Tuesday, September 4, 2018





“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

 “This nation no longer is a democratic republic ...rather it has become a tool of the super-rich members of the above mentioned elite who preselect our presidents based on their cooperation and complicity with the elite’s ultimate goals. Obama has, in their opinion done superbly carrying out the plans well laid out for him by his backers.”        


 How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:

Democrats Move Towards ‘Oligarchical Socialism,’ Says Forecaster Joel Kotkin

Associated Press

Left-wing progressives are embracing a political alliance with Silicon Valley oligarchs who would trap Americans in a cramped future without hope of upward mobility for themselves or their children, says a left-wing political analyst in California.

Under the headline “America is moving toward an oligarchical socialism,” Joel Kotkin writes:
Historically, liberals advocated helping the middle class achieve greater independence, notably by owning houses and starting companies. But the tech oligarchy — the people who run the five most capitalized firms on Wall Street — have a far less egalitarian vision. Greg Fehrenstein, who interviewed 147 digital company founders, says most believe that “an increasingly greater share of economic wealth will be generated by a smaller slice of very talented or original people. Everyone else will increasingly subsist on some combination of part-time entrepreneurial ’gig work‘ and government aid.”
Numerous oligarchs — Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, founder of the Y Combinator — have embraced this vision including a “guaranteed wage,” usually $500 or a $1,000 monthly. Our new economic overlords are not typical anti-tax billionaires in the traditional mode; they see government spending as a means of keeping the populist pitchforks away. This may be the only politically sustainable way to expand “the gig economy,” which grew to 7 million workers this year, 26 percent above the year before.
Handouts, including housing subsidies, could guarantee for the next generation a future not of owned houses, but rented small, modest apartments. Unable to grow into property-owning adults, they will subsist while playing with their phones, video games and virtual reality in what Google calls “immersive computing.”
This plan, however, is being challenged by the return of populism and nationalism when President Donald Trump defeated the GOP’s corporatist candidates and the progressives’ candidate in 2016. In his 2017 inauguration, Trump declared:
For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment, it belongs to you …
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
For several years, Kotkin has been dissecting the Democrats’ shift from working-class politics toward a tacit alliance with the billionaires in the new information-technology industries that are centralizing wealth and power through the United States. In 2013, for example, he argued that California’s politics were increasingly “feudal“:
As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.
At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.
Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.
Read Kotkin’s “oligarchal socialism” article here.
“Protecting citizens from industrial capitalism’s giant corporations? Where were the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight as the mortgage bubble blew up in 2008, nearly taking the whole financial system with it and producing the worst economic bust since the Great Depression, which even today has sunk the labor-force participation rate and hiked the suicide rate among working-class men and women to record levels?”

“By contrast, many voters give Barack Obama no such credit for his analogous response to the Great Recession.”

“Mexican criminals really have infiltrated the country and really have killed Americans, inevitably, under the administration’s anything-goes immigration stance.”



Haunting this year’s presidential contest is the sense that the U.S. government no longer belongs to the people and no longer represents them. And this uneasy feeling is not misplaced. It reflects the real state of affairs.
We have lost the government we learned about in civics class, with its democratic election of representatives to do the voters’ will in framing laws, which the president vows to execute faithfully, unless the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional. That small government of limited powers that the Founders designed, hedged with checks and balances, hasn’t operated for a century. All its parts still have their old names and appear to be carrying out their old functions. But in fact, a new kind of government has grown up inside the old structure, like those parasites hatched in another organism that grow by eating up their host from within, until the adult creature bursts out of the host’s carcass. This transformation is not an evolution but a usurpation.
What has now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the Administrative State—a transformation premeditated by its main architect, Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president, who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,” and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See “It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’ Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.
Modernity, Wilson thought, demanded efficient government by independent, nonpartisan, benevolent, hyper-educated experts, applying the latest scientific, economic, and sociological knowledge to industrial capitalism’s unprecedented problems, too complex for self-governing free citizens to solve. Accordingly, he got Congress to create executive-branch administrative agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to do the job. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proliferated such agencies, from the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Housing Administration to the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to put the New Deal into effect. Before they could do so, though, FDR had to scare the Supreme Court into stretching the Constitution’s Commerce Clause beyond recognition, putting the federal government in charge of all economic activity, not just interstate transactions. He also had to pressure the justices to allow Congress to delegate legislative power—which is, in effect, what the lawmakers did by setting up agencies with the power to make binding rules. The Constitution, of course, vests all legislative power in Congress, empowering it to make laws, not to make legislators.
But the Administrative State’s constitutional transgressions cut deeper still. If Congress can’t delegate its legislative powers, it certainly can’t delegate judicial powers, which the Constitution gives exclusively to the judiciary. Nevertheless, after these administrative agencies make rules like a legislature, they then exercise judicial authority like a court by prosecuting violations of their edicts and inflicting real criminal penalties, such as fines and cease-and-desist orders. As they perform all these functions, they also violate the principle of the separation of powers, which lies at the heart of our constitutional theory (senselessly curbing efficiency, Wilson thought), as well as the due process of law, for they trample the citizen’s Fifth Amendment right not to lose his property unless indicted by a grand jury and tried by a jury of his peers, and they search a citizen or a company’s private papers or premises, without bothering to get judge-issued subpoenas or search warrants based on probable cause, flouting the Fourth Amendment. They can issue waivers to their rules, so that the law is not the same for all citizens and companies but is instead an instrument of arbitrary power. FDR himself ruefully remarked that he had expanded a fourth branch of government that lacked constitutional legitimacy. Not only does it reincarnate the arbitrary power of the Stuarts’ tyrannical Star Chamber, but also it doesn’t even meet the minimal conditions of liberty that Magna Carta set forth 801 years ago.
Adding insult to injury, Wilson, his allies, and their current followers call themselves “progressives,” a fatuous boast implying that they are the embodiments and chosen instruments of the spirit of an ever-improving, irresistible future. In tune with the German idealist philosophy that Wilson and his circle studied, they claim to be marching toward an as-yet-unrealized goal of human perfection. But that perfection, the German philosophers believed, would look something like Prussia’s enlightened despotism. For Americans to think that it is progress to move from the Founders’ revolutionary achievement—a nation of free citizens, endowed with natural rights, living under laws that they themselves have made, pursuing their own vision of happiness in their own way and free to develop as fully as they can whatever talent or genius lies within them—to a regime in which individuals derive such rights as they have from a government superior to them is contemptible. How is a return to subjection an advance on freedom? No lover of liberty should ever call such left-wing statism “progressive.” In historical terms, this elevation of state power over individual freedom is not even “liberal” but quite the reverse.
As these agencies have metastasized, they have borne out not a single premise that justified their creation, and their increasingly glaring failure has drawn citizens’ angry attention to them. Expert? As a New Deal congressman immediately recognized with shock, many of those who staffed the Administrative State were kids just out of law school, with zero real-world experience or technical knowledge. Efficient? Can-do America, which built the Empire State Building in 11 months and ramped up airplane production during World War II from 2,000 in 1939 to nearly 100,000 in 1944, now takes years of bureaucratic EPA busywork to repair a bridge or lay a pipeline, and who knows how many businesses never expand or even start because the maze of government regulation is too daunting and costly to navigate? Only last year, EPA “experts” fecklessly stood by as workers under their supervision accidentally dumped 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into the Colorado River, and the agency vouchsafed not a word of warning to downstream Colorado and New Mexico officials for an entire day before the poisonous, fluorescent-orange flood hit them. Over at Veterans Affairs, those who’ve fought for their country die in droves while waiting for medical care. But what’s the problem? asks agency head Robert MacDonald blithely. After all, at ever-popular Disneyland, “do they measure the number of hours you wait in line?”
Non-political? Ask Lois Lerner at the Internal Revenue Service. Oh wait: she pleaded the Fifth Amendment—and her boss, John Koskinen, simply ignores Congress’s orders, even as more than 2,000 of his enforcement agents have acquired military-grade weaponry, among 200,000 of such administrative-agency officers now similarly equipped with lethal arms, presumably for coercion of the citizens they supposedly serve. Or there’s the Federal Elections Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, lackeys of President Obama and his ultra-partisan agenda.

Protecting citizens from industrial capitalism’s giant corporations? Where were the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight as the mortgage bubble blew up in 2008, nearly taking the whole financial system with it and producing the worst economic bust since the Great Depression, which even today has sunk the labor-force participation rate and hiked the suicide rate among working-class men and women to record levels? 
Moreover, from the establishment of the first administrative agency—the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, essentially designed to create shared railroad cartels—these agencies have been key instruments of crony capitalism, which today often takes the form of senators and congressmen pressuring agencies for rule changes or waivers to benefit their contributors, usually at the expense of their competitors as well as the public, as the author of the recent Confessions of Congressman X complains of his fellow legislative “puppets.” Little wonder that today’s Americans think that such people don’t represent them. Pollsters report that trust in government is at its lowest level ever, with only 19 percent expecting government to do the right thing, according to last year’s Gallup and Pew polls.

Ensuring the citizens’ health and safety? Where is the Food and Drug Administration as counterfeit medicines and medical supplies from China infiltrate our hospitals? As for the infamously dysfunctional Transportation Security Administration, its Keystone Kops’ regularly reported inability to spot journalists carrying banned weapons onto airplanes, while they are too busy fondling travelers’ private parts or undressing grannies, is a standing national joke—on us. We lost our constitutional safeguards for this?

FDR spewed out his agencies in a “try anything” spirit to cure a Depression that his predecessor’s misguided palliatives had worsened, and debate still surges over whether the New Deal agencies did harm or good, putting aside their doubtful legitimacy. But the majority of Americans at the time gave the president credit for good intentions. By contrast, many voters give Barack Obama no such credit for his analogous response to the Great Recession. They see it as a cynically calculated ploy to extend government’s power over the people, especially given the White House chief of staff’s crack that a president should “never let a good crisis go to waste.” So on the pretext of addressing the financial crisis, the administration partially socialized American medicine with legislation that only Democrats voted for, without bothering to read it, and that citizens who opposed the measure—still a solid majority of those polled—saw as a kind of coup d’état, framed with utter irresponsibility and ignoring the scary financial mess. As happened during the New Deal, a timid Supreme Court found the act constitutional only by the politically driven legerdemain frequent in that institution’s checkered history. It struck many as flimflam, not government by consent.

The result was a spectacular expansion of the Administrative State, with some 150 new agencies and commissions created; no one knows the exact number. And these agencies purposely removed the Administrative State even further from government by the people. One agency, the Independent Payment Advisory Board—the so-called death panel—is so democratically unaccountable that Congress can only abolish it by a three-fifths vote in both houses within a seven-month period next year. After that, the law bars Congress from altering any of the board’s edicts, a provision as far from democratic self-government as you can get.

When the administration finally confronted the financial crisis, lengthened by Obamacare’s disincentives to hiring, its reflex response was to expand the Administrative State still further with the Dodd-Frank Act, named for its two legislative sponsors, both of whom had been in bed with the mortgage racket, one figuratively and one literally. Whether it solved the problem is dubious. What is certain is that it is as undemocratic as Obamacare, with its Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose budget Congress can’t control, its Financial Stability Oversight Council, whose rulings no court may review, and its army of regulators occupying the big banks and squeezing multimillion-dollar penalties out of CEOs clinging to their supersize compensation, regardless of what happens to the stockholders. Meanwhile, the opaque Federal Housing Finance Agency, formed during the crisis to salvage the misbegotten mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seems bent on nationalizing permanently this sizable chunk of the economy, putting the government in charge of citizens’ housing as well as their health care.

As for the “stimulus” that was supposed to give a Keynesian boost to the economy: since you can’t prove a negative, no one can show that if all that money had stayed in the private economy, it would have created more jobs and economic growth than the economically anemic Obama era has done. What unemployed or underemployed workers saw, though, is that a good portion of stimulus money went to protect the jobs of public employees, whose welfare evidently trumps that of the citizens whom they supposedly serve. Coal miners saw that, even as the administration aimed to kill their jobs, its stimulus shoveled out hundreds of millions of dollars to now-defunct Solyndra and other nonviable, crony-capitalist “green” energy companies, supposed solutions to a global-warming crisis that many think a hoax, though some two dozen public officials seem keen to suppress, Inquisition-style, the very utterance of that thought. And voters noticed that America’s three highest-income counties are in the Washington suburbs that house the federal government’s recession-proof functionaries. (See “Hail Columbia!,” Winter 2013.)

Unease over illegal immigration also has stoked today’s fear that the government no longer belongs to the people, and it’s important to understand the separate but mutually reinforcing ways that it has done so. Once again, President Obama has made a bad situation worse—this time, by his contemptuous refusal to execute the laws faithfully. His catch-and-release policy for illegal border-crossers, as well as his ban on deporting young aliens brought here by their illegal-immigrant parents, are imperial, antidemocratic edicts that might have sparked impeachment proceedings, had not Congress’s silly move to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about his sex games with an intern tainted that weapon for years to come. The result of Obama’s diktat, as contrary to the spirit of the Founders’ Constitution as is the Administrative State, is that law-abiding taxpayers must pay for the kids’ welfare support, health care, and schooling—as they already do for “anchor babies” born to mothers who have sneaked over the U.S. border for the purpose of having a child eligible for “child-only” welfare benefits, scarcely less than ordinary welfare payments and vastly more than the income of Central American peasant families. No American voted to incur these costs, which, if current trends continue, are likely to persist for several generations of such families, so they amount to taxation without representation as naked as George III’s.
As for the illegals who work, often for long hours at low pay, off the books: because immigrants, 13 percent of the population, hold 17 percent of the jobs—and no one knows the percentage of workers who are here illegally—jobless working-class citizens have understandably concluded that a lawless government, by countenancing such cheap labor, is taking the bread out of their mouths. Should they eat cake instead?

America’s highest-income counties are in the suburbs that house Washington’s recession-proof functionaries.

What citizens want to know is that, of all the world’s people who seek to live in America, our government will admit those who come legally, whose families will not harm us, and who will add to the wealth of the nation, not reap where they have not sown. After all, public safety—not clean energy or national health care—is government’s purpose. Nevertheless, Mexican 

criminals really have infiltrated the 

country and really have killed 

Americans, inevitably, under the 

administration’s anything-goes 

immigration stance. Further, it’s no comfort to any American who has suffered loss from an Islamist terror attack within our borders—from Ground Zero and Fort Hood to San Bernardino and Orlando—that such incidents pose no threat to our existence as a nation, as the president has said by way of reassurance, while refusing to call such outrages by their right name. How many citizens would have to die in a dirty-bomb attack in Grand Central Terminal for such events to strike him as a threat to the nation’s existence?
The question of providing a path to citizenship for the 12 million illegal aliens already here is also germane to the debate about whom the U.S. government serves and to whom it belongs. Talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh jokes that “illegal aliens” is a politically incorrect term; we must say “undocumented Democrats” instead. But it’s a joke with a barb, for no one can doubt that these 12 million, if they could vote, would vote for the Democratic program of an ever-larger, richly paid government extracting ever-larger transfer payments from productive workers to the dependent poor—James Madison’s definition of the tyranny of the majority in Federalist 10. With black poverty and exclusion steadily ameliorating, thanks to decades of striving by well-intentioned Americans of all races—even though Obama’s ex–attorney general Eric Holder devoted his tenure to denying this plain truth—the Democratic Party needs a new class of victims to justify its “helping” agenda and its immense cadre of well-paid government “helpers.” Central American peasants fill the bill.
Formerly, our open economy drew the enterprising and energetic to these shores, and our lack of a public safety net, with only private ethnic and religious charities to help the unfortunate, meant that those who couldn’t contribute to the U.S. economy went home. But today, when we have a vast welfare state that didn’t exist during earlier waves of immigration, the mothers of anchor babies come for handouts, and even the children of hardworking legal Hispanic immigrants end up on the welfare rolls at troublesomely high rates. In addition, our showering of self-proclaimed refugees with welfare benefits, which attracts the shiftless rather than the enterprising, only compounds the government-sustained dependency problem—dependency upon taxpayers who didn’t choose this particular philanthropy.
The phalanx of privately supported settlement houses and other institutions that met the great immigration wave around the turn of the twentieth century, along with the public school system, aimed to “Americanize” the new arrivals—teaching them our language, manners, and customs, and especially our republican civic ethic. Culture, after all, is as important an element of national identity as political institutions. To become an American in those days meant little more than learning English and subscribing to a broadly shared creed of self-reliance, self-government, self-improvement, and allegiance to a tolerant nation that most people agreed was unique in the freedom and opportunity it afforded—as well as in its readiness to confer citizenship on newcomers who almost universally desired it. But today’s legal Hispanic immigrants often don’t apply for American citizenship, or retain dual nationalities: Americanization often is not high on their agendas.
Moreover, our new doctrine of multiculturalism gives today’s immigrants nothing to assimilate to, since current intellectual fashion—set by the universities, Hollywood, and the mainstream media—celebrates everything that makes us different rather than the creed that once made one nation out of many individuals. And multiculturalism’s accompanying creed of victimology encourages dependency rather than self-reliance. Who are the victimizers of illegal Hispanic aliens? According to today’s politically correct “progressivism,” it is the neocolonial United States that has exploited the Third World’s natural resources, shored up its ruling oligarchies, and subverted its incipient democratic governments. And then it further victimizes them with racism when they try to escape to this country.
Deference to the greater wisdom of government, which Wilsonian progressivism deems a better judge of what the era needs and what the people “really” want than the people themselves, has been silently eroding our unique culture of enterprise, self-reliance, enlightenment, and love of liberty for decades. But if we cease to enshrine American exceptionalism at the heart of our culture—if we set equal value on such Third World cultural tendencies as passive resignation, fatalism, superstition, devaluation of learning, resentment of imaginary plots by the powerful, and a belief that gratification deferred is gratification forgone—the exceptionalism of our institutions becomes all the more precarious.
Supercharging American anger over illegal immigration and its consequences is the politically correct ban on openly discussing it, with even the most reasoned reservation dismissed as racism and yahooism. And political correctness generates its own quantum of anger among citizens, who think of freedom of speech and debate as central to American exceptionalism. But elite culture stigmatizes plain speaking, so that now a rapist or a murderer is a “person who committed a crime” or an “individual who was incarcerated,” says the Obama Department of Justice, or, according to the latest humbug from the Department of Education, a “justice-involved individual.” Implicit in these euphemisms is the theory that “society,” not the criminal, is to blame for crime, a long-exploded idea aimed at blurring the distinction between right and wrong.
That’s what makes it so disheartening to learn that the University of California has just deemed it a politically incorrect offense to declare America a land of opportunity, so as not to stigmatize those who’ve failed to seize it. It’s disheartening not only because such a retreat from our traditional culture will hold back immigrants, but also because our long cultural unraveling already has damagingly demoralized the native-born working class in the face of economic change. They dimly know that, and part of what makes them so angry is what they have allowed themselves to become.
When Theodore Roosevelt, who unsuccessfully ran against Woodrow Wilson in 1912 on the Progressive Party ticket, first declared his intention to go into politics, his fellow clubmen jeered at him for wanting to associate with the “saloon-keepers, horse-car conductors,” and other “rough and brutal” characters running the nation’s political parties. “I answered,” recalled TR, “that if this were so it merely meant that the people I knew did not belong to the governing class, and that the other people did—and that I intended to be one of the governing class.” That’s the true voice of “progressivism” speaking. As the Founders often cautioned, a self-governing republic doesn’t have a governing class. Part of America’s current predicament is that it now has such a class, and the American people are very angry about it.

Time for America to get through the fog and wake up

It's harder than ever to know what's going on in today's messed up world, thanks to the flood of misinformation and the political censorship of mainstream news and social media.  It seems at times best to shut out the noise, put in a good day's work, and conclude with a prayer.  Unfortunately, that luxury is no longer an option in today's ruptured America.
What comes clearest through the fog of misinformation and censorship may be identified as a sort of table of essential requirements for today's Americans.  Americans are being made to believe that to be decent people, they have to
  • renounce the sovereignty of their country
  • accept illegal migration across the Mexican border
  • allow instant citizenship to illegal migrants
  • allow exposing themselves to foreign terrorists
  • condone Islamic jihad and accept sharia law
  • tolerate the vilification of police officers
  • accept the export of American jobs to other countries
  • denigrate America's heritage and remove its symbols
  • denounce people of white skin
  • reject the nature and reality of male and female
  • reject freedom of speech
Missing from this list (admittedly incomplete) is the disclaimer that each one of these requirements is the opposite of what decent Americans should do. 
Notice the reversal of moral value – a major tactic of the left to deconstruct America and groom it for socialist-communist domination and takeover, which seems outrageously stupid, given the historic and ongoing failure of collectivism to make life good for anyone.  In language free of academic frills, this reversal-of-moral-value tactic may be summarized this way: take something considered evil by the opposition, recast it in language that makes it sound good, then accuse opponents of being against what is "right."  It's a tactic also used to smear opponents with the faults of the smearers, who, need it be said, need to take a hard look in the mirror.
The ceaseless broadcast of falsehood-as-truth from the mainstream media – the voice of the left since most of us have been alive – continues to stifle the ability of Americans to see that they are being played like pawns on a global chessboard– or learn that prominent globalist schemers finance NGOs, lobbyists, and demonstrations against everything and everybody standing in the way of their agenda for global hegemony, let alone be given the opportunity to ask why these "elites" should be in charge of our lives or question whether their "superior wisdom" is in fact superior arrogance and power.
Moneyed egomaniacs with an obsession to lord it over others, if it means stripping them of their freedom, or even their right to live, were never more active.  Enemies of America, external and internal, are doubling their efforts to destabilize America by creating discord and division and inciting violence.  The talk of "civil war" in the air highlights the fact that the very basics of civil order and well-being are being attacked, even in high places, a red flag indicating very bad management by central and local government officials.  The need to wake up has never been greater.
A full review of all that has been happening behind closed doors is not necessary to know that the time is now for sensible people of good will to vote out of office all who choose not to defend America against its enemies, foreign and domestic, or choose to violate their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States – and vote in those whose words and deeds show a dedication to America, its core values, and its Constitution.
Anthony J. DeBlasi is a war veteran and lifelong defender of Western culture.


Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor

Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, managed to snag a front-row seat at Aretha Franklin’s funeral on Friday.
A live broadcast of the Queen of Soul’s funeral shows Farrakhan seated in the same row with Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bill Clinton.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

On stage in front at Aretha Franklin’s funeral are Min. Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and former president Bill Clinton https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/aretha-franklin/2018/08/31/aretha-franklin-funeral-live-stream/1151529002/  #ArethaHomegoing
Farrakhan is a black nationalist who has called for an end to white men and repeatedly gone on angry rants against Jewish people. (RELATED: Seven Louis Farrakhan Quotes On Jews, Gays, And White People) 
“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people. You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again,” Farrakhan said in 2011.

In 2015, he asserted, “White people deserve to die, and they know, so they think it’s us coming to do it.” (RELATED: Louis Farrakhan Issues A Sunday Call For An End To White Men)

Jewish Leaders Slam Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan’s Place of Honor at Aretha Franklin’s Funeral


From left to right, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson attend the funeral service for Aretha Franklin at Greater Grace Temple, Friday, Aug. 31, 2018, in Detroit. Franklin died Aug. 16, 2018 of pancreatic cancer at the age of 76. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
AP/Paul Sancya

TEL AVIV – American Jewish leaders expressed outrage over the place of honor given to virulently antisemitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at Aretha Franklin’s funeral on Friday.

Farrakhan was seated in the front row alongside other controversial African-American figures, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Former president Bill Clinton sat three places to Farrakhan’s left.
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said it was “jarring” to see a “hatemonger” like Farrakhan at the funeral.
“It was absolutely jarring to see one of America’s leading purveyors of antisemitism given a place of such prominence at Aretha’s funeral,” Greenblatt told the Algemeiner. “We join the country in mourning the Queen of Soul, but this was an honor that an unapologetic hatemonger like Farrakhan didn’t deserve.”
Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center charged Farrakhan with despising America and Jews.
“Like millions of other Americans who grew up listening to Aretha Franklin’s amazing voice, I was saddened by her passing. Putting Louis Farrakhan in a seat of honor in the first row on stage, near President Clinton and amidst a generation of African-American political and religious leaders was equally saddening,” Cooper said in a statement to the Algemeiner.
“50 years ago Aretha Franklin received an award from Martin Luther King Jr. and toured the country to raise money for the struggling Civil Rights Movement,” he added. “For decades Farrakhan has stood against everything MLK lived and died for. He hates America and hates Jews. Aretha Franklin wasn’t a hater. The sight of his smiling face on stage soured the heartfelt music and words during the marathon tribute to a great icon.”
Betty Ehrenberg , executive director of the World Jewish Congress North America, lamented Farrakhan’s status as a role model for activists and candidates for office.
“We were dismayed to learn that Farrakhan was seated in a prominent place at the funeral of a widely revered artist,” she said. “And it is equally dismaying to see him being admired by some newly emerging activists and candidates for office who should not associate with an unapologetic antisemite with a long history of racist views.”
As Breitbart Jerusalem reported in March, Rep. Danny Davis, an Illinois Democrat, praised Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being.”
The three leaders of the Women’s March, Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour have also aligned themselves with Farrakhan. 
Abraham Foxman, head of the Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at New York’s Museum of Jewish Heritage, told the Algemeiner, “Sadly the African-American community has a blind spot when it comes to antisemitism. They have always given a pass to Louis Farrakhan’s racism and antisemitism. They don’t recognize him as a racist and antisemite, and that’s sad for the relationship between our two communities.”
Renowned law professor Alan Dershowitz expressed his dismay that Clinton appeared alongside Farrakhan.
“I know there was a relationship 30 years earlier between Louis Farrakhan and Aretha Franklin. I don’t know if that relationship continued, or whether the family invited him, but I think any president should have said, ‘No. If you want me on the stage, you can’t have a bigot like Farrakhan sitting next to me,’” he told Fox & Friends.
“You just can’t mainstream and allow legitimacy to a man who has expressed the kind of hateful views he’s expressed of Jews, of white people, of gays,” he added.
Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind called the incident “shocking.”
“Louis Farrakhan, front and center, treated like royalty? What is this obsession with America’s Black Hitler? In spite of his crude, vicious comments about Jews, whites, gays, he is placed up front with President Clinton? Shocking!”
Earlier this year, Farrakhan delivered a rancorous anti-Semitic rant at the 2018 Saviour’s Day event in Chicago, calling Jews members of the “Synagogue of Satan” and claiming that Jesus called the Jews “the children of the devil” and “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”
“Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” the Nation of Islam leader said.
After Franklin died last month, Farrakhan released a statement saying, “In 1972, when I was minister in New York City, Temple No. 7, the police attacked our mosque. Within a few hours, Aretha Franklin came to the mosque, to my office, and said that she saw the news and came as quickly as she could to stand with us and offer us her support.”
“We marveled at her show of courage, fearlessness which was rooted in her profound love for her people and her desire for justice for us,” Farrakhan added.




Peter Hasson | Reporter
  • Former Attorney General Eric Holder stood for a photo with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
  • Farrakhan is a notorious racist and anti-Semite and has ties to several prominent Democrats.
  • A spokesman for Holder said the photo didn’t constitute an endorsement but would not say whether Holder is willing to condemn Farrakhan’s bigotry.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday posed with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in a photo that went largely unnoticed over the holiday weekend.

Farrakhan is a notorious racist and anti-Semite who has praised Hitler as a “very great man,” claimed that interracial marriage “mongrelized” the black race and repeatedly espoused conspiracy theories about “satanic” Jews.

The Nation of Islam published a photo on Twitter that shows Holder standing next to Farrakhan at Aretha Franklin’s funeral on Friday.

Photo: screenshot
The legendary singer’s funeral prominently featured Farrakhan alongside former President Bill Clinton and MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton.

Holder now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) and is reportedly weighing running for president in 2020.
“When asked, Mr. Holder participated in a photo taken with the people on stage at the Aretha Franklin services. It was in no way an endorsement or expression of support for anyone,” NDRC spokesman Patrick Rodenbush told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

Rodenbush did not answer whether Holder is willing to condemn Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.

Farrakhan’s ties to the Democratic Party have become a source of controversy after a photo emerged showing then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama standing with Farrakhan in 2008. (RELATED: Maxine Waters Attended Nation Of Islam Convention Where Farrakhan Defended Suicide Bombers)

The photographer who took the photo worked for a Nation of Islam publication and withheld the photo until after Obama left office to avoid hurting his political career.

Following the publication of the Obama-Farrakhan photo, other prominent Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Maxine Waters of California were revealed to have attended events with Farrakhan and have since declined to denounce him.

Clyburn has said he is willing to consider running for Speaker of the House if Democrats retake the lower chamber in November’s midterm elections.

Illinois Rep. Danny Davis described Farrakhan in February as an “outstanding human being” and admitted the two had a personal relationship.

After Davis’s office falsely told the Anti-Defamation League that the congressman had been misquoted, he doubled down on his relationship with Farrakhan in a March interview with this reporter.

Davis easily won his primary in March despite the Farrakhan controversy.

Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison repeatedly attended meetings with Farrakhan during his time in Congress, despite claiming that he had cut ties with the anti-Semite decades earlier.

Despite misleading the public about his Farrakhan ties, Ellison has remained the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and last month won the Democratic nomination for Minnesota attorney general.

The leaders of Women’s March, a popular progressive activist group, similarly sparked controversy by declaring their support for Farrakhan. (RELATED: Women’s March Leader Calls For Starbucks Boycott Over Partnership With Jewish Group)
The group’s cofounder, Tamika Mallory, attended a Nation of Islam convention where Farrakhan espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Mallory later defended Farrakhan and repeatedly refused to condemn him.


This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”




Those are the subliterate, low-skill, non-English-speaking indigents whose own societies are unable or unwilling to usefully educate and employ them. Bring these people here and they not only need a lot of services, they are putty in the hands of leftist demogogues as Hugo Chavez demonstrated - and they are very useful as leftist voters who will support the Soros agenda.


Of course, the game of the Democrats is to avoid at all costs any of the safeguards against fraud, such as photo ID requirements.  That should tell anyone with integrity what they are up to.  But most media continue to ignore this stain on democracy.  THOMAS LIFSON – AMERICAN THINKER

 BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER’S SABOTAGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY: The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain. NEIL MUNRO

What did Obama do for black Americans during the 8 years he and Holder were sabotaging our laws and borders to get more Mexicans into our voting booths?!?


 How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:


“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)


“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.


“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “The Race”… now calling itself UNIDOSus.

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag

Frothing at the mouth in anticipatory glee over the prospect of a horde of high school students delivering a deathblow to a "deeply flawed" Constitution, once again, Barack Obama aired his feelings on Twitter.

Just last month, in a tweet encouraging "young people" to "march and organize to remake the world [not as it is but] as [Marxists think it] should be," Obama quoted Saul Alinsky.


More recently, while Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg inadvertently gave a Nazi salute and Emma "LGBT" Gonzalez displayed a Cuban flag on her right sleeve, Barack took to Twitter again. 

This time, the former president said the following:


Question: Does Barry think token references to "angry Black women" somehow give credibility to leftist ideas?  Either way, whatever the motivation to include Michelle, by and large, the former president's latest tweet was classic Obama.

As always, Barack began by mentioning how "inspired" he is by the "young people."  Then, after his usual perfunctory "inspired" comment, Obama went on to praise the Jugend for having "made [the] marches happen."  The problem with Barry's second remark is that he, more than anyone, is well aware that left-wing sources financed the march. 

Nonetheless, with a direct reference to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #8, which instructs revolutionaries to "keep the pressure on," Barack then encouraged anti-gun activists to "keep at it."  The former community change agitator also sounded confident that "nothing," including the Second Amendment, "can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change."

Rest assured: Obama slipping Alinsky into a tweet is not an innocuous incident, nor is it a coincidence when a street thug of his stature urges large groups of left-wingers to "march forward."  In other words, by prodding 800,000 useful idiots with the words "you're leading us forward," Obama added Marxism to the Alinsky mix.

The formal adoption of "Forward" as a campaign slogan came about during the 2012 presidential campaign.  For the record, the concept of progressives pressing forward was not Barack Obama's idea; it's a concept associated with European Marxism.

In an article dated April 30, 2012, titled "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism," Victor Morgan of the Washington Times explained:

The slogan 'Forward' reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

In the piece, Morgan cited Vladimir Lenin's political journal Vpered! (the Russian word for "forward") and mentioned two German publications with similar themes, entitled Vorwärts, (the German word for "forward").  Morgan wrote:

One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

At National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg clarified further how Obama views the "Forward" concept.  Goldberg wrote:

"Forward" is simply a synopsis of the progressive understanding of the State.  The State has always been seen by the left as the engine of history.  When Obama says he's about going Forward, he's also saying that he thinks the government is the thing that moves us all forward, that the State is the source of Progress[.] ... If we are to go forward it must in the saddle of the State. 
Thus, the word "forward" has profound significance to Barack Obama, as well as to the left.
Even still, Barack "Share the Wealth" Obama had never come right out and identified himself as a full-fledged statist, but, as his time in the White House demonstrated, the former president was, and is, deeply committed to the hope that the state will one day restrict the right to bear arms.
In the meantime, Obama's desire to appear above the gun fray may be why he dispatched housemate Valerie Jarrett to bash the NRA at the March for Our Lives, and to do it while he stayed home tweeting kudos to juvenile anti-gun activists.
On Obama's behalf, Jarrett got to fraternize with MSNBC celebriteen David Hogg and to reaffirm the progressive commitment to what the left now refers to as the "marathon."


Barry's mouthpiece even found time to promote her boss's false talking point that just days after surviving a deadly school shooting, traumatized students secured a venue, chartered buses, came up with a slogan, and organized a march.
Meanwhile, in hopes of continuing to 

desensitize the public to Marxism, back 

home in his $8.1-million Kalorama 

mansion, Barack Obama hid behind his 

keyboard.  Tweeting that marchers are 

"leading us forward" was likely an 

attempt by Obama to infuse the 

discussion with another socialist 

In the end, after spending eight years manipulating the psyche of an easily fooled public, under the auspices of tweeting in support of a spontaneous event, Barack Obama confirmed that marching forward is still an essential part of  "fundamentally transforming America."

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.

Cosa Sinistra: The Left as Crime Family

The left indeed has become a family.  Unfortunately, it often resembles the Gotti crime family (hat tip: Larry Schweikart).
Let's face it: Republicans have their share of corruption, but what the left has become is not tinged with the normal shortcomings of humanity.  It's become criminal.
Literally.  Fully.  And seriously.
Let's look at a few shades of leftist criminality.  I don't mean the common finger-pointing, where leftists claim that anything done by the center-right is "criminal."  Like being for tax cuts.  Being pro-life.  Or against illegal immigration.  Voting for Trump was criminal.  The left thinks anyone to its right is criminal.
But most sane people know that's not true.  It's hyperbole for the sake of cowing those who hold differing opinions.  It's a political smear writ large – and, might I say, projection.  Leftist often accuse others of doing what they do.  Not only does it help them feel better about themselves, but it's a strategy to gain and hold power over others. 
In itself, that mindset isn't essentially criminal.  Maybe you could say it's a shade of gray or misdemeanor.  But therein lies the first step on the road to where they ended up.  They begin by stepping across a line, and they wake up fully criminal.  Let's follow the path downward.
The early Clinton escapades weren't the outcome of being Boy Scouts.  Using political influence to do a land deal in Arkansas, or to gain $100,000 in the commodity market for being the governor's wife, was a pretty good sign of who they are – as were Bill's early sexual predations and Hillary's early persecution of the women he used.
The thuggishness of Barack was clear early on.  There was his land deal, wherein he enriched himself with Tony Rezko in Chicago.  All his political wins came by nefariously taking out his political opponents rather than beating them fairly in the arena of ideas.  Everyone should have known.
They all got away with their less than honest early deals but were awarded more power as a result of their nefarious actions.  The left loved their ability to lie as they skated through the finish line unscathed. 
The next big step up the ladder for the Clintons was becoming president.  Posing as the married version of Jimmy Stewart playing Mr. Smith, they simply dug into the seediest side of politics.  Having succeeded in the small pay-to-play of Arkansas, they let it all loose on Washington, D.C. 
The Clintons were the ones to begin the full politicization of the DOJ.  Remember when they fired every single attorney at the DOJ, replacing them with their own loyalists?  That was 1993.  Our cheerleading leftist media said nothing.  After all, they were kindred souls staying silent in the face of shared corruption.  Then there was the matter of the famous FBI files the Clintons pilfered, the secret files that illegally gave them dirt (and leverage) on their political opponents.  Yeah, Bill, "a bureaucratic snafu."  And no, that's not what it was.  It was simply aggrandizement of criminal power.
They would go on to trading secrets of rocket technology to the Chinese for political donations – a deal that would advance Chinese missile capacity twenty years overnight.  I remember Tim Russert pleading on Meet the Press" for the media to start reporting because "this was really happening."  Well, they got away with that, too – along with a host of other illegal and nasty activities.
Barack had his share of shady dealings once he hit D.C., but was a bit more circumspect in hiding what he was doing.  Nurtured under the Chicago political machine, the master school of pay-to-play politics, everyone should have known the kind of corrupt monster he was.  Instead, he convinced boatloads of people, and a gullible, like-minded media, that he was some kind of light-worker who healed the Earth.
Under that guise, he was scorching the earth. 
He began his funneling of money to leftist causes right away with his "stimulus package," stimulating and filling the coffers of his pay-to-playmates.  Many of his bundlers simply took money, as they did in the Solydra solar deal, absconding with millions of dollars and producing nothing.  His union leaders scored tons of money.  As the rest of the U.S. floundered, his already well heeled donors were paid handsomely from this illicit mess.  To this day, we don't know where most of that money went.  Uncle Joe Biden just turned a blind eye.  And no one suffered for his ugly, illegal collusion to steal from the public trough.
Contrary to media and Democratic Parry claims, St. Barack didn't have a scandal-free presidency.  Far from it – most of it was nothing but scandal, unreported by the fawning press.  It was a time period where the media refused to call out the obvious and many scandals for what they were.  Let's just say they were kindred souls, fellow travelers, the media and St. Barack.  Friends and bundlers receiving money for nothing.
Fast and Furious.  The IRS targeting.  The weaponizing of the bureaucracies.  Just to name a few.  Heck, if a leftist political fact-check site calls your Obamacare lie the "lie of the year," it had to be the lie of the century.
Make no mistake: the Clinton-Obama axis was criminal already, pay-to-play was their M.O., and they had gotten away with it for years.
Let's fast-forward to the heavy stuff.  And this is the stuff that is darkly criminal, no shades of gray here.
The Clinton Foundation.  Clearly, they enriched themselves with pay-to-play schemes.  The reports of Hillary's dealings as secretary of state with those who paid the Clinton Foundation are legion.  Documents upon documents introducing themselves to Madame Secretary were earmarked by a staffer "FOB."  This was the sign of favor, the way to get to see her, the way to get favors in return.  You had to be a donor.  FOB, indeed.
Uranium One, the Mother of All Scandals, is typical.  This was a matter of one hundred fifty million dollars, mysteriously donated by Russian interests, who benefited after all the parties in the U.S. government signed off.  Bill's speaking fees in Moscow were Over 600K per speech – double his normal pay-to-play fee.  
The Trump Dossier.  Paid for by the Hillary campaign.  Used as a pretense to spy on the Trump campaign.  Used as a pretense for the so-called collusion case. 
All of this is deeply criminal – nor gray, lacking even the slightest hint of another explanation.  And we now know that all these cases are being investigated and have been for months.  We now know there are four separate criminal cases being investigated with Clinton involvement.
St. Barack?  He's been having a great time partying with the Hollywood moguls, all the while thinking his breee-illiant "insurance" plan to get rid of Trump was on. 
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: all his fellow travelers are being outed.  The cadre of FBI agents and DOJ political partisans: Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Comey, Brennan, and so many others are being outed for their own forms of, yes, criminality.  Helping with the phony Steele Trump dossier while you are high up at the FBI or DOJ is criminal.  Going to the FISA courts to unmask Trump campaign associates based on the dossier is criminal.  Turning over that information to other higher-ups in the Obama administration – that's criminal.  This is the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes.
For all those who have been asking where Jeff Sessions has been, let me say he's been thankfully quiet.  He's gotten a lot of ill deserved negativity.  But he's a busy man.  As you can see, so many investigations, so little time.  Likewise, the Republican investigating committees are now doing their part.  And Judicial Watch.  God bless them all.
Sean Hannity calls this the year of the boomerang. 
I'm calling it the year of the sting.  The chickens are coming home to roost.  Most of these people are going to jail.  They committed criminal acts.
It took four years to dot the Is and cross the Ts to put away John Gotti.  It may take that long again, but it's happening, and happening as I write.  As we sit here, the Democrats are suddenly running from the Trump dossier.  They're all spinning with flushed faces, trying to excuse (or more often ignore) the criminality of their heroes.  The evidence is accumulating.  They are beginning to whine about a "political investigation."  To all of you leftists who will be running away, it's not political; it was actually criminal.  And you let it happen with your dewy-eyed worship.  As you pointed fingers, criminality was being done by your side.
We don't know a lot of the details, but the greatest political sting in history is ongoing.  It's been dripping out for over a month and will continue to do so.  It's going to be epic.  And it will devastate the Democratic Party and its base.
But America will rejoice.  Criminals are going to be brought to their knees.

The gospel according to the swamp

The swamp has told us that the following events are nothing for us to worry or concern ourselves about.  We deplorables, clinging to our guns and religion, should simply accept these and not question them.
Obama gave 150 billion dollars to Iran.  Iran is the chief sponsor of jihadist terrorism and has sworn to destroy Israel, supports Hamas and Hezb'allah, and will have nuclear weapons.
Obama and Hillary approved the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia.  Hillary received over $150 million to her foundation.  Bill Clinton got speaking gigs in Moscow paying about $500,000.
Trump contacting the Russians to have them vote against the U.N. resolution to condemn Israel in December 2016 warrants an investigation, but not the sale of uranium to the Russians or the gift of $150 billion to Iran.
Hillary and the DNC, through their attorneys, paid Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele, a British spy, to manufacture opposition research, using anonymous paid Russians as sources.
This phony report was called a "dossier" to make it sound important.
The dossier was shopped and leaked to the press and also given to John McCain, always ready and willing to stab a Republican, who gave it to the FBI.
Bruce Ohr, the number-four man in the Obama Justice Department, met with the Fusion people and Steele in November 2016, after Trump defeated Hillary.  We are not supposed to know why the Obama DOJ met with Steele. 
In October 2016, the Obama Justice Department filed an application for a FISA warrant to spy on the Donald Trump campaign.
It appears that FBI agent Peter Strzok was involved in the FISA warrant process.  Strzok has been a busy boy.  In spring 2016, he corrected James Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary, written before Comey had interviewed Hillary, tochange the words "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless."
It seems that Comey was too dumb to realize that the words "grossly negligent" meant that Hillary had violated the law, so Strzok changed the wording.
Evidently, Bill Clinton did not get a copy of the exoneration letter.  Bill wanted to be sure, so he met with Obama's attorney general, Lynch, by "accident," at an airport, several days before FBI agent Strzok  questioned Hillary, not under oath.   Why bother to question under oath when the fix is in?  Bubba could have saved himself a trip to the airport.
Hillary lost the election, so she and the swamp blamed the loss on Russian "interference" with our election.  The DNC claims that it was hacked, but it refused to have the FBI inspect its computers, so the FBI accepted the DNC's assertion that it was hacked.
Trump fired Comey because Comey is basically dumb, dishonest, and incompetent.  Even the Dems wanted Comey fired.  Comey needed a ghostwriter, Strzok, to correctly write an exoneration letter.
 Comey illegally leaked a memo to force a special counsel.
On March 2, 2017, Jeff Sessions, our A.G., recused himself from anything dealing with "Russia."  We learned on December 8, 2017 that Sessions was cleared on March 7, 2017 of any improper "contact with the Russians."  But Sessions has not un-recused himself.
Rod Rosenstein, deputy A.G., appointed Robert Mueller, Comey's pal.  The law requires that the appointment order specify the crimes to be investigated.
But Rosentstein appointed Mueller to investigate anything dealing with Russia, without specifying what crime or crimes were committed.
Mueller hired 20 attorneys who hate Trump; have worked for Obama and Hillary; and have donated to Obama, Hillary, and other Dems.
Mueller also hired Strzok.  Strzok is a busy boy.  He is having an affair with a Justice Department attorney, also on Mueller's staff until September 2017.  He sent her numerous texts detailing his hate of Trump, in addition to ghostwriting Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary and questioning Flynn.
Strzok also interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.  He gave bothimmunity.
Strzok questioned Flynn in January 2017 about Flynn's contacts with the Russians.  It was an ambush interview at the W.H.  Flynn did not have an attorney present.
Flynn had contacted the Russian ambassador in December 2016 to lobby Russia to vote against the U.N. resolution to condemn Israel for its settlement policy.  The U.N. Security Council voted 14-0 to condemn Israel, with Obama abstaining.
Flynn also contacted the Russians to lobby against retaliation by the Russians for the Obama sanctions.  These contacts upset Obama's Justice Department – namely, Sally Yates, who thinks this violates the Logan Act.  There has not been a prosecution under the Logan Act in over 150 years.  Sally also was fired by Trump because she refused to enforce Trump's travel ban on countries designated as terrorist by Obama and Trump.
Sally was praised for her insubordination by Mueller's chief deputy, Weissman.  Weissman prosecuted the major accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, in the Enron case, forcing Anderson out of business, resulting in the loss of over 10,000 jobs.  The Supreme Court, 9-0, reversed the conviction of Anderson.
Mueller removed Strzok in July 2017 from his team but did not notify Congress about this.  Strzok remained on the FBI "Russia" squad.
The DOJ never informed Congress about Bruce Ohr's meetings with Fusion and Steele.
Rod Rosenstein presumably oversees the Mueller investigation because Sessions recused himself.  Rosenstein did not inform Congress about Strzok and Ohr.   Ohr, whose office is four doors down from Rod, was removed only when Ohr's meetings are discovered by Congress and the media.
The wife of Andrew McCabe, the number-two man in the FBI in charge of "investigating" Hillary, received over $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, the money bag man for the Clintons, for her political campaign for the Virginia legislature. 
We are supposed to trust the FBI, despite the conduct of McCabe, Strzok, and Comey.   We are supposed to trust the Department of Justice despite Lynch, Ohr, Rosenstein, and Yates, and worse, Jeff Sessions.  Sessions should not haverecused himself.
Sessions has allowed the Justice Department to be run by Rosenstein, which allowed Mueller to establish a mini-Justice Department that resembles an Obama-Hillary Justice Department, with an unlimited budget, to investigate "Russian" collusion with the Trump campaign when there is no evidence that Russia affected the results of the election.  Moreover, "collusion" is not a crime.  The purpose of the investigation is to create "process" crimes to ensnare those whose statements to the FBI are deemed "lies" by the FBI.

If we only had an attorney general willing to clean up the FBI and DOJ.

Trump's Unintended Consequences: The Unmasking of the Deep State

The term "Deep State" unleashes many paranoid fantasies.  Movies and spy stories abound about the existence of dark, nefarious forces from our government aligned against us.  But as Joseph Heller once wrote, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you."  One of the more disturbing revelations after Trump's win was finding that these dark forces not only exist, but are powerful and seemingly out of control.
"Deep State" is hard to define, because it is composed of overlapping groups and individuals with complex and differing agendas.  It's an amalgam of people, agencies, and bureaucrats that changes.  The current leakers are part of it.  For now, let's say it's a mostly unelected, mostly leftist group within our government that wants to govern us against the will of America's founding principles.  These people want the final say over our Republic.  They want to rule, and they form part of a powerful alliance against the current administration and its voters.  The one thing we can be thankful for is that they are showing themselves to us in a way that should anger Americans of all political persuasions.  In the end, that's what we might hope for.
"Big Brother" was the term Orwell used for the totalitarian presence of 1984.  We are not there.  Maybe not even close.  But the problem of the Deep State is that there seem to be those who want the kind of power Orwell described, the kind of power the Soviets had, or the East Germans.  It's likely that many Deep-Staters don't even realize just how power-mad they have become.
Here is a small list with their fingerprints on it:
- The unmasking and subsequent takedown of General Michael Flynn
- The daily leaks designed to impede or embarrass the Trump administration
- The unmasking of hundreds of private citizens working with the Trump campaign as reported by Circa News
- The bogus "Trump dossier"
- The bogus Trump-Russian collusion narrative.
- The unseemly collusion between Robert Mueller and James Comey
- The seeming insanity of Mueller probing a nonexistent crime
- The exoneration of the Clinton crime family
- The IRS targeting conservative groups
And lots more.
What we are watching is a group using power willfully, wrongfully, and oftentimes illegally to undermine and destroy political opponents.  They are after somebody.  For real.  From this list, we can surmise that their opponents appear to be those of us on the center-right.  And to those of you on the left who don't know: This happened, and it's happening.  You can pretend it's not so, but it is. 
Okay, some of you are tuning out.  This can't happen here, it's tinfoil hat stuff, the left really isn't that bad, you're being overly paranoid, blah, blah, blah.  Sorry, but this is seriously bad stuff.
I recall back when the PATRIOT Act was passed, noting a comment by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.  He said powers to surveil, and powers that could cross the lines of the bad guys' civil liberties, were well and good, but in the wrong hands, those powers could and would be misused. 
Well, he was right.  At the time, I considered his fears over the top, but I was wrong.  The history of the human race is littered with tyrants who concentrated and misused power.  The genius of the American system adopted by the founding fathers was limiting and decentralizing government in a way to protect our citizenry against this kind of tyranny.  Systems were put in place to check, balance, and limit the things that could be done by the government against its people.  The Bill of Rights is directed at that problem.  These rights were called inalienable, the natural and normal rights given to us by God, not by our government.  These were to be our birthright as a nation.  It's one of the many reasons our country has been great and can be great again.
We have had bad players in our government, we have made lots of mistakes and done wrong things as a nation, but what we are seeing played out now is simply unprecedented.  There is a quote attributed to Valerie Jarrett, Obama adviser-enforcer and all-around bad human, that goes like this:
After we win this election, it's our turn.  Payback time.  Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready, because we don't forget.  The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve.  There is going to be hell to pay.  Congress won't be a problem for us this time.  No election to worry about after this is over.
Let me say, there is no proof she said this.  But one thing that is real for sure is that much of what they did in that administration, with her help, was to institutionalize those ideas as their operating manual.  The IRS scandal targeting conservative donors and conservative organizations was a perfect example.  Read the horrifying story in Forbes of what happened to Catherine Engelbrecht if you think this didn't happen.  A terrible line had been crossed.  Had she been a liberal, we would hear her name for forty years or more.
This was just the tip of the iceberg.  The left has weaponized the bureaucracies and agencies it inhabits.  Leftists have decided they will become the dominant culture in the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, EPA, and the rest of our bureaucracies.  They decided it's okay to be totalitarian, it's okay to break the law, it's okay to go after their political opponents with the force of government, it's okay because they are the ones who deserve to win.  The Deep State running rampant is fine, as long as they run it.  From Valerie Jarrett to Barack Obama to James Clapper and James Comey, they all visibly overstepped their rightful boundaries.  They are proof of the saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Make no mistake: the prior administration went rampant.  The Deep
State did not originate with them, but they stocked it with their 
cronies.  They stocked it with people of similar left-leaning ideas, with similar left-leaning willingness to misuse power.  The Deep State became a weapon of intimidation and a deep abuser of power.  Thank God Hillary was not there to take the baton.
So here we are, with the Deep State running amok.  They are aligned with the Obamap-Clinton machine; they are generally in sync with the Obama-Clinton goals.  None of us knows exactly how this works, who sets the agenda, or who has the capacity to give direction, but it is real.  We do know that many of the media are there to help, we do know that most of the Democratic Party apparatus is there to help, and we do know some of the players.  We also know that most of the Democrat base, and many of the party's voters, are naïvely on board, too.  We may not understand the mechanism, but we do know that the Deep State has become the vanguard of the left's civil war, and it is not fictional.
They are self-motivated with a set of goals.  Get rid of Trump if they can.  Get Trump's base to be embarrassed of him or depressed if they can.  Make certain that Trump cannot succeed.  Make certain his hands are tied in ways to make him less effective.  If nothing else, slow his progress to a snail's pace while they marshal better forces.
The stupid party (Republicans), as usual, has no clue.  Too many Republicans just think this is normal or haven't the stomach to fight.  Heck, many of them are traitorously helping to take down what their own voters and standard-bearer want to achieve.  The Democratic Party is fractured and has no idea how wrong this is (yet), and it only helps parrot the talking points of its Deep State allies.  Democrats have no idea of the backlash they are creating toward themselves.
There is no distinct winner at this point.  But the battle is joined.  It is clear that the Deep State intends to continue using all its power to stop Trump, and to prevent a return to checks and balances and limited government.
One important note: they are not winning.  The media may make it appear that they are, but they're not.  Trump, his administration and allies, and his voting base intend on continuing the fight and winning.  This is the major part of "draining the swamp."  The battle is in the balance, will last for years, and there are a lot of reasons to believe that the Deep State will lose.  One of the great unintended consequences of Trump's win:  They have been unmasked.
Push back hard enough, and they will lose. 
They deserve to.


What caused the destruction of the Democrat Party in America?


In the July/August version of the Atlantic, columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, 

“How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”

“The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.”

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

 Illustration by Lincoln Agnew*

The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”
Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?
There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.
But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

What’s Wrong With the Democrats?

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

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE OF OPEN BORDERS TO DESTROY AMERICA… The first step to building a Muslim-style dictatorship

"More than 728,000 illegal immigrants have been shielded from being deported and granted work permits through President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty program, according to the Migration Policy Institute."

HILLARY CLINTON: Closet Republican
…and Openly a LA RAZA SUPREMACIST agent for Mexico!
 "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."
"He (Trump) is able to get a hearing because millions of people are being driven into economic insecurity and poverty while the rich and the super-rich continue to amass obscene levels of wealth. He is able with some success to divert mass discontent along reactionary nationalist and racialist channels precisely because what passes for the “left” in American politics, anchor by the Democratic Party, has moved ever further to the right, culminating in the Obama administration which has presided over endless war and an unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top of the economic ladder."



There’s more than one way to destroy America’s white middle class!

HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the past two decades. The bank transferred at least $881 million of known drug trafficking proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, which is known for dismembering its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: You were wondering how many jobs went to illegals and how well Obama’s crony banksters have done???

The sputtering economic recovering under President Obama, the last to follow a major recession, has fallen way short of the average recovery and ranks as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression, according to a new report.

Had the recovery under Obama been the average of the 11 since the Depression, according to the report, family incomes would be $17,000 higher, six million fewer Americans would be in poverty, and there would be six million more jobs.


“The lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits of illegal immigrant beneficiaries of President Obama’s executive amnesty would be well over a trillion dollars, according to Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector’s prepared testimony for a House panel obtained in advance by Breitbart News.”


….It’s all to keep wages DEPRESSED.

 “This nation no longer is a democratic republic ...rather it has become a tool of the super-rich members of the above mentioned elite who preselect our presidents based on their cooperation and complicity with the elite’s ultimate goals. Obama has, in their opinion done superbly carrying out the plans well laid out for him by his backers.”        

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually (DATED FIGURES) in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.”   --- Christian Science Monitor

While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”

Obama's  Legacy of the 'Hispanicazation' of America

January 10, 2011

By: James Walsh
Casting a shadow on economic recovery efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border.

While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”

Feds make secret alliance with Sinaloa drug cartel


What does the US Department of Justice, the Sinaloa drug cartel, and the spy corporation Stratfor have in common? According to CIA documents leaked by WikiLeaks, they’re all at the center of the new US strategy in the War on Drugs. In 2012, Whiteout Press exposed the shocking alliance in the article, ‘Secret US Alliance with Sinaloa Cartel exposed’.


A county by county chart:       


They’re already signed up to vote LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEM! 

“According to Immigration and Customers Enforcement data first obtained by the Associated Press this week, about 70 percent of the 40,000 migrant family members arrested at the border since May did not follow up their arrest with a necessary visit to an immigration office.”

The Democratic earthquake

I don't know if you've felt them, but we've had many warnings of a major catastrophic human-made earthquake that threatens the foundations of our 242-year-old existence as a free nation.  The needle on the political Richter scale started shaking after the 2000 election of George W. Bush.  The rumblings began with the Democrats contesting the 527-vote Florida game-changing presidential win by Bush over Gore that eventually was confirmed by a recount.  Thereafter, Bush was for his eight more years in the White House referred to and treated by the left as America's first sitting "non-president." 
Then we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the electorate.  His close personal relationship with the likes of his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret.  Obama was open about his goals.  He told us he was out to "fundamentally transform America" and the world.  He did, with racial unrest, blacks against whites, attacks against law enforcement, hatred against people of wealth, the cover-up of Muslim hate crimes, the admission of millions of illegals, the deliberate condemnations of our nation's history, the "Arab Spring" that turned the Middle East into a raging inferno of destruction and death, the support to the terrorist nation of Iran, and the eight-year unsuccessful effort to undermine the Jewish State of Israel.  Worrisome tremblings, indeed.
Recently, the threats have increased in volume and intensity with the election of Donald Trump in 2016.  The grinding Democrat tectonic plates beneath our (small "d") democracy have sent rumbling tremors that indicate a major catastrophe to our nation on the horizon.  The forces of hate against our president have reached catastrophic levels on the political seismic scale that threaten to take down the pillars of liberty and freedom.  The fraudulently concocted charges of treason and collusion with an enemy nation against Trump have shaken the nation's stability.  Calls for his impeachment, his assassination, and physical attacks against his staff and supporters have rattled us all.  And our Democratic elected leaders are feeding this frenzy.  The recent live broadcasts of the funerals of Aretha Franklin and John McCain coming so close together should have knocked us off our feet, with the eulogists standing over caskets, attacking our legally elected president.  The shock of having three open haters of whites, Jews, and America in the first row at the Franklin services seated purposely and openly right next to a former president should have rocked our senses.  But it didn't...and that's scary.
Lastly, perhaps the most significant recent shudders came in the current Senate hearings for the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice.  The well planned observer tantrums requiring the ejection of violent demonstrators for the whole world to see, along with the coordinated Democratic disruption from the official seats, represented a massive threat to our liberties.
We have no control of nature.  Earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, and tsunamis are generated by Earth's forces.  But the undermining rattling of our halls of justice, our Constitution, and our liberties for which so many have sacrificed their lives is occurring because we are permitting it to happen.  The willful closing of our eyes to the earth-shaking warning signals of calamity, growing not only in frequency but in intensity, will result in irreparable cracks in the foundations of our liberties and freedom.  The next shock may be coming soon.

No comments: