Thursday, December 14, 2017


THE WAR ON AMERICA’S MIDDLE-CLASS waged by D.C., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the La Raza Fascist Party and Mexico!

The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor and spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with OPIOID ADDICTIONS opioid addictions. NEIL MUNRO

Wealthy CEOs Lecture Americans To Show ‘Courage’ by Submitting to Diversity and Amnesty

Americans should have the courage to ignore their written laws, to amnesty DACA illegals and accept an open-borders world, says an op-ed by two wealthy CEOs who stand to gain more wealth in a labor market flooded by low-wage migrants.

The op-ed by Tim Cook (CEO of Apple, wealth $800 million and growing) and Charles Koch (Koch Industries, $49 billion and growing) was posted in the Washington Postnewspaper owned by Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon, $98 billion and growing). Under the headline “Congress must act on the ‘dreamers,’” it declared:
We must do better. The United States is at its best when all people are free to pursue their dreams. Our country has enjoyed unparalleled success by welcoming people from around the world who seek to make a better life for themselves and their families, no matter what their backgrounds … each successive generation — including, today, our own — must show the courage to embrace that diversity and to do what is right.
For the Union-breaking billionaires, the 690,000 illegal immigrants are not the migrant citizens of a foreign country; they are “our neighbors, colleagues and friends.”
Moreover, the law demands that the immigration laws must be subordinated to a former president’s campaign-trail promise, regardless of the voters’ opinions, the billionaires declare:
Another foundation of our country’s success is our consistent and equal application of the law. In a free nation, individuals must be able to trust that when our government makes a promise, it is kept. Having laws that are reliable is what gives people the confidence to plan their futures and to invest in their businesses, their communities and themselves.
The United States should not hold hard-working, patriotic people hostage to the debate over immigration — or, worse, expel them because we have yet to resolve a complex national argument.
The illegals “have done their part,” so Americans have a moral obligation to submit, the billionaires insist to their non-billionaire readers:
Dreamers are doing their part. They have shown great faith in the United States by coming forward, subjecting themselves to background checks, and submitting personal and biometric data. Now, the rest of us need to do our part. Congress should act quickly, ideally before year’s end, to ensure that these decent people can work and stay and dream in the United States.
In fact, the illegals are vital to the economy, says the op-ed, which ignores the contributions made by Americans and their children, and the fact that a huge number of Americans don’t even have $400 in their savings accounts:
No society can truly flourish when a significant portion of its people feel threatened or unable to fulfill their potential. Nor can it prosper by excluding those who want to make positive contributions. This isn’t just a noble principle; it’s a basic fact, borne out through our national history.
Koch and Cook seem to be unaware of a recent admission by the Migration Policy Institute that DACA illegals graduate from college at one-quarter the rate of Americans. But they likely know that the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that the proposed ‘Gang of Eight” amnesty would have shifted a huge amount of income from wage-earners to wealthy investors over 20 years, simply because more amnesty means more cheap workers and more welfare-aided customers.
Voters tend to think that lower wages are bad for them and their kids. The reported in 2016:
The [Federal Reserve Board] asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?
Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.
I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5—literally—while I wait for a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs
In contrast, President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 to curb migration and to help ordinary Americans. His immigration priorities are listed here.
Many polls show that the Democrats’ calls for amnesty are unpopular because they contradict Americans’ sense of fairness to other Americans.
Business groups and Democrats embrace the misleading, industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants. The alternative “fairness” polls show that voters put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors, and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. The political power of the voters’ fairness priorities was made clear during the GOP primaries and again in November 2016.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.
But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.
Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.
Read it all here.

Do the DACA kids realize they've been used?

The Democrats backed away from their threat to shut the government down if Congress didn't amnesty Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients. This should be a clue to DACA recipients that they had been used as political tools all along.
Because for awhile there, nothing was more important to Democrats than getting these foreigners the benefits of U.S. residency and citizenship. They wouldn't budge. Border control had to go, too. They'd never bend, they said. It was baffling. They were willing to shut the entire government down if DACA recipients didn't get to stay here, even though there were only 800,000 of them and not all would take advantage of it? Even with chain migration, it was a relatively small number compared to the 300-million-plus size of the U.S. Would they really shut the government down for this relatively small group of politically useful foreigners?
Nope, they caved in and folded like a cheap suit when word got around that shutting down the government would mean the voters would blame the Democrats. Political expediency concentrates their minds. So long, DACA kids. Net result, DACA recipients got a temporary fix for a few years, not amnesty and free citizenship ahead of all the people waiting in line.
Politics is what Democrats operate on, not altruism. And DACA was political for them. Ever since the 2008 Democratic Convention, Democrats have propounded the "narrative" that Latino voters were the future, Latino voters were taking over the U.S., Latino voters would be decisive in every election and Latino voters would almost exclusively vote Democrat. Translation: Dems would rule forever. So of course they'd be willing to shut the government down on behalf of DACA recipients.
But they didn't. Trump got elected and they pitched their precious DACA recipients over the side to preserve their political advantages against him. Bye bye, DACA kids.
DACA recipients should take this Democrat behavior into account, and start to work with Republicans.
Perhaps now they can come up with some better solutions to their debacle by focusing on how to redo their immigration legally, how to ensure that consequence-free border crossing never happens again, and how to make themselves attractive as immigration candidates, not just the obedient sad sacks Democrats want to rope into their political machine.

STAGNANT WAGES and the Dem Party’s obsession with open borders, amnesty and no damned legal need apply!


The Democratic Party used to be the party of blue collar America- supporting laws and policies that benefited that segment of the U.S. population.  Their leaders may still claim to be advocates for American working families, however their duplicitous actions that betray American workers and their families, while undermining national security and public safety, provide clear and incontrovertible evidence of their lies…. MICHAEL CUTLER …FRONTPAGE mag

Attorney General Jeff Sessions blasts Trump’s DACA sell out…. Will Sessions move to impeach the Swamp Keeper who hired 70 illegals to work “cheap” at Mar Lago?


"Thousands of young people have also been drawn into the abuse of opioids, spurred on by the lack of job opportunities and the predatory drug companies. Opioid overdoses claimed the lives of about 64,000 Americans last year, a jump of 21 percent over the previous year, according to new figures release by the Centers for Disease Control."

It is no wonder that a new report from the American Psychological Association, “Stress in America: The State of Our Nation,” reveals that nearly two thirds of Americans (63 percent) are “really, really, really stressed” about the future of the United States. This stress about the future of America supersedes even the usual suspects: money (62 percent) and work (61 percent).

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and 

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio 

Villaraigosa….. Members of the racist, violent, 

fascist M.E.Ch.A. separatist movement.

Democratic Party faction calls 2016 election “train 

wreck,” proposes relationship with pseudo-left

By Eric London
8 November 2017
One year after the 2016 general election, the Democratic Party faces a crisis of historic proportions. Deep divisions are emerging from the party’s efforts to respond to Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat.
At the end of October, a group of Democratic politicos associated with Bernie Sanders’ campaign published a 34-page “autopsy” of the 2016 election. Calling the Democratic campaign a “train wreck,” the authors conclude that the party must respond to growing discontent since “many view the party as often in service to a rapacious oligarchy and increasingly out of touch with people in its own base.”
The authors lament the fact that “since Obama’s victory in 2008, the Democratic Party has lost control of both houses of Congress and more than 1,000 state legislative seats. The GOP now controls the governorship as well as the entire legislature in 26 states.”
When viewed historically, the Democratic collapse is, in fact, extraordinary. Outside of the 1919-23 postwar Republican revival and the 1894 Democratic midterm disaster, the Democratic drop-off from 2008 to the present is unprecedented in the post-Civil War period.
After the 2008 elections, the Democratic Party won 60 of 100 US Senate seats and a 79-seat majority in the House of Representatives (257 to 178). On the state level, it held 29 of 50 governor's seats while also controlling both chambers of state legislatures in 27 states compared to 14 for Republicans, with 8 split. The party had a favorability rating of 62 percent compared to 31 percent unfavorable.
Nine years later, the Democrats have been swept from large majorities in both houses in Congress while, on the state level, Democratic losses are even more revealing. The party controls only 15 governor's seats and is a majority of both houses of state legislatures in just 14 states, all of which (with the exceptions of New Mexico and Illinois) are on the Pacific or Northeast coasts. Between California and New York there is not a single state with a Democratic governor and Democratic majorities in both state legislatures, and only 7 in total. This is the lowest level of state Democratic legislative control since at least the 1920s.
According to a CNN poll released on November 7, the Democratic Party is just as hated as Donald Trump, with a favorability rating of just 37 percent. Fifty-four percent of people view the party unfavorably, the worst showing for the Democrats since polling on party favorability began in 1992.
The “Democratic Autopsy” states that the historic drop-off in Democratic support in the working class and among youth threatens to transform the party into a permanent rump and open the way for the growth of independent opposition on the left. The authors warn that the Democrats will be obliterated if they do not appeal to populist sentiments: “We live in a time of unrest and justified cynicism towards those in power; Democrats will not win if they continue to bring a wonk knife to a populist gunfight.”
According to the authors of the Democratic Autopsy, the fundamental challenge for the party is how to present itself as left-wing and thereby prevent electoral collapse.
There are two components to accomplishing this task, they state. The first requirement is internal party reform of the primary process to eliminate the popular conception that the party is corrupt. In addition, the authors suggest that the party should hire more minority contractors and political staff, make changes to party financing rules to appear “anti-corporate,” and bring Sanders supporters into the official party machine. There is a definite fear, held not just by Sanders supporters (as evidenced by former DNC interim head Donna Brazile’s new book) that ongoing Clinton family domination of the party apparatus amounts to an electoral death sentence.
The second element of the party’s proposed reorientation requires allying with the trade union and “social movement” apparatus, including elements of the pseudo-left.
The authors of the report warn of “numerous reports of deep cynicism among voters” during the campaign that “mirrored the vast discontent so unmistakably expressed in recent protests.” The party apparatus recognized popular hostility among Flint residents to Clinton’s campaign stop, for example, as well as the refusal of the mother of a victim of police violence to share a platform with the candidate.
The authors noted that Sanders’ adoption of the Occupy Wall Street slogan “We are the 99 percent” yielded significant electoral results. They argue: “Democratic Party leaders at the DNC and throughout the country must build relationships with social movements on the basis of genuine cooperation and coalition building.”
They explain, “The ebb and flow of social movements offer a rising tide in their own right that along the way can lift Democratic Party candidates—if the party is able to embrace the broad popular sentiment that the movements embody… [F]ailing to make genuine common cause with grassroots outlooks can undermine campaign enthusiasm, volunteers, online participation, recurring small-donor contributions, and turnout at election time.”
Who are the forces with which this faction of the Democratic Party proposes to “build relationships?” This is further elaborated in the document. The report sees a key lesson in the “Fight for $15” campaign, which it claimed “show[ed] the power of union activism teaming up with non-union advocates for workers… That growth would certainly help to expand the middle class and, with it, support for the party.”
The Fight for $15 is a coalition that involves trade union bureaucracies and “non-union advocates” including pseudo-left groups like Socialist Alternative, which has played a central role in the bureaucracies’ campaign to bring service workers into the trade union fold.
The “Autopsy” document also explains that the Democrats will have to “build relationships” with groups that call themselves socialist:
“Young people are more and more rejecting capitalist politics,” the report notes, criticizing the Democratic leadership for its “inability to tap into this sentiment.” The authors are concerned that “young voters are moving leftward but identify less with the nominally ‘left’ major party.”
Popular opposition to war also threatens to break free of the Democratic Party stranglehold. The report acknowledges that former defense secretary Leon Panetta was interrupted with cries of “no more war” from younger delegates and adds, “While public support for ongoing war on many fronts has ebbed, the Democratic Party’s top leadership has continued to avidly back it. This disconnect not only depresses enthusiasm and support—reflected in donations, volunteer energies, turnout and votes—from the party’s traditional base; it also undermines Democratic capacities to draw in voters who identify as independent or have gravitated to another party.”
The report does not, of course, propose that the party transform itself into an antiwar party, but rather mildly suggests that Democrats distinguish between unnecessary wars and “defense of our country.”
The reader senses a nervous tone when the “Democratic Autopsy” references youth and workers who are gravitating to other parties, don’t identify as Democrats, and are increasingly interested in socialism. The authors are concerned that the Democratic Party has lost sight of its fundamental modern role, dating back to the emergence of industrial and agricultural populism in the late 1800s, to subsume popular protest, nullify the elements that threaten private property and corporate profit, and sustain an electoral and political legitimacy by enacting certain limited reforms.

Representatives of the pseudo-left have long since championed an alliance with the “left wing” of the Democratic Party on this basis, justifying it with the need to gain access to “political space,” etc. But the Democrats are now acknowledging what the real purpose of such a relationship would be: prop up one of the two parties of corporate rule at precisely the moment it is rightly reviled by the population and thereby block the growth of social opposition from developing in a revolutionary socialist direction.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Former Los 

Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa….. Members of the racist, 

violent, fascist M.E.Ch.A. separatist movement.

Poll: CA Dems in Trouble Over High Costs, Jobs, Taxes & Illegal Aliens

California Democrats could be in trouble in 2018, with the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll finding registered voters’ top concerns are the traditionally Republican issues of high cost of living, jobs, taxes, and illegal immigrants.
The USC poll found that the most important concerns for voters are the high cost of living, at 21.8 percent; followed by jobs, at 9.9 percent; taxes and fees, at 8.9 percent; and illegal immigration, at 6.9 percent.
Traditionally Democrat social justice issues tended to be near the bottom of poll concerns, with racism at 1.9 percent; education at 1.4 percent; poverty at 1.2 percent; and the bullet train at just 0.2 percent. The strongest single issue for Democrats is the 5 percent of voters concerned about Republican President Donald Trump.
Women voters are more concerned than men regarding the high cost of living, at 22.6 percent; jobs at 10.1 percent; and illegal immigration at 7.7 percent. Women are about a third less concerned than the average voter about taxes and fees at 6.9 percent; but only half as concerned about the environment, at 2.4 percent (as opposed to 4.4 percent for men).
In what may be the political equivalent for Democrats of the dead canary in the mine shaft, women are concerned more concerned that California is headed in the wrong direction by 57.6 percent, versus 53.6 percent for men.
Concerns about high costs are the most important issue for all age groups, but 18-to-44-year-olds are the most, concerned at 22.9 percent. Younger voters are much less concerned with taxes and fees at 5.1 percent, compared to 11.4 percent of 44-to-64-year-olds, and 12.2 percent for those 65 and up. But young voters, shockingly, are more concerned than average voters about illegal immigration at 7.4 percent.
Hispanics voters are less than half as concerned as white voters about taxes, at 5 percent; a third less about President Trump, at 4 percent; and only one-fifth as concerned about California state government, at 1.2 percent. But Hispanics are almost twice as concerned about jobs. Surprisingly, Hispanics are only slightly less concerned than the average voter about illegal immigration at 6.2 percent.
On an income basis, Californians making less than $50,000 per year are a third more concerned about jobs, at 13.4 percent, than the average voter. But almost shockingly, voters that make under $50,000 are slightly more concerned about taxes and fees at 9 percent than higher income voters at 8.8 percent. Generally lower-income non-college graduates are most concerned about taxes and fees, at 9.4 percent, compared to generally higher income college graduates, at only 6.1 percent.
California voters favor cancelling the gas tax and fees to build infrastructure (supposedly) by 54.2 percent to 45.8 percent. Voters that make under $50,000 are the most in favor of canceling the gas tax by 57.6 percent, versus 52.5 percent of those making over $50,000. Women oppose the gas tax by 53.3 percent, only slightly less than the 55.3 percent of men. The only demographic favoring the gas tax is 18-to-44-year-olds at just 50.3 percent.
With the 2018 election for governor heating up, the California politician with the highest statewide favorability rating is Gov. Jerry Brown at 40.3 percent. None of the 7 declared candidates for governor are in the top 12 for political favorability in the state.
Democrat Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is currently leading the race to replace termed-out Brown, with 24.5 percent support. But the race has narrowed with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, at 16.3 percent. Virtually unknown before he sponsored the gas tax repeal, Assemblyman Travis Allen (R-Huntington Beach) is in third at 11.8 percent.



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

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS to serve the filthy rich

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

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

OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US

history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.

OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to

the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 

"Like Katrina, Hurricane Harvey has lifted the lid on the ugly reality of American society, exposing colossal levels of social inequality, pervasive poverty and ruling class criminality."

"The reason why these warnings have been ignored is not hard to fathom. They have been resolutely opposed by corporate interests, including the real estate industry, Wall Street and Big Oil. Their ability, operating through bribed politicians of  both parties, to veto and block elementary measures to protect the American people, exemplifies the complete subordination of all social needs under capitalism to the selfish drive of a corporate-financial oligarchy to accumulate ever greater levels of personal wealth and profit."
THEY INVADE OVER AND UNDER OUR BORDERS… and do so by invitation of the Democrat Party.
Lawmen are worried that the cartel tunnel builders on the Mexican border are now using their engineered concoctions to smuggle illegals, not merely drugs.

That's what the Daily Caller has found, describing the new anxiety as one was discovered over the weekend, catching about 30 illegals coming in from Mexico and China. MONICA SHOWALTER – AMERICAN

Trump Turned US Red Because of Blue-Collar Surge, Black Indifference, Admits Progressives’ White Paper

Donald Trump won the presidency because non-college white votes surged towards the polls and because African-Americans walked away, says a new survey by the left-wing Center for American Progress.

The two shifts were critical for Trump’s breakthrough in the Democrats’ so-called “Blue Wall” in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin says the report, titled “Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination.”
Across these three key states, we found large shifts against Clinton among white non-college-educated voters, although typically not as large as those indicated by the exit polls. These shifts had the largest effects on Clinton’s fortunes in these states; had they not occurred she would have carried all three states easily …
In terms of black support, we estimate that the shifts in black support against Clinton were greater in all three states than was shown by the exit polls. And in two of the three states—Michigan and Pennsylvania—these shifts in black support were more important to Clinton’s losses than the decline in black turnout.
Turnout among non-college white voters surged from 54.3 percent in 2012 up to 57.3 percent in 2016, ensuring their share of the overall electorate dropped by just one point to 44.8 percent, even as Latinos and Asians nudged up by 1.4 percent to 14.4 percent. Moreover, many blue-collar Democrats pulled the lever for a third-party, allowing Trump to win two blue-collar white votes for every one which went to Clinton.
Turnout among blacks dropped sharply, from 62.1 percent in 2012 to 57.7 percent in 2016, pushing their share of the electorate down from 13 percent in 2012 to 11.9 percent in 2016.
Those two trends did in Clinton’s hopes, the report says, even though she got a larger share of the growing population of college-educated whites.
Turnout among college-educated whites from 77.6 percent to 79.5 percent, boosting their share of the electorate from 28.2 percent to 28.9 percent in 2016. The Democrats’ share of this group nudged up from 49.4 percent in 22012 to 50.1 percent in 2016, but it did not do Clinton much good because that group proved to be a much smaller portion than expected.
The November 1 report does not try to explain why Trump managed to motivate the surge of blue-collar voters, partly because the answer is likely Trump’s pro-American immigration policy. That is very unwelcome reality for the Democratic Party to accept, partly because it has based its political strategy for more than a decade on maximising the flow of poor, unassimilated, government-dependent immigrant voters into the polling booths.
In fact, one of the report’s authors, Ruy Teixeira, led that trend by publishing a 2002 book, titled The Emerging Democratic Majority. The book predicted that upper-income professionals and feminists would be able to mobilize working-class Americans and immigrants to vote Democratic, but they failed to understand how the political interest of the upper-income professional and feminists — such as greater civic diversity, free trade, cheap-labor migration, and sexual autonomy — would prove so harmful to blue-collar Americans.
President Barack Obama knew his progressive policies strained the Democratic coalition, but he didn’t moderate his reach for power. For example, Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope.” that the “huge influx of mostly low-skill [immigrant] workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole… [but] it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans.” However, eggs and omelets, because “in my mind, at least, the fates of black and brown were to be perpetually intertwined, the cornerstone of a coalition that could help America live up to its promise,” he wrote.
Industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls show that Americans want to welcome migrants. But “fairness” polls show that voters put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. That political power of that higher priority was made clear in November 2016 when Americans put Trump in the White House.
Similarly, Obama admitted after the election that his promotion of the transgender ideology also hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances, saying:
There are clearly, though, failures on our part to give people in rural areas or in exurban areas, a sense day-to-day that we’re fighting for them or connected to them. Some of it is the prism through which they’re seeing the political debate take place. They may know less about the work that my administration did on trying to promote collective bargaining or overtime rules. But they know a lot about the controversy around transgender bathrooms because it’s more controversial, it attracts more attention.
To win back the White House, the authors urged Democrats to boost support among working-class whites and non-whites. But they do not discuss how the Democrats’ fervent support for immigrants and social outsiders makes it more difficult for them to win mainstream white or black votes. In fact, the report does not even mention immigration, as it though urges the party to do more of everything:
Rather than deciding whether to focus on (1) increasing turnout and mobilization of communities of color, a key component of the Democratic base, or (2) renewing efforts to persuade and win back some segment of white non-college-educated voters and to increase inroads among the white college-educated population, Democrats would clearly benefit from pursuing a political strategy capable of doing both.
Increasing the turnout of voters of color to Obama-level numbers, particularly among African Americans, would have turned the election narrowly in the Democrats’ favor. If black turnout and support rates in 2016 had matched 2012 levels, Democrats would have held Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and flipped North Carolina, for a 323 to 215 Electoral College victory. So increasing engagement, mobilization, and representation of people of color must remain an important and sustained goal of Democrats. They cannot expect to win and expand their representation in other offices without the full engagement and participation of voters who are black, Latino, and Asian American or other race.
At the same time, the Democrats would have made even larger gains in most states if they had successfully held President Obama’s 2012 margin among white voters without a college degree, regardless of turnout. Under this scenario, Democrats would have held Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin for a 314 to 224 Electoral College victory. Given the fact that the white non-college-educated voting population is almost four times larger as a share of the electorate than is the black voting population, it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from the white non-college-educated voting bloc—even just reducing the deficit to something more manageable, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012.
The CAP’s three progressive authors also fail to note the party’s postgraduate-professional leaders have their own self-interests — including cooperation with major business interests, encouragement of immigrant labor and aggressive enforcement of diversity — — which are also lethal to the future of another Democratic constituency, white-collar college graduates.
Many of those graduates are watching the Democrats’ policies ensure more good jobs get automated, outsourced or stigmatized. That trend creates an opportunity for Trump to boost his share of that voting bloc by reducing white-collar outsourcing, often via unpopular guest-worker programs.
The authors are apparently so alarmed by their data that they warn Democrats that Trump can win again in 2020:
President Trump can conceivably reconstruct his primarily white coalition from 2016 with very few changes and still eke out a narrow Electoral College victory in 2020. But this assumes that Democrats do little to either increase the turnout of voters of color or to make inroads with disaffected white Trump voters, particularly Obama-Trump voters.
Read the entire report here.

By Patrick Martin
6 November 2017
The political crisis in the Democratic Party, brought to the surface with the publication Thursday of excerpts of a campaign memoir by the former interim chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Donna Brazile, erupted into mutual denunciations over the weekend.
Brazile made public an unprecedented agreement between the DNC (under previous chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign that involved Clinton paying off the DNC’s debts and providing it a monthly subsidy in return for gaining control over the appointment of DNC officials and the right of approval over key operational decisions.
The deal was concluded in August 2015, six months before the first votes were to be cast in caucuses or primaries, when the DNC was required by its own rules to remain neutral in the contest between Clinton, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and several other candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.
A further revelation from Brazile’s book was made public Saturday: she acknowledged discussions among leading Democrats in September 2016, after Hillary Clinton had collapsed at a ceremony in New York City marking the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, over whether Clinton should be replaced as the presidential candidate because of health concerns. Brazile writes that she herself considered Vice President Joe Biden as the logical replacement, but did not make the proposal.
Within hours of this report, 100 former Clinton campaign aides, headed by campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mook, put their signatures on an open letter denouncing Brazile’s criticism of the Clinton campaign.
The “Open Letter From Hillary For America 2016 Team” makes use of the same Russia-baiting technique employed by the Democrats in their political conflict with the Trump White House, but this time directed against a former top Democrat. In assailing Brazile, the first paragraph of the open letter declares: “It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate’s health.”
The health questions about Clinton were fueled, however, not by Moscow, but by video broadcast over American cable television networks showing the candidate being lifted into a vehicle by aides and Secret Service agents, in visible distress. The characteristic duplicity of top campaign officials, who initially sought to conceal the incident, added to the ensuing furor.
Even more revealing is what is missing from the Clinton camp’s “Open Letter”: there is no reference whatsoever to the main revelation stemming from Brazile’s book—the secret joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, six months before the first caucus in Iowa, giving Clinton effective control of the party apparatus. The Clinton aides do not dispute that this backroom deal occurred and make no attempt to justify it.
On Sunday morning, Brazile appeared on the ABC News program “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” The host, himself a former top political aide in the White House of Bill Clinton, provided a platform for Brazile to repeat her exposure of the collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC and discuss the “Open Letter” from the former Clinton campaign officials.
She bitterly denounced the Clinton camp, both for its treatment of the DNC while she was in charge, and for their ferocious response to her new book. “George, for those who are telling me to shut up, they told Hillary that a couple of months ago,” Brazile declared. “You know what I tell them? Go to hell! I’m going to tell my story.”
Brazile also touched on a topic of intense but largely behind-the-scenes discussion in official Washington: the July 2016 murder of Seth Rich, a low-level IT staffer at the DNC, who was shot to death in what police called a failed robbery attempt. The Trump White House and ultra-right media allies, including Alex Jones of InfoWars and Sean Hannity of Fox News, have portrayed Rich, rather than Russian hackers, as the likely source for the DNC emails obtained by WikiLeaks, and his killing as a retaliatory “hit” ordered by the Clinton campaign.
Brazile reportedly suggests in her book—which will not be available to the public until Tuesday—that Rich’s death, warnings from the Obama administration about Russian hacking and repeated online threats from Trump supporters had made her extremely concerned about security issues, to the point where she had her home swept for bugs and installed multiple security devices. In her interview Sunday with Stephanopoulos, she spoke of her fears for her own personal safety. Her mention of Seth Rich, entirely unsolicited, seemed a veiled warning to the Clinton camp that more revelations about 2016 campaign skullduggery could be forthcoming.
Current DNC Chair Tom Perez was interviewed Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC and directly rejected the two main issues raised by Brazile. He maintained, “The charge that Hillary Clinton was somewhere incapacitated is quite frankly ludicrous,” although he did not attribute that concern to Russian propaganda.
He went on to argue that Clinton won the Democratic primary contest by four million votes, and the DNC was not in control of those elections, which are run by the state governments, while noting that the caucuses, which are controlled by the party apparatus, were mostly won by Sanders, not Clinton. Perez would concede only that “the DNC fell short during critical moments of the primary,” in terms of openly favoring Clinton over Sanders.
Significantly, neither Sanders nor any of his top aides or supporters made an appearance on any of the Sunday television talk shows. Sanders issued a statement on Brazile’s revelations suggesting that the conduct of the 2016 campaign was a diversion from the effort to mobilize opposition to the Trump administration.
The fact is that Brazile informed Sanders of the joint fundraising agreement and the takeover of the DNC by Clinton more than a year ago, and he has chosen to say nothing about it. This is part of his effort to prop up the Democratic Party and prevent the millions of working people and youth who supported his campaign from drawing the political conclusion that it is necessary to break with the Democrats in order to conduct any genuine struggle against the billionaires who dominate the US political system.
The conflict within the Democratic Party has erupted under conditions where the Republican Party is bordering on civil war, with several Republican senators denouncing Trump as a threat to American democracy—and then announcing they would retire from office rather than oppose him—and a vicious conflict developing between the party establishment and the fascist-minded elements around Trump, spearheaded by his former chief political aide and campaign manager, Stephen Bannon, now returned to his position as chief executive of the ultra-right Breitbart News.
In recent days, it has been reported that in an upcoming book titled The Last Republicans, the author cites interviews with George H. W. Bush and his son George W. Bush in which the two last Republican presidents before Trump denounce the current occupant of the White House and reveal that they refused to vote for him in 2016. In response, Trump tweeted an attack on his Republican presidential critics.
The ABC “This Week” program on which Brazile was interviewed began with the presentation of a new Washington Post/ABC News poll showing public support for Trump falling to its low point for the year, only 37 percent, with 59 percent opposing. Trump’s showing was the worst for any first-year president since modern polling began. Other polls have shown public support for the Republican-controlled Congress hitting new lows as well.
The vast majority of working people are increasingly alienated from the two-party political system in the United States, correctly regarding both the Democrats and the Republicans as tools of the super-rich and looking for an alternative. The central political question is the building of a political movement of the working class that will fight the capitalist system as a whole and advance a program to defend jobs, living standards and democratic rights, and oppose imperialist war.


"Apparently, it isn't politically correct to talk about such high crimes.  That may be the opinion of our absentee attorney general, who has turned a blind eye not only to this shocking ad, but also to Hillary's potentially treasonous sellout of 20% of America's uranium to the Russians, for a $145-million payment to her, um, charitable foundation." By Cherie Zaslawsky

Former Democratic chairman reveals Clinton rigging of 2016 nomination campaign

By Patrick Martin
4 November 2017
The Hillary Clinton campaign used its financial resources to take control of the Democratic National Committee more than six months before the first primary vote, using the party machinery to insure Clinton won the presidential nomination, according to a new book by a top Democratic insider.
Donna Brazile, longtime vice chairman of the party, campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000, and interim chairman of the DNC from July 2016 to February 2017, makes the explosive revelation in her newly published account, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House.
A chapter of the book was excerpted Thursday on the Politico web site, under the headline, “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.” Brazile writes that soon after she became interim chairman after the Democratic convention in July 2016, she began investigating charges of collaboration between the previous DNC chair, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the Clinton campaign.
She discovered in the DNC files a signed agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, dated August 2015, in which the Clinton campaign was given effective control of DNC decision-making in return for bailing out the DNC financially.
The DNC was near bankruptcy, and Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook agreed to pay off its $10 million debt and provide a monthly stipend, which ultimately totaled another $10 million. Brazile continues: “in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
Brazile admits the grossly anti-democratic character of this arrangement, given that the Democratic presidential nomination was a contest between at least five candidates at that point, two of them, Clinton and Sanders, with substantial support. In all previous such contested races, the rules of the DNC had required it to remain neutral.
“The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal,” she claims, “but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”
Brazile is defensive about the legality of the arrangement, for good reason: it involved a brazen effort to evade restrictions imposed by federal campaign finance laws, which limit to $2,700 the amount that an individual can give to a presidential campaign.
Under the deal brokered with the DNC, wealthy donors could pump $353,400 into the party’s coffers, $10,000 to each of 32 state parties that participated in the scam, and $33,400 to the DNC itself, in each case, the maximum allowed under federal law. All these funds would be deposited in the accounts of the various state parties and the DNC. Most states would send their money back to the DNC, and the DNC would funnel the whole sum to the Clinton campaign. In the end, the state parties retained less than one percent of the $82 million raised in this effort.
Similar money trails have been a staple of both Democratic and Republican fund-raising efforts for the last several presidential election cycles, but the 2016 campaign was the first in which such flimflam was conducted before the party had selected a presidential nominee, and months before a single vote had been cast in a caucus or primary.
There are several important aspects of the Brazile account. It confirms that the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks—which the US intelligence agencies and the media claim, without providing evidence, were obtained through Russian hackers—provided an accurate picture of the collaboration between top DNC officials and the Clinton campaign. The leaked emails were damaging to Clinton because they were true, not because they were false, or “fake news.”
Some 12 million people, with a preponderance of youth and students, voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, attracted by his claim to be a socialist and his denunciation of the grip of “millionaires and billionaires” on the US economy and political system.
But he was seeking the presidential nomination of one of the two parties controlled by the billionaires and unshakably committee to their interests, as demonstrated by the blatant purchase of the DNC for $20 million by Hillary Clinton, the favored candidate of the financial aristocracy in 2016.
The US ruling elite was shocked and surprised by the mass support for a candidate claiming to be socialist—none more so than Sanders himself. His major service to Wall Street was to divert this popular following back into safe channels, by wrapping up his campaign and throwing his support to Hillary Clinton at the convention.
Brazile notes in her memoir that she called Sanders in September 2016 to tell him about her discovery of a formal agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC. “I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process,” she writes.
She described the joint fund-raising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, telling Sanders, “I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” but pleading with him, “But I will not kill the patient.”
Brazile continues: “Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?”
This gives a glimpse of the real politics of Sanders, who agreed to Brazile’s entreaty not to “kill the patient,” i.e., expose the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign by making public this stinking backroom deal.
Some of Sanders’s former campaign aides have vocally denounced the DNC and the Clinton campaign in the wake of Brazile’s revelations. Mark Longabaugh, a former adviser, called the DNC-Clinton deal “outrageous,” while former campaign manager Jeff Weaver called it “egregious” and “undemocratic,” while described the fundraising scheme as “a laundering operation.”
But Sanders himself continued to downplay the revelation, suggesting that to focus on the 2016 campaign was a diversion from opposing the policies of the Trump administration. After President Trump tweeted about the Brazile book, calling for a Justice Department investigation, Sanders responded, also on Twitter, “We won't be distracted from your efforts to give billionaires tax cuts, take health care from millions and deny climate change.”

The FBI and the Deep-State.  James Comey.  Eric Holder.  Loretta Lynch.  The Clintons.  Barrack Obama.  The leftist news media.  Real collusion, with a real crime.
"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -




Rep. DeSantis: ‘We Know 

Now Without a Shadow of a 

Doubt’ Hillary and Democrats 

Colluded with Russia

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) spoke with Breitbart News DailySiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday regarding a proposed Mueller amendment to limit the special counsel investigation to between March 2015 and the present, and also tax reform in the House.

“We know now without a shadow of a doubt that the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, paid Fusion GPS and Steele to acquire this dossier, which required colluding with Russian operatives and Russian nationals. So, they produced this dossier and I believe, yesterday I called for the FBI, the Justice Department to declassify all the FISA applications involving Trump associates because what I think happened is, I think they used the information from this dossier to be able to get surveillance on Trump and his associates.”
“And then the fruits of that,” he continued, “formed the basis of what had been leaked to the press over the first three or four months of Trump’s White House.”
DeSantis also discussed the Uranium One scandal and the pending tax reform bill in detail. The full audio is available below.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

October 30, 2017

The Mother of All Scandals

There is an answer to Hillary’s question, “What Happened?” 
And yes, it should be considered a dumb question rather than a book title.  But the short answer to her question is:  She fooled almost the entire left, for over two decades.  Oh wait, that was a book title, not a question.
And therein lies her biggest problem.  She’s not really asking the question as she should be, she’s not reflecting.  Instead, she’s wagging a finger and blaming everyone else for her loss.
Back to the Clintons fooling the left.  Let’s start counting the ways.  She was not just smart, she was the smartest woman ever.  She was fully competent and capable in everything.  She fought bravely for all the right issues.  She was more qualified to be President than anyone who preceded her.  She was, and is, the bright moral compass pointing the way forward to the left (who they believe should be all of us).  She was the Yin to her husband’s Yang.  They were the best power couple ever, a beacon of truth shining in the darkness.
Except they weren’t.  She has proved that over time, and her book tour is confirming it.
And the left is about to melt down as she and hubby finally are revealed for who they are.  Who are they?  In a nutshell, they are the left’s version of Elmer Gantry: frauds who love adulation, and even more, love money, power, and fame.  If you think the left melted down when Trump won, wait until they have the scales fall from their eyes as this new scandal engulfs her and her party. 
Because this is the mother of all scandals.
Trump has used his branding genius on this scandal already.  He called it this generation’s Watergate.  Which has to grate on the left, the media has once again been duly trolled.  After all, nothing was worse than Richard Nixon.  Ever.  Now, most have heard the media scoundrels use the term dog-whistle.  It’s overused, and abused on the left, a smirk, a knowing wink and they all come alive, cackling when they use it.  Well, Trump just whistled for them.  "Watergate, Modern Age."
Watergate.  The Holy Grail of the left’s media triumph.
But he has done more than just dog-whistle, or throw the media a tweet to drive them crazy.  He’s been slowly amassing information and evidence about the mother of all scandals.  Tom Clancy at his best could not have written a more exciting thriller.  Which is what we are watching. 
I have a burning question.  What did the President (Trump) know, and when did he know it?  Because if there has ever been a more exquisite time to bear down and stay on this scandal, it’s now.  My take:  He has slowly amassed a giant dossier of evidence, but this one isn’t fake, it’s very real.  He announced it.  Listen to the dog-whistle.
“Watergate, Modern Age.”
Trump has many sides, and one of them is his rough and tumble, shoot from the hip side.  Say things that shouldn’t be said, tweet at four in the morning to drive his enemies crazy.  Keep moving, keep pressing, never back down.  Never surrender to political correctness.  Show them shiny objects as distraction, but stay the course.
Another side, seldom paid attention to, is his ability to craft a long-term strategy.  Couple that with his highly developed instincts about how to implement that strategy, and you have one formidable opponent on your hands.  One who loves to win.  One who formulates a goal, and pursues it relentlessly. 
Ask his GOP primary opponents.  Ask Hillary.  On second thought, don’t, because she will never know what happened to her, because she never wanted to know what was happening.  She was too busy luxuriating in her ill-gotten gains.  While she was breaking out rare champagne on her campaign plane, Trump was busy visiting the battleground states.  While she celebrated prematurely, he was in Grand Rapids, Michigan in the early morning of November 8, with a final push to eke out that state’s electoral votes.
It’s this side of Trump that we are witnessing.
The left’s being fooled began a long time ago, but the country began to see it when they had a massive hissy fit about Hillary losing.  Safe spaces and therapy were all they had to comfort them.  And “resisting.”  We all have witnessed their psychosis for the better part of a year now.  One ugly toddler tantrum after another.  And it’s not just their leaders and media stooges. 
As a nation we have just endured, and will continue to endure the Weinstein scandal, and have seen the squalid underbelly of the left’s cultural greats.  The collusion to hide just how ugly, hypocritical, and immoral the culture of the left, as embodied by Hollywood, is out there for the entire country to see.  This is who the left is.   Ugly, hypocritical, greedy, and without conscience.
And on the left they’re shocked, shocked to see just how squalid they all are.  All the actors and actresses who benefited from their silence suddenly are not so silent.  So brave, all these years later.  But they put up with everything they preen on about hating, and put up with it for decades while making money and having fame.  The left has been in CYA mode for weeks now over this scandal, trying so hard to get people to look elsewhere, anywhere but linking it to one of the Democratic Party’s most faithful fundraisers and bundlers.  He was the Clinton’s good friend.  This was a big wound to the left, and will fester.
The big shoe dropped when Trump branded the Uranium One scandal in his impromptu press conference.  It had to be covered.  And Hillary Clinton has now responded.  With denials.  Sarah Huckabee Sanders has doubled down, saying:
"I think that this further proves if there was anyone that was colluding with the Russians to influence the election look no further than the Clintons and the DNC. Hypocrisy at the highest level and a new low in politics. Everything the Clinton campaign and DNC were falsely accusing the president of doing the past year they were doing it themselves." 
And now the FBI witness has been cleared to speak to Congress.
And now there are calls for new congressional investigations.  And calls for special counsels to investigate the Uranium One deal.
And the Republicans have grown a spine, joining in these calls.  The theory of evolution is proven.  Jellyfish evolve.
As the weekend began Friday night, the reaction came: word was leaked that a charge has been referred to a grand jury by Special Counsel Mueller, with an indictment and arrest expected as early as today.  It is a choreographed diversion, providing an excuse for Hillary’s media allies to avert their gaze from the unfolding trap.   The question is, is it the “deep state” Mueller trying to shift away from the Clinton scandals that have erupted, or is Mueller simply doing his job well? 
Leaks over the weekend also suggest this is about Manafort’s associations with the Podesta Group, and not Trump.  Leaks suggest it is about illicit money transfers, aka money laundering, back in 2012 and even in earlier years.  Obviously, that has nothing to do with Trump.
Either way, all of Trump’s ducks are lining up.  Even if Mueller is indicting someone to obfuscate and change the news cycle, the jig is up.  There is too much information exploding about Uranium One, and it’s not going away.   If he indicts Manafort over his ties to the Podesta Group, then the news cycle is about to explode.  I suspect this is what is happening, but we should know today.  
Trump’s position looks good, he looks happy when he talks, and has for many weeks.  He is in control.  He sees the long game, and knows he is holding all the cards. It appears he has entrapped them all in this scandal called Uranium One.   The FBI and the 

Deep-State.  James Comey.  Eric Holder.  Loretta 

Lynch.  The Clintons.  Barrack Obama.  The leftist

news media.  Real collusion, with a real crime.
And it really is the mother of all scandals.  Allowing the sale of 20% of US uranium for money.  The biggest breach in national security since the Rosenbergs gave away the atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union.
All of Trump’s ducks are lining up.  Trump looks happy when he talks, and has for many weeks.  He is in control.  He sees the long game, and knows he is holding all the cards.
It appears he has entrapped them all in this scandal called Uranium One.   The FBI and the Deep-State.  James Comey.  Eric Holder.  Loretta Lynch.  The Clintons.  Barrack Obama.  The leftist news media.  Real collusion, with a real crime.
And it really is the mother of all scandals.  

Allowing the sale of 20% of US uranium for 

money.  The biggest breach in national security 

since the Rosenbergs gave away the atomic bomb 

secrets to the Soviet Union.



Hillary, Billary, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Harvey Weinstein and their boy Obomb….. new definitions of
degradation and sleaze.                          

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom


LOOTER OF THE POOR….. But she served Obama’s crony bank$ter$ well!

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -

THE DIRTY DEALS of DIRTY HILLARY….. looting anything that moves!
Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -

Donald Trump Challenges Jeff

Sessions: ‘Where Is Our 

Justice Department’ on Hillary 


President Donald Trump signaled frustration with the Justice Department’s failure to respond to the ongoing scandals involving the Clinton family, the DNC, the FBI, and the “phony” Russian sourced dossier.

“A lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday morning before leaving for his trip to Asia.
Trump said that the Justice Department should be investigating Democrats and the Clintons, sharing several observations on Twitter.
“This is real collusion and dishonesty,” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday night, responding to Donna Brazile’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was controlling DNC operations and fundraising well before winning her primary.

....This is real collusion and dishonesty. Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering - where is our Justice Department?

“Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department?” Trump wondered.
The president appears unhappy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions failure to investigate the Clintons, despite recent revelations about their “crooked” behavior.
Trump said he thought Clinton’s “deleted E-mails, Uranium, Podesta, the Server, plus, plus…” all deserved closer scrutiny.
“People are angry,” Trump continued on Twitter. “At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!”
Trump also spoke about his frustration with the Justice Department in an interview with WMAL’s Larry O’Connor.
“The saddest thing is because I’m the President of the United States, I’m not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department, I am not supposed to be involved in the FBI,” Trump said. “I’m not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would love to be doing and I’m very frustrated by it.”
Trump indicated that he wanted the Justice Department to investigate the Clintons.
“I look at what’s going on with the Justice Department, well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails and dossier?” he asked. “It’s very discouraging to me. To be honest, I’m very unhappy about it.”
Trump signaled frustration with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to target the Clintons.
“Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems..

The president, however, appeared to be aware that he could not order the Justice Department to investigate.
“As a president, you’re not supposed to be involved in that process,” he admitted to Ingraham. “But hopefully are doing something. At some point, maybe we’re going to have it out.”

Bitter Hillary Supporters Blast 

Donna Brazile, Elizabeth 

Warren on Twitter over 

Rigged Primary Revelation

Following Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren’s allegations that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary elections against Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton supporters took to Twitter to express their anger.

Former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, recently claimed that Hillary Clinton’s team took control of the DNC before she won the primary elections against Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren corroborated Brazile’s claims, leading to many Hillary Clinton supporters expressing their anger at the two Democratic politicians via Twitter.
Failed Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean incorrectly stated that “no one has said the primaries were rigged.” Despite Warren herself agreeing to exactly that on video.

As usual, a big fat Lie. Despite all the problems at the DNC, No one has said the primaries were rigged. 

Many were quick to point out Dean’s mistake,

Other users attacked Warren and Brazile for daring to speak ill of Clinton.

Such patronizing attitudes from Elizabeth Warren & Donna Brazile. I voted for Hillary because she was a better candidate. It wasn't rigged.
Whether correct or not, Donna Brazile's handling and timing right before her book comes out make her actions seem more about lining her pockets than about helping the country or the Democratic party.   

Why is Donna Brazile & the Berners trying to take the focus off Mueller's investigation? There's the book...and I smell...rubles.

The timing of these statements from Donna Brazile & Elizabeth Warren is too close to elections for me to ever trust them again. Both frauds

 threw Hillary under the busagreed the DNC was rigged

Trump and Trump Jr are praising Warren and Brazile

Elizabeth Warren is obviously not who we thought she was. I won't support her, nor would I ever vote for her. Traitorous. 

Dear Donna Brazile, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,

You guys are why the Democrats can't have nice things.



“Democrats” I will not support in 2020:

1. Bernie Sanders
2. Elizabeth Warren
3. Joe Biden

The three of them can go to hell.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at

The Democrats’ Brand is Imploding

Just about all the associations the Democrats counted on to burnish their appeal to the public are in the process of discrediting themselves. The theory of branding tells us that associating one brand with another desirable brand helps it take on some of the luster. That’s why you see so many product endorsements, for instance.
For decades we have seen images of prominent Dems and Hollywood icons together, so much so that the brands are somewhat intertwined, meaning people feel sort of the same way about one as about the other.  Somewhat glamorous, or at least familiar. People we enjoy. Sometimes, even people we admire or even trust.
So, when one falls out of favor, the other tends to follow. That’s why scandals lead to cancellation of endorsements.
Hollywood is only the first citadel of evangelical liberalism, eager to mingle its brand with the Democrats so as to bring about political recruits. The #MeToo ethic of speaking out is spreading, and the details get gorier.
The key to understand the real impact of the spreading disillusionment is that many of the abusers coming to light were widely known to be harassers and were tolerated in the larger community. Everyone bought in, and were equally hypocritical, preaching their feminism as liberal intersectional dogma requires.
Now, it is turning out that a wide swath of supposedly enlightened progressive media figures have been somewhere on the spectrum between cad and criminal. Even in the refined (aka, pretentious) reaches of liberal media, purported intellectuals have behaved like brutish cave men.
Meanwhile, the Clinton Machine is being exposed for its Uranium One perfidy. There is evidence, and it is going to be revealed to Congress. Despite all the chaff thrown into the air around the AG’s purported inactivity (in truth: if something is underway, we do not know about it), facts and evidence are coming out. Nothing will happen overnight, if all the i’s are being dotted and t’s crossed.
Donna Brazile is the first Democrat insider to squeal on Hillary to try to save herself from taint and maybe legal jeopardy. There is every danger of the dam breaking, as it has with sexual abuse in Hollywood.
All of these associations are going to get worse before they get better. It takes time for brands to change, but they do.
 The Democrats may be in as big brand trouble as the NFL.

Rigging the Democrats’ nomination is just the icing on the cake when it comes to activity meriting a thorough investigation of criminal activity by the woman who, only a year ago, was presumed to become the 45th president.  Don’t forget Uranium One, Fusion GPS, keeping classified emails on an unsecured private server, deleting 33,000 emails under subpoena, and, well, you get the idea. Unfortunately, our AWOL AG Jeff Sessions, whose face was last seen on the side of a milk carton, does not. So, we are left with the absurdity of a special counsel looking into Trump-Russia collusion, where there is none, while overlooking the multiple Clinton elephants in the room.
The revelation that both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were funneling money through a law firm to Fusion GPS to produce a slimy and fake dossier on Trump culled from foreign sources was bad enough. Now we find, courtesy of the one truthful and remorseful Democrat on this planet, former DNC Chairperson Donna Brazile, that the DNC was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, who probably violated multiple FEC campaign laws in rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders and shifted cash around in a manner that could only be called -- what’s the word Robert Mueller would use? Ah, yes,  money-laundering:

In an excerpt from her upcoming book, Brazile says she discovered a document that explained why the Clinton campaign had such a stranglehold on the DNC. It was published in Politico Thursday.
“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard,” she wrote, “I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.”
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
Hillary Clinton staged a political coup worthy of a banana republic. Brazile has confirmed that Hillary Clinton was engaging in money-laundering to help her campaign.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, on Monday criticized a Hillary Clinton campaign fundraising scheme that state party leaders told Politico has been used as a self-serving “money-laundering” conduit.
Despite Clinton’s pledges to rebuild state parties, Politico found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in the state parties’ coffers.
“Secretary Clinton is looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign,” Weaver said. “We think the Clinton campaign should let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash.”
Sanders’ and Clinton’s primary campaigns both raised about $26 million in April, but Politico documented how the Hillary Victory Fund, a supposedly joint fundraising committee, has been exploited to inflate her presidential primary campaign.
“Secretary Clinton has exploited the rules in ways that let her high-dollar donors like Alice Walton of Wal-Mart fame and the actor George Clooney and his super-rich Hollywood friends skirt legal limits on campaign ontributions,” Weaver added. “If Secretary Clinton can’t raise the funds needed to run in a competitive primary without resorting to laundering, how will she compete against Donald Trump in a general election?”
Turns out that even with money-laundering, Hillary couldn’t win. On a recent edition of Fox News Sunday. House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, noted that in addition to laundering her campaign cash through her wholly-owned subsidiary, the DNC, Hillary Clinton used a law firm to funnel cash to Russia-linked Fusion GPS:
Gowdy said, “I’m not an election law expert, but the good news is you don’t have to be to understand the absurdity believing you can just launder all of your campaign money by just hiring a law firm. Imagine if you and I were running for Congress, and we just hired a law firm and said ‘Hey, you go to all the opposition, you go buy all the television, you go buy all the bumper stickers, you go hire all the experts, and we will launder all of this through a law firm. I can’t think of anything that defeats the purpose of transparency laws more than that.”
He continued, “I am interested in that, and I am also interested in sharing some memory tricks with folks at the DNC because no one can remember who paid 10 million dollars to a law firm to do oppo research. I find that stunning. $10 million and no one can remember who authorized it, who approved it. So you’ve got two issues, a memory issue and then the lack of transparency by laundering money through a law firm.”
And did we forget the Clinton Foundation? As 
Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett notes, it was 
used in an influence peddling scheme to enrich 
colluding with the Russians to, among other 
things, sell 20 percent of our uranium supplies to 
interests and donors aligned with Moscow:
It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.”  The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.  It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121).  This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.
Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained.  In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.
But that’s not all.  Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.  Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.   
Hillary Clinton was the godfather, or is it godmother, that ran multiple criminal enterprises. The existence of a special counsel investigating Trump-Russia collusion is based on a fake dossier she controlled the financing of. Paul Manafort and his co-defendants could make the “fruit of a poison tree” argument, that since the dossier that sparked the investigation into collusion and resulting indictments was politically motivated and financed, and its unverified contents may have been used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants, anything that resulted from it should be summarily dismissed.
As for Marc Elias, the attorney for Perkins & Coie –t he DNC’s law firm -- who carried out the hiring of Fusion GPS, his involvement in legally and ethically dubious activity on behalf of the
Thanks also for the pn=gs.
Thomas Democrats could lead to serious trouble. Remember he sat between former DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta as they invoked the Sergeant Schultz (no relation) defense regarding Fusion GPS
Did DNC and Team Hillary attorney Marc Elias lead John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz into a perjury trap? According to CNN, the two testified to congressional investigators that they did not have any knowledge of the funding for the Fusion GPS dossier that prompted an FBI probe into Donald Trump campaign figures.
In recent closed-door interviews with the Senate intelligence committee, Podesta and Wasserman Schultz said they did not know who had funded Fusion GPS, the intelligence firm that hired British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier on Trump, the sources said.
Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources.
Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.
Whether or not this testimony was under oath, it is a crime to provide false testimony to Congress.
Indeed it is. Add it to the list of crimes that go uninvestigated and unprosecuted as AG Jeff Sessions contemplates his navel. A special counsel needs to be appointed and a grand jury empanelled to investigate this list of crimes that would make a mafia don proud. Justice should be blind and not brain-dead. If there is a double standard at play here, there is no equal justice under the law.
Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas did a fine job of exposing the culture of anti-Trump bias behind the scenes at the New York Times, but the paper of record just...well, trumped him.
On November 1, the Times ran a full-page incendiary ad calling for mass protests to end the "nightmare" of the "Trump/Pence regime" by joining in Antifa-style riots beginning on November 4.  So the Times not only is anti-Trump, but stands in direct opposition to our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law – something not even Project Veritas uncovered.
Ask yourself: during the prior administration, would the Times have printed an ad by an extremist group on the right calling for protesters to "end the nightmare" and proclaiming that "the Obama-Biden regime must go"?  And if it had printed such an ad, what do you think would have happened next?
By the way, just who exactly sees Trump's agenda to make America safe, strong, prosperous, and great again as a nightmare?  Isn't this what everyone wants?  On second thought, perhaps it's a nightmare to people who want America to be unsafe, weak, poor, and in the tank – i.e., people who hate this country and want to take it down.
And the ad isn't just about Trump.  It reads: "The Trump/Pence regime must go!"  Wait a minute.  This isn't a third-world country where we have a dictatorship and can oust it only by force.  If and when people are unhappy with our leaders, we vote them out of office.  And in those extremely rare cases where a president is impeached or steps down for whatever reason, the vice president becomes the president.  We don't simply let a riotous rabble kick them both out of office because these malcontents don't like their policies.
And yet we've heard no official response to the Times for running this ad.
Let's put this in perspective.
Recently, presumably under Special Counsel Robert Mueller's directive, federal agents stormed into Paul Manafort's home at 5:00 A.M., barging into the bedroom where he and his wife were sleeping.  They ransacked the place, although Manafort had been cooperating with Mueller's investigation and had turned over whatever was requested.  Manafort's alleged offense?  Improperly filing foreign tax documents and possibly owing additional taxes from business dealings he had overseas a number of years before he joined the Trump campaign – and therefore seemingly of no relevance to Mueller's investigation into possible Russian collusion in the 2016 election.
Compare that to The New York Times, with its iconic reputation and millions of readers, printing a full-page ad paid for by the Soros-affiliated RefuseFascism group, calling for the overthrow of our legitimately elected president.  And vice president. That would leave us with President Paul Ryan...
And yet, amazingly, I haven't heard a word about the feds storming the Times and arresting every editor who allowed that ad to end up in print.
That's sedition, folks.  Last I heard, it was a serious felony – a kissing cousin of treason.
Apparently, it isn't politically correct to talk about 
such high crimes.  That may be the opinion of our 
absentee attorney general, who has turned a blind 
eye not only to this shocking ad, but also to 
Hillary's potentially treasonous sellout of 20% of 
America's uranium to the Russians, for a $145-
million payment to her, um, charitable foundation.
In fact, the whole mainstream media has been silent regarding the Times' seditious pamphleteering.  However, Alex Jones on Infowars held up the ad on air, bringing it to his viewers' attention.  You'll never guess what followed.  The very next morning, a dozen or more publications, including Newsweek and Salon, accused him of making it up!  They stated categorically that the New York Times ran no such ad.
This is twilight-zone stuff.
The ad is for real – you can view it in The New York Times digital version as well as in the November 1 print edition. Your library may have a copy – mine does – and the scandalous ad is there for all to see.
I suppose these other publications figured that most of their readers wouldn't bother to fact-check.  Yet it is truly mind-bending that they all rushed to deny the reality and to discredit Alex Jones for exposing the very real and violence-inciting ad that the  premier newspaper in the country displayed so prominently.
One more thing: Notice the use of the word "regime" in "The Trump/Pence regime must go!"  Americans don't speak of presidential "regimes."  That is Soros-speak.  Remember that he's a regime changer – someone who prides himself on using his billions to topple regimes across the world, leaving millions of people in chaos and misery.
President Trump doesn't have a "regime"; he has an administration.  And until he replaces one of the key office-holders of that administration – his attorney general – we can expect more unchecked lawlessness and more open calls for insurrection that our own press apparently sees fit to promote.

When Trump-supporters at his rallies chanted, "Lock her up!" – referring, of course to "Crooked Hillary" – many Democrats were incensed at what they regarded as sloganeering and poor taste.  Now, with the latest revelations, they may well join the chorus.
Welcome to the party, Democrats.  Better late 
than never.  Hillary tried to steal the election, but 
ironically, she stole it from the Democrats.  She 
actually stole their money, their organization, and 
their most politically savvy potential candidate, 
Joe Biden, who might otherwise today be the 
sitting president of the United States.
Hillary Clinton has become the J.R. Ewing of the Democratic Party.  The fictional character on the hit TV series Dallas (1978-91), J.R. was the wealthy financial schemer who delighted in destroying his rivals and anyone else whom he randomly decided to ruin. Hillary Clinton is every bit the sociopathic, 
sadistic schemer Ewing was.  Able to look a 
grieving mother in the eye and lie to her, saying 
her son, a true American hero, was killed 
at Benghazi because of a video instead of by 
Clinton-Obama malfeasance, Hillary revealed to 
many of us a peek into the dark depths of 
depravity that is the Clinton soul.
Perhaps her followers will now take a retrospective look and conclude, How could we have been fooled?  Or will they?
The sad fact is that many Democrats were not the least bit fooled.  Just as "everyone knew" about Harvey Weinstein but said nothing, Democrats had long ago learned to avoid, at all costs, offending the Clintons, while pretending to like them.  They sold their political souls to a devil, and they are paying the political price.  Pray for them that they lose no more soul than that.
Someday, there will be a TV series about Hillary.  An apt title for it would be The Left Wing.
Stay tuned, because this is not over yet.
It is rumored that the reason that the New York Times included the Weinstein scandal in its "news fit to print" category was to dry up his cash flow to the Clintons.  Donna Brazile's book, Hacks, (referring to Hillary Clinton's subversive takeover of the Democratic Party), is a second major indication that the partisan machinery Hillary hijacked is beginning to catch her among its cogs and gears.  If so, she may expect it to be as merciless as she is.
Hillary once openly declared that if she does in fact go to prison, "I won't be the only one."  She will almost certainly drag down others with her, beginning with her closest accomplices and confidants.
If the Constitution did not forbid cruel and 
unusual punishment, the sentence I would like to 
see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary 
Clinton in the same 8-by-12 cell.
In the meantime, let us momentarily join, arm in arm, with our Democrat enemies, and with one united voice, chant...

Democrats Drive Toward 

the Cliff and Hit the Gas

Kurt  Schlichter
Posted: Nov 06, 2017 12:01 AM
 Democrats Drive Toward the Cliff and Hit the Gas
  We’ve long called the GOP “The Stupid Party,” and it certainly deserves the nickname, but what’s the right family-friendly adjective for the Democrat Party? “The Moronic Party?” “The Mind-Bogglingly Nuts Party?” What moniker best reflects a party you dare not trust with power? These people are to governing as Kevin Spacey is to babysitting.