JUST IN! Jesse Watters SHARED Terrifying News
joe biden and his muslim terrorist
Friday, October 27, 2023
BLACK CARJACKINGS AND HOME INVASIONS - WATCH: Good Samaritans Help Florida Police Take Down Carjacking Suspect
WATCH: Good Samaritans Help Florida Police Take Down Carjacking Suspect
Two good Samaritans (pictured above) are being thanked by Florida law enforcement for aiding in the arrest of a home invasion and carjacking suspect on Tuesday.
Ocala police were pursuing Michael Prouty, 39, after he allegedly forced his way into a local woman’s home, robbed her, and stole her car.
“When officers spotted him in Ocala, Prouty fled and crashed into several vehicles and ran away, according to police, who added that a good Samaritan tried to hold onto Prouty, but he was able to get away,” WKMG 6 reported.
Dash cam footage from the incident shows the suspect exiting the stolen vehicle and then running up to a car in the nearby Starbucks drive-thru in a suspected carjacking attempt.
Police body camera footage shows the moment when Prouty opens the passenger door of the unsuspecting female driver, prompting witnesses to move towards the suspect. Another good Samaritan can be seen running ahead of the officer, grabbing Prouty and helping the cops arrest him.
“We are proud of these two citizens for their heroic action, for helping our officers make the arrest, and for keeping our community safe,” said Ocala Police Chief Mike Balken.
The Ocala Police Department released a statement, and the first good Samaritan who attempted to stop Prouty recalled the events from his point of view:
“I heard what sounded like a really loud crash. I looked over towards the gas station there on the corner and saw a Cadillac crashed into cars on 441. And I looked over and I watched him get out of the car, then he was running towards me,” the man, identified as Tom Episcopo, said.
He continued:
There was like a bank truck that was sitting in that driveway that’s heading towards Starbucks from the gas station, so I went around the side of the truck where he couldn’t see me… and kind of addressed him there in between the wall and the truck and said, “You’re not going anywhere.”
Episcopo explained that while he was “outmuscled” by the “bigger” man, he was able to slow him down as police were in hot pursuit.
While the other citizen who aided in the arrest has not been publicly identified, Chief Balken said, “We would like to let these heroic citizens know that we are currently hiring police officers, and we invite them to apply to our agency!”
“Mr. Prouty is currently in the Marion County Jail and is facing multiple charges from our agency, including fleeing and eluding, attempted carjacking, and others,” the department said in a news release. “He was also involved in a robbery of a 7-Eleven convenience store in the early hours of Oct. 24, before the home invasion incident in Sumter County.”
SPEAKER JOHNSON - AMERICA LAST - FOREIGNERS FIRST! - Speaker Johnson: We’ll Find Cuts to Pay for Foreign Aid, Require Clear Strategy and Accountability for Ukraine Money
Speaker Johnson: We’ll Find Cuts to Pay for Foreign Aid, Require Clear Strategy and Accountability for Ukraine Money
During an interview aired on Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) stated that House Republicans will find cuts elsewhere in the budget to pay for money sent to Israel or Ukraine and that in order to get further funding for Ukraine without greater accountability for the money and a clear strategic plan from the White House.
Host Sean Hannity asked, [relevant exchange begins around 16:00] “Already, Joe Biden has given $76.8 billion to Ukraine. He wants $61 billion more. He wants 14 billion to go to Israel. And I think he — and then he wants to put money on the border, probably to satisfy conservatives in the House and get their support on Ukraine, for example, which seems to be his top priority. A big disparity in the amount of money. I have some criticisms about the issue of Ukraine. Number one, if you’re going to fight a war, you should fight it to win it. I thought the president made a horrible mistake by denying MiGs that were offered by Poland. I think the president made a horrible mistake trying to put handcuffs on the Ukrainian Army, led by Zelensky, on the issue of how they will fight and what weapons they can and cannot use like cluster bombs. And I don’t like the fact that Europe doesn’t pay their fair share. So, they’ve got 78 billion, he wants another 61 billion. How will you deal with the issues that — he wants to tie all of these issues together, which now gets into the budgetary process. Will you go issue by issue?”
Johnson responded, “I told the staff at the White House today that our consensus among House Republicans is we need to bifurcate those issues. I agree with your assessment in Ukraine, and that’s why the American people are demanding some real accountability for the use of those dollars. Now, we can’t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine, because I don’t believe it would stop there and it would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan. We have these concerns. We’re not going to abandon them. But we have a responsibility, a stewardship responsibility over the precious treasure of the American people, and we have to make sure that the White House is providing the people with some accountability for the dollars and we want to know what the objective there is, what is the endgame in Ukraine? The White House has not provided that. I was at the White House for a couple of hours today and I told the staff there that this is where we are. This is where the House Republicans are.”
Johnson added, “We’ve got a group of our colleagues here in the House, led by Rep. Mike Garcia (R-CA)…and some of our veterans have gotten together, Rep. Dan Crenshaw’s (R-TX) involved in this and others, they came up with a document that presents twelve critical questions for the White House to answer as a condition of our supplying the additional support. … I delivered that myself.”
He further stated, “Israel is a separate matter. We’re going to bring forward a standalone Israel funding measure, over $14 billion. … Israel’s requested a little less than that actually, the White House did, by way of Israel, and 14.5 billion specifically is what we’re looking at. It’s a very specific number tied to very specific measures. But here’s the important thing that distinguishes House Republicans from the other team: We’re going to find pay-fors in the budget. We’re not just printing money to send it overseas, we’re going to find the cuts elsewhere to do that.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Elon Musk’s New Project Could Trigger Economic ‘Death Spiral’ - More than 300 million jobs are at stake.
The bad news is the $15.7 trillion economic shift it brings will devastate millions of Americans, plunging the economy into a “death spiral” never before seen. More than 300 million jobs are at stake.
Joe Biden is the quintessential oligarch. He has empowered America’s moneyed elite, and they have empowered him. Biden’s 2020 campaign was the first to raise over $1 billion. Democrats raised $600 million more in “dark money” than Republicans in 2020. Look for those numbers to explode even higher in 2024.
Elon Musk’s New Project Could Trigger Economic ‘Death Spiral’
The following content is sponsored by InvestorPlace.
Legendary investor Eric Fry has come to a shocking conclusion.
Legendary investor Eric Fry (Photo: InvestorPlace)
What he calls “Project Omega” — Elon Musk’s latest project — will impact our lives more than any other innovation in history.
Fry knows what he’s talking about. He spent the last 30 years as a Silicon Valley insider and on Wall Street as a broker, entrepreneur, analyst, and hedge fund manager.
His investing feats are nothing short of astonishing. Just a few years ago he went head-to-head against 650 Wall Street hot-shots, including billionaire hedge fund legends David Einhorn and Bill Ackman.
When the dust settled, Fry achieved an average annualized return of 150 percent, beating the best of the best and winning the competition hands down.
Now, he’s warning about the greatest economic shift the world has ever seen.
He’s not alone. Bill Gates says, “It will change the world.” Bank of America predicts that it “could revolutionize everything.” Business Insider reports that it is “ready to upend the economy.”
Fry believes this project will dwarf everything else Musk has done to date. It will be bigger than PayPal, Tesla, and SpaceX combined.
The bad news is the $15.7 trillion economic shift it brings will devastate millions of Americans, plunging the economy into a “death spiral” never before seen. More than 300 million jobs are at stake.
The Brookings Institution says half of all blue-collar jobs will be replaced. Lawyers, accountants, and even doctors should be worried too. CNBC reports this innovation is on “a collision course with white-collar, high-paid jobs.”
The good news is the technology behind this project could mint the next wave of millionaires and billionaires.
Mark Cuban has even gone on record saying that “the world’s first trillionaires are going to come from somebody who masters [this technology].”
According to Fry, those who position themselves on the right side of this shift “will have multiple chances to make as much as 10 times their money.” Those who don’t heed his warning and prepare now could face abject poverty.
Fry has prepared a special video presentation you can watch here.
It outlines the three steps he recommends you take now. Watch it and find out how to get ahead and stay ahead of this economic shift before it’s too late.
Click here for all the details.
OPEN BORDERS BRINGS DEPRESSED WAGES AND HOMELESSNESS. THERE ARE 50 MILLION ILLEGALS IN AMERICA AND JOE IS ORCHESTRATING THE BIGGEST INVASION IN WORLD HISTORY!
Poverty in America is by design w/Matthew Desmond | The Chris Hedges Report
American Oligarchy: Meet the Billionaire Mega-Donors Behind the Biden Presidency
Liberals used to decry the influence of money in politics. But in Joe Biden’s America, we have seen the rise of a noxious new generation of left-wing donors. I identify some of the biggest power players in Joe Biden’s American in my book New York Times bestselling book Breaking Biden.
Joe Biden is the quintessential oligarch. He has empowered America’s moneyed elite, and they have empowered him. Biden’s 2020 campaign was the first to raise over $1 billion. Democrats raised $600 million more in “dark money” than Republicans in 2020. Look for those numbers to explode even higher in 2024.
It is important to understand a key principle in modern Democratic politics: if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. Today, it’s Joe Biden’s table, and he’s happy to provide the entertainment.
Remember, unlike Joe Biden, all of these oligarchs are good with money. They aren’t giving away tens of millions of dollars out of the goodness of their heart. They want something in return. In each and every case, Joe Biden serves a purpose for them — maybe many purposes.
Let’s meet Joe’s billionaire cabinet:
Dustin Moskovitz (net worth: $11.6 billion)
Dustin Moskovitz speaking at an event on November 8, 2017 in Lisbon, Portugal. (Horacio Villalobos – Corbis/Getty Images)
Perhaps no other megadonor has distinguished themselves in the Biden years as much as Dustin Moskovitz, a cofounder of Facebook. He is a rising power player on this lisrt. It wasn’t until the Biden years that Moskovitz solidified himself as one of the major power brokers on the institutional left.
Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook, delivers his keynote address on October 24, 2007, in San Francisco, California. (Kimberly White/Getty Images)
Moskovitz gave roughly $50 million total in the 2020 election cycle, including $20 million to the Future Forward PAC, one of the main committees supporting Biden. Future Forward (more on this PAC below) spent more than $180 million across the 2020 and 2022 elections. Employees of Asana, Moskovitz’ current company, contributed $6.1 million in 2022. The Biden campaign recently moved to make Future Forward the campaign’s main PAC for the 2024 election, making Moskovitz and his machine an integral piece of the Democrats’ infrastructure.
Moskovitz now has the ear of the administration at a crucial time for tech policy, especially artificial intelligence. In fact, one of his organizations is already bankrolling dozens of staffers helping shape AI regulations.
Eric Schmidt (net worth: $26.2 billion)
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2015. (Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Eric Schmidt spent 20 years heading Google and its holding company, Alphabet, holding titles like CEO and executive chairman.
The political contributions Schmidt and related organizations have made over the years have been large and numerous. Google has given more than $11 million to mostly Democrat political causes and has a $75 million lobbying record. Since its founding, Alphabet has given $59 million, again to mostly Democrats, and lobbied the government with upward of $119 million. Joe Biden was the largest recipient of this largesse during the 2020 cycle, receiving just under $4.5 million. Schmidt gave $775,000 to the Future Forward PAC, which has also been funded by other top Democrat donors from Big Tech like disgraced crypto “entrepreneur” Sam Bankman-Fried ($10 million) and Facebook’s Dustin Moskovitz ($91.78 million).
Schmidt left the Alphabet in 2020 and has turned his focus to his philanthropic foundation, Schmidt Futures, which paid the salaries for two employees in Joe Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. This raised ethics concerns, as there were “a large number of staff with financial connections to Schmidt Futures,” according to the office’s then general counsel Rachel Wallace.
Eric Schmidt speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Feb. 23, 2021, during a hearing on emerging technologies and their impact on national security. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Schmidt helps fund the A.I. tech companies Abacus.AI and Civis Analytics, which aided Democrat campaigns, including Biden’s 2020 effort to target voters.
When Democrats use A.I. to try to ensure victory in 2024 (and they will), pay attention to who is behind those efforts. I’ll bet big money on Schmidt.
Jeffrey Katzenberg (net worth: $900 million)
Jeffrey Katzenberg arrives at a state dinner in honor of Chinese Communist leader Xi Jinping at the White House in Washington, DC, on Sept. 25, 2015. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Despite being the instigator of Hollywood’s decline (as thoroughly documented in Breaking Biden), Joe Biden has avoided the ire of the entertainment establishment. In fact, he continues to bag mountains of their cash. In the summer of 2020, Jeffrey Katzenberg and George Clooney held a virtual event for Biden and his vice-presidential running mate Kamala Harris that charged $100,000 per ticket. The following week, Tom Hanks held a fundraising event for Biden. By late August, Katzenberg had held events for Biden that had raised a reported $13 million that election cycle. In May 2023, Katzenberg told the Financial Times that he would pledge Biden “all the resources” he needs to win reelection in 2024.
Let me repeat that. In May 2023, Katzenberg told the Financial Times that he would pledge Biden “all the resources” he needs to win reelection in 2024.
DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg (third from right) with CCP representatives from Shanghai’s government unveil the master plan for the Shanghai DreamCenter on March 20, 2014 in Shanghai, China. (AP Photo)
Jeffrey Katzenberg filled up the Biden campaign with millions of dollars upon Kamala’s joining the ticket, and then the entertainment mogul minted a deal with Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping to create a Chinese Hollywood. Synergy or quid pro quo?
(There’s much more on the fascinating connection between Katzenberg, Biden, and Xi Jinping in Breaking Biden.)
Katzenberg’s influence over Biden has become a sore spot as strikes have brought Hollywood productions to a halt. A self-styled labor champion, Biden has avoided visiting Katzenberg in Los Angeles, though they have continued to praise each other at fundraisers for Biden’s reelection. “I have a lot of assets in my campaign, but none more consequential than Jeffrey Katzenberg,” Biden reportedly told the crowd at a June fundraising dinner. This is a perfect example of how Joe tries to present himself as a man of the people, but is actually a creature of the corporate elite.
Laurene Powell Jobs (net worth: $13.7 billion)
Laurene Powell Jobs speaks during the Clinton Global Initiative meeting on September 19, 2022, in New York City. (Noam Galai/Getty Images for Clinton Global Initiative)
Apple cofounder Steve Jobs’s widow is one of the richest women in the world and one of the most powerful people in Democrat politics and media. She is nearly as much a part of the Democrat machine as Joe Biden himself.
The heiress’s primary vehicle for spreading her wealth around is the Emerson Collective, which is a core subject of my first book, Breaking the News. Through the Emerson Collective, she gives lavishly to globalist social justice causes and candidates, funds establishment and alternative left-wing media, and provides jobs for Biden and Obama administration officials. Unsurprisingly, her media outlets tend to report favorably on her other causes.
Under the Biden administration, Jobs has reached a new level of influence. Vice President Kamala Harris is a close friend of hers.
Laurene Powell Jobs of Emerson Collective introduces Vice President Kamala Harris at an in event in Los Angeles, CA on June 7, 2022. (PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images)
Jobs’ Emerson Collective is a major backer of Galvanize Climate Solutions, where John Podesta was an advisor before joining the White House to oversee billions in climate-related spending. So far, according to visitor logs, Jobs has visited the White House ten times since Biden took office, including a private meeting with Podesta.
Jobs accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Biden on behalf of her late husband in July 2022, and she attended a state dinner held by Biden in December 2022.
President Joe Biden kisses Laurene Powell Jobs during the Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony honoring her late husband in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2022. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Also of note, Jobs has the dubious honor of being the richest person in America (as far as I could tell) to benefit from pandemic-era PPP government handouts. Ozy Media, one of the outlets under her control, obtained a PPP “loan” in the $2–5 million range. Ozy abruptly shut down after allegations of fraud surfaced in 2021. One of the company’s senior executives had impersonated a YouTube executive on a conference call in order to woo investors. CEO Carlos Watson has since been arrested.
This is the sort of company that Joe Biden’s White House likes to keep.
Reid Hoffman (net worth: $2.1 billion)
Reid Hoffman, partner at Greylock and co-founder of LinkedIn, speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on May 2, 2023. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)
Reid Hoffman, who made his billions from helping launch PayPal and cofounding LinkedIn, has become one of the most prolific funders of Democrats in the country. He uses nonprofits and takes advantage of lenient disclosure laws to make large contributions in relative obscurity.
Hoffman is said to be the “most connected man in Silicon Valley.”
He was an early investor in Facebook, had big bucks in Airbnb, and sits on the board of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, the biomedical arm of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which is named for Facebook cofounder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan. Hoffman’s venture capital firm, Greylock Partners, has made eight-figure contributions to Democrat PACs and interest groups in recent elections. LinkedIn and Microsoft donate almost exclusively to Democrats.
Hoffman was responsible for a “false flag” operation in Alabama that planted the idea that the Roy Moore U.S. Senate campaign in 2018 “was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” according to an internal report on the scheme reviewed by the New York Times. Hoffman apologized for the deception after it had become public knowledge. All the evidence suggests he’s not an ethical guy, so he’s an ideal person to bankroll the institutional Democrat Party in the Biden era.
Even among pro-China tech moguls, Hoffman stands out. He has stated that the U.S. should emulate the Chinese communist regime, and he occasionally collaborates with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He advises the left-wing Berggruen Institute, which runs an artificial intelligence research center at Peking University and regularly has summit meetings with Xi Jinping to help the world better understand China.
LinkedIn Chairman Reid Hoffman and Michelle Yee arrive at a state dinner in honor of Chinese Communist leader Xi Jinping at the White House on Sept. 25, 2015. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
As Peter Schweizer reported in his book Red-Handed, LinkedIn managed to stay in compliance with Chinese censorship rules until 2021. (Facebook and Twitter were banned by 2009). Hoffman has been the “go-to guy” when it comes to helping all other Silicon Valley firms cut foreign deals, particularly with China, according to the New York Times. To put it bluntly, this guy really loves Communist China.
Hoffman funds Courier Newsroom and ACRONYM with Laurene Powell Jobs as well as the Good Information Foundation with George Soros, all of which are organizations that push left-wing ideology on social media. Attorney and legal commentator Preston Moore claimed he was offered money from the Good Information Foundation to make videos attacking Donald Trump and “Trump Republicans,” which is a no-no as far as federal tax law is concerned when it comes to 501(c)(3) organizations. It is unclear whether the IRS has taken action against the group. I personally filed a complaint against it in 2022.
Microsoft, where Hoffman sits on the board of directors, is a major vendor for Biden-backed defense and climate initiatives.
Tom Steyer (net worth: $2.1 billion)
Tom Steyer speaks at the TIME CO2 Earth Awards Gala on April 25, 2023, in New York City. (Mike Coppola/Getty Images for TIME)
A San Francisco–based former hedge fund manager and climate activist, Tom Steyer spent $73 million on left-leaning causes during the 2020 cycle.
After the election, Biden hired Steyer to advise him on climate change. Steyer has advocated for the halting of drilling permits and the blocking of pipelines, and thus shares responsibility for the skyrocketing gas prices during Biden’s administration, as well as other downstream effects I examine in Breaking Biden.
Though Steyer plays the part of climate change combatant in public, his Farallon Capital Management had large investments in a four thousand-acre Australian coal mine that is expected to pump carbon into the atmosphere for decades. In addition, the fund has invested vast sums in companies with coal-fired power plants and coal mines in China and Indonesia. At least four appointed Biden White House staff have financial disclosures tying them to Steyer’s businesses.
This isn’t even the full extent of the list of billionaires who have bought an outsized role in Joe Biden’s America. For more, please check out Breaking Biden: Exposing the Hidden Forces and Secret Money Machine Behind Joe Biden, His Family, and His Administration.
Breaking Biden is available now in hardcover, eBook, and audiobook read by the author.
Alex Marlow is the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News and a New York Times bestselling author. His new book Breaking Biden is available now. You can follow Alex on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @AlexMarlow.
Biden Mimics Migration Enforcement for 2024 Election
President Joe Biden’s deputies are loudly touting border walls and deportations — even as they import many more migrants into American workplaces and communities.
The border theater is being pushed as polls increasingly show that even Democrat voters in blue cities are demanding Biden reduce the civic burden of the Democrats’ invited wave of illegal migration.
In early October, administration officials announced plans to construct just 20 miles of border walls and to begin deporting some Venezuelan migrants home, prompting much breathless coverage from establishment media.
The announcements were broadcast by favorable media sites, including Google.com:
On October 25, the Washington Post amplified administration claims of a drop-off in the number of Venezuelan migrants that are sneaking past the administration’s multiple welcome gates at the border:
Illegal border crossings by Venezuelans have dropped 50 to 60 percent since the Biden administration announced Oct. 5 it would begin deportation flights to the South American nation, according to preliminary U.S. Customs and Border Protection data obtained by The Washington Post.
“Nobody could possibly credit this administration with a sincere desire to deter unlawful migration,” responded Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Behind the media PR, he said, “their strategy is to find ways of creating unlawful ‘lawful’ pathways” for illegal migrants, he told Breitbart News.
“No amount of enforcement theater is going to overcome the images of people spilling across the border,” said Jon Feere, a top enforcement official for President Donald Trump.
EXCLUSIVE: 1,500 Migrants Cross Border into Texas in Six Hours
Randy Clark/Breitbart Texas
But the media campaign is really intended to help Democratic politicians, including those in migrant-crisis cities, and Democratic-leaning media sites, he told Breitbart News:
It is narrative building …. to give politicians up on the Hill something to point to when they’re asked about the migrant crisis in a city. For the average person, it doesn’t serve any purpose [because] reality is so hard to overcome.
Whatever the elite PR, he said, “mass illegal immigration is continuing to be welcomed by the Biden administration.”
Biden’s deputies are also rushing work permits to migrants so that politicians can claim taxpayers’ funds are not being used for the migrants. But every migrant who works helps to drive down Americans’ wages, push up Americans’ housing costs — and push more Americans on the Democrats’ welfare rolls.
In the 12 months up to October 2023, Biden’s deputies allowed roughly 3.5 million illegal migrants across the southern border and into the United States — alongside the huge inflow of more than 1.5 million legal immigrants and temporary contract workers. The southern inflow added roughly one migrant for every American birth during the same period — and has helped to break Biden’s polling numbers.
A 54 percent majority of Americans say immigration under Biden is making life harder for all, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 4,415 adults. Just 34 disagreed, including just 29 percent of independents.
So administration official are now broadcasting their deportations.
On October 21, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency announced “On October 18, 130 citizens of Venezuela were removed on the first of these flights, as part of dozens of routine ICE removal flights conducted throughout the hemisphere and around the world every week.”
Officials claim they have deported 300,000 migrants since March, or roughly 33,000 per month, even as more enter across the porous southern border.
EXCLUSIVE: Large Group of Migrants from Many Nations Cross Border into Arizona
Randy Clark / Breitbart
In September, DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency flew 254 flights to “return” or “remove” migrants, according to Witness at the Border, a pro-migration group. If 130 people were on each aircraft, the agency sent only 33,000 people home in September.
In the same month, DHS’s leadership welcomed 270,000 additional migrants — or nine months’ worth of deportation flights.
Officials are trying to convert what should be routine deportation flights “into a PR effort,” said Feere. “ICE should be doing this type of enforcement every week and the media shouldn’t be writing about it” as something special, he added.
On October 25, CBS reported the collapse of another PR campaign that sought to quietly keep migrants away from angry voters, and media cameras in New York and Chicago were blocked by local resistance:
A Biden administration plan to require some migrant families to remain in Texas while immigration authorities determined their eligibility for asylum collapsed due to local opposition in the Democratic-led border city of El Paso, according to two U.S. officials and government documents obtained by CBS News.
Officials in El Paso initially agreed to provide 400 hotel rooms to house migrants enrolled in the initiative, which was set to start in mid-September, according to internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents. But local officials reversed course on hosting the migrants after parts of the plan became public, the U.S. officials said, requesting anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Even as the administration conducts high-profit, small-scale deportation, they will continue to import more people, said Stein.
“They are going to bring in through … so-called humanitarian programs — far more people than they are excluding,” he said. “The agenda is very simple: Maximize the number of people you can get into the country.”
FOR JOE THESE ARE NOT 'TERRORIST', THEY'RE UNREGISTERED DEM VOTERS!
Joe Biden’s Donor List Includes More than 30 Executives Tied to Wall Street
Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has more than 30 business executives on his donor list that have connections to Wall Street.
Analysis of Biden’s more than 800 big donors, those who have bundled contributions for his presidential bid against President Trump, found that more than 30 of the executives listed have ties to Wall Street.
CNBC reports:
CNBC reviewed a new list of more than 800 Biden bundlers who raised at least $100,000 for the campaign, and found that several of them had links to financial firms. A few had been mentioned on the initial list of Biden fundraisers that was released in 2019 during the Democratic primary contests. [Emphasis added]
…
Beyond those from Wall Street, Biden’s campaign saw fundraising help from leaders in Silicon Valley, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Ron Conway. [Emphasis added]
Those executives with ties to Wall Street funding Biden’s campaign include:
Frank Baker, Brett Barth, Jim Chanos, Mark Chorazak, David Clunie, William Derrough, Roger Altman, Blair Effron, Jon Feigelson, Mark Gallogly, John Rogers, Jon Gray, Tony James, Jon Henes, Sonny Kalsi, Orin Kramer, Brad Krap, Brian Kreiter, Marc Lasry, Nate Loewenthall, Eric Mindich, Kara Moore, Charles Myers, Alan Patricof, Deven Parekh, Robert Rubin, Evan Roth, Faiza Saeed, Rajen Shah, Jay Snyder, Rob Stavis, and Jeff Zients.
As Breitbart News reported, Biden’s campaign is being backed by nearly “all the big banks” on Wall Street, according to CNN analysis, and Wall Street executives and employees have donated more than $74 million to elect the former vice president.
Trump, on the other hand, has accepted far less money from Wall Street — taking just a little over $18 million dollars from financial firms. This is a whopping $56 million less than what Biden has accepted from Wall Street.
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania.
In a post on Sunday, Biden wrote that “Donald Trump sees the world from Park Avenue,” whereas he sees the world “from where I came from: Scranton, Pennsylvania.” In fact, Biden has raised over $1 million from wealthy Park Avenue donors, more than eight times the less than $130,000 that Trump has taken from Park Avenue residents.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter
at @JxhnBinder
THERE IS NO GREATER DANGER TO
AMERICA THAN JOE BIDEN!
Too Big To Trust
REVIEW: 'American Breakdown: Why We No Longer Trust Our Leaders and Institutions and How We Can Rebuild Confidence' by Gerard Baker
(Amazon)
September 24, 2023
If you're a working opinion journalist in America, you've probably spent some time in the past few years toying with a book idea about our national crisis. The atmospherics of the moment all but demand it. What was once quaintly thought of as the news cycle has become a continuous blur of despond. Political problems crossbreed with cultural ailments and split opinions along lines so fresh and inconsistent that the terms left and right lose shades of meaning with each new debate. Wild claims disseminate via digital firehose and service competing ideological camps that no longer share a base reality.
And that's before we get to the significant failings of our recent elected officials, the scandals of our billion-dollar corporations, the prejudices of our legacy media, or the lies proffered by our public and private institutions. In other words, before we can even approach our real-world challenges, Americans are faced with an impenetrable fog of interests and biases that all but precludes thoughtful contemplation.
It's no wonder we've lost trust in just about everything. According to all major polls, American trust is nosediving across the board. We don't trust government, media, education, big business, technology, or one another. And this isn't merely unpleasant background noise. Mistrust and distrust are active players in the political and cultural life of the country, shaping our days as surely as any lawmaker, lobbying group, or media behemoth.
We could really use a grand theory right about now—something ingeniously simple to capture how we got here and point us toward clear solutions. But as Gerard Baker argues in the traumatically brilliant American Breakdown, the origins of our national trust crisis are complex and compounded, and it won't be resolved in one stroke.
Baker, editor at large at the Wall Street Journal, contends that the problem began with the United States' objectively poor performance on a number of fronts. "It's not that Americans have suddenly, for no reason, started distrusting institutions that merit trust," he writes. "It is that the institutions themselves have become untrustworthy." Here Baker wisely resists the low-hanging fruit of Trump-age resentment as an explanation in itself. "To focus on the most extreme and hateful manifestations of public disillusionment is to miss the underlying cause," he writes. "It is the guided leadership of the last twenty years rather than the response to it that explains America's current plight."
The evidence is compelling. As Baker notes, long before Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the United States entered a long and dispiriting foreign war on the strength of bad intelligence, a collapse of the American financial system halved the average net worth of middle-class households, the increasing flow of illegal immigrants was serially ignored, Big Tech grew rich by trading in customers' personal data, and social mobility began to stall. As Baker puts it: "To suggest that [Trump] is the architect of collapsing faith in America would be to assign him the kind of power and influence only he thinks he really wields."
After Trump was elected, he pounded away on the entrenched political establishment as the source of these mishaps. And then the establishment did its best to prove him right with a new batch of bungling and flat-out deception: the false charge of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 presidential election, the now hyper-partisan media's daily catastrophizing about conservatives, and the mistakes and misdirection of public health officials responding to the COVID pandemic. "Leading figures in public health across the country," writes Baker, "essentially inverted the scientific method," starting with answers and culling data to match. Americans noticed.
Baker adds to this run of failure the emergence of two complementary trends that were foisted on the public at the height of our national doubt: First, the rise of an "overclass that has more in common with its counterparts in London, Paris, or Singapore than it does with its compatriots in Louisville, Peoria, or Scranton." This is the Davos crowd, the influencers, institutionalists, and billionaires who disdain national identity and embrace climate change as religion. Baker's portrayal of the Davos set is peerless and one of the book's crowning delights. Consider his summary of Davos Speak: "Wander into a Davos session and you will catch stakeholders dialoguing and mainstreaming multifaceted metrics in a cross-platform environment before actioning toward implementation mode. It's English, Jim, but not as we know it."
These mainstreaming multifaceted muckety-mucks often find common cause with another emergent class that also speaks its own language: the radical ideologues of the campus left. What the globally minded Davos folks share with the identitarians and intersectionalists is a messianic disregard for the average American's well-being and, in some cases, a hostility toward his real concerns. Most important, the two elite forces pushed our culture and institutions in bizarre and damaging directions that do real harm to ordinary people. In something like ESG (Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance) investing, we see clearly how the two groups merge to shortchange everyday Americans in the name of globally minded heroism. ESG-guided funds invest your hard-earned money only in companies that meet certain environmental and social criteria, but they generally underperform funds that are still stuck on the crazy idea that making money for shareholders is paramount. "Not only are [Americans] forced to watch as their corporate overlords use their powerful positions to pursue ideological goals many do not approve of," Baker writes, "but they are actually paying for the privilege of it."
Baker astutely dismantles a slew of ailing institutions, devoting a chapter each to politics, corporate America, news media, science, education, and technology. Each is a gem packed with insight and wit. Noting, for example, in his chapter on education that a recent survey showed 80 percent of Harvard faculty identified as "liberal" or "very liberal," 1 percent identified as "conservative," and zero said they were "very conservative," Baker observes inarguably, "These are North Korean levels of political conformity."
But the book's great strength is in resisting causal reductionism and daring to approach the trust fiasco in its combined magnitude. No single factor can begin to explain it. In his chapter on social trust, Baker considers the three main causes of mistrust cited in scholarly literature: corruption, economic inequality, and racial diversity. They all appear to play some role in our present crisis, but none dispositively. After all, as Baker points out, Transparency International still ranks the United States as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. And from 2011 to 2021, "on an income basis, the United States actually became a slightly more equal society, and yet, levels of social trust have continued to decline." Similarly, polls have shown a gargantuan shift away from bigotry in this country over the last half century, yet "Americans of all races seem to have become markedly more pessimistic about racial harmony in the very recent past."
Baker knows the problem is more massive than any individual grievance. Indeed, he writes movingly about the challenge of massiveness itself. "The vast scale of the institutions may be justified in terms of economies of scale, or by the larger purpose they are serving, but dealing with these Brobdingnagian entities induces a sense of smallness in us," he says. It's an underappreciated point, and it applies to our interaction with businesses, universities, and government. They've become, in some sense, too big to trust.
Baker is modest and uncharacteristically vague about offering solutions. But this is apt, as nothing elicits mistrust as surely as confidently proposed fixes. And grasping the size of our dilemma, he surely understands that the best we can hope at the moment is a good wish list. He'd like media companies and universities to be more ideologically diverse in their hiring. He suggests more transparency from technology platforms, more accountability from big business, and so on.
If there's good news here, it's that opinion writers can stop worrying about their possible books on the great American crack-up. Gerard Baker has beaten them to it with a definitive account of our complicated and uncertain times.
American Breakdown: Why We No Longer Trust Our Leaders and Institutions and How We Can Rebuild Confidence
by Gerard Baker
Twelve, 288 pp., $30
Abe Greenwald is the executive editor of Commentary.
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.
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)