Secret Service Agent Snaps After Being Assigned to Kamala Harris’ Security Detail
A Secret Service agent snapped, began throwing menstrual pads and attacked her superior after being assigned to Vice President Kamala Harris’ security detail.
Secret Service Chief of Communications Anthony Guglielmi issued a statement after the incident on Monday, noting that the agent, now identified as Michelle Herczeg, appeared distressed as she awaited Harris’ arrival:
“At approximately 9 a.m. April 22, a U.S. Secret Service special agent supporting the vice president’s departure from Joint Base Andrews began displaying behavior their colleagues found distressing. The agent was removed from their assignment while medical personnel were summoned.”
According to the statement, Harris had not yet arrived at the airport at time Agent Herczeg snapped.
Still, since reports have not revealed whether or not Herczeg had ever had any previous contact with the vice president, it is not clear whether she had ever been subjected first-hand to Harris’ infamously grating laugh or widely-mocked commentaries.
In fact, so many Americans are so offended by Kamala Harris' personality that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has begun conducting focus groups to find out what can be done about it.
Regardless of the cause of her meltdown, Agent Herczeg’s behavior was, indeed, “distressing,” including:
- Physically assaulting the security detail’s commanding officer,
- Throwing menstrual pads at a fellow agent,
- Grabbing, and deleting applications from, another agent’s phone,
- Hiding behind a curtain,
- Screaming out the names of female officers she believed were coming to her aid, and
- Telling her peers that they were “going to burn in hell and needed to listen to God”
Herczeg was wearing a gun at the time of the attack on her superior, but her assault was purely physical: she chest-bumped, shoved, tackled and punched him, before being subdued, disarmed and handcuffed.
Immediately following the incident, Herzczeg was removed from her assignment on Vice President Harris’ security detail, the Secret Service told The New York Post.
Kim Kardashian Meets With Kamala Harris about Criminal Justice Reform
Reality TV star Kim Kardashian was at the White House on Thursday to meet with Vice President Kamala Harris about criminal justice reform — a subject that has long been a favorite personal cause for Kardashian.
The event featured four individuals who recently received a presidential pardon after being convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
“I am super honored to be here to hear your stories today,” Kardashian said. “I think it’s so important to share them and amplify them because there are so many people that are in your position that can use the inspiration.”
“I’m just here to help and spread the word.”
Watch below:
Harris praised Kardashian while also touting her commitment to providing “second chances” for those who have been convicted.
During her tenure as California attorney general, Kamala Harris oversaw the prosecution of nearly 2,000 cases involving marijuana possession, use, and sales.
But facing record unpopularity heading into November’s election, Harris is now singing a different tune.
“I believe – I think we all at this table believe – nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed,” she said last month. “And what we need to do is recognize that far too many people have been sent to jail for simple marijuana possession.”
During the Trump administration, Kim Kardashian similarly advocated for criminal pardons, even posing with then-President Donald Trump in an Oval Office photo.
Follow David Ng on Twitter @HeyItsDavidNg. Have a tip? Contact me at dng@breitbart.com
Her (KAMALA
HARRIS) more radical positions, such as support for the Obama administration’s Iran
deal, prosecuting a journalist who exposed Planned
Parenthood’s collection and sale of aborted babies’ body parts (while receiving campaign donations from them), and defending Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism, may indeed sit
well with a great many leftists, but her actions as Attorney General of
California may not. While in that position, Harris jailed hundreds on marijuana charges and authorized
anti-prostitution sting operations which, according to SF Weekly,
disproportionately targeted Latino men (a crucial Democrat demographic). In
addition to this -- though she later admitted it was a mistake -- she prosecuted and jailed the parents of truant teens. She
even refused to release the names of Catholic priests
accused of sexually molesting children, abnegating law enforcement’s most basic
and humane duty -- regardless of anyone’s opinion of the Catholic Church.
Kamala Harris and the Art of Failing Up
REVIEW: ‘Amateur Hour: Kamala Harris
in the White House’ by Charlie Spiering
Kamala Harris
(Alex Wong/Getty Images)
March 31, 2024
Reading an account of Kamala Harris’s political
career is like examining the stalled career of a can’t-miss baseball prospect
struggling to hit major league pitching. In Charlie Spiering’s new biography of
the vice president, Amateur Hour: Kamala Harris
in the White House, the book portrays Harris as a hyped candidate
who consistently makes egregious missteps to the point that being a heartbeat
away from the presidency is giving Democratic operatives heartburn.
There are two things clear about Harris after
reading Spiering’s account: She’s a cautious politician who reflects
conventional progressive thinking. She’s also shown consistently poor judgment
about the direction of American politics, particularly in her role as a
national figure, tacking far to the left as a senator and during her
unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign and later, serving as an emissary to
the left in the White House, even when her political fortunes demanded a
broader appeal.
Harris’s electoral statistics speak for
themselves. In her first statewide campaign, in deep-blue California, she
barely won with just 46 percent of the vote, eking out a victory for attorney
general. Despite generating outsized publicity for her presidential candidacy,
she dropped out of the race before the Iowa caucuses, after failing to get
traction in any of the early-state contests—and being upstaged by a more
moderate candidate in Pete Buttigieg.
And as vice president, after botching televised
interviews and struggling to find an effective role within the administration,
Harris watched her favorability ratings sink below President Joe Biden’s—the
presumptive Democratic nominee currently holds historically low approval
numbers for presidents seeking a second term.
Spiering’s narrative of Harris is familiar to
those who regularly follow politics, relying mainly on contemporaneous news
reports and little on insider information adding new material to the Harris
story. But his account is a thorough one, reliving the greatest hits (and
misses) of Harris’s political career, starting from her insurgent campaign to
unseat San Francisco’s district attorney to her political positioning in the
runup to the 2024 presidential campaign.
One area where Harris is particularly vulnerable:
her record on law-and-order issues as a national figure, as she sought to
distance herself from her prosecutorial background as district attorney in the
Bay Area. In one section recapping her comments during the riot-filled summer
of 2020 after George Floyd’s murder, Harris made several statements praising
the Black Lives Matter organization (namely the "intensity" and
"brilliance" of it), excusing the violence, and promoting a bail fund
that sought to release criminals accused of serious crimes.
The most revealing sign of her left-wing
political instincts: Spiering reminds readers that she entertained support for
the "defund the police" movement that summer. "We do have to
reimagine what public safety looks like," she told the New York Times. Another quote the author unearthed from
the Times interview that’s likely to come back to
haunt her: She argued against putting more cops on the street, calling it
"status quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets
creates more safety. That’s wrong."
It’s easy to forget, with the benefit of historic
hindsight, but those comments were made after the Democratic primary was over
and Harris was vying to become Biden’s running mate. The Democratic party’s
lurch left, which later fueled a sizable backlash, was so fierce in that moment
that even Biden felt he couldn’t consider female vice presidential nominees
with tougher-on-crime records, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Spiering’s Harris narrative, throughout her
political career, also offers a lesson in how the Democratic party has become a
coalition of different identity groups—and where minority status confers a
certain sense of political privilege in the party’s modern iteration.
Starting with the 2020 presidential primary
campaign, Harris has leaned heavily on her biography. One of her few
consequential moments in the campaign was in an early debate when she attacked
Biden as a racist for defending his early relationships with segregationists in
the Senate, and opposition to busing in the 1970s. That moment excited the
progressive base and fueled a short-lived rise in her polling. But she failed
to follow up on the attack, and her polling soon reverted back.
Harris’s vice presidential moment came about as a
result of outside groups’ pressure for Biden to pick a woman as his running
mate—which he pledged at the final primary debate—and later, during the racial
unrest in the summer of 2020, when he faced significant pressure to select an
African-American woman. Without a deep bench, Harris became the de facto frontrunner,
despite rivals like Susan Rice (no electoral experience), Val Demings (a junior
congresswoman), and Karen Bass (a veteran representative with a far-left voting
record) floated as alternatives.
One telling sign of her identitarian approach to
politics: After being chosen as Biden’s running mate, she released a polarizing video on her
Twitter account promoting the concept of "equity"—as opposed to
"equality"—using government intervention to boost nonwhite Americans.
That type of rhetoric, which has grown increasingly unpopular, is now mostly
confined to the left-wing precincts of the Democratic party.
As the 2024 general election gets underway,
Harris is drawing more attention toward her political future—but often for the
wrong reasons. Biden’s advanced age and poor political standing get cited by
many pundits on why he should be replaced from the ticket, but many of those
commentators struggle to explain how Harris would be a more electable
alternative—or how, at a late stage, the party would replace her without
generating massive political backlash.
There hasn’t been as much punditry on how Harris
would govern if she found herself in the heady role of commander in chief. With
Biden now 81 years old, and 86 at the end of a potential second term, the
possibility that she might ascend to the presidency is not all that
far-fetched. In fact, it was a running theme for former Republican presidential
candidate Nikki Haley, who regularly used Harris as a
political foil on the campaign trail.
Spiering’s book doesn’t tell us how she might
govern in such a situation but offers some clues from her record in political
life. Based on the evidence in these pages, the story might better have focused
on her deference to a progressivism that remains trendy in activist circles but
is rapidly growing out of favor with the broader electorate.
Amateur Hour: Kamala Harris in the White House
by
Charlie Spiering
Threshold Editions, 272 pp., $28.99
Josh Kraushaar is the editor in chief of Jewish
Insider and a Fox News Radio political analyst.
Kamala Harris Hosted Soros Scion and Supermodel
‘Roommate’ at Private Residence
Alex Soros and
supermodel “roommate” Savannah Huitema. (Getty Images/Twitter).
September 1, 2023
Vice President Kamala Harris recently hosted a
group of prominent Democratic donors, including the progressive megadonor Alex
Soros and his supermodel "roommate," at a small gathering at her private
residence, according to newly released visitor logs.
The Soros family scion and Savannah Huitema, an
"American stunner" who has walked the runways of
Europe, visited Harris’s residence on May 31, according to the logs. The visit
came days before Soros was announced as the new leader of his father George’s
philanthropy, the Open Society Foundations.
It marks Alex’s 21st—but by far most
intimate—visit to the Biden-Harris White House, a testament perhaps to the
Soros family’s support for the Democratic Party and liberal causes. George
Soros has for years been the party’s biggest financial backer. And the Open
Society Foundations pour hundreds of millions of dollars a year into liberal
causes. The younger Soros has met in the past with White House advisers on
national security and domestic policy issues and attended gatherings with
hundreds of other guests.
Soros on June 6 posted a photo with the vice
president on Twitter, where the progressive billionaire frequently shares pictures of himself hobnobbing with
members of the Biden administration and other Democratic luminaries. While the
purpose of Soros’s latest visit is unclear, he and Huitema joined seven other
Democratic heavyweights at the Harris residence.
Wayne Jordan and Quinn Delaney, longtime Harris
supporters, are listed as visitors. The Democratic power couple poured $1
million into a pro-Harris super PAC during her 2020 presidential campaign. They
also run a foundation that supports the movement to
defund police and to remove police officers from schools in Oakland. President
Joe Biden appointed Delaney to the Commission on
Presidential Scholars last year.
Avram Glazer, an owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
football team, also visited the Harris residence. He contributed $350,000 to
the Biden Victory Fund in April and May. Glazer was invited to the White House state dinner
in December for French president Emmanuel Macron.
The White House logs list the location of the
visit as "1st Floor VPR." A search of past visitors to that location
indicates it is Harris’s private domicile at the Naval Observatory. Television
screenwriter Shonda Rhimes, who is listed as a Harris visitor on May 2,
attended an event at the residence that same day, according to a news report.
It is unclear whether Soros and Huitema are an
official item, though they have been spotted together in Europe. Huitema, who
posted photos of her White House visit, accompanied Soros on a trip to Albania
in July, where they rubbed shoulders with former president Bill Clinton and
Albanian prime minister Edi Rama. Albanian news outlets described Soros and Huitema as
"roommates."
Alex Soros—like his father—has reportedly dated supermodels in the past.
But the younger Soros’s relationship with Huitema will hopefully fare better than
his father’s. Brazilian model Adriana Ferreyr accused George Soros in 2010 of slapping
and choking her while they were in bed. She later sued him for $50 million.
The White House and Open Society Foundations did
not respond to requests for comment.
Published under: Alex Soros , Democratic
Donors , George Soros , Kamala
Harris , White House
David Daleiden: Kamala Harris
Prostituted Her Law Enforcement Powers to Planned Parenthood
JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images
18 Aug 202017
5:47
David Daleiden, founder of the Center
for Medical Progress (CMP), said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) prostituted her
powers in her former role as California’s attorney general for the benefit of
Planned Parenthood in an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News
Sunday with host Joel Pollak.
Daleiden noted the partisan and
political dimensions of California’s prosecution of him and his CMP colleague
Sandra Merritt. Both he and Merritt were charged with 14
cases of illegal recording of confidential conversations and one count of
conspiracy.
“Kamala Harris is the biggest threat to
First Amendment civil liberties and First Amendment civil rights that our
country has ever seen, in my opinion,” said Daleiden. “While she was the
attorney General of the State of California, Kamala Harris, at the behest of
her political patron — Planned Parenthood — targeted me for criminal punishment
solely because of the content of the message that I was publishing and speaking
at the time as you mentioned the undercover video series showing top-level
Planned Parenthood officials callously negotiating the harvesting and sale of
tiny aborted baby hearts and lungs and livers and brains.”
Daleiden continued, “In the State of
California, when Kamala Harris was the attorney general, you could do
undercover investigations of factory farming, corrupt chiropractors, [and]
fraudulent air conditioning repairmen. Local TV news journalists in California
[were] filming and publishing undercover video with conversations — sometimes
even in private office spaces — and publishing these videos in on a daily
weekly basis. Not a single one of those journalists ever had their home raided
or were prosecuted by Kamala Harris’s attorney general’s office.”
LISTEN:
“But if you did the exact same kind of
undercover filming and publishing, and your message was something that
questioned Planned Parenthood or questioned the abortion industry — the sacred
cows of Kamala Harris and the San Francisco political establishment in
California — then in that case, I became the first and only person involved in
news gathering, the first and only citizen journalist in the state of
California to ever have the California video recording law enforced against me,
criminally,” Daleiden added.
Daleiden went on, “It was launched
under Kamala Harris. She targeted our message, specifically. She sent 11
California DOJ agents in April of 2016 to raid my one-bedroom apartment in
Orange County with explicit instructions from Planned Parenthood to seize the
means of publication, to seize the computers and the video equipment that I was
using to publish the videos.”
“Kamala Harris’ deputy prosecutor,
Johnette Jauron, who was in charge of the case, she admitted a few years
later in 2018 in a filing in court that the reason that I alone have become the
first citizen journalist in California to be prosecuted under the California
video recording law — to have that law criminally enforced against me when it
was enforced against against nobody else for news gathering in California — is
because of the content of the videos themselves,” recalled Daleiden.
“It is blatant, unconstitutional
viewpoint discrimination and invidious targeting of Americans whose message
Kamala Harris disagrees with. So, she is a huge threat to our First Amendment
civil liberties in this country.”
Pollak said, “It almost looks as if
[Harris] initiated her prosecution of you at the instigation of Planned
Parenthood to please Planned Parenthood, to help this politically-connected
organization, which is so important for donations in the Democratic Party and
for the future of anyone in Democratic politics. She basically acted at their
behest. Is that true?”
Daleiden replied, “Yes, absolutely.
Like I said, undercover video recording and reporting has never been criminally
prosecuted in California in the history of the state until now, until this
case, where the entity whose ox is being gored was Planned Parenthood, the
political patrons of Kamala Harris and so many others in the California
political establishment.”
He further noted how Harris coordinated her
prosecution of him and his CMP colleague with Planned Parenthood.
“Just two weeks before she ordered the
raid on my home, Kamala Harris had a secret in-person meeting in Los Angeles
with several top-level Planned Parenthood of California officials,” stated
Daleiden. “We have the action items from that meeting in an email that was
produced to us in discovering the case, and those action items show that the
meeting was primarily to discuss Planned Parenthood’s political agenda in the
state of California, but included within their political agenda were the issues
involved in Kamala Harris’s investigation of me.”
Daleiden concluded, “[Harris] was
blatantly mixing her political constituent services functions with her law
enforcement powers and basically prostituting her law enforcement powers to the
service of her political campaign donors. She was running for United States
Senate at that exact same time in March and April in 2016. She had petitions
urging political support for Planned Parenthood on her campaign website.
He recalled that Harris’s executive office
assistant while she was attorney general of California — who was ‘liaising with
Planned Parenthood” while “working on this investigation” — later became
Harris’s campaign manager during her first run for the U.S. Senate.
“It is a blatant use and abuse of law
enforcement power solely to serve private partisan political interests, and
that is why she is such a dangerous candidate,” concluded Daleiden.
Breitbart News
Sunday broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Eastern.
Follow Robert
Kraychik on Twitter.
Kamala's Threat to American Democracy
Who, exactly, is a vice-president
supposed to be?
Tue Aug 18, 2020
The arrival of Joe Biden’s decision on a running mate is a
true turning point in the history of American politics.
There has never before been a presidential candidate
who, prior to entering the White House, has shown such
undeniable signs of age-related neurological decay. All political disagreements
disregarded, the sight of an elderly person succumbing to the demons of those
dreaded cognitive ailments -- which all too often rob us of the older people we
love -- is truly excruciating to behold.
The political outcome of Biden's mental state is, if
possible, even more unsettling. The role of the president is meant to be
powerful. All constitutional checks and balances considered, the sheer power of
the chief executive, in that one single person invested with authority to
counter-balance the power of the legislative and judicial branches, is truly
awesome.
In our situation today, we see a man who is
clearly not in full command of his mental faculties, who is allowing himself to
be considered for that office of chief executive; an office which, unlike a
prime minister in a parliamentary system, is intended to be stable and not
prone to regular changes in leadership.
The expectation of a normal four-year presidential tenure on
Biden’s part if he is elected must, at the very least, be subjected to serious
doubt. If pronouncing basic words -- let alone quoting the most famous phrase of our
Declaration of Independence -- is such a confusing ordeal for him, then
it is our urgent duty to question whether this individual is fit to be the man
who must accept the ultimate responsibility for this country’s national
security and well-being.
These facts squarely cast the Democrat
side of the current election as not a presidential election at all, but a
vice-presidential election.
Should Biden win, the chances are very probable that his vice
president will become the 47th president to finish out his first four-year
term. As the vice president automatically succeeds to the Oval Office if the
president dies or is rendered permanently incapacitated, the profoundly
anti-democratic repercussions of this situation is worsened by whom Biden has
actually chosen.
The traditional custom for presidential hopefuls is to either
choose the second-highest-polling candidate in a primary race, as Ronald Reagan
did with George H. W. Bush in 1980, or to choose a highly capable politician
who is well-respected by most of the party, as Donald Trump did with Governor
Mike Pence in 2016. In both of those cases, the aforementioned running mates
reflected the Republican Party and its voters quite respectably while promoting
unity.
It is highly questionable, meanwhile, whether Kamala Harris
-- aside from all of the establishment media’s expected giddy cheerleading --
really represents her party all that well. She was polling at 2% nationally by the time she ended
her own presidential bid on December 3, 2019. Her more radical
positions, such as support for the
Obama administration’s Iran deal, prosecuting a journalist
who exposed Planned Parenthood’s collection and sale of aborted babies’ body
parts (while receiving campaign
donations from them), and defending Ilhan Omar’s
anti-Semitism, may indeed sit well with a great many leftists, but her actions
as Attorney General of California may not. While in that position, Harris jailed hundreds on
marijuana charges and authorized anti-prostitution sting operations
which, according to SF
Weekly, disproportionately targeted Latino men (a crucial Democrat demographic).
In addition to this -- though she later admitted it was a mistake -- she prosecuted and jailed
the parents of truant teens. She even refused to release
the names of Catholic priests accused of sexually molesting children, abnegating
law enforcement’s most basic and humane duty -- regardless of anyone’s opinion
of the Catholic Church.
it is highly debatable if these are positions that a high
number of progressives who voted for the Democrat primary runner-up, Bernie
Sanders, would approve of. Especially today, being tough on minority and drug
crime -- to the exclusion of “white patriarchal” clergy sex abuse -- is
not en vogue among the Democratic Party’s truly energized
base, which is largely college-educated millennials taught to have contempt for
not only aggressive inner city policing, but inner city policing overall.
It also remains a question as to how many black
American voters Kamala really represents. Without doubt, she completely failed
to gain these voters' support during the primary. Many black Americans
responded to Barack and Michelle Obama due to their image as
people who empathized authentically with the black experience of living in
inner city America. Harris’s flip-flopping on criminal justice issues has
clearly deprived her of the
Obama touch.
What should highly concern all Americans of whatever
political persuasion is the fact that, given Joe Biden’s medical condition, a
Democrat victory in 2020 could very likely result in a person for whom
only 2% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents supported to
become president.
The reasons for Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris as his
running mate are as yet not entirely clear. What is very clear, however, is
that a new president of the United States in the near future could be a person
whom a weak and faltering man chose by fiat, and not someone whom
the majority of the country elected by the ballot.
That's a problem.
It's a problem for America -- and it's a serious and profound
problem for American democracy.
Barry Nussbaum is an exceptional American businessman and real estate
mogul, whose distinguished career extends more than 38 years. He is an
experienced news commentator on international affairs, who has been featured on
major television networks, web-based and in print media. Visit his site: AmericanTruthProject.org.
George Soros: A New Kind of Tyrant?
The venomous careers of Hitler and Stalin
provoked the study of totalitarian regimes as the very epitome of evil,
depriving their citizens of freedom and of life itself. A state captured by a
demagogue is considered a sure sign of danger ahead -- hence the alleged
justification by the Left for their hysteria over “rabble rouser” Donald
Trump’s election. Overlooked until more recently are the unelected, bloated
bureaucratic fiefdoms and regulatory encroachments of both national and global
government and non-governmental institutions, which have created the
opportunity for a sinister, large scale violation of political power.
This new abuse was foreshadowed in the career of
FBI architect and director, the corrupt J. Edgar Hoover. It has been notched up
to a planetary level of hyper-coordination by George Soros as preliminary to
the installation of his global Open Society. In this grandiose plan, state
governments (specifically the USA) will be reduced to the level of relay
stations for a supranational, Sauron-like centralization of power.
What unites the totalitarian and the new tyrant
are three personality characteristics, proposed by Professor John D. Mayer in
his 1993 article, “The
Emotional Madness of the Dangerous Leader.” The first is indifference. The tyrant is
consumed by a single-minded, fanatical purpose and has no regard for the suffering
wreaked on others during its implementation. The second is intolerance of those
whose opinions differ, facilitated through control of the media, secret and
insider knowledge, revenge against anyone who thwarts, and a paranoid mania to
shut down all opposition. The third character trait (the foundation of the
previous two), is psychopathic grandiosity. The power-abuser assumes a
messianic pose of unifying society under a utopian plan and persuading others
to participate. The very intensity of the tyrant’s narcissism is transferred to
vulnerable supporters eliciting a narcotic rush of enthusiasm.
What is easily overlooked is that the sham scheme
is not a political health remedy, but a device for maintaining the
megalomaniac’s sense of personal omnipotence. In Soros’ own words, “Next to my
fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad. In
fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid.” Soros seems disarming in his
frankness. But delusions of grandeur preclude self-knowledge, as Soros’
next statements
reveal. “I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I
have escaped it.”
Soros has spilled bucketloads
of words proclaiming he is “amoral,” “self-interested,”
and that “normal rules do not apply” to him. “I am unnatural. I am a sort
of deux ex machina. I’m very comfortable with my public persona,
because it is the one I have created myself.” And this from the man who
controls politicians and bureaucrats like a boss giving dictation to his
secretary. This is the man who has perfected the subversion of governments, who
has robbed failing states, and lavishly endowed every organization and movement
destructive of traditional Western society, from abolishing the Electoral
College to abolishing life itself if it is in utero, drug-addicted, or
senile. His ambition
is without borders --
“The Soviet Empire is now the Soros Empire.” “I’m
the Pope’s boss now.”
And so on, ad nauseum. Yet, like other tyrants, he is untouchable.
Those he has made richer and more powerful protect him.
In March 1933 the Germans voted. They could have
voted for the moderate Center Christian party. Instead they voted in
Hitler. ‘Deplorable’ Americans however confounded Soros by not voting
for “What can we do for you, George?” Hillary Clinton. Yet where are
the congressional and Senate investigations into Soros? Where is the RICO
indictment? Governments have been bought. The media has been bought. The Soros
NGO empire operates an invasive, parasitic web currently devouring the body
politic of the USA and many other nations besides.
What Trump’s election has revealed is the
limitation of the Presidency in withstanding the transfer of power to
unelected, publicly unaccountable bureaucrats, and venal politicians, more
concerned with their benefices than their constituents. That void has
allowed Soros to install himself as de facto puppet-master. We
require bureaucracy, and we cannot prevent the existence of associations,
but there is an urgent need for reform by abolishing permanency in government
and establishing citizens’ tribunals of appeal against abuses of administrative
power.
Recently in an interview on his simpering NPR,
Soros confessed he was unprepared
for the populist opposition to
his insurrectionary agenda. Let us continue our opposition. Let us demand Soros
be investigated and brought to justice as conditional for obtaining our
vote. Those with connection to him must be banned from public office, and his
assets frozen. Then his parasitical minions will shrivel, like leeches
desiccated by a pinch of salt. If not, although we may escape the mass
slaughter of the twentieth century, it will be at the cost of vassalage beneath
a tyrant like George Soros.
George Soros with his Open Society money plus
the Chicago Marxist contingency of Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Penny Pritzker,
and Barack Obama are five people I'm inclined to group as the Biden puppet
masters. Is there a pecking order among them? Does it
matter? I suppose it matters to these individual megalomaniacs, but
to anyone else? No. Just get that totalitarian state up
and running. Maybe it will matter when all nations are under someone's
thumb and one of those thumbs wants to be the one-world Big
Thumb. Not to worry — I'm positive the Big Thumb will be chosen by
consensus. SPRUCE FONTAINE.....NO, THE BIG THUMB WILL BE CHOSEN BY BIG
WALL STREET BANKSTERS! THE VERY ONES WHO PERPETRATED THE BANKSTER REGIME OF
GAMER LAWYERS BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER AND 'CREDIT CARD' JOE BIDEN!!!
George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and
other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an
iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately
choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know
they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this
their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because
the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong? M.B. MATHEWS
"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by
President Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama
practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring
gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter"
lie. His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the
envelope with every new scandal."
RICK HAYES
Biden presumably
picked Harris as his running mate for three reasons: She was black-ish; she’s
female; and, most importantly, she wouldn’t outshine Biden and might be an
insurance policy against efforts to oust him under the 25th Amendment.
KAMALA HARRIS - I CAN CON THEM!
I'M A LAWYER, IT'S WHAT I HAVE DONE MY ENTIRE BRIBES SUCKING LEGAL CAREER!
https://kamala-harris-sociopath.blogspot.com/2020/09/kamala-harrs-i-can-con-them-im-lawyer.html
All of this is, if we can be permitted to
use Biden’s catchphrase,
“malarkey.” Harris has already proven herself as a trusted servant of the
interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class.
The Wall Street Journal wrote last week that Wall Street financers had breathed a “sigh
of relief” at Biden’s pick of Harris. Industry publication American
Banker noted that her steadiest stream of campaign funding has come
from financial industry professionals and their most trusted law firms.
There is something fitting in the selection of Harris to
co-lead the Democrats’ ticket. The response of the Democrats to the mass
multi-racial and multi-ethnic protests against police violence that erupted
earlier this year was to divert them into the politics of racial division, using
the reactionary and false claim that what was involved was a conflict between
“white America” and “black America,” rather than a conflict between the working
class and capitalism.
US Vice President Kamala Harris 'is such
a hoax'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRg6KxiOr3Q
How Kamala
Harris Made Her Millions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIipQxGdjYs
The Shady Side
Of Kamala Harris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flz5k8RPQGk
The United
States is 'literally leaderless'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJf-XRgzcjs
Newt Gingrich calls Joe Biden a
'sickness'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVlPJcgRCj8
Democrats plan
to resurrect Kamala Harris’s reputation
The Hill, which often serves as a mouthpiece for Democrat
press releases, has written an article stating that “Democrats see Harris as a
major player in midterms.” When it comes to Harris’s moribund reputation, Dems
want us to think of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead but saving Harris is
more like Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein and “Abby Normal’s brain.”
Kamala’s lack of national viability made itself known during
the Democrat primaries in 2019 when Harris dropped out without even breaking the 4% barrier in the polls and
with zero delegates.
Biden presumably picked Harris as his running mate for three
reasons: She was black-ish; she’s female; and, most importantly, she wouldn’t
outshine Biden and might be an insurance policy against efforts to oust him
under the 25th Amendment.
Since she’s been in office, Kamala has been a disaster.
Monica Showalter’s astute posts about Kamala Harris tell the story. Here are
just a few of the highlights:
Already in December 2020, perhaps as Democrats had their “Oh,
my God! What have we done?” moment about getting Biden into the White House,
there was the first of several desperate efforts to build Kamala up. This wasn’t helped by the fact that Kamala was mostly
window dressing, standing behind Joe, wearing her little mask, like Death
waiting for a turn.
In March, as Biden’s disastrous open border policy began to
take shape, he appointed Kamala his “border czar.” And again, there was a push to resurrect her
reputation. Kamala showed unusual initiative
by ignoring the
border and focusing on renovating the
Veep’s mansion.
By April, even the Democrat cheerleaders in the media were
wondering “Where in the world is Kamala Harris (and why isn’t she at the
border)?” Jen Psaki, who may not like Kamala, covered for her by saying that Harris, who had bopped off to a Chicago
bakery, was just like other Americans in Chicago, in that “she got a snack.”
A week later, Harris announced her solution to the border
problem: She was going to Latin America to hunt down “root causes.” As for the border itself...meh! Two weeks after that,
Kamala explained that El Salvador needed to have an independent judiciary, an interesting
statement from a politician whose party fanatically wants to pack the United
States Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Kamala avoided that
border over which she allegedly
presided as czar.
While Kamala dodged and weaved on the border, it emerged that
people don’t like working
for her. Apparently, like all people over
their heads, she’s mean to and tries to blame the staff that can’t compensate
for her inadequacies. (Her Secret Service agents suffer too.)
Because Kamala had failed so well as border czar, Joe promoted her to voting rights czar. Her aides allegedly panicked and then panicked some more. They were on to something because her trip to Latin America
was a P.R. disaster. Her staff engaged in CYA behavior, stating that they were “perplexed” about her performance.
In early June, as border czar, Kamala told illegal aliens “do not come.” Well, that should stop them...NOT. Still, at the end of
June, when Trump threatened to get to the border first, Kamala finally announced a visit. She carefully avoided going to the site of illegal border crossing and, of
course, she blamed Trump for everything.
Eventually, even a true believer like Ezra Klein had to admit
that Kamala is
incompetent. And so, in July, there was another
effort to reboot Kamala’s
popularity. It’s hard, though, when you have a
Veep (and voting rights czar) who boasts about talking with Republicans about
the Dems’ “reform” bill but can’t name anyone with whom she’s spoken.
In August, there was another effort to improve Kamala’s reputation. Again, though, she made
it difficult, performing
horribly in Asia, including wiping her hand after
shaking the hand of the South Korean president.
And always, always, there’s that crazed, manic
cackle. Plus the fact that her popularity
is lousy. Very lousy.
With that history, it’s laughable when The Hill claims that “Democrats expect Vice President Harris to
be a major player in revving up the party’s liberal base ahead of next year’s
midterm elections.” She’s obnoxious, incompetent and, outside of rabid Third
Wave feminist circles, disliked.
When a single Democrat pollster, a Harris ally, and a White
House official sing her praises, no one should be impressed. Instead, there’s a
strong odor of desperation when The Hill assures readers that
“Democrats see Harris as uniquely positioned to drive up turnout among young
people and women....”
Currently, Kamala’s only advantage is that no one is yet
hollering “F*** Veep Harris” at sports events and concerts. As between a
corrupt and senile president and an incompetent and unpleasant veep, it’s to be
hoped that neither of them gets out the Democrat vote in the 2024 midterms.
Image: Kamala Harris. YouTube screen grab (edited).
THE LOOTING OF AMERICA
KAMALA HARRIS AND HER GOLDMAN SACHS
BANKSTER STEVEN MNUCHIN
A tidy corrupt partnership
https://kamala-harris-sociopath.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-looting-of-america-kamala-harris.html
She also declined
to prosecute OneWest, run by now-Treasury Secretary
Steven Mnuchin from 2009-2015, after her own prosecutors said they discovered
over a thousand violations of foreclosure law committed by the bank.
(OneWest donated $6,500 to Harris' attorney general campaign in 2011,
and Mnuchin himself donated $2,000 to her Senate campaign in 2016.)
Park Avenue:
Money, Power and the American Dream⎜WHY POVERTY?⎜(Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6niWzomA_So&list=WL&index=19
The close collaboration between the US
Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the multi-billion dollar asset management
firm Blackrock in devising the March 2020 rescue operation for Wall Street has
been revealed in an article published in the New York
Times yesterday.
World’s largest
asset management firm was “front and center” of Fed’s Wall Street bailout
The close collaboration between the US Treasury,
the Federal Reserve and the multi-billion dollar asset management firm
Blackrock in devising the March 2020 rescue operation for Wall Street has been
revealed in an article published in the New York Times yesterday.
According
to the article, Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock, the world’s biggest asset
management firm, was “in frequent touch” with US Treasury Secretary Steven
Mnuchin and Fed chair Jerome Powell “in the days before and after many of the
Fed’s emergency programs were announced in late March.”
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell (AP
Photo/Susan Walsh)
The extent of the collaboration is revealed in
new emails obtain by the newspaper together with information that has been
previously made public.
In one newly obtained email, Fink refers to planning
for the rescue measures as “the project” that he and the Fed were “working on
together.”
As the article notes, “America’s top economic
officials were in constant contact with a Wall Street executive whose firm
stood to benefit financially from the rescue,” showing “how intertwined
Blackrock has become with the federal government.”
Blackrock’s close collaboration with the Fed and
Treasury came at a crucial point in the development of a crisis in financial
markets which began with the onset of the pandemic in March and fears in
corporate circles over the response in the working class amid walkouts by
workers insisting that safety measures be out in place.
The Fed responded to the initial turbulence in
the markets by cutting interest rates. But these measures proved to be
insufficient and the potential for a major meltdown in the markets emerged in
the week ending March 20 when the $21 trillion US Treasury bond market—the
bedrock of the US and global financial system—froze.
Instead of providing a “safe haven” for investors
it moved to the centre of the crisis as Treasuries were sold off and no buyers
could be found as the sell-off extended to all areas of the financial system.
Faced
with a disaster when the markets re-opened, Mnuchin, Powell and Fink were
engaged in a series of discussions over the weekend of March 21–22 to devise a
rescue package. According to the Times report, Mnuchin spoke to Fink
five times over the two days, more than anyone else, other than Powell with
whom he spoke nine times.
One of the most significant features of the
rescue measures announced on Monday March 23 was the decision by the Fed, for
the first time ever, to buy corporate bonds which, as
the Times noted, “were becoming nearly impossible to sell as investors
sprinted to convert their holdings to cash.”
Blackrock had already closely collaborated with
the Fed developing its response to the 2008 financial crisis was thereby set to
play a key role in the March intervention.
The article pointed out that, while Blackrock
signed a non-disclosure agreement on March 22 restricting The closeness
of the relationship between Blackrock and the financial and economic arms of
the state, the US Treasury and the Fed, were highlighted in a comment by
William Birdthistle, of the Chicago-Kent College of Law and the author of a
book on funds, cited in the article.
He said Blackrock was “about as close to a
government arm as you can be, without being the Federal Reserve.”
officials from sharing information about the
upcoming measures, the way in which the rescue package was devised “mattered to
Blackrock.”
The decision of the Fed to buy corporate bonds
and provide an underpinning for the market was significant and involved two key
areas of Blackrock’s operations. One of the ways it makes profit is by managing
money for clients charging a preset fee. But assets under management were
contracting as investors went for cash and its business model was under threat.
Blackrock is also a major player in the
short-term debt markets which were coming “under intense stress” as investors
moved their holdings to cash.
Electronic Traded Funds (ETFs), which track
market indexes but which trade like a stock, were also severely impacted.
In the words of the Times article:
“Corporate bonds were difficult to trade and near impossible to issue in
mid-March 2020. Prices on some high-grade corporate ETFs, including one of
Blackrock’s, were out of whack relative to the value of the underlying assets.”
As Gregg Gelenzis, associate director for
economic policy at the Center for American Progress told the Times: “This
was the first time that ETFs came under stress in a really systemic way.”
In the rescue package the Fed committed itself to
buying already existing debt as well as new bonds and also decided it would
purchase ETFs with the result that the “bond market and fund recovery was
nearly instant.”
As the Times article notes, while
practically all of Wall Street benefited from the Fed’s intervention, and other
financial firms were “consulted” apart from Blackrock “no other company was as
front and center.”
The
closeness of the relationship between Blackrock and the financial and economic
arms of the state, the US Treasury and the Fed, were highlighted in a comment
by William Birdthistle, of the Chicago-Kent College of Law and the author of a
book on funds, cited in the article.
He
said Blackrock was “about as close to a government arm as you can be, without
being the Federal Reserve.”
The Fed makes every effort to cover up that
relationship in order to try to preserve the fiction that it is not beholden to
Wall Street and operates as an independent public authority concerned above all
with the state of the economy and the welfare of the population.
The Times article recalled a news
conference in July 2020 in which Powell was asked about the discussions with
Fink.
“I can’t recall exactly what those conversations
were,” he said, “but they would have been about what he is seeing in the market
and things like that.
He said there were not “very many” conversations
and that the Blackrock chief was “typically trying to make sure that we are
getting good service from the company he founded the leads.”
Powell’s claim that, in the midst of the most
significant crisis since the meltdown of 2008—with a potential to go even
further, as the freeze in the Treasury market showed—he could not recall those
conversations simply does not pass muster.
The value of every crisis, it has been rightly
said, is that it reveals the real relations that are obscured and covered over
in “normal” times.
And
that is the case here. The economic arms of the capitalist state are not some
independent authority but function every day in the interests of the corporate
and financial oligarchy, servicing its needs and interests above all else.
No comments:
Post a Comment