The Mexican Invasion and Occupation: Mexico & Dems Build the LA RAZA UNIDOus Mex Welfare State

When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!

Monday, September 30, 2019

BARACK OBAMA: BIDEN JUST ANOTHER WHITE MONKEY ON A STRING

Book: Barack Obama Does Not Want to Endorse ‘Just Another White Guy’ Joe Biden

Hannes Magerstaedt/Getty Images

2:04

Former President Barack Obama did not endorse former Vice President Joe Biden for president, according to a new book, because he did not represent the appropriate level of change that he hoped his presidential legacy would represent.

A new book claims that Obama endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of Biden in 2016 because he was “just another white guy.”

“Joe, despite his many virtues, was just another white guy, one in a long line of American presidents — hardly the symbol of the Teutonic change that Obama hoped would mark his place in the history books,” wrote author Steven Levingston in a new book, according to the Daily Mail.

Levingston is the nonfiction editor of the Washington Post, and has authored books about former President John F. Kennedy. His new book, Barack and Joe: The Making of an Extraordinary Partnership is scheduled for release on October 8.

“Barack had placed his bet on Hillary, the one he believed would confirm his revolutionary stamp on American’s political culture – the first black president passing the baton to the first woman president,” he wrote.

The book notes that Obama did not endorse Biden for president in 2020 either, marking a blow to his former vice president who routinely cites Obama’s legacy on the campaign trail.

Biden was also stung by the fact that Obama was meeting with potential presidential candidates such as former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, according to Livingston.

The New York Times also reported in August that Obama told Biden, “You don’t have to do this, Joe,” referring to a conversation he had with his former vice president, and asked Biden’s aids to not let the former vice president embarrass himself.

The book also details an anecdote about Obama as a newly elected senator emailing one of his advisers, “Shoot. Me. Now.” as Biden droned on during a speech.

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

ttps://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/04/democrats-move-towards-oligarchical-socialism-says-joel-kotkin/

Associated Press

4 Sep 2018299

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.”

WHY ARE VOTERS SO FUCKING MAD?

CITY JOURNAL

MYRON MAGNET

https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-are-voters-so-angry-14607.html?utm_source=City+Journal+Update&utm_campaign=bd38bca1a4-

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.

Myron Magnet, City Journal’s editor-at-large and its editor from 1994 through 2006, is a recipient of the National Humanities Medal. His latest book is The Founders at Home.

Time for America to get through the fog and wake up

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/time_for_america_to_get_through_the_fog_and_wake_up.html

By Anthony J. DeBlasi

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.

They Destroyed Our Country

“They knew Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic (perhaps irreparable.)”

Corruption blinders of the media and other Democrats

By Jack Hellner

Most journalists and Democrats didn’t express any concerns when:

VP Biden threatened (promised) Ukraine that he would cut off a billion dollars in aid to them if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating a company his son was involved with.
Hunter Biden got paid $50,000 a month as a board member of a corrupt Ukrainian gas company when he had no expertise on the product of the company.
Obama promised the very dangerous Russia and Putin that he would be flexible if he was reelected (somehow no one at FBI or elsewhere was ever concerned that Russia may have tried to influence the 2012 election to elect the flexible president.)
Hillary, Obama and many others violated the nation's security laws by using her non-government computer.
Obama gave kickbacks to union supporters when he violated the nation's bankruptcy law with the bailout of GM.
Obama used taxpayer dollars to reward political supporters like at Solyndra.
Hillary, through her family and foundation, got huge amounts of speech money and donations from foreign countries. Russia, for example, got Uranium for their generosity. (If there is any doubt about whether they were kickbacks, that should have disappeared when the donations dried up and speech fees dropped or dried up when she no longer could return favors)
Obama shipped over $1 billion in taxpayer money in unmarked bills, to Iran tyrants, who still pledge death to America, to get a deal.
Obama dictatorially stopped a years’ long investigation into a billion dollar a year drug running ring by terrorists to appease Iranian tyrants because he was more concerned about his legacy than the safety, health and lives of the American people.
Hillary and the DNC paying over $10 billion to buy a fake dossier from a foreign national to destroy Trump. It appears they didn't think they could beat him based on the truth or their policy proposals.
Obama and his administration, including the FBI, Justice Department, the intelligence agencies and the State Department, using the fake dossier as a source for FISA warrants and to infiltrate the Trump campaign with informants. (they obviously didn't believe their record or policies would win the votes). Instead of the media and other Democrats caring about this pure corruption they have participated in perpetuating the lies about Russian collusion for over three years.
The Obama Administration, at the Justice Department, EPA and CFPB using taxpayer money for political purposes and political supporters by creating slush funds from money confiscated from businesses that they pretended would go to victims.

If the media and Democrats want to investigate anything, how about a possible corrupt payback from Netflix to Obama? Obama gave the very wealthy Netlfix, Google and others huge financial benefits with net neutrality and Netflix gave the Obama's a huge contract even though they had no video production expertise or experience. It is similar to paying Biden's son huge amounts of money with no expertise.

But now when President Trump may have said something to a foreign leader about investigating corruption by Biden's son, that is supposed to be an impeachable offense. Shouldn't a President want political corruption by politicians to be investigated? Shouldn't the media and other Democrats be more concerned about the corruption itself than the phone call?

From this story, it appears that the media and other Democrats believe that every phone call that Trump makes to a foreign leader should become public knowledge if any bureaucrat makes a whistle blower report when they disagree with something the president does. That would certainly be cumbersome, and foreign leaders would no longer want to have discussions if every discussion could be made public.

Elizabeth Warren says she wants to get rid of corruption but not once have I heard her complain about the massive corruption during the Obama years or at her precious CFPB, so she really doesn't care.

Isn't it odd that no bureaucrats seemed to care about the corruption of Obama/Biden? It shows why we need to drain the swamp.

GRIFTER AND PHONY CHARITY FOUNDATION FRAUDSTER HILLARY CLINTON’S LONG SERVICE TO AMERICA’S MOST EVIL BANKSTERS

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-democrat-party-grifter-and-pay-to.html

The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”

*

“Clinton also failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street bankers.”

///

VIDEO:

THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION EXPOSED.

PAY-TO-PLAY FROM THE FIRST DAY!

https://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2019/01/sucking-in-bribes-dirty-story-of-two-of.html

Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds? There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all. What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.

“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.

The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”

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

///

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BILLIONAIRES’ GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html

1. Globalism: Google VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”

2. Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An executive nearly broke down crying because of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay at her defeat.

3. Immigration: Maintaining liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the most.

Democrats as a protection racket? Ed Buck makes it a trifecta

By Monica Showalter

The New York Times has been trying to dismiss the arrest of Ed Buck, a Democratic fatcat who had a thing for injecting young black men with drugs before paying them for sex, as a "small-time Democratic donor," but the facts on the ground suggest he was a rather big one. And maybe that's a function of the paper's desire to protect its masters, the Democrats. They aren't known as Democratic operatives with bylines for nothing.

Fox Business has a rundown:

While Buck once identified himself as a conservative Republican, according to the Los Angeles Times, he became a national figure when he spearheaded the effort to impeach Arizona’s Republican Gov. Evan Mecham in the 1980s. He later made large donations to Democrats, including more than $500,000 since 2007, according to court documents filed by Moore's mother in a wrongful death suit pertaining to her son.

At the federal level, those include contributions to prominent Washington lawmakers as well as 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. At the local level, Buck has donated more than $51,000 to Los Angeles city and county officials, candidates, and affiliated parties dating to 2008.

In 2012, Buck contributed $100 to the campaign for Jackie Lacey for Los Angeles County District Attorney, and four years later, gave $1,400 to Eric Garcetti for Mayor of Los Angeles. Both Lacey and Garcetti still hold their titles.

The highest contribution was $13,000, according to the court papers, to former West Hollywood Mayor John Duran when he ran for county supervisor in 2014.

That doesn't sound too small-time to me.

And in fact, his ideological switcheroo sounds as though he found the Democrats a more suitable protection racket for his perversions than the Republicans. Who needs political beliefs when the real belief is perversion and that's what he needs protected?

It's actually part of the pattern with these scandals. Pervert with big vices donates cash to Democrats to ensure his protection from the cops. Harvey Weinstein knew it, that was what his Planned Parenthood and other woke cause donations bought for him - a capacity to prey on young actresses trying to win roles. Jeffrey Epstein knew it too, donating to leftist Bill Clinton causes in order to buy enough influence to enable him to prey on underage girls with impunity, spiriting them to his pervert island for himself along with his highly connected Democrat buddies. Both had added payoffs in that Weinstein then had the power to threaten actresses and reporters who threatened to tell on him, while Epstein had blackmail material on very powerful people which kept them on his string.

Now we have the sorry case of Ed Buck, a creep who enjoyed paying for sex with young black men while poisoning them with drugs, and then relying on his political donations to ensure the cops looked the other way. Note that quite a few of his donations were to Los Angeles local officials, all of them Democrats. Assuming this tweet's images are not manipulated, look at the range of Buck's Democrats:

The Wanted Emcees@TheWantedEmcees

· Sep 18, 2019

https://abc7.com/democratic-donor-ed-buck-arrested-on-drug-charges/5547905/ … Democratic donor Ed Buck arrested on drug charges after new overdose at his West Hollywood home! @realDonaldTrump @POTUS @SenSchumer @tedlieu @HillaryClinton @CBSThisMorning @GayleKing I see 3 dead people killed by Ed Buck ... WTF? @FBI @LAPDWestLA

Democratic donor Ed Buck arrested on drug charges after new overdose at his West Hollywood home

Democratic donor Ed Buck, who has been subject to calls for prosecution in the overdose deaths of two men at his West Hollywood home, was arrested Tuesday in connection with a third overdose, police...

abc7.com

The Wanted Emcees@TheWantedEmcees

A THIRD death in this guy's house. WTF!? Ed Buck donated money to Chuck Schumer, Ted Lieu, & Hillary Clinton... was given a free pass / no repercussions after the first two black guys died (18 months apart) from drug fueled speed & poppers homosexual parties.. @CBSNews

12:39 AM - Sep 18, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

43 people are talking about this

Combine it with media malfeasance - the mainstream media tried to turn down Ronan Farrow's report on Weinstein, it tried to pin the Epstein scandal on President Trump, and now it's trying to persuade us that Buck was just small fry, and the protection racket seems complete.

With so many of these perverts turning up in the Democrat donor base as well as organizations such as Planned Parenthood, one wonders if these are the only ones out there. Is the Democratic Party held together in no small part by freaks using politics as their 'vaccination' from scrutiny? Are their perversions and the need to protect them at the root of why these groups are so powerful and Democrats are so extreme and inflexible on issues such as abortion? Might that be why they're so out of step with even the Democratic voting public? And why are the Democrats the more hospitable party for such a sorry scenario? Why are they the party of perverts? It actually isn't just these three, it's quite a few of them as I noted here. A lot of such characters have turned up in a very, very short time and the pattern is exactly the same for each. How many more are there? What does Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who've benefited from Buck's bucks have to say about this? And why aren't all of the Democrats confronting this?

Image credit: Twitter screen shot

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I got rich, really, rich, selling out my country as my husband/pimp paid out bribes to other DEM POLS so they would keep their mouths closed about our corruption!

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/07/she-ranks-as-one-of-most-corrupt-and.html

IN THE November 2006 election, the voters demanded congressional ethics reform. And so, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues. But for many years, Feinstein has been beset by her own ethical conflict of interest, say congressional ethics experts.

“All in all, it was an incredible victory for the Chinese government. Feinstein has done more for Red China than other any serving U.S. politician. “ Trevor Loudon

“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER.com

Judicial Watch: Only Crimes in Russia Scandal Are from ‘Obama Gang’

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/06/judicial-watch-only-crimes-in-russia-scandal-are-from-obama-gang/

Katie Pavlich's Latest Books, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up are available on Amazon

FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER SABOTAGED HOMELAND SECURITY TO EASE MORE MEXICANS OVER OUR BORDERS AND INTO OUR JOBS AND VOTING BOOTHS.

OBAMA NEEDED THESE ILLEGALS TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, WHAT WAS LEFT OF THEM AFTER OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS' PLUNDER.

“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 MAN WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR

Barack Obama’s Russia Connection

https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/barack-obamas-russian-connection-who.html

If Obama was a fully recruited agent of Moscow, tasked with giving Russia a significant military advantage over the United States, and economically weakening and socially dividing the nation, how would he have conducted his presidency (or his post-presidency) any differently? TREVOR LOUDON

*

We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.

///

Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation

https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/obamas-lackey-judge-blakey-hands-obomb.html

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

“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.”

We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.

OPERATION OBOMB:

DESTABILIZE AMERICA TO LAY GROUNDS FOR A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP

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

*

BARACK OBAMA: Was he America’s first closet Communist president?

https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/05/karin-mcquilan-barack-obama-and-his.html

Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA. These facts are not in dispute. Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control. Our press chooses not to report them.

Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.

WAS THE RUSSIAN HOAX ONLY OBAMA’S ATTEMPT TO PUT ASIDE TRUMP FOR AN OBAMA THIRD TERM FOR LIFE???

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/03/obama-and-phony-investigation-of-trump.html

They Destroyed Our Country

These people were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist foreign policy.

Barack Obama’s plot for a third term for life

A Muslim dictatorship like his crony paymasters, the 9-11 invading Saudis who have financed him for decades.

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/03/obamas-plotting-for-third-and-fourth.html

“Obama has the totalitarian impulse. After all, he went around saying he didn't have Constitutional authority to legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts stopped him.”

What was Obama’s motive? Simple, he knew if he did that for Hillary, he’d own the next President of the United States, and could blackmail her with the truth till the end of time. It literally would have given him a 3rd and 4th term.

THE OBAMA – CLINTON RUSSIAN CONNECTION

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-traitors-how-obama-and-clinton.html

WITH THESE TRAITORS, JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!

How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.

Mecha's (M.E.Ch.A.) own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing."

LA RAZA: The Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “THE RACE” and the Reconquista and surrender of America to NARCOMEX

VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY?

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2010/07/la-raza-reconquista-of-america.html

The comparison to the Nazi Party is well deserved. La Raza openly supports pushing all but Latino Americans out of a portion of the United States (ethnic cleansing), they call for 'Reconquista' or the re-conquest of the American Southwest by Mexico (the re-occupation of the Sudetanland), and the establishment of 'Atzlan' which is the utopian all-Latino version of the American Southwestern states (Adolf Hitler planned to called his utopia Germania).

"Despite the fact that the majority of documented hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it is scorned as racism."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."

"We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico."

"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens --- was the last gasp of white America in California." --- Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party… NOW THE PARTY for LA RAZA SUPREMACY… do a search for Barack Obama and LA RAZA.

"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." --- Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico

“Make no mistake about it: the Latino community holds this election in your hands. Some of the closest contests this November will be in states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico -- states with large Latino populations.” PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA

“I know how powerful this community is. Just think how powerful you could be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.” PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA

Pollak: Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division

JOEL B. POLLAK

Left-wing pundits have accused President Donald Trump of using his tweets last weekend to launch a divisive re-election campaign.

David Axelrod, former adviser to President Barack Obama, tweeted: “With his deliberate, racist outburst, @realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his targets, drive Dems to defend them and make them emblematic of the entire party. It’s a cold, hard strategy.”

That is debatable — but if so, Axelrod should know; Obama did it first.

By 2011, Obama knew that re-election would be difficult. The Tea Party had just led the Republicans to a historic victory in the 2010 midterm elections, winning the House and nearly taking the Senate. The economy was only growing sluggishly, and Obama’s stimulus had failed to keep unemployment below eight percent, as projected. Moreover, the passage of Obamacare had provoked a backlash against Obama’s state-centered model of American society.

Facing a similar situation in the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton had “triangulated,” moving back toward the middle, frustrating the GOP by taking up their issues, such as welfare reform.

But Obama rejected that approach. Having watched his icon, Chicago mayor Harold Washington, settle for an incremental approach when faced with opposition in the 1980s, only to die of a sudden heart attack before fulfilling his potential, Obama chose the path of hard-left policy — and divide-and-rule politics.

The first hint of his strategy emerged during the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of August 2011. As Bob Woodward recounted in his book about the crisis, The Price of Politics, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) had wanted to reach a “grand bargain” with the president on long-term spending cuts. But Obama blew up that agreement by demanding $400 billion in new taxes, to his aides’ surprise. Obama wanted an opponent, not a deal. (Last week, Boehner told Breitbart News Tonight that Obama’s decision was his worst disappointment in 35 years of politics.)

In the fall of 2011, a new left-wing movement, Occupy Wall Street, was launched. A mix of communists, anarchists, and digital pranksters, the Occupy movement cast American society as a struggle between the “99 percent” and the “one percent.”

Obama and then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) embraced the movement — and failed to distance themselves from it even as it collapsed into violence, sexual assault, and confrontations with police.

Instead, Obama picked up on Occupy’s themes and used them to shape his campaign.

In December 2011, Obama gave a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas — a place steeped in radical symbolism — at which he doubled down on his left-wing policies. He focused on the issue of economic inequality, and attacked the idea that the free market could lift the middle class to prosperity. “This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare,” he insisted.

Then, in the spring of 2012, Obama made a controversial play on race. When a black teen, Trayvon Martin, was killed in Florida during a scuffle with neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, Al Sharprton — who was serving as an informal adviser to Obama at the time — made the local crime story into a national racial controversy. Obama, following Sharpton’s lead, weighed in: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said at the time.

Poll numbers suggest that race relations, which had been improving, dropped precipitously after that. But to Obama, it was worth it: the campaign needed to find a way to motivate minority voters. (Vice President Joe Biden did his part, telling black voters that GOP nominee Mitt Romney was “gonna put y’all in chains.”)

Trump is pushing a non-racial, nationalist message. But if he actually wanted to divide America for political gain, he could learn from the master.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Heading for civil war

By Peter Skurkiss

Donald Trump’s opponents are completely unhinged. The hate and slander directed towards the president and his supporters is off the charts. The vitriol comes not just from the Democrat party, the media, and the world of entertainment, but also from a sizable proportion of the federal bureaucracy and many seemingly ordinary people.

The media coordinates this campaign and amplifies the hate at every opportunity. Media twist every event, be it big or small, into a criticism of the president. The goal is always to present Trump in not just an unfavorable light but to make him appear too loathsome for polite society. And Trump is not the sole target of this demonization. It is directed at his supporters, too.

Where will all this lead? No less than Angelo M. Codevilla fears it could ultimately result in a bloody civil war. And if it comes to that, there's no doubt where he places the blame.

The story of the contemporary American Left's sponsorship of hate and violence began around 1964, when the Democrats chose to abandon the Southern constituencies that had been its mainstay since the time of Jefferson and Jackson. In less than a decade, the party found itself increasingly dependent on gaining super-majorities among blacks, upscale liberals, and constituencies of resentment in general -- and hence on stoking their hate.

For the past half century, America's political history has been driven by the Democrats' effort to fire up these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America.

Codevilla notes that prominent Democrats like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have led millions of their followers "to think and act as if conservatives were simply a lower level of humanity, and should have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority."

It’s not surprising that many ordinary followers have concluded that harassing conservatives in restaurants, airports, and public functions is "not just permissible but praiseworthy, and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns, and schools have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty."

This is the toxic environment that the Democrats, in conjunction with the media, have created. Has Pandora's box been opened? Are we beyond the point of no return? Are leftists and their liberal soulmates too obtuse not to expect that hate and violence will someday be answered in kind? These questions are up in the air. Right now, one thing is clear. As Yeats wrote: "The best lack all conviction while the worse are full of passionate intensity."

Codevilla's worry about a civil war dovetails with The Fourth Turning,: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About American's Next Rendezvous with Destiny (1997) by William Strauss and Neil Howe. To my reading, these authors predict a Fourth Turning Crisis period around the years 2020-2022. Then, many things that Americans have always taken for granted will unravel.

Just to touch on a few of the changes that Strauss and Howe see: today's soft criminal justice system will become swift and rough. Vagrants will be rounded up and the mentally ill recommitted. Criminal appeals shortened and executions hastened. Pension funds will go bust and Social Security checks become iffy. The full spectrum of society will be under distress. All the problems will be combined into one -- the survival of society.

Aren't the seeds already planted for a crisis? Trust in Washington and in government institutions is at an all-time low. Political violence is tacitly condoned and often openly encouraged by Democratic officeholders. The political establishment encourages massive Illegal immigration. The mainstream media is highly partisan and corrupt beyond reform. The American flag, the country's history, and even its nationhood are openly despised in universities. American public schools are a disgrace despite the money poured into them. The country is burdened by a $22 trillion national debt to which many trillions more of unfunded government liabilities must be added. Students owe a trillion dollars in school loans that can never be repaid.

Someday there has to be a reckoning for all this dysfunction. Irrespective of the election results in 2020, the time frame of 2020-2022 sounds about the right for things to come to a head. It would be prudent to be ready.

Hatred is Hatred, whether from the Left or Right

By Don Boys

The Reverend Not So Sharpton is not considered a hater. He was much sought after by 12 of the Democrat presidential candidates, who made the pilgrimage to his humble abode to kiss his ring.

When it was time to renew his television show, his credentials were examined (but the ratings were ignored), and yes, he was qualified because he is still black. That seems to be the reason Al is a television star. Al is paid $500,000 annually by MSNBC for his television work, and he pays himself over $200,000 from his civil rights non-profit organization.

You might think a television star with a net worth of up to $5 million and annual income of over $700,000 could pay his bills, but Al still owes $4.5 million in state and federal taxes, and he often forgets "to pay travel agencies, hotels, and landlords," according to the records. In 2015, Al paid almost $2 million on his back taxes.

In 2004, Al bought himself a Rolls-Royce Phantom for his 50th birthday. That is the most expensive production car in the world, with a base price of $475,000.

That is one Baptist who was not held under water long enough!

Just kidding, but he is not my kind of Baptist.

A black killer in Dallas who killed five police officers and injured 14 other innocent people said, "I want to kill white people, especially white cops." When asked if the shooting should be considered a hate crime, President Obama said, "It's hard to know what his motives are." Can't Obama understand clear English? The killer was a hater, and his race or political position did not matter. By being a defender of hate, does that make Obama a hater?

It seems hate is identified depending on the hater and the hatee.

A French rapper named Nick Conrad has a song titled "Hang Whites!" that declares, "I enter day care centres, I kill white babies, Grab them quickly and hang their parents, Take them apart to pass the time." In one scene, the rapper and an associate drag a white person along a street and kick him in the head. The lyrics include calls to kill white people and their children.

That's hate by a self-described "black artist, Parisian, proud sophisticate" — or more precisely, a French jerk who shot to fame with his hate-filled "song."

Thaddeus Matthews, Memphis disc jockey, interviewing Charlotte Bergmann, a black, female conservative Republican candidate for Congress, called her a "token negro" and "curly-haired nigga." He added, "I'm so sick of your s---, yourself, and I'm about to put your a-- up outta here," he said. "You are a token negro that white folk have control over." As she got up to leave, she tried to shake his hand, and he refused, saying, "I don't need to shake your hand. I'm scared because some of that whiteness might rub off on me."

Thad, the black hater of whites, is still a disc jockey in Memphis. Charlotte won her primary but lost in the 2018 general election.

The mother of Michael Brown (the teen thug who was killed by a police officer in Ferguson after Brown tried to take the officer's gun) is running for city council! But Momma's comments will haunt her. She wrote on social media after two police officers were shot, "If my FAM woulda got JUSTICE in August maybe those two comps wouldn't have got shot LAST NIGHT..." Also, "F--- THEM 2 COPS...DON'T GOT NO SYMPATHY FOR THEM OR THEY FAMILIES…Aint no FUN when the Rabbit got the GUN."

That too is undisguised, unreasonable, and uncontrolled hate and indicates a problem in public education.

Maggie Gallagher cited a book that expresses extreme hatred toward conservative Christians in America who "tend to hold relatively high levels of social power." So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States? was authored by George Yancey and David A. Williamson, who asked people about conservative Christians. "'I want them [conservative Christians] all to die in a fire,' said one man with a doctorate[.] ... 'The only good Christian is a dead Christian,' said another man with a doctorate. 'I abhor them and I wish we could do away with them,' said a woman with a master's degree. 'A tortuous death would be too good for them,' said a college-educated man. 'They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse,' said an elderly woman with a master's degree."

Hate is not defined by education, race (and yes, of course blacks can be racists), religion, national origin, politics, or financial status.

"Look at thus [sic] chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes." This was so eloquently spoken by white Georgetown University professor Christine Fair. Chrisy is no longer teaching at Georgetown; she is "on leave."

No sane person will defend hate, but many haters use hate as a weapon and often go into battle with Christian conservatives. Since the progressive cannot defend his castle in ruins (liberalism), he fires the only bullet in his possession: "You're a hater." That is supposed to settle the argument in favor of progressives!

Pseudo-intellectuals like Georgetown's Michael Eric Dyson said after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin that it would be a good thing for more white children to be murdered so Americans could better understand racism. Mike is also a Baptist preacher, but not a historical or biblical Baptist, for sure.

Sarah Jeong is a member of the New York Times editorial board. She wrote: "Dumba-- f------ white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on a fire hydrant." Also, "Are white people predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling goblins[?]" Finally Sarah's "White men are b-------"; "#CancelWhitePeople"; "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and "f--- white women lol."

Sarah is still with the Times!

According to a report from Newsweek, Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams is making waves again. Breitbart News reported in June 2017 that Williams had argued that first responders should have let Representative Steve Scalise die after he was shot during a practice for the congressional baseball game. Williams also shared a blog post by an anonymous author that asked black people to withhold life-saving help from white people in need.

In a recent social media post, Williams wrote that "whiteness is terrorism[]. ... If you see them [whites] drowning. If you see them in a burning building. If they are bleeding out in an emergency room. If the ground is crumbling beneath them. If they are in a park and they turn their weapons on each other: do nothing," the post read.

Of course, hatred is hatred whether from the Left or right or in the middle; however, all the haters quoted today have been from far out in left field.

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! EBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and visit his blog. Send request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.