BRIBES SUCKING SOCIOPATH LAWYER GAMING THE LAWS LIKE HE GAMES OUR BORDERS
The only thing Biden inherited, based on his family tree, was a lack of moral fiber.
Whether it’s oil or Afghanistan, Biden became the agent for enabling leftist ideological goals. His value, like that of any good agent, lies in being able to “humanize” a radical agenda with his grins, gladhandling, and malapropisms without looking like a radical. But that just makes him the final fall guy when the tattered remnants of his charm aren’t enough to deflect attention from the leftist wizards behind the curtain. And then it’ll be time for him to retire and spend “more time with his family”. His family being his crackhead artist son who almost cost him the election.
Blame Anyone But Biden The president knows he’s disposable - and surrounds himself with scapegoats.
Thu Aug 26, 2021
Daniel Greenfield
29 comments
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Biden and his cronies are busy blaming anyone and everyone else for Afghanistan.
Culprits for Biden’s folly thus far include the Trump administration, intelligence people (who warned him this would happen), the military (which also warned him this would happen), and Trump supporters whom the media implausibly alleges he was too afraid of to defy.
By next week, the media will find some way to blame Afghanistan on the unvaccinated, on systemic racism, and Ron DeSantis. Except that all the excuses aren’t working this time.
And that’s a problem because blaming other people for his failures is all Biden knows.
The Biden administration is one long search for scapegoats to protect the old goat at the top.
When gas prices soared, the Biden administration turned to OPEC to lower prices by raising output. OPEC's response was a contemptuous shrug that didn’t even acknowledge the little man in the big house while making it clear that it’s happy with the way things are.
Biden has no leverage with OPEC. He can’t open up American production because he’s in thrall to the Big Green lobby that is gobbling up a trillion dollars of the economy with its subsidized Chinese junk projects. A huge chunk of Biden’s infrastructure dollars are going to Big Green.
Some OPEC members have crucial security concerns about Iran. But Biden has made it clear that he’s going to appease Iran. If Iran goes nuclear, it will be able to choke off much of our oil supply from the region. And even before then Iran’s expanding terror sphere threatens OPEC members like Saudi Arabia which were shelled by Iran’s Houthi terrorists in Yemen.
The Biden administration cut off support for the campaign to dislodge the Houthis from Yemen.
Even without nukes, Iran’s terrorist proxy wars risk creating all sorts of instability. And that will affect energy prices and lead producers to act conservatively out of fear of the next crisis.
Biden won’t allow American energy companies to compete with OPEC. And he isn’t offering any real sense of security to OPEC members in the region. Why should OPEC raise production?
But Biden wasn’t serious about expecting OPEC to raise production.
A recurring theme of his failed administration has been finding someone else to blame for his disasters. The lousy economy, the pandemic, and the collapse of Afghanistan are always someone else’s fault. The Biden administration’s messaging machine exists to play politics with the pandemic while blaming its latest setback on DeSantis, Trump, or disinformation.
The Biden administration didn’t expect OPEC to do anything. They were just seeking another scapegoat for Biden’s bad decisions. The media will receive its administration talking points blaming high energy prices, not on Biden’s Keystone XL pipeline cancelation, his hostility to the domestic energy industry, and the rising instability due to the rise of Iran, but on OPEC refusing to boost production. But who made America dependent on OPEC and, by extension, Iran?
The same politician who made Americans trapped in Afghanistan dependent on the Taliban
Biden wanted credit for withdrawing from Afghanistan when he thought it would make him look good. Once the Taliban took over, he began whining that he had “inherited” the withdrawal.
The only thing Biden inherited, based on his family tree, was a lack of moral fiber.
The dumbest and most destructive elements of the withdrawal, the evacuation of soldiers before civilians, the stealthy withdrawals from bases, the refusal to coordinate with NATO allies, had nothing to do with Trump or even the general idea of a withdrawal. It was Biden’s call whether to withdraw the troops before the civilians, and it was the absolute wrong one.
Even in the final hours before the fall of Afghanistan, Biden could have secured Kabul.
The Taliban kept indicating that they didn’t want to enter Kabul. Whether they really meant it or were testing our response, this was the opportunity to send in forces, secure Kabul, and create a safe evacuation zone for Americans. Instead, Biden dithered. Having American soldiers secure the city would have made it very difficult to then pull out the troops.
Biden and his people decided that it was better to abandon Americans behind Taliban lines and hope that they can negotiate their way out, than to be stuck being responsible for Kabul.
Since then the Taliban have reportedly handed over security in Kabul over to the Haqqani Network which is a component of the Taliban that is intertwined with Al Qaeda, has carried out numerous terrorist attacks, and is holding an American hostage.
But Biden prioritized forcing a harsh break at any cost over the lives and safety of Americans.
Now that the strategy has failed, in the sense that it’s widely unpopular, the Biden administration is searching for scapegoats. Biden is blaming intelligence and the military. The intelligence people are blaming the military and the diplomats. The diplomats are blaming the military. And the military knows that its job is to take the fall for every stupid thing that the politicians do.
There’s plenty of blame to go around, beginning with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and General Milley, Secretary of State Blinken, and CIA Director William Burns. But their underlying failure was following orders. Milley had boasted of undermining President Trump by refusing to go along with his proposals, but he was happy enough to enable anything that Biden wanted.
The intelligence reports were there. And it’s impossible to imagine the military brass and their aides didn’t understand the risks of a scenario in which the Taliban trapped Americans behind enemy lines while only a meager force of 600 American troops remained to protect them.
They gave Biden what he wanted. And now Biden is blaming them for giving it to him.
Whether it’s oil or Afghanistan, Biden became the agent for enabling leftist ideological goals. His value, like that of any good agent, lies in being able to “humanize” a radical agenda with his grins, gladhandling, and malapropisms without looking like a radical. But that just makes him the final fall guy when the tattered remnants of his charm aren’t enough to deflect attention from the leftist wizards behind the curtain. And then it’ll be time for him to retire and spend “more time with his family”. His family being his crackhead artist son who almost cost him the election.
Biden knows he’s disposable and surrounds himself with scapegoats. And that leads to a work culture in which no one goes out on a limb to avoid becoming one of Biden’s scapegoats.
Why did none of the brass, the intel people, or the diplomats stand up to Biden?
Why does every interview or press conference by an administration official seem like a parade of excuses for inaction? The safest thing for anyone to do is to do nothing and let the blame rise, like hot air, up to Biden who, for at least one term, is considered too big to fail.
Biden’s age and mental state have created an unprecedentedly weak administration.
Few expect him to run for a second term. And whether he’s replaced by Kamala, another Democrat, or a Republican, there will be a clean sweep leaving few of the old gang.
A weak king inspires little loyalty. Biden’s loyalists don’t expect him to be around for long and they have little incentive to prop him up for a second term that isn’t likely to ever happen.
They have no loyalty to Biden, he has none to them, and none of them have any to America.
His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
JOE BIDEN TO HIS BANKSTERS: It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge—the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign—that if he were elected president, “No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.”
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
Corporate America puts its money on Biden and the Democrats 12 hours ago ·
·
·
·
·
The final financial reports before the election were filed by candidates for Congress and the White House by Oct. 15 with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), detailing fundraising and spending in the third quarter, July 1 through Sept. 30. These reports are limited to the funds raised directly by the campaigns themselves, and exclude fundraising through supporting PACs (political action committees) usually funded by billionaires. Nonetheless, the FEC data provides some eye-opening insights into the political calculations of the American ruling elite, where there is increasing expectation of a Democratic victory on Nov. 3.
Two preliminary observations can be made. First, large sections of big business favor a shift from Trump to Biden, partly because of differences on foreign and domestic policy, partly because they regard a second Trump term as more likely to provoke an uncontrollable social and political explosion in America. Second, the corporate elite now views Biden and the Democrats as the favorites to win the election, and campaign contributions are a form of political insurance, giving the donors a “seat at the table” when a future Biden administration is staffed and determines its policy priorities.
The Democrats hold a decided edge in fundraising in each of the major sectors of the 2020 political battlefield. In the presidential campaign, Trump’s early dominance is a distant memory. Biden has outraised him beginning in May, and his lead has grown with each passing month.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden peeks out of the roof of an SUV as he leaves a fundraiser on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Biden campaign has raised $810 million and supporting organizations have raised $373 million, for a total of $1.183 billion. The Trump campaign has raised $552 million, supplemented by $256 million from outside groups, for a combined total of $808 million.
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested on Nov. 3. In the 435 House contests, the Democrats hold a slightly narrower lead, $772 million to $653 million. Both figures represent a sharp departure from recent congressional elections, at least until 2018, in which the Republican Party has generally enjoyed a huge financial edge.
The presidential fundraising figures represent sharp increases from 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton raised a combined total of $770 million while Trump raised $433 million. By Oct. 1, the Biden and Trump campaigns had already spent three times the amount expended at a similar point in 2016, a reflection both of the massively increased fundraising and the need to reach early and mail-in voters.
The Democratic Party and the corporate media have generally attributed the Biden campaign’s financial edge to a surge of small-dollar contributions. There certainly has been such a surge, at least compared to the early stages of the Biden campaign for the Democratic nomination, when small-dollar internet contributions went overwhelmingly to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. At that point Biden was sustained by a relative handful of wealthy backers.
But according to a recent tabulation by the Center for Responsive Politics, which maintains the Open Secrets database of campaign finance information, Trump and Biden have raised roughly equal amounts in contributions of $200 or less, between $200 million and $250 million apiece, mainly over the internet.
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
The Times continued:
From Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, Mr. Biden’s campaign has aggressively courted the megadonor class. It has raised almost $200 million from donors who gave at least $100,000 to his joint operations with the Democratic Party in the last six months—about twice as much as President Trump raised from six-figure donors in that time, according to an analysis of new federal records.
Million-dollar donors came from Hollywood (Jeffrey Katzenberg), Silicon Valley (Reed Hastings of Netflix and many others), and high finance. “Top executives with investment, private equity and venture capital firms like Blackstone, Bain Capital, Kleiner Perkins and Warburg Pincus all contributed handsomely,” the Times noted.
While Biden has lately attempted to sound a populist note, claiming that he represents Scranton (his birthplace, a decaying industrial city in northeastern Pennsylvania), while Trump represents the moneyed elite of “Park Avenue,” it turns out that “Scranton” has a different meaning to his campaign finance operation. Any affluent donor who solicits a total of $250,000 in contributions is considered a member of the “Scranton Circle” of elite donors, with special access to top advisers of the candidate. There is also a “Philly Founder” level for those generating $500,000 in contributions and a “Delaware Circle” for those accounting for $1 million or more.
Entering the month of October, the Biden campaign had $180.6 million in cash on hand, while the Trump campaign reported only $63.1 million, one-third of the Democrat’s total. This disparity was despite the Biden campaign’s outspending Trump’s by two to one during the month of September. After raising a record-shattering $365 million in August, the Biden campaign raised an even larger amount, $383 million, the following month.
Trump has not lacked for megadonor support, including $75 million from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, $21 million from Isaac Perlmutter, chairman of Marvel Entertainment, and $10 million from banking heir Timothy Mellon.
But these sums are dwarfed by the $100 million for Biden from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who briefly sought the Democratic presidential nomination for himself—and spent $1.1 billion in that effort—and another $106 million from the Future Forward PAC, based in Silicon Valley, whose funding includes $22 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, $6 million from Jeff Lawson of Twilio, $5 million from crypto-currency trader Sam Bankman-Fried and $2.5 million from Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google.
Such figures make nonsense of the fascistic rhetoric of Trump, who continually denounces Biden as the tool of socialists, communists and the “radical Left.” Actually, Biden is a tried and tested tool of Wall Street and corporate America, dating back to his days as a senator from Delaware, a center of tax evasion. The tiny state has more corporations headquartered there for tax purposes, over one million, than human beings.
His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge—the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign—that if he were elected president, “No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.”
The financial constraints on the Trump campaign are unmistakable. In the final week of September and the first week of October, for example, it stopped advertising in four “battleground” states—Iowa, Ohio, Texas and New Hampshire. One advertising industry tally had Biden topping Trump in campaign spending in 72 out of 83 media markets where both campaigns were still competing.
The disparity between the Biden and Trump campaigns has been exacerbated by the timing of their expenditures. Trump spent lavishly in the early months of 2020, even before the Democratic nominee had been determined, and has raised less overall. The result is a cash crunch in the final weeks of the campaign.
Biden began the month of August with a three-to-one advantage in terms of financial resources and has outspent Trump in three critical battleground states—Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—by that margin, $53 million to $17 million. According to figures reported in advertising trade publications, Biden has a 5–1 advantage in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, market, and more than a 2–1 advantage in Detroit and Philadelphia.
In Omaha, Nebraska, where a single electoral vote is at stake in the Second Congressional District, Biden has spent $2 million on advertising, six times the Trump total.
With Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden holding an apparently comfortable lead over Trump in the polls, much of the media attention has shifted to the question of which party will be in control of the Senate after November 3. The Republicans currently have a three-seat majority, 53-47, so the Democrats must gain a net of three seats if Biden wins, as a Vice President Kamala Harris would then have the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The Democrats must gain four seats if Biden loses, but that combination is highly unlikely, since a Biden defeat would signify a broader Democratic debacle.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden peeks out of the roof of an SUV as he leaves a fundraiser on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested November 3. In the 16 seats considered competitive (two held by Democrats, 14 by Republicans), the Democratic lead is $643 million to $415 million. The average Democrat has a $40 million war chest, while the Republican, usually an incumbent, averages $26 million.
More so than Biden, the Senate candidates have benefited from a flood of small-dollar donations over the internet, which expresses, in a distorted way, the popular hatred of the right-wing policies of Trump and the Republicans. But corporate and billionaire cash also plays a significant role. Both small-dollar and large-dollar donations have fueled a record-breaking third quarter of fundraising for the Democrats, with many challengers doubling or tripling the amount raised by the Republican incumbents.
Ordinarily, incumbent senators have a huge fundraising advantage over their challengers, and this applies particularly to Republican incumbents, who usually have closer ties to wealthy donors. But in 2020 this is not the case, and the disparities are remarkable. There are at least eight Democratic challengers who have outraised their Republican opponents. Three of these Democrats have raked in more than $80 million apiece, an astonishing total for an election in a single state.
Democrat Jaime Harrison reported raising $86.9 million in South Carolina, compared to $59.4 million for three-term Senator Lindsey Graham. The combined total of $146.4 million in a relatively small state, where only 2 million people voted in 2016, means an expenditure of better than $70 a vote.
In an even smaller state, Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath has raised $84.2 million for her uphill contest against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has raised $53.4 million. In Arizona, Democratic challenger Mark Kelly has raised $82.8 million and leads in the polls against the incumbent Republican, appointed Senator Martha McSally, who has raised $50.9 million.
Several other Democratic challengers, while raising smaller total amounts, have a much larger percentage edge over Republican incumbents. In Iowa, businesswoman Theresa Greenfield has raised $40.4 million against the $21.8 million raised by first-term incumbent Joni Ernst. In North Carolina, former Army paratrooper Cal Cunningham has raised $43.4 million for his race against first-term incumbent Thom Tillis, who has raised $20.9 million. In Maine, Sara Gideon, the Democratic leader of the state legislature, has raised $63.6 million for her campaign against three-term incumbent Susan Collins, who has raised less than half that sum, $25.2 million.
In Colorado, opinion polls suggest that the contest is a runaway, and political action committees supporting the Democratic candidate, former Governor John Hickenlooper, have pulled out, regarding his victory over first-term Republican Senator Cory Gardner as a certainty. Hickenlooper has outraised the incumbent by $36.7 million to $25 million. And in Montana, Governor Steve Bullock has raised $38.1 million for his challenge to first-term incumbent Steve Daines, who has raised $24.5 million. In Alaska, millionaire orthopedic surgeon Al Gross leads incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, $13.9 million to $9.3 million.
The most lopsided financial disparity is in Kansas, where no Democrat has been elected to the US Senate in a century, but polls show a close race between former Republican state senator Barbara Bollier, who switched to the Democrats only two years ago, and Republican Congressman Roger Marshall, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Republican Senator Pat Roberts. Bollier has raised $20.7 million, nearly four times the $5.5 million raised by Marshall.
Georgia has both Senate seats at stake, because of the resignation of Senator Johnny Isakson for health reasons. The Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, have raised $46 million between them, while the two Republican incumbents, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, both multi-millionaires, have raised $45.2 million.
In only one state is there a seeming Republican financial advantage in a contested race. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has the edge over his Democratic challenger, Mary Jennings Hegar, and that is not an overwhelming one, $29.6 million to $20.6 million. And even this apparent advantage is illusory. The Silicon Valley-based political action committee Future Fund is pouring $28 million into the Texas race to support the Democratic candidate, more money than Hegar has raised herself. This advertising blitz will benefit not only Hegar, but also a group of Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives and a Democratic effort to gain control of the lower house of the Texas state legislature.
Of the two Democrat seats in the Senate which are at greatest risk on November 3, one confirms and one represents an exception to this pattern. In Alabama, incumbent Democrat Doug Jones has outraised his Republican challenger, former football coach Tommy Tuberville, by $24.9 million to $7.5 million, but he is nonetheless considered a distinct underdog in the conservative state. In Michigan, Senator Gary Peters is a slight favorite over Republican challenger John James, a former paratrooper, and he holds only a narrow fundraising lead, $35.7 million to $33.9 million. Only three incumbent Republican senators have raised more money than James, who is being promoted by the Senate Republican leadership and Trump as an African American face to disguise their reactionary politics.
Finally, there is the not-insignificant question of what corporate America is buying through this flood of cash into the coffers of the Democratic Senate candidates. The beneficiaries of this corporate largesse are a collection of political reactionaries deeply committed to the defense of American imperialism abroad and big business at home. They differ only at the margins with their right-wing Republican opponents.
Of the candidates already listed, four have military-intelligence backgrounds as their principal credential: Mark Kelly is a career military pilot and former astronaut; Amy McGrath a retired Marine fighter-pilot; Mary Jennings Hegar flew helicopters for the US military in Afghanistan; Cal Cunningham was an Army Ranger, and still teaches new Rangers every year as a reserve officer. These four are the Senate equivalents of the CIA Democrats who played such a prominent role in the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2018.
Other top Senate Democratic challengers include South Carolina’s Jaime Harrison, a longtime corporate lobbyist; Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, a millionaire businesswoman; Al Gross in Alaska, a millionaire surgeon whose father was state attorney general; Montana Governor Steve Bullock and former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, both failed presidential candidates who ran in the right-wing “lane” that produced Biden instead; and Barbara Bollier, who was a Republican state senator in Kansas until switching parties in 2018.
In the House of Representatives, now firmly controlled by the Democrats, 232-197, with five vacancies and a Libertarian, the Democrats are expected to increase their numbers, although by less than the 41 seats they gained in 2018. Republican hopes of retaking control, which would require a net gain of 21 seats, have virtually collapsed, as nearly all the first-term Democrats who won Republican-held seats in 2018 are considered likely victors this year.
The Democrats hold a smaller edge in fundraising for the House of Representatives than in the Senate, having raised $772 million through September 30 according to FEC filings for the 435 seats, compared to $653 million for Republican candidates.
The overall total is less significant, however, because the vast majority of House seats are in districts whose boundaries ensure the victory of one party regardless of how much money the other party spends. Republicans will spend $7 million, for example, in support of businesswoman Kim Klacik against Democrat Kweisi Mfume, in the Baltimore district held by the late Elijah Cummings, and $9.4 million to back millionaire investor Lacy Johnson against Democrat Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis. Both Mfume and Omar will win reelection easily despite being heavily outspent.
The more important figure is how much is raised in more closely contested races, fewer than 100 of the 435 seats in the House. In these contests, there are 85 Democrats who have raised more than $3 million, compared to only 50 Republicans. This includes a number of challengers for Republican seats, including Wendy Davis and Gina Ortiz Jones in the 21st and 23rd congressional districts of Texas, with $7.2 million and $5.9 million respectively, and Nancy Goroff and Tedra Cobb in New York’s Second and 21st congressional districts, with $5.1 million and $5.5 million respectively.
In 41 congressional districts where first-term Democrats are defending seats captured from Republicans in 2018, the fundraising is lopsided in favor of the Democrats: $216.5 million to $98.2 million. Only two of the 41 Democrats have less campaign cash than their Republican challenger.
An especially financially advantaged subset is the group of 11 new Democratic representatives with military-intelligence backgrounds, whom the WSWS identified in 2018 as the CIA Democrats . In their 11 reelection contests, the CIA Democrats have raised $62.5 million. Their 11 Republican opponents have raised only $21.4 million.
All 11 CIA Democrats are favored to win reelection, and they will be joined by at least one military-intelligence candidate who won his primary in the heavily Democratic Fourth Congressional District in Massachusetts, and is a prohibitive favorite, Jake Auchincloss. Several more such candidates are likely to win on November 3: Jackie Gordon in the Second Congressional District of New York; Dan Feehan in the First Congressional District of Minnesota; Sri Preston Kulkarni in the 22nd Congressional District of Texas; and Gina Ortiz Jones in the 23rd Congressional District of Texas.
The result of the election is likely to be a greatly strengthened group of CIA Democrats, including Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, first elected in 2014 and the founder of the VoteVets political action committee that has been responsible for recruiting and funding many of the military-intelligence candidates in the last two elections. Together with the 11 elected in 2018 and another half dozen or so in 2020, this would make a “caucus” of nearly 20, enough to exercise considerable influence in the new Congress and in a future Biden administration.
REMEMBER WHEN BRIBES SUCKING LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS SAID OL' JOE'S FINANCES WERE ENTIRELY 'TRANSPARENT'?
This Is How the Left's Power Structure Collapses By David Prentice
Weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh mentioned that the issues defining the election had not come forward yet. He was correct. Not entirely, because all the issues coming out right now have existed. In plain sight.
They just weren't distilled yet.
It's now here, served up on a silver platter. No, not Hunter Biden. This Hunter Biden laptop story simply leads us to the issue. The word. One word that rules them all, and in the darkness binds them.
Corruption.
There it is. That's the issue. To begin, you have the corrupt family Biden. They've been scamming us and our system well for almost fifty years. The man is supposedly worth over 250 million dollars. How is this possible on his salary? It's not. So where did his wealth come from? Not from being a brilliant businessman.
Enter Hunter's laptop. We now know that this is a family steeped in crime and corruption. Ole Corn Pop appears to be awash in money kicked back to him by his family members who have grifted off his reputation for years. Hunter's laptop has betrayed all this and more. Much like Al Capone's bookkeeper. Who would have thought Capone would have been destroyed so completely by a set of crooked books? Such delicious irony. And who would have known that this would become the October surprise of all October surprises?
Corruption. Full grown. Oozing its way into America. It's everywhere on the left. The Biden family. Clintons. The Democratic Party. The FBI. The CIA. The mainstream media. The tech giants. It's a full-out plague, aided and abetted by their demonic philosophy, all of them gone astray.
All of them corrupt.
The New York Post story has been there for about a week now. The Democrat-media complex has ignored it entirely; the tech giants went into overdrive removing all evidence from their platforms. Google. Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. The whole lot of them. Covering up a story that deserved universal distribution and condemnation. Instead, they covered up the most damning story to their side, their chosen side. All of them colluded to bury this mounting evidence of wrongdoing.
How far the mighty have fallen. And are falling.
What's the word for a media establishment that won't report this story?
What's the word for the FBI having this laptop for almost a year, watching dispassionately as the Democrats impeached Trump with hard evidence in their hands of his innocence and the Bidens' guilt?
What's the word for the above group of bad actors colluding to forward the Russia lies for almost three years?
What's the word for Director Wray's involvement?
What's the word for CIA director not releasing documents of the Russia hoax, documents that have been available for a long time?
What's the all-encompassing word that has been revealed at the heart of all these colluding to hide the truth from an America that deserves to know?
Corruption.
This is an issue that won't go away. All the attempts to deep-six the truth here are failing, and miserably at that. It's causing a slow-walk of information to drip out to the American public. First the stories of Ukraine. Drip-drip-drip. Then the stories of drugs. Then the sex problems. Then the Chinese stories. The story of kickbacks to Pop.
It's as if all the smartest people in the world colluded to destroy themselves. By purposefully and unanimously excluding all information concerning this story from the American public. The smartest people in the world actually believe they can be successful in spiking one of the biggest stories to pop up in any American election cycle. Their hubris is so advanced, so viral, so awful, that they can't see what they've done to themselves. They really believe they are going to keep a cork on this.
The derogatory phrase for the establishment has been "the swamp." How bad is this, how deep is this, how criminal is this, how horrifying is it to find out the vast amount of corruption and collusion in so many of our institutions and corporations?
It's staggering. It's infuriating.
These are the most powerful among us. All rich. All corrupt. All once respected by Americans of all stripes. And here, in one fell swoop, they reveal themselves to the average American. As arrogant bullies, as deceitful liars, as evil as anything we've seen in our generation. They have revealed themselves as the cabal of darkness. Terrible motives, terrible actions, virtually unforgiveable in what they have done, and yet failed to finish. And due to the hubris of the cabal, the exposé will be slow-walked until the election.
Today, Trump had an exchange with reporters, where he said, "Biden was a criminal."
This shocked the corrupt media. Reverberations rocked the corrupto-sphere. The lion had roared. There is no way the corrupto-sphere keeps this lid on. There is also no way all these corrupt actors go back on their solemn pledge to one another. They are bound together. They're stuck with each other. And it will overwhelm them.
As this careens into the debate, as this careens into voting, as this careens into Election Day, the ultimate narrative will be set. The doomsday clock will start. All the corrupt actors will be pointed out. All of them will rue the day they couldn't get rid of Donald Trump. He, above most anyone, knows just how corrupt these people are. He above anyone knows how to handle them. He, above all, knows what's all coming out in the next weeks.
It's going to be an avalanche of material. It's going to be a number of fires even Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the DNC, the Bidens, the media, the corrupt government officials, the whole shooting match, will not be able to handle. If they all overtly held emergency meetings with each other, they'd never stop the flood. When Trump roared, you know he had one of his famous moments, that moment when he knows how and when to bring this to a head. Trump the narrative-builder, Trump the destroyer will be unleashing hell on these people.
Anyone who has seen him operate knows. This is his time. This is how the beginning of the end of the swamp, or should I say the sewer, begins. This is the kind of chaos these smartest people in the world, ever, haven't seen before. Algorithms will not help them. Censorship will not help them. It will be a rushing mighty wind, coming to destroy all those who didn't understand that their corruption could be turned on them.
This is going to be epic. Corruption will be their end; it's just a matter of time. And Trump will have four years to finish their corruption.
There it is. That's the issue. To begin, you have the corrupt family Biden. They've been scamming us and our system well for almost fifty years. The man is supposedly worth over 250 million dollars. How is this possible on his salary? It's not. So where did his wealth come from? Not from being a brilliant businessman. DAVID PRENTICE
Hence the Biden administration has moved to set up a state-sponsored industrial police force, based on the trade unions, to carry out an organised suppression of the working class in the interests of finance capital.
The US government and the Fed rode once again to the rescue of Wall Street. The Trump administration organised a multi-billion-dollar bailout of the corporations under the CARES Act while the Fed stepped in to provide trillions of dollars of support for all areas of the financial system, including for the first time the purchase of stocks.
Rampant Wall Street speculation: The fever chart of a terminally diseased system
Nick Beams
Over the past year, the global financial system, above all Wall Street, has been in the grip of a speculative mania, the like of which has never been seen before in economic history. Two questions therefore immediately arise: how has this situation come about and what are its implications?
In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic began to make its effects felt and workers undertook wildcat strikes and walkouts to demand health measures to protect their lives and those of their families, the financial markets plunged.
Wall Street was concerned that any effective health measures to contain the spread of the pandemic would result in a collapse in the bloated price of financial assets, above all stocks, that had been boosted by the trillions of dollars poured into the financial system by the US Federal Reserve and other central banks following the crash of 2008.
The US government and the Fed rode once again to the rescue of Wall Street. The Trump administration organised a multi-billion-dollar bailout of the corporations under the CARES Act while the Fed stepped in to provide trillions of dollars of support for all areas of the financial system, including for the first time the purchase of stocks.
Since then, on the back of this $4 trillion intervention and rising, as the Fed continues to purchase financial assets at the rate of more than $1.4 trillion a year, the world has seen an unprecedented orgy of financial speculation.
Wall Street’s main stock index, the S&P 500, has risen by some 88 percent since its March 2020 lows, reaching record highs on multiple occasions throughout the past year. Margin debt, used to finance the speculation in shares, has reached record levels, and the yield on the lowest-rated corporate junk bonds—barely one step away from default—has fallen to historic lows.
But the most egregious expression of the speculation has been the rise of the cryptocurrency market. Over the past year the most prominent cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, has risen by 600 percent, rising from about $7,000 per bitcoin to $54,000, reaching a high of $65,000 in the middle of last month.
Last month Coinbase, a trading exchange for cryptocurrencies, launched itself on Wall Street with a floatation that put its market value at $85 billion, compared to its valuation of $8 billion in 2018, exceeding that of some of the world’s major banks and the valuation of the NASDAQ exchange on which it was launched.
However, in recent days, even the level of bitcoin speculation has been put in the shade by another cryptocurrency, Dogecoin.
It was created in 2013 as a joke. Whereas the promoters of Bitcoin insist that it has some intrinsic value because it may be used to organise financial transactions without the intervention of a bank or some other third party via a blockchain ledger system, no such claims are made for Dogecoin.
Despite being worthless, Dogecoin has risen in price 11,000 percent this year alone. This week its market value reached $87 billion compared to $315 million a year ago. And as one cryptocurrency enjoys a rapid rise, speculators start a search for the next “big thing.”
The Dogecoin phenomenon is not an isolated event. It seems to be an expression of what could be described as a new operating principle in the world of speculation—the more worthless the so-called asset, the higher its price.
A little sandwich shop in Paulsboro, New Jersey, with sales of just $13,976, has made financial news after it was revealed that its parent company, Hometown International, achieved a market valuation of $100 million last month. Two of its biggest shareholders are Duke and Vanderbilt universities.
The rise of Dogecoin also reveals the high-level intervention of hedge funds and other financial institutions seeking to take advantage of its price momentum.
Then there is the case of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). These are images of pieces of art, a sports photo, or even a tweet—the first ever tweet issued by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey was sold as an NFT for $2.9 million—that are stored on a blockchain ledger. They are like a collector’s item but are not stored physically but digitally.
The class dynamics of this speculative orgy, fuelled by the endless supply of virtually free money by the Fed, are revealed in the escalation of the wealth of the world’s billionaires.
In the last year, as COVID-19 brought untold pain, suffering and economic distress for billions of the world’s people, the combined wealth of the global billionaires rose by 60 percent, from $8 trillion to $13.1 trillion. The number of billionaires rose by 660 to 2,775—the highest rate of increase and the largest number ever.
In the US, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk have wealth of $177 billion and $151 billion respectively.
The speculative frenzy has extended into the broader economy. The prices of major industrial commodities, such as steel, lumber, copper, and soybeans, which feed into inflation for workers and consumers, are rapidly rising.
But the financial authorities, having created this frenzy by the endless outflow of cheap money since the crash of 2008 and the near collapse of March 2020, are caught in a trap of their own making. They fear that any move to try to bring it under control, with even a slight tightening of the financial spigots, will set off a financial crisis.
The extreme nervousness over such an outcome was revealed earlier this week when US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, a former Fed chief, raised the prospect that the central bank may have to tighten interest rates at some point. Almost immediately, fearing market reaction, she walked back the comment saying she was neither advocating nor predicting a rise in rates.
The incident has cast a revealing light on one of the most significant developments in the US—the open advocacy of unionisation of the workforce by the Biden administration.
Last month in an executive order, Biden created a “White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment” which includes as members Yellen, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The “empowerment” of government-sponsored unions takes place under the direction of cabinet officials responsible for military operations, economic policy and domestic repression.
The administration is fearful that the pent-up anger in the working class over the pandemic and the enrichment of the financial oligarchy at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives, will be further fuelled by the escalation of inflation, leading to an uncontrolled eruption of the class struggle that will come into headlong conflict with the institutions of the capitalist state.
In times past, the Fed would have moved to contain such an upsurge by lifting interest rates and inducing a recession. But that road is now fraught with danger because even a relatively small increase threatens to bring down the speculative financial house of cards.
Hence the Biden administration has moved to set up a state-sponsored industrial police force, based on the trade unions, to carry out an organised suppression of the working class in the interests of finance capital.
The rampant speculation of the past year and the accelerated siphoning of wealth to the upper levels of society amid death and economic devastation must be the occasion for the drawing up by the working class of a balance sheet of the experiences through which it has passed.
There is no prospect for reform of the present capitalist socio-economic order towards meeting social need—the illusion peddled by the Democrats and their ardent supporters in the pseudo-left organisations. The past year has demonstrated that everything in society—including the very right to life itself—is subordinated to the insatiable demands of finance capital.
The present speculative bubble, like all others before it, is destined to burst. The financial oligarchs have already prepared their exit plans and golden parachutes as they have done in the past. The working class, however, has no escape. The collapse will bring an even greater economic disaster on top of what has already taken place.
The only viable, realistic solution to the terminal disease that has gripped the capitalist socio-economic order is the fight for a socialist program to wrest the commanding heights of the economy and its financial system out of the hands of the present-day ruling class and begin the economic reconstruction of society to meet social needs.
His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
JOE BIDEN TO HIS BANKSTERS: It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge — the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign — that if he were elected president, “ No one ’ s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change. ”
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
Corporate America puts its money on Biden and the Democrats The final financial reports before the election were filed by candidates for Congress and the White House by Oct. 15 with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), detailing fundraising and spending in the third quarter, July 1 through Sept. 30. These reports are limited to the funds raised directly by the campaigns themselves, and exclude fundraising through supporting PACs (political action committees) usually funded by billionaires. Nonetheless, the FEC data provides some eye-opening insights into the political calculations of the American ruling elite, where there is increasing expectation of a Democratic victory on Nov. 3.
Two preliminary observations can be made. First, large sections of big business favor a shift from Trump to Biden, partly because of differences on foreign and domestic policy, partly because they regard a second Trump term as more likely to provoke an uncontrollable social and political explosion in America. Second, the corporate elite now views Biden and the Democrats as the favorites to win the election, and campaign contributions are a form of political insurance, giving the donors a “seat at the table” when a future Biden administration is staffed and determines its policy priorities.
The Democrats hold a decided edge in fundraising in each of the major sectors of the 2020 political battlefield. In the presidential campaign, Trump’s early dominance is a distant memory. Biden has outraised him beginning in May, and his lead has grown with each passing month.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Biden campaign has raised $810 million and supporting organizations have raised $373 million, for a total of $1.183 billion. The Trump campaign has raised $552 million, supplemented by $256 million from outside groups, for a combined total of $808 million.
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested on Nov. 3. In the 435 House contests, the Democrats hold a slightly narrower lead, $772 million to $653 million. Both figures represent a sharp departure from recent congressional elections, at least until 2018, in which the Republican Party has generally enjoyed a huge financial edge.
The presidential fundraising figures represent sharp increases from 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton raised a combined total of $770 million while Trump raised $433 million. By Oct. 1, the Biden and Trump campaigns had already spent three times the amount expended at a similar point in 2016, a reflection both of the massively increased fundraising and the need to reach early and mail-in voters.
The Democratic Party and the corporate media have generally attributed the Biden campaign’s financial edge to a surge of small-dollar contributions. There certainly has been such a surge, at least compared to the early stages of the Biden campaign for the Democratic nomination, when small-dollar internet contributions went overwhelmingly to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. At that point Biden was sustained by a relative handful of wealthy backers.
But according to a recent tabulation by the Center for Responsive Politics, which maintains the Open Secrets database of campaign finance information, Trump and Biden have raised roughly equal amounts in contributions of $200 or less, between $200 million and $250 million apiece, mainly over the internet.
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
The Times continued:
From Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, Mr. Biden’s campaign has aggressively courted the megadonor class. It has raised almost $200 million from donors who gave at least $100,000 to his joint operations with the Democratic Party in the last six months—about twice as much as President Trump raised from six-figure donors in that time, according to an analysis of new federal records.
Million-dollar donors came from Hollywood (Jeffrey Katzenberg), Silicon Valley (Reed Hastings of Netflix and many others), and high finance. “Top executives with investment, private equity and venture capital firms like Blackstone, Bain Capital, Kleiner Perkins and Warburg Pincus all contributed handsomely,” the Times noted.
While Biden has lately attempted to sound a populist note, claiming that he represents Scranton (his birthplace, a decaying industrial city in northeastern Pennsylvania), while Trump represents the moneyed elite of “Park Avenue,” it turns out that “Scranton” has a different meaning to his campaign finance operation. Any affluent donor who solicits a total of $250,000 in contributions is considered a member of the “Scranton Circle” of elite donors, with special access to top advisers of the candidate. There is also a “Philly Founder” level for those generating $500,000 in contributions and a “Delaware Circle” for those accounting for $1 million or more.
Entering the month of October, the Biden campaign had $180.6 million in cash on hand, while the Trump campaign reported only $63.1 million, one-third of the Democrat’s total. This disparity was despite the Biden campaign’s outspending Trump’s by two to one during the month of September. After raising a record-shattering $365 million in August, the Biden campaign raised an even larger amount, $383 million, the following month.
Trump has not lacked for megadonor support, including $75 million from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, $21 million from Isaac Perlmutter, chairman of Marvel Entertainment, and $10 million from banking heir Timothy Mellon.
But these sums are dwarfed by the $100 million for Biden from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who briefly sought the Democratic presidential nomination for himself—and spent $1.1 billion in that effort—and another $106 million from the Future Forward PAC, based in Silicon Valley, whose funding includes $22 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, $6 million from Jeff Lawson of Twilio, $5 million from crypto-currency trader Sam Bankman-Fried and $2.5 million from Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google.
Such figures make nonsense of the fascistic rhetoric of Trump, who continually denounces Biden as the tool of socialists, communists and the “radical Left.” Actually, Biden is a tried and tested tool of Wall Street and corporate America, dating back to his days as a senator from Delaware, a center of tax evasion. The tiny state has more corporations headquartered there for tax purposes, over one million, than human beings.
His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge—the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign—that if he were elected president, “No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.”
The financial constraints on the Trump campaign are unmistakable. In the final week of September and the first week of October, for example, it stopped advertising in four “battleground” states—Iowa, Ohio, Texas and New Hampshire. One advertising industry tally had Biden topping Trump in campaign spending in 72 out of 83 media markets where both campaigns were still competing.
The disparity between the Biden and Trump campaigns has been exacerbated by the timing of their expenditures. Trump spent lavishly in the early months of 2020, even before the Democratic nominee had been determined, and has raised less overall. The result is a cash crunch in the final weeks of the campaign.
Biden began the month of August with a three-to-one advantage in terms of financial resources and has outspent Trump in three critical battleground states—Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—by that margin, $53 million to $17 million. According to figures reported in advertising trade publications, Biden has a 5–1 advantage in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, market, and more than a 2–1 advantage in Detroit and Philadelphia.
In Omaha, Nebraska, where a single electoral vote is at stake in the Second Congressional District, Biden has spent $2 million on advertising, six times the Trump total.
With Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden holding an apparently comfortable lead over Trump in the polls, much of the media attention has shifted to the question of which party will be in control of the Senate after November 3. The Republicans currently have a three-seat majority, 53-47, so the Democrats must gain a net of three seats if Biden wins, as a Vice President Kamala Harris would then have the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The Democrats must gain four seats if Biden loses, but that combination is highly unlikely, since a Biden defeat would signify a broader Democratic debacle.
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested November 3. In the 16 seats considered competitive (two held by Democrats, 14 by Republicans), the Democratic lead is $643 million to $415 million. The average Democrat has a $40 million war chest, while the Republican, usually an incumbent, averages $26 million.
More so than Biden, the Senate candidates have benefited from a flood of small-dollar donations over the internet, which expresses, in a distorted way, the popular hatred of the right-wing policies of Trump and the Republicans. But corporate and billionaire cash also plays a significant role. Both small-dollar and large-dollar donations have fueled a record-breaking third quarter of fundraising for the Democrats, with many challengers doubling or tripling the amount raised by the Republican incumbents.
Finally, there is the not-insignificant question of what corporate America is buying through this flood of cash into the coffers of the Democratic Senate candidates. The beneficiaries of this corporate largesse are a collection of political reactionaries deeply committed to the defense of American imperialism abroad and big business at home. They differ only at the margins with their right-wing Republican opponents.
REMEMBER WHEN BRIBES SUCKING LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS SAID OL' JOE'S FINANCES WERE ENTIRELY 'TRANSPARENT'?
This Is How the Left's Power Structure Collapses By David Prentice
Weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh mentioned that the issues defining the election had not come forward yet. He was correct. Not entirely, because all the issues coming out right now have existed. In plain sight.
They just weren't distilled yet.
It's now here, served up on a silver platter. No, not Hunter Biden. This Hunter Biden laptop story simply leads us to the issue. The word. One word that rules them all, and in the darkness binds them.
Corruption.
There it is. That's the issue. To begin, you have the corrupt family Biden. They've been scamming us and our system well for almost fifty years. The man is supposedly worth over 250 million dollars. How is this possible on his salary? It's not. So where did his wealth come from? Not from being a brilliant businessman.
Enter Hunter's laptop. We now know that this is a family steeped in crime and corruption. Ole Corn Pop appears to be awash in money kicked back to him by his family members who have grifted off his reputation for years. Hunter's laptop has betrayed all this and more. Much like Al Capone's bookkeeper. Who would have thought Capone would have been destroyed so completely by a set of crooked books? Such delicious irony. And who would have known that this would become the October surprise of all October surprises?
Corruption. Full grown. Oozing its way into America. It's everywhere on the left. The Biden family. Clintons. The Democratic Party. The FBI. The CIA. The mainstream media. The tech giants. It's a full-out plague, aided and abetted by their demonic philosophy, all of them gone astray.
All of them corrupt.
The New York Post story has been there for about a week now. The Democrat-media complex has ignored it entirely; the tech giants went into overdrive removing all evidence from their platforms. Google. Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. The whole lot of them. Covering up a story that deserved universal distribution and condemnation. Instead, they covered up the most damning story to their side, their chosen side. All of them colluded to bury this mounting evidence of wrongdoing.
How far the mighty have fallen. And are falling.
What's the word for a media establishment that won't report this story?
What's the word for the FBI having this laptop for almost a year, watching dispassionately as the Democrats impeached Trump with hard evidence in their hands of his innocence and the Bidens' guilt?
What's the word for the above group of bad actors colluding to forward the Russia lies for almost three years?
What's the word for Director Wray's involvement?
What's the word for CIA director not releasing documents of the Russia hoax, documents that have been available for a long time?
What's the all-encompassing word that has been revealed at the heart of all these colluding to hide the truth from an America that deserves to know?
Corruption.
This is an issue that won't go away. All the attempts to deep-six the truth here are failing, and miserably at that. It's causing a slow-walk of information to drip out to the American public. First the stories of Ukraine. Drip-drip-drip. Then the stories of drugs. Then the sex problems. Then the Chinese stories. The story of kickbacks to Pop.
It's as if all the smartest people in the world colluded to destroy themselves. By purposefully and unanimously excluding all information concerning this story from the American public. The smartest people in the world actually believe they can be successful in spiking one of the biggest stories to pop up in any American election cycle. Their hubris is so advanced, so viral, so awful, that they can't see what they've done to themselves. They really believe they are going to keep a cork on this.
The derogatory phrase for the establishment has been "the swamp." How bad is this, how deep is this, how criminal is this, how horrifying is it to find out the vast amount of corruption and collusion in so many of our institutions and corporations?
It's staggering. It's infuriating.
These are the most powerful among us. All rich. All corrupt. All once respected by Americans of all stripes. And here, in one fell swoop, they reveal themselves to the average American. As arrogant bullies, as deceitful liars, as evil as anything we've seen in our generation. They have revealed themselves as the cabal of darkness. Terrible motives, terrible actions, virtually unforgiveable in what they have done, and yet failed to finish. And due to the hubris of the cabal, the exposé will be slow-walked until the election.
Today, Trump had an exchange with reporters, where he said, "Biden was a criminal."
This shocked the corrupt media. Reverberations rocked the corrupto-sphere. The lion had roared. There is no way the corrupto-sphere keeps this lid on. There is also no way all these corrupt actors go back on their solemn pledge to one another. They are bound together. They're stuck with each other. And it will overwhelm them.
As this careens into the debate, as this careens into voting, as this careens into Election Day, the ultimate narrative will be set. The doomsday clock will start. All the corrupt actors will be pointed out. All of them will rue the day they couldn't get rid of Donald Trump. He, above most anyone, knows just how corrupt these people are. He above anyone knows how to handle them. He, above all, knows what's all coming out in the next weeks.
It's going to be an avalanche of material. It's going to be a number of fires even Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the DNC, the Bidens, the media, the corrupt government officials, the whole shooting match, will not be able to handle. If they all overtly held emergency meetings with each other, they'd never stop the flood. When Trump roared, you know he had one of his famous moments, that moment when he knows how and when to bring this to a head. Trump the narrative-builder, Trump the destroyer will be unleashing hell on these people.
Anyone who has seen him operate knows. This is his time. This is how the beginning of the end of the swamp, or should I say the sewer, begins. This is the kind of chaos these smartest people in the world, ever, haven't seen before. Algorithms will not help them. Censorship will not help them. It will be a rushing mighty wind, coming to destroy all those who didn't understand that their corruption could be turned on them.
This is going to be epic. Corruption will be their end; it's just a matter of time. And Trump will have four years to finish their corruption.
Dem Megadonors, Officials Financially Tied to Electric Bus Company Boosted by Biden Dem-linked investment firms pumped millions into Proterra before White House spotlighted green company
Nicholas and Susan Pritzker in 2013 / Getty Images Collin Anderson and Matthew Foldi • May 5, 2021 5:00 am
Energy secretary Jennifer Granholm is not the only prominent Democrat with financial ties to an electric bus company repeatedly boosted by the Biden administration, documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show.
Nicholas and Joby Pritzker—members of Illinois Democratic governor J.B. Pritzker's megadonor family—own nearly 12 million shares of ArcLight through their venture capital fund, Tao Capital. ArcLight in January announced a $1.6 billion merger with Proterra, which will see the electric vehicle manufacturer go public in 2021. Granholm served on Proterra's board for nearly four years and still holds up to $5 million in company stock.
National Economic Council director Brian Deese is also tied to Proterra through BlackRock, the investment giant where he worked as global head of sustainable investing before joining the Biden administration. BlackRock is one of several investment firms that pumped a combined $415 million into the Proterra merger, and Deese reported holding more than $2.4 million in BlackRock vested restricted stock in his February financial disclosure. These investors are posed for steep gains, as ArcLight's stock price has surged 50 percent —from $11.90 to $18 per share—since January.
The revelations come as congressional Republicans demand investigations into potential conflicts of interest between the Biden administration and Proterra, which could receive billions in taxpayer funds through a proposed infrastructure package. Rep. Ralph Norman (R., S.C.), who serves as ranking member on the environment subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, told the Free Beacon that "the American people deserve to understand the full extent of Secretary Granholm's involvement with Proterra."
"Her position of roughly $5 million in the electric car company Proterra is another unfortunate example of politicians using their position for personal gain," Norman said. "Due to the President's recent unveiling of a $2 trillion infrastructure package, this matter should be investigated thoroughly."
Deese in April virtually toured Proterra's South Carolina factory with President Joe Biden, touting a proposed $45 billion government investment in "clean, zero-emissions buses" such as those produced by Proterra. Just days later, the Biden administration again amplified the bus company, hosting Proterra CEO Jack Allen at its Leaders Summit on Climate. Administration officials repeatedly praised Proterra at the event, and Allen responded by thanking the White House for its "longstanding support of electric transit buses and zero emission transportation."
"Proterra manufactures half of the U.S.'s electric bus market, which is pretty amazing," Biden national climate adviser Gina McCarthy said at the event. "And as you know, funding for electric school buses is a priority in the American Jobs Plan." McCarthy went on to ask Allen "what role" the federal government can play in "spurring the demand for zero emission electric vehicles, including school buses." Granholm also spoke at the summit.
The White House did not return a request for comment on Deese's BlackRock holdings as well as the director's role in planning events with Proterra. As a top BlackRock executive, Deese led an investment team tasked with identifying "sustainable" investment opportunities, according to his online bio. A BlackRock spokesperson said Deese "was not involved" with the Proterra investment.
The Pritzkers, meanwhile, will own between 6 and 7 percent of Proterra once the company goes public, SEC documents filed by ArcLight reveal. Nicholas Pritzker is one of two Tao Capital executives with "sole voting and dispositive power" over the Proterra shares. The investment firm, which did not return a request for comment, first backed Proterra through a $10 million stake in 2014. Granholm joined the bus company's board three years later. During her tenure, Tao Capital co-led another $155 million investment in Proterra.
"We at Tao are proud to support Proterra in its mission to bring forth a clean, electric transportation ecosystem," Nicholas Pritzker said in 2018. The firm's website touts the likes of Proterra, Tesla, and Bird as part of its "alternative transportation" portfolio.
Nicholas Pritzker and his wife Susan are prolific donors to Democratic candidates and causes. In the 2020 cycle alone, Susan Pritzker—a Tao Capital director—was the 95th largest donor in America. She contributed more than $3 million to Democrats in disclosed money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nicholas Pritzker has given at least $1.9 million to Democrats in direct contributions, including maximum contributions to Biden's campaign and victory fund, FEC filings show .
Bokhari: Sorry Rolling Stone, the Democrats Are the Party of Corporate Power Now 108 Drew Angerer/Getty Images
ALLUM BOKHARI
6 May 2021 123
2:48
Liberal and self-described “feminist law professor” David S. Cohen argues that Republicans are still the party of corporate power, in a column for Rolling Stone.
Cohen appears to have missed the political shifts of the past five years, which have seen Democrats and mainstream media organizations relentlessly pressure corporations into taking far-left stances, demanding that they involve themselves ever further in contentious political issues.
As early as 2017, far-left Vox was declaring corporations the “moral voice” of America, praising them for joining the left’s anti-Trump crusade.
Democrats regularly demand banks cut off services to industries they disapprove of, from gun manufacturers to private prisons. Far-left activists play a similar game, demanding credit card companies cut off the so-called far right .
The story is the same with regards to Big Tech power. At congressional hearings with tech companies, Democrats rarely miss an opportunity to demand Silicon Valley censor even more constitutionally protected speech.
Vaccine passports, if they materialize, will be a corporate endeavor — encouraged by the mainstream left and the Biden administration. Corporations pour money into left-wing causes like Black Lives Matter . Most egregiously, corporations are colluding to stop Republicans from passing election integrity measures.
On virtually every issue, Democrats and the left are encouraging corporations to wield power and ignore what voters say. The Democrats are the party of corporate power now. As Angelo Codevilla argued in a recent column, the U.S. has descended into oligarchy, with corporate leaders, progressive activists, and Democrats as interchangeable members of the same oligarchic ruling class.
These developments appear to have completely escaped the notice of Cohen, who has to reach back to the 70s and 80s to blame Republicans for ushering in the age of corporate power, and praising liberals for their opposition to the same.
“Since the dawn of capitalism, liberals have been complaining that private companies have too much power, and that they use to harm individuals who are hapless to fight back against concentrated money,” Cohen writes, in his column’s opening sentence.
Maybe they were, half a century ago. But if Cohen believes that any force other than the Democrats and the left are behind today’s corporate abuses of power, he’s clearly in denial.
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is the author of #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.
Daniel Henninger: Joe Biden Has Turned Out More Radical than Bernie Sanders 30 MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
JOEL B. POLLAK
6 May 2021 39
2:51
The Wall Street Journal ‘s Daniel Henninger noted in a column Thursday that President Joe Biden has adopted policies more radical than socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), as he has sought to nationalize far more than just health care alone.
In his column, titled “Democrats Are Killing the American Dream,” Henninger notes that Biden’s policies promise lifetime support from a welfare state, rather than the traditional American model — and dream — of individual striving for success.
He writes :
Mr. Biden’s American Families Plan proposes four significant new federal entitlements: two years of free, universal prekindergarten; virtually free child care for all; a paid family and medical leave program; and two years of community college.
Nowhere will you find a Democrat calling these proposals what they are—entitlements like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
…
Americans need to understand the realities of what Mr. Biden is offering them. Bernie Sanders wanted “Medicare for all,” but that applied only to healthcare. Mr. Biden’s reach goes beyond even Bernie, proposing what will become Medicaid for everything.
Medicaid is minimalist, bare-bones healthcare for the poor. Because of its scale and cost, it is necessarily lowest-common-denominator healthcare. When Joe Biden and the progressive Democratic Party demand “equity” everywhere, they are proposing a lowest-common-denominator society.
Henninger also points to a democratic problem. Biden presumes that “most Americans are ready to accept new middle-class entitlements as a substitute for centuries of individual striving.” But that question was never put to the American people — or, in fact, it was rejected by Democratic Party voters themselves, who chose the supposedly moderate Biden over Sanders.
“[T]hat turns out to be the true big steal in the 2020 election: Joe Biden never asked voters if they wanted to replace the American dream,” Henninger concludes. “He’s doing it anyway.”
Read Henninger’s full column here .
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the new e-book, We Told You So!: The First 100 Days of Joe Biden’s Radical Presidency . His recent book, RED NOVEMBER , tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .
No comments:
Post a Comment