Friday, August 18, 2017

REVOLUTION BEGINS - CHARLOTTESVILLE AND THE OBAMA COUP: Will he achieve his third term for life

Long before talk of KKK and neo-Nazis came to Charlottesville, Va., large fights were leaving cities across America battered and bruised.  Spring and summer of 2017 saw an epidemic of what the media simply called "large fights" –...



August 18, 2017

Itching for a fight: America under siege before Charlottesville


Long before talk of KKK and neo-Nazis came to Charlottesville, Va., large fights were leaving cities across America battered and bruised.  Spring and summer of 2017 saw an epidemic of what the media simply called "large fights" – from Florida to Texas and New York to Utah.
Dozens, sometimes hundreds, of people have been beating the crap out of each other, generally using bare fists, knives, baseball bats, and the occasional gun, always leaving injured or dead in their wake.  The reasons for the massive fighting is usually unclear and always senseless, as baffled police continually ask "anyone with information" to contact them.
It almost doesn't matter whether it's gang-related, drug related, or "after the bars close."  What matters is that it's happening, and if you happen to be driving down the wrong street, cutting through the wrong parking lot, or walking through the wrong park or mall when it begins, you'll play hell escaping unharmed.
I caught my own local headlines playing down one such fight.  The headline read something simple, like "Police break up large fight."  When I clicked on the story, I nearly fell over reading that an estimated 200 people had been actively fighting along two city blocks!  Close your eyes and picture that for a moment: two hundred people beating the hell out of each other in the middle of a city street.  The word is overused these days, but I'd have to say that would be apocalyptic to witness firsthand.
If you're dismissing this frightening scenario as happening only in large metropolitan cities, you're only partly right.  This is a partial list of some of the "large fights" from Spring-Summer 2017:
  • April 2, Gainesville, Fla.: Three people were arrested and one police officer was assaulted after police "responded to reports of a large street fight."  Police did not give an estimate of how many were involved.
  • April 6, Jersey City, N.J.: "Cops use pepper spray to break up massive Jersey City street brawl."  Many students are involved; one is stabbed, horns honk as the fight among an estimated 50 young people spills into traffic.  A police officer overheard reports of a planned "large street fight" minutes before.
  • April 6-7, Portland, Ore.: Brazen groups of 20-40 teens fight at a mall and across the street from a police precinct.  One report said, "Officers arrived at the mall to find a group of about 20 young people assaulting mall employees, damaging property and fighting with security staff[.]"
  • April 14, Rochester, N.Y.: A "massive police presence" used tasers and pepper spray to break up a "large fight" reportedly involving 300 people.  "When police initially arrived on scene, they say they found multiple groups of people fighting in the street."
  • April 16, Detroit, Mich.: A shocking Greektown street brawl gets posted to Facebook as local TV reports a "mob of young people getting out of control and beating two men on the street."
  • April 16, Centralia, Ill.: Police call for assistance from six surrounding police departments for a "large Saturday night fight."
  • April 24, Grand Forks, N.D.: "A large group of people started fighting outside city hall," leaving it damaged.
  • April 26, Syracuse, N.Y.: "Three men were stabbed in a large fight near downtown Syracuse[.]"  Entire city blocks were sealed off with crime tape.  An officer at the scene said there had been a "large group fight."
  • April 26, Millville, N.J.: Police were called for a "large group fighting."  A woman is "punched, kicked and dragged by several men and women."  The beating goes viral on Facebook.
  • May 8, New Brunswick, N.J.: "Two juveniles were shot in a low-income housing complex, and it may have stemmed from a large street fight that occurred there earlier."
  • May 10, St. Paul, Minn.: "A large fight between young people, including some wielding baseball bats, broke out near a busy recreation center."  Three teens needed medical attention.  The neighborhood is left in fear following "other reports over the past week of brawls at St. Paul parks."  (This article is quite detailed and frightening.)
  • May 12, Milwaukee, Wis.: "Police said multiple people began fighting in the street ... following a two-vehicle crash[.] ... A large group of people appeared to be attacking a woman in the street[.]"  A witness reported that "four or five firemen were standing around watching it, like it was some big show or something."
  • May 15, Coney Island, N.Y.: A stray bullet hits the window of an elderly couple, who report that "rowdy teens are often fighting in the street below their window."  This incident is notable for once again drawing attention to the fact that in New York, "[t]here are some cases where gunfire isn't counted as an official shooting, like if bullets don't strike a person[.]"
  • May 17, Baltimore, Md.: Only two people were arrested after "Citiwatch camera operators observe 'large fight' downtown."
  • May 17, Syracuse, N.Y.: A "large fight" is reported in the early afternoon near the transit hub, leaving two hospitalized.
  • May 18, Cleveland, Ohio: Police responded to a "large group fighting and exchanging gunfire" in the Hough neighborhood.
  • May 19, New London, Conn.: Men and juveniles were arrested in a "large New London fight" after police responded to "reports of a group of males carrying sticks, bats and bottles and talking about assaulting someone."
  • May 22, Maplewood, N.J.: "Police estimated about 150 to 200 teenagers crowded into [a] park" after a festival.  The mayor said "he saw one altercation involving only a few of the teens," but according to Maplewood police, it took five different police departments and the sheriff's department to break up the crowd.  Local media reported it as a simple "melee."
  • May 30, West Valley City, Utah: A teenage boy is shot dead after neighbors "heard arguing and threatened to call police after they saw a group fighting in the street[.]"
  • May 30, Milwaukee, Wis.: "Police responded to 15 separate shootings."  "Two children were shot after adults started fighting in the street and fired guns[.]"  The police chief warns that "disputes escalate too quickly for police to have a chance at intervening."
  • June 25, Manhattan, N.Y.: A police officer is struck by an SUV after responding officers try to break up a "large group of men fighting."
  • July 5, Niagara, N.Y.: After the fireworks, police use pepper spray to disperse 200 people near a park – another 70 to 80 are dispersed nearby, and multiple police units respond to another park, where 30 people are actively fighting, with "several other spectators" watching.
  • July 5, Grand Haven, Mich.: "Grand Haven State Beach was evacuated following a large fight involving 300 people."
  • July 13, Dayton, Ohio: "Police, deputies escort funeral procession for homicide victim following large fight" at a Baptist church.
  • July 15, Wichita, Kan.: "Police say a family fight over child care on Friday boiled over to Saturday evening when between 60 and 80 people got into a large disturbance."
  • July 16, Killeen, Texas: Riot breaks out at Texas mall involving 30-45 adults and juveniles.  Police "were unable to get control of the riot inside, but were able to move [it] out of the building."
  • July 16, Syracuse, N.Y.: A man was shot in the ankle as police responded to "a large fight" with "several groups of people."
  • July 17, Amsterdam, N.Y.: "Police say large fight leaves 5 stabbed in Amsterdam ... parking lot brawl."
  • July 20, Syracuse, N.Y.: Thursday afternoon, police responded to 911 calls reporting a "big fight where "some people had been stabbed."
  • July 26, Staten Island, N.Y.: "Slashing, shooting were part of large fight in Stapleton."
  • July 26, Austin, Texas: Austin police investigated a "large fight" at Fiesta Gardens park.  Neighbors say it "happens often," and video footage was available and shown on KVUE TV.
  • July 27, Ellenville, N.Y.: Police responded to a street fight involving "some 30 people."  An 18-year-old who allegedly tried to run over another person during a "large fight" faced felony charges.
  • July 29, Buffalo, N.Y.: A 20-year-old man was stabbed during a "large fight" involving 30 to 40 people.
One thing seems obvious: the malevolent forces trying to drag this country back to the social divides of 1968 – or 1868 – have a restless army at their disposal.  When the frenzy is high, there seems little difference in the danger of pointing to a statue or a politician.  One need only yell to the madding crowd, "Are you ready?  Then light your torches and go!"
Unless the stampede is herded away from the cliff, those caught up in its swell will destroy their friends, their neighbors, their countrymen – and ultimately themselves.
Susan D. Harris can be reached at www.susandharris.com.

BLOG: BARACK OBAMA IS A PSYCHOPATH. HE DOES NOT

IDENTIFY WITH ANY POLITICAL CAUSE OTHER THAN 

POWER AND RICHES FOR HIMSELF. 

"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power."
Karin McQuillan



We know that Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a corruptocrat, joined at the 

hip to the Clintons.  He pardoned sixty-thousand felons in order to 

ensure he delivered his state to the presidential election of Hillary 

Clinton.  We know he would like to run for president himself.


"We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war 

room in his D.C. home to plan and execute resistance to the 

Trump administration and his legislative agenda.  None of these

people care about the American people, or the fact that Trump 

won the election because millions of people voted for him."


"What if Signer and McAuliffe, in conjunction 

with Antifa and other Soros-funded groups like 

Black Lives Matter, planned and orchestrated what

happened in Charlottesville and meant for events 

to unfold roughly as they did?"


Along with groups like Antifa, BLM, and the host of anti-

democratic groups George Soros funds to protest all around the

nation, the media and the Democrats in Congress seek to 

overthrow an elected president in order to impose their vision 

of some sort of socialist utopia which of course will never exist.  


FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS FIRST TERM, BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER HAD COMMENCED BUILDING A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP FUNDED BY CRONY BANKSTERS AND MEXICO.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/seth-barron-obama-and-ilding-

“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level 

Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of  groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing .”



Evidence is turning up from, of all places, the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as Breitbart and others, that this character, Jason Kessler, who organized the suspicious and supposed Alt-Right demonstration in Charlottesville, Va. that blew up i...

August 17, 2017

Something stinks about Charlottesville

Evidence is turning up from, of all places, the Southern Poverty 
Law Center, as well as Breitbart and others, that this character, 
Jason Kessler, who organized the suspicious and supposed Alt-
Right demonstration in Charlottesville, Va. that blew up in 
everyone's face, is a cunning lefty holdover from the Occupy Wall 
Street movement and a former Barack Obama supporter.  I smell Soros money, sabotage, and Democrat dirty tricks here.
I've been suspicious of the nature of the violence at this supposed Alt-Right demonstration since the news first began breaking.  It is no secret that radical elements in the Democrat left have been routinely utilizing violence when it suits their purposes.  We also know via secret tapings by Project Veritas that the Democratic Party has a semi-official director of dirty ops, Dick Creamer, who hires, trains, and emplaces professional disruptors to encounter, engage, and infiltrate conservative demonstrations to foment violence, assuring that the demonstrations then become the targets of negative media attention – naturally, against the conservative side.  Creamer was caught on videotape boasting about his nefarious capabilities when he thought he was in friendly company.
So here we now have another blown supposedly conservative demonstration, where violence erupts and people are killed, and guess who just happens to be a ringleader of the various ultra-right to Alt-Right organizations ranging from KKK and neo-Nazis to the kind of patriotic folks who might go to a Flag Day celebration!  Um, that would be our vaporous political will o' the wisp, Jason Kessler, whose Occupy activities may well have put him in operational cahoots with high-level Democrat operatives.  And owing to the leniency of Virginia open carry laws, too many of Jason's followers just had to parade their personal armories in all their camo combat gear, showing off their minuteman firepower.  My first reaction at seeing those clowns strutting down the street like they were in Mosul was, like that of many of my fellow NRA members and military veterans, shaking my fist and yelling at the TV, "No!  No!  No, you idiots!  No!"  And that kind of award-winning stupidity makes me wonder if the head planner for the event, Jason Soros...er, Kessler, didn't have that firepower demonstration all lined up and ready to go precisely to make those right-wing tools look just like the fools they were being, while scaring the bejeezus out of the lefties, blacks, and MSM twerps.
There's still not enough evidence on the actual violence, other than the schizophrenic kid who ran over the woman, to make any kind of assessment as to who did what in the confrontations between the right-wing demonstrators and the surprisingly strong counter-demonstration.  I have to wonder if this Kessler fellow, strong Barack Obama-supporter that he is, had a hand in making sure his Alt-Right marchers were clearly guaranteed to encounter a strong crowd of riled up counter-protesters as well.  The reporting of 

Kessler's background, as well as that of Charlottesville mayor 

and Democrat activist Mike Signer and Vice Mayor Wes 

Bellamy, has convinced me that Charlottesville was a 

Democratic Party black operation, planned, organized, and 

carried out to its successful conclusion, to make the media 

portray all these conservative whites as stupid, racist, and 

violent.  I believe that it was done by this soulless young man, 

who succeeded in selling himself to the dumb-bunny right-

wingers as one of them

JOHN BINDER

CALIFORNIA MOVES CLOSER TO FINAL ANNEXATION BY MEXICO


DE FACTO CITIZENSHIP PER LA RAZA:

NO TEST, NO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON CRIMINALITY, NO BACK TAXES, NO 

FINES.... JUST JUMP STRAIGHT TO VOTING BOOTHS! AND VOTE OFTEN!!! 

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/07/john-binder-californias-surrender-to.html

 

In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER – BREITBART.com

 

 









OBAMA’S NEW HOME IN WASHIN

FROM THE MAGAZINE

Shadow President?

Barack Obama’s permanent residency in Washington breaks precedent and makes him the effective head of the anti-Trump opposition.
Summer 2017






Politics and law







After leaving the White House in January 2017, Barack Obama and his family set out to do what all newly retired presidents have done—go back home, or find a new one. In Obama’s case, though, the new residence is in Washington, D.C. At first, the Obamas presented their choice as temporary—they wanted to let their younger daughter, Sasha, finish high school in Washington, they said—but their purchase of an 8,200-square-foot, $8 million mansion suggests a permanent stay. Obama’s postpresidency is thus shaping up to be virtually unique in American history: rather than departing Washington, he is planting his flag there, establishing, in effect, a shadow presidency.
Obama’s move breaks with long-standing precedent. Conscious of threats to the safe transfer of executive power in the young republic, America’s early presidents departed Washington on the expiration of their terms. After relinquishing his commission as general following victory over the British, George Washington was compared with Cincinnatus, the retired Roman general who assumed emergency powers, saved Rome, and then returned to his plow. Washington repeated his valiant act when he declined a third term as president—Garry Wills calls him a “virtuoso of resignations”—and set the standard for future executives by going home when his political work was done.
The American ideal of a president is essentially republican: a citizen steps forward to serve the government and returns to private life when his term is up. Washington’s diaries and correspondence of 1797 are consumed with matters of housekeeping, husbandry, and accounts. Mount Vernon had gone to seed, and Washington was forced to shore up his personal finances. Though he stayed abreast of national events and voiced his opinions to his associates, he stayed out of the affairs of government; keeping a safe physical distance from the capital reinforced that resolution.
Following Washington’s model, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe each returned to their farms, in varying degrees of insolvency. True, John Quincy Adams, finding retirement dull, soon returned to public service as a congressman, a role he embraced and thrived in, but his ambitions were not imperial. Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren went home, too, when their terms in the White House were finished.
In the modern era, only one other former president remained in Washington after his term of office ended. Stroke victim Woodrow Wilson took up residence on S Street—just a few blocks away from the Obamas’ new Kalorama home. But Wilson was an invalid—indeed, he spent the last 18 months of his presidency in seclusion, with his wife largely managing the affairs of state. Unlike Obama, he was in no position to assert his postpresidential authority or impose himself as a presence on the national stage.
Harry Truman retired to Missouri, broke, in 1953. Dwight Eisenhower retired to Gettysburg, eight years later. In 1969, Lyndon Johnson lit his first cigarette in 15 years, telling his daughters, “I’ve now raised you girls. I’ve now been president. Now it’s my time!” He went to his ranch, grew a ponytail, and died within three years. Richard Nixon skulked off to California and reengineered himself as a statesman, Gerald Ford made himself rich, and Jimmy Carter became a professional humanitarian. Ronald Reagan rode off into the sunset. George H. W. Bush splits his time between Houston and Maine; his son George W., a full-time Texan, paints. Bill Clinton arguably broke the mold through his efforts to install his wife as president, but even that ambitious enterprise was centered in New York, not Washington.
True, some ex-presidents have plotted returns to office. When Grover Cleveland left the White House in 1889, his wife, Frances, told a staff member to keep everything in place because she and her husband would be returning in four years. They did. But Cleveland was an outlier. (He’s also the only president to serve two nonconsecutive terms.)
Traditionally, former presidents gave their successors a lengthy grace period, during which they refrained from critiquing them: George W. Bush waited until 2015 before criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. By contrast, Obama, only two weeks after Donald Trump’s November victory, announced that he would take on the new president “if necessary.” Necessity arose quickly: Obama held a conference call that month with staff members of his “social welfare” nonprofit Organizing for Action, the successor organization to his Obama for America campaign. The ex-president told the depressed troops to “get over it” and “move forward.” Ten days after leaving office, Obama said that he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests. Now, recent news reports indicate that Obama is planning a return to the national stage as soon as this Fall, and that he wants to take an "active role" in running the Democratic Party. 
Obama’s new home in Washington has been 
described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump 
opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has 
said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned 
himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level 
Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety 
of  groups organizing direct action against Trump’s 
initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, 
features lectures by former campaign executive Sara 
El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing 
Handbook. Former White House deputy chief of 
staff Jim Messina runs Organizing for Action.
Obama and his affiliated organizations are not addressing broadly humanistic policy goals, in the model of the Carter Center or even the Clinton Global Initiative. Rather, Obama is the spearhead of a movement seeking to obstruct the administration of his successor. By establishing himself so visibly within the nation’s capital, Obama is effectively turning the postpresidency—up to now, a venerable, if vague, institution—into something more ominous.

Charlottesville and Its Aftermath: What if It Was a Setup?

The ridiculous campaign by virtually every media outlet, every Democrat and far too many squishy Republicans to label Trump some kind of  racist and Nazi sympathizer is beginning to have the stink of an orchestrated smear.   The conflagration in Charlottesville is beginning to feel like a set-up, perhaps weeks or months in the planning.  Planned by whom?  Time may tell.  We know that Michael Signer, the mayor of Charlottesville, declared his city to be the "capital of the resistance" just after Trump's inauguration.  We know that Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a corruptocrat, joined at the hip to the Clintons.  He pardoned sixty-thousand felons in order to ensure he delivered his state to the presidential election of Hillary Clinton.  We know he would like to run for president himself.
We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C. home to plan and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative agenda.  None of these people care about the American people, or the fact that Trump won the election because millions of people voted for him.  They suggest those deranged persons who gathered in Charlottesville as members of one of several fringe groups, Unite The Right, neo-Nazi or KKK, are Trump's base -- as if there are more than a few hundred or thousand of them throughout the country.  There are not enough of them to affect anything or elect anyone.  Those who are actual members of these small groups are most likely mentally ill to one degree or another. Trump has disavowed them all, over and over and over again.  Liz Crokin, an entertainment reporter and no fan of Trump, wrote in 2016 that she had covered Trump for over a decade and  in all that time, no one had ever suggested he was racist, homophobic, or sympathetic to white supremacists.  That all began after he announced his campaign.  It is as fake a narrative as the "Russia collusion" meme.  The left set out to defame Trump from moment one.  When he won the election, their shock, dismay and intolerance for every opinion that differs from their own shifted into hysterical overdrive.   They mounted their crusade to destroy his presidency on Nov. 9, 2016. 
What if Signer and McAuliffe, in conjunction with Antifa and other Soros-funded groups like Black Lives Matter, planned and orchestrated what happened in Charlottesville and meant for events to unfold roughly as they did?  If they did,  it was icing on their sick, immoral cake.  If this was all part of a plan, one would hope those behind it suffer for their part in and responsibility for the tragic death of a young woman, Heather Heyer.  The "founder" of Unite The Right, Jason Kessler,  was an activist with Occupy Wall Street and Obama supporter. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-08/200006_5_.jpg
Jason Kessler at Charlottesville City Hall, August 13, 2017
He sees himself as a professional provocateur. What if he was a ringer, a phony who revels in riling up some crazy people for some political purpose?  We know the left is skilled in all manner of dirty tricks.  That sort of thing was Robert Creamer's job for the Hillary campaign, hiring thugs to incite violence that could then be blamed on Trump supporters.  Think of Ferguson, Baltimore, Berkeley, etc.  Antifa and BLM are every bit as fascist as any of the supremacist groups; they are more violent and there are more of them.  Why is the left so afraid to admit this fact?  Even Peter Beinart did in the Atlantic, written before last Saturday.
Since that day, the call to remove the statues on display that honor any members of the Confederacy has become shrill and  frenzied.  Erasing American history benefits no one and only condemns us to repeat past mistakes.  The supremacist groups had a permit; they had applied months earlier.  The Antifa and Black Lives Matter groups did not have a permit.  The local police at some point, on whose order we do not know, turned the pro-statue groups toward the Antifa and BLM groups, many of whom were armed with lethal weapons - soda cans filled with cement, bottles filled with urine, baseball bats and boards with screws protruding to do maximum harm, and improvised flamethrowers.  These are the people who initiated the violence.  How was this not a planned melee?  Pit groups of demented racists  -- all of them on both sides are certainly that -- against each other and violence is sure to occur.  (Certainly, there were decent people among the protestors and counter-protesters who had no affiliation with the supremacist groups or Antifa or BLM. Heather Heyer was among them.)
Trump spoke out on Saturday and his statement was perfectly fine given the known facts at the time.  But the media reacted as though he had defended the supremacist groups.  He did not; not even close.  It was as though no matter what Trump said, they were going to attack his remarks as being insufficient.  When he reiterated his horror of the brawl the next day and named the groups present,  they again reacted as if he had defended the supremacist groups because he said there was mayhem committed by both sides.  He correctly stated that there was violence perpetrated by members of all the groups present.  The media was apoplectic even though they surely knew what he said was true.  Reporters on the scene saw the police stand down.  Only one of them reported that truth.  One has to wonder if talking points were distributed before the event took place and before Trump said a word about it.
The Democratic Party is no longer liberal, it is leftist.  It is not progressive, it is regressive and repressive.  It seeks to overturn the First Amendment.  It means to indoctrinate, and has, successive generations via public and private education.  It is becoming ever more fascist by the day.  Along with groups like Antifa, BLM, and the host of anti-democratic groups George Soros funds to protest all around the nation, the media and the Democrats in Congress seek to overthrow an elected president in order to impose their vision of some sort of socialist utopia which of 

course will never exist.  What will result if they get 

their way is a Venezuela-style two-tiered class 

system, the ultra rich and the very poor who are 

kept in their place by economic and social 

control.  The millions of people who see the left 
for what it has become see this.  It is why they voted for Trump. 
It is disheartening to see so many American elites, privileged in 

wealth and position within the media and/or government be so 

completely of one, unthinking mind.  They all have braces on their 

brains (Auntie Mame).  So afraid to buck the rigid mindset of their 

peers, they have become mouthpieces for their own group identity. 

Do they believe the nonsense they spew?  Who knows?  Those 

in Congress, all the Democrats and the anti-

Trump Republicans essentially care about one 

thing and one thing only: getting re-elected.  

They cannot afford to offend their donors or 

the lobbyists whose largesse fills their coffers.  

So they trip over each other getting to the 

nearest camera to align themselves with 

whatever opinion they think will put them on 

the right side of the money people.  They are 

wrong so often.
Finally, Trump's press conference on Tuesday made the left's heads explode.  Why?  Because everything he said was absolutely true.  He does not play by their tyrannical PC rules.  He said what was true and that room full of puerile reporters shouting insults at him could not handle the truth.  They want what they want tobe true but it just is not.   This entire episode, the behavior of all those protesters in Charlottesville and the bizarre behavior of the media will likely drive future voters to Trump, not away from him.  Millions more than those who voted for him are as likely to be sick to death of the self-righteous preening of the talking heads:  Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, Don Lemon, Shep Smith, etc.  There must be a contest to see who can appear to be the most egregiously triggered by what Trump did or did not say. 
So were the events of Saturday the result of a despicable plan to further undermine Trump? There was plenty of time and Charlottesville is the "capital of resistance."   If it was, it was evil and deadly and the people involved need to be prosecuted.  Or is this a wild conspiracy theory?  Perhaps. But the pieces fit.  Will the DOJ and the FBI actually investigate the many mysteries that surround the events of that day?  Not likely.  The left in this country has long been and seems to remain above the law.  But someday, maybe someone will come forward and tell the truth.  What is certain is that the violence could easily have been prevented with the common sense strategies civilized cities put in place.  America deserves much better from its media and its elected officials.  The only person remembering why he is there is Donald Trump. 
Editor's note: An error on the purpose of McAuliffe's pardoning of 60,000 felons that ran in an earlier version of the piece has been corrected.

"What will result if they get their way is a Venezuela-style two-tiered class system, the ultra rich and the very poor who are kept in their place by economic and social control." By Patricia McCarthy

SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA
"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty 

AMERICA UNRAVELS:

Millions of children go hungry as the super- rich gorge themselves.

*

"The top 10 percent of Americans now own roughly three-quarters of all household wealth."

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/america-unravels-millions-of-children.html

*

"While telling workers there is “not enough money” for wage increases, or to fund social programs, both parties hailed the recent construction of the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, a massive aircraft carrier that cost $13 billion to build, stuffing the pockets of numerous contractors and war profiteers."


MEXICO: AMERICA’S DRUG DEALER!

The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.

“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”


FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS FIRST TERM, BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER HAD COMMENCED BUILDING A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP FUNDED BY CRONY BANKSTERS AND MEXICO.

*

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/seth-barron-obama-and-building-of.html

 

*

“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level 

Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of  groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing .”

 In the July/August version of the Atlantic, columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”
  
“The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.”


Peter Beinart, a frequent contributor to the New York TimesNew York Review of BooksHaaretz, and former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed “costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.”

llustration by Lincoln Agnew*


The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.

Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks 

havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of 

the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds 

alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration 

reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with 

immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is 

also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow 

of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator 

wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration 

demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. 

When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy 

fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.
What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”
The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each other.
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to  be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.
Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally.
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.
The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.


August 11, 2017

Russian Collusion in Democrat Inner Circle?

There has been enthusiastic collusion by the leadership of the Democratic Party with the Russian disinformation campaign to destroy President Donald Trump.  (See "A Brief History of 'Fake News'" on AT.)  The Democrat willingness to collude with Russia to overturn our democratically elected president is unprecedented.  There is the infamous case of Ted Kennedy approaching the Kremlin to help Democrats defeat Reagan, but never before has collusion with our enemies by a non-communist party been sustained and widespread.
What has changed?  We are reaping the results of a multi-decade effort by the communist and socialist left.  Leftists have finally dominated and transformed the Democratic Party – into something vicious and dangerous to our republic. 
Obama openly boasted that radicalized and mostly non-white Millennials will soon give leftists a permanent majority.  Our Constitution and two-party system were to be thrown in the dustbin of history.  When Trump destroyed their plans by winning the 2016 election, hard-left Democrats weren't willing to give up power.  The niceties of democracy, where the voters get to chose their leaders, do not fit the communist credo Obama and his inner circle were raised on.
As I wrote previously, Obama's entire innermost circle were children of communists.  That does not happen by coincidence. 
With the help of a partisan, unethical press, the Democrats normalized Obama's every aberrant trait.  But Obama is aberrant.  He is a Democrat in name only – in reality, he is a hard left "red diaper baby" – as were Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.  Obama has had literally lifelong radical ties, starting with his grandfather and mother, as well as his Kenyan father, and Obama's beloved teenage mentor, child molester Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party.  According to Paul Kengor, Frank Davis's political work for the Soviets got him placed on the FBI's Security Index, so he could be immediately arrested in a national emergency – the Cold War equivalent of our terrorist watchlist.
In the White House, President Obama surrounded himself with more red diaper babies and communist-supporters.  CIA director John Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate in the 1976 presidential election.  Obama biographerDavid Maraniss was a red diaper baby.  So was Obama's pick to head Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.
Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communistbackground in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview

 Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power. 
Axelrod himself was discovered and launched in his career by Stalinists in Chicago, the Cantor family.
Harry was active in the old Industrial Workers of the World and had been secretary of the Boston Communist Party. ... In 1930, he ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket. After that, he sojourned to the Motherland, taking his entire family to Moscow with him, including his son David, who one day would come know David Axelrod. ...
For the record, as I've noted separately, Davis – again, Obama's mentor – also knew and worked with Valerie Jarrett's grandfather and father-in-law in Communist Party/left-wing circles in Chicago in the 1940s.
Being the child of communists clearly does not make you a communist when you grow up.  It can make you a savvy fighter of communists, as David Horowitz exemplifies.  But when did Obama reject the radical Marxist beliefs he once openly espoused?  In college, he tells us he sought out Marxist professors and radical students (think the creepy SDS students you knew in college).  A Marxist student at Occidental College confirms that Obama was an outright Marxist.  When he graduated from Columbia, Obama tells us, he attended radical socialist conferences, which gave him his road map in life, with their plan to put a stealth black candidate in the White House. 
After law school, Obama's success in Chicago was based on the help of self-avowed communist Bill Ayers.  Obama's start in politics was as the anointed successor of an openly socialist state rep who was active in communist circles.  Obama joined the socialist New Party, which rejected the Democratic Party.  Obama's calling in life, to which he vows to return post-presidency, was work as a hard-left Alinskyite radical agitator ("community organizer").  Obama was a 20-year member of an openly Marxist church whose members had to take a pledge against the middle class.  So when did this man become a pragmatic centrist?  The day his Marxist backers decided to make him president?
Chief among these backers was Valerie Jarrett, whom Judicial Watch uncovered as another scion of a hardcore multi-generation communist family on the FBI watch list as a possible security threat to America.
Jarrett's dad ... Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows ... "has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line" and engages in un-American activities. ... The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett's maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.
Jarrett's father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett ... appeared on the FBI's Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would "disseminate the Communist Party line among ... the middle class."
It's been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
Paul Kengor summarizes the political import of a Democratic Party headed by a president and his two closest advisers, and the head of Homeland Security, all from communist families:
I've suffered ... a mix of amazement, agony, and despair for what has happened in this country. They are at once disturbing and depressing, yet further confirmation that the most politically extreme individuals who once agitated and propagandized in our blessed country were able to place their political children as high as the White House in the 21st century. For the old comrades, it simply took time for the seeds to root and flourish – and only then with the harvest made possible by really oblivious American voters who don't understand the ash-heap of ideological baggage they've permitted to be brought into the country's first house.
There is collusion with Russia going on in American politics today.  It has actually been going on for a long time.  (See Victor David Hanson on Obama'scollusion in the 2012 elections.)  President Trump is the target of the collusion.  So are we all, all his voters, all Americans who believe in our constitutional republic. 
The great mistake of the colluders is they cannot hide behind lies and media corruption, as the hardcore American left has done all these years.  It is all out in the open now.  The stink of the Mueller witch hunt is in our nostrils.  It is sickening, but the stench strengthens our resolve.  We are not going to let them annul our victory in the 2017 election with dirty tricks.
The author served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Senegal, was a clinical social worker and psychotherapist, and is an author whose a mystery novels highlight the wildlife and peoples of Kenya.  She currently writes for American Thinker.


The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. 
Country may be as high as 144%.


Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than Voting-Age Citizens
Justin Sullivan / Getty
by JOEL B. POLLAK5 Aug 20171,949
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The letter reads, in part:
NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections.
As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.
Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: 
“[T]here were more total registered voters 
than there were adults over the age of 18 
living in each of the following eleven (11) 
counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), 
Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San 
Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San 
Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano 
(111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” 
The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. 
Country may be as high as 144%.
The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does not remove from the rolls “persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.” 
It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correct alleged violations of the law.
Padilla has been one of the main voices in opposition to President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, refusing to share voter data with it on the argument that doing so would “legitimize false claims of massive election cheating last fall.”

President Trump has claimed that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election if not for illegal voting, and his administration has singled outCalifornia as a possible contributor to that margin.

The Election Integrity Project is a California-based volunteer organization that monitors voting irregularities.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

August 5, 2017

So addicts must show photo IDs to get off drugs, but not to vote?