have evolved significantly from the beginning 50 years of their inception as a major political party.
Recently, however, a number of political events have converged, and though it appears that Democrat leadership is waging a battle against President Donald Trump, as well as his cabinet appointments, it has become increasingly evident there is more to it than normal political opposition to a victorious party.
Evidence is surfacing that former President Barack Obama is waging a different kind of battle, and was instigating an insurrection against the foundations of the United States of America before Trump came along. Trump’s election seems a convenient excuse to carry out violent attacks against Americans who oppose these radical insurrectionists.
For example, Loretta Lynch, former Obama Administration Attorney General, cleverly signaled for demonstrations and violence against Trump supporters, and even for the shedding of blood in a feeble comparison of the Democrat cause with the founders who fought and died for freedom, or as re-spun later—a comparison with brave civil rights workers.
On the other hand, Washington Times Editor Emeritus Wes Pruden, in “On the eve of the insurrection,” has pegged the Democrat leadership as waging an insurrection, as he stated:
The Democrats call their scorched-earth attacks on the new president “the resistance.” But it is accurately described as “an insurrection.” They’re determined to destroy a duly elected president of the United States, by resignation or impeachment if they can, and if that doesn’t work, maybe something more sinister will be employed. We’ve never before seen anything like this …Actually, American citizens are witnessing an insurrection that is not simply intended to reject Trump as President, but to destroy the United States as we know it in our time. On the heels of Lynch’s green light to the Democrats’ Brown Shirts, Trump supporters were attacked and beaten—even bloodied at a pro-Trump rally held in Berkeley, California.
Today, the overtly radicalized version of the “Democratic” Party is in a state of frenzy over the election of Donald Trump in much the same way as Democrat ancestors were in absolute rebellion over Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860. Those ancestors saw their political power threatened by the transformation that Lincoln and Republican abolitionists could bring to America; they saw their very existence threatened.
In the same manner, the Obama Administration and affiliated associates are losing their political clout, but it is not politics as usual. They may see that their very reason for existence being threatened. When Obama initially campaigned on “hope and change,” he meant hope for specific groups of people, not all Americans; and worse, he meant fundamental change that could bring an end to the U.S. as founded. Hillary Clinton was recently denied the possibility to extend that effort. Americans are now witnessing “plan B.”
During the 2016 presidential election and in recent days, people of power in the overtly radicalized “Democratic” Party were exposed in paying men and women to go out into the streets and attack Americans and destroy property to generate confusion and chaos. During the recent election, people were being recruited via Craigslist ads and other social media outlets to become paid rioters.
The pay was a meager $1500/week before the election, but the ante went up to $2400/week after the inauguration, to continue the “Stop Trump” efforts through Obama’s “Organize for America” or the subgroup “Organize for Action,” or various other front groups.
Project Veritas recorded many videotaped segments of high-ranking officials connected to the Democratic National Committee who boasted their involvement in instigating riots. Breitbart documented some of the ads on Craigslist that targeted prospective wanna-be rioters in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Seattle. The rent-a-rioters can thus be traced to powerful Democrats; George Soros is simply one who happens to be a more easily identifiable source of such anarchist hate and destructiveness.
Citizens need to learn from the rioters rather than ignore them, and understand that the rioters are not authentic if they have to be paid to generate terror and destruction. And, this pay to play at destruction is angering more and more American citizens as they wake up to the reality.
Unfortunately, despite the remnant of the Democrat legislators who survived the election, despite damaging leaks from the leftover old guard in the former Obama Executive Branch, despite the incredible network of mainstream media parrots spinning their fake news for low information voters, despite the enlightened Hollywood elites bestowing upon commoners the politically correct way to think; despite all this, Democrats still mobilize their Black Bloc rioters, still support Black Lives Matter militants, or New Black Panther Party activists, and pay anarchists of the Left, militant Marxists, or newly indoctrinated dupes to hit the streets to manifest confusion and chaos.
The bottom line is that the Democrat Party lost the election of 2016, and may sense they are in danger of losing the momentum to transform America—away from the principles for which the U.S. was founded—and to destroy the founding values, like those in the Declaration of Independence. In Lincoln’s day, the Confederate States of America represented the establishment of an alternative government that Southern Democrats utilized in an attempt to end the U.S. as founded. Similarly today, the “Democratic” Party embodies a political philosophy antithetical to the founding values, and Democrat leaders boldly operate from a shadow government.
America has come full circle - the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it’s “We the People” against a tyrannical party that would rather peddle propaganda and use force than honor decisions made at the ballot box.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Monday, March 13, 2017
Now it's new Democratic Party vs. American worker
From: World Net Daily
March 11, 2017
The Democratic Party once produced presidents such as Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Major party leaders were fierce opponents of mass immigration because they recognized the negative impact it had on wages.
And America’s center-left party presented itself as a friend to American workers, fighting for their interests against corporate bosses.
But the Democratic Party of the past is not the Democratic Party of today. Indeed, one author and researcher suggests the current Democratic Party is more concerned with defending “international socialism” than American workers.
Trevor Loudon, who has researched communism and leftist movements for decades, exposes the change within the Democrats in his documentary “The Enemies Within.” He argues the current Democrat leadership team of chairman Tom Perez and vice-chairman Keith Ellison represents a fundamental departure for the party from its patriotic past.
“It is a socialist party,” he told WND. “Today’s Democratic Party has completely abandoned the ‘middle ground.’ It is now a full-on ‘progressive party’ with an agenda and platform almost indistinguishable from that of the Communist Party, or Democratic Socialists of America – which incidentally openly backed Ellison in his race against Perez.
“The Democrats of today would be marching in the streets against traditional Democrats such as Harry Truman or JFK.”
As Loudon showed in his research, Congressman Keith Ellison, now second-in-command at the Democratic National Committee, has a long history of involvement with both the Communist Party and radical Islamic groups.
“Ellison is the poster boy for the red-green axis – the alliance between the communist and Islamist movements,” he said. “In his student activist days he worked with Maoists, and was active in the Nation of Islam. As a congressman he was close to the Communist Party USA – even holding fundraisers in the home of Minnesota party chairman Erwin Marquit. He has even written for the Communist Party website.
“All the while he was actively involved with several Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and the Muslim American Society, which even paid for his pilgrimage to Mecca in 2008.”
Yet chairman Tom Perez also has a radical past.
“Tom Perez was a longtime leader of CASA de Maryland, a militant left ‘immigrants’ rights group,” Loudon told WND. “A few years ago President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was sending one million dollars a year of his oil revenue to CASA, which was bent on keeping America’s borders wide open.”
Loudon points out the Democratic Party has not always been characterized by unquestioning support for open borders. Indeed, the American left’s sudden backing of mass immigration is fairly recent.
“Until the mid-1990s, both the AFL-CIO and the Democrats were staunchly opposed to lax border security,” explains Loudon. “Illegal immigration disproportionately hurt both the black community and their white working class base.
“However, in 1994, the Democratic Socialists of America, under John Sweeney, took over the AFL-CIO from Lane Kirkland and his supporters. The clause prohibiting communists from holding AFL-CIO office was quietly dropped. Now the AFL-CIO is completely controlled by the hard left. Orchestrated by another DSAer, Eliseo Medina, the AFL-CIO switched its policy in 2000 to open support for amnesty for illegal immigrants. The Democrats quickly followed suit.”
Loudon argues the modern Democratic Party has abandoned even the pretense of trying to help American workers. Instead, they seek to gain power by essentially replacing the current American people with a new one.
“The prize was 12 to 30 million illegals – who would vote 70 to 80 percent Democrat,” Loudon said. “This would effectively bring about a one-party state, controlled by the Dems and the communist controlled unions. The AFL-CIO and Democratic Party today represent international socialism. Damn the American worker.”
As a result, the current Democratic Party is really just an anti-white coalition. Tom Perez has a long history of anti-white views, including a declaration that white people should not be entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act.
“The Democratic plan is simply to replace American citizens,” says Loudon. “The left wants to expand the Democratic Party voting base to create a socialist one-party state. The simplest way to do this is to flood the country with immigrants from Third World countries, who have little interest in the Constitution and are reliable Democratic voters.”
However, Loudon argues President Donald Trump can counter the Democrats’ identity politics driven strategy with policies that will help American workers of all races.
“If Donald Trump is smart, he could confound that plan by closing the borders,” Loudon said. “He should be dramatically reducing all immigration and promoting America First, low tax, high growth policies which will win over significant numbers of working class, black, Asian and Latino voters.
God bless,
JohnnyD
March 11, 2017
The Democratic Party once produced presidents such as Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Major party leaders were fierce opponents of mass immigration because they recognized the negative impact it had on wages.
And America’s center-left party presented itself as a friend to American workers, fighting for their interests against corporate bosses.
But the Democratic Party of the past is not the Democratic Party of today. Indeed, one author and researcher suggests the current Democratic Party is more concerned with defending “international socialism” than American workers.
Trevor Loudon, who has researched communism and leftist movements for decades, exposes the change within the Democrats in his documentary “The Enemies Within.” He argues the current Democrat leadership team of chairman Tom Perez and vice-chairman Keith Ellison represents a fundamental departure for the party from its patriotic past.
“It is a socialist party,” he told WND. “Today’s Democratic Party has completely abandoned the ‘middle ground.’ It is now a full-on ‘progressive party’ with an agenda and platform almost indistinguishable from that of the Communist Party, or Democratic Socialists of America – which incidentally openly backed Ellison in his race against Perez.
“The Democrats of today would be marching in the streets against traditional Democrats such as Harry Truman or JFK.”
As Loudon showed in his research, Congressman Keith Ellison, now second-in-command at the Democratic National Committee, has a long history of involvement with both the Communist Party and radical Islamic groups.
“Ellison is the poster boy for the red-green axis – the alliance between the communist and Islamist movements,” he said. “In his student activist days he worked with Maoists, and was active in the Nation of Islam. As a congressman he was close to the Communist Party USA – even holding fundraisers in the home of Minnesota party chairman Erwin Marquit. He has even written for the Communist Party website.
“All the while he was actively involved with several Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and the Muslim American Society, which even paid for his pilgrimage to Mecca in 2008.”
Yet chairman Tom Perez also has a radical past.
“Tom Perez was a longtime leader of CASA de Maryland, a militant left ‘immigrants’ rights group,” Loudon told WND. “A few years ago President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was sending one million dollars a year of his oil revenue to CASA, which was bent on keeping America’s borders wide open.”
Loudon points out the Democratic Party has not always been characterized by unquestioning support for open borders. Indeed, the American left’s sudden backing of mass immigration is fairly recent.
“Until the mid-1990s, both the AFL-CIO and the Democrats were staunchly opposed to lax border security,” explains Loudon. “Illegal immigration disproportionately hurt both the black community and their white working class base.
“However, in 1994, the Democratic Socialists of America, under John Sweeney, took over the AFL-CIO from Lane Kirkland and his supporters. The clause prohibiting communists from holding AFL-CIO office was quietly dropped. Now the AFL-CIO is completely controlled by the hard left. Orchestrated by another DSAer, Eliseo Medina, the AFL-CIO switched its policy in 2000 to open support for amnesty for illegal immigrants. The Democrats quickly followed suit.”
Loudon argues the modern Democratic Party has abandoned even the pretense of trying to help American workers. Instead, they seek to gain power by essentially replacing the current American people with a new one.
“The prize was 12 to 30 million illegals – who would vote 70 to 80 percent Democrat,” Loudon said. “This would effectively bring about a one-party state, controlled by the Dems and the communist controlled unions. The AFL-CIO and Democratic Party today represent international socialism. Damn the American worker.”
As a result, the current Democratic Party is really just an anti-white coalition. Tom Perez has a long history of anti-white views, including a declaration that white people should not be entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act.
“The Democratic plan is simply to replace American citizens,” says Loudon. “The left wants to expand the Democratic Party voting base to create a socialist one-party state. The simplest way to do this is to flood the country with immigrants from Third World countries, who have little interest in the Constitution and are reliable Democratic voters.”
However, Loudon argues President Donald Trump can counter the Democrats’ identity politics driven strategy with policies that will help American workers of all races.
“If Donald Trump is smart, he could confound that plan by closing the borders,” Loudon said. “He should be dramatically reducing all immigration and promoting America First, low tax, high growth policies which will win over significant numbers of working class, black, Asian and Latino voters.
God bless,
JohnnyD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)