Archive for the ‘Trump campaign’ category

Trump: The President at War

November 23, 2017

Trump: The President at War, FrontPage Magazine, November 23, 2017

Editor’s note: Below are the video and transcript to remarks given by Steve Bannon and Pat Caddell at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2017 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 16th-19th at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.

 

Steve Bannon: The last time I was in this room was a couple years ago.  I made a film, “Occupy Unmasked,” about that war starring David Horowitz and Andrew Breitbart, which was actually the film we were making when Andrew passed away and David was kind enough to take a bigger role in that.  But that film, I think, showed the precursor of a lot of what laid the groundwork for the Trump victory.

When I stepped into the campaign in mid-August of 2016, I think it was August 14th — these numbers are rough — but roughly, the candidate was down anywhere from 12 to 16 points, basically double digits down in every battleground state, every state that had to be won.  Not a lot of money, and as you’ve seen from revelations in this investigation with Manafort, not a lot of organization.  The campaign from the time that Corey Lewandowski had left until the time I stepped in in August had really deteriorated into a pretty disorganized mess that left the best candidate I think we’ve had since Reagan in real extremis.

And that’s what I knew we had.  I knew we had a great candidate.  I knew we had an individual who I believed was the finest orator in American politics since William Jennings Bryan and, more importantly — and I told the President, or the candidate this when I took the job on the 13th and 14th: “Don’t pay attention to any of these numbers.  Don’t worry about how many points down we are.  Don’t worry if we’re in the battleground states.  It’s not relevant because what is relevant is the themes that you’re going to run on and how we’re going to bring this home.  We only get 85 days, but we’re going to compare and contrast Hillary Clinton as tribune of a corrupt and incompetent elite.  And we’re going to focus on a handful of themes that show you as an agent of change, and all we have to do is give people permission to vote for you as that agent of change, and we’re going to win this.”  And I told him that day on the evening of the 13th and then the day of the 14th, because he’s a percentage player and he was asking what percentages. I said, “You have a 100 percent chance.  Metaphysical certitude of winning.  Not a question.  100 percent.”  And we’ll get into it later about Billy Bush week, etc. “But you have 100 percent chance.”

The reason is what David said.  This is a war.  This is a war for our country.  This country, we’ve been in this war for a while.  It’s going to take another 15, 20, 25 years and we’re going to be one thing or the other on the other side of this.  We’re either going to be the country that was bequeathed to us by the 14 or 15 generations that came before us, or it’s going to be something radically different.  And David Horowitz has been the leader of telling you what that radical difference is going to be and what this country is going to be if we don’t fight and fight every day to take it back.

The reason that I could step in with a team of Dave Bossie and Reince Priebus and Katie Walsh and others and help the President — because he’s really the one that won it; basically gave him the platform so that he could drive his message home — is for years I had been spending time listening to a guy that I came to greatly respect.  That guy’s Pat Caddell and Pat had been doing research.  There’s another of the unsung heroes, a gentleman who came to Restoration Weekend every year.  It’s a Palm Beach resident named Lee Hanley.  Lee Hanley’s like when you read the history of the American Revolution or the Civil War, all these great events, you find out about these individuals in back that never won any credit, but if it was not for them, the victory would not be achieved.  Lee Hanley for years was a big believer. Although a guy of tremendous wealth and lived in Palm Beach and throughout the rest of the world, he had an incredible appreciation for the grassroots.  He had a real love of the hobbits, of the deplorables, and he put his money where his mouth was.  He’s a big supporter of the Tea Party movement and Tea Party causes.  But I think what he’ll be known for is that he was the guy that really became the sponsor for the analytical work and the intellectual work that Pat Caddell did over a number of years.

And this work, two things epitomized the Trump revolution or the Trump revolt.  It’s J. D. Vance’s book, “Hillbilly Elegy.”  If you haven’t read it, it’s quite powerful, the sociological content of the Trump revolt. But as important was Pat Caddell’s analytical work on where the country was, and that’s what I told the candidate that night.  I said, “Hey, two-thirds” – is it two-thirds or one-third?  “Two thirds think the country’s going in the wrong direction. Seventy-five percent think America’s in decline. Virtually none of the electorate believe that Obama brought the fundamental change they wanted, and people are looking for an agent of change.”

Now the mainstream media doesn’t cover that.  You wouldn’t know that by the campaign in mid-August 2016.  That was never talked about.  But that tone below the surface is the foundational element, the keystone that really drove the Trump campaign. And so, Pat, I’d like, if you could, just tell us what it is — and this is very important.  We’re going to talk about how we won, and what the underlying analytics of that was, and then, to get to David’s point: It makes total sense when you see that on the left, there was no honeymoon, right?  Because they will never concede, ever, that the basic working-class Americans think America’s in decline.  Because it’s been their watch.  And the elites in this country will never admit to that, and that’s why from Day One, the second part of this talk will be about the nullification project. Because since 2:30 a.m. on November 9, when AP called the election, the progressive left, the opposition party media, and the Republican establishment have been on a nullification project.  Pat, you want to talk about the math?

Pat Caddell: First of all, let me echo what Steve said about Lee Hanley.  Back in 2011, 2012 actually — 2012 or 2013 — after the Romney disaster election or as I call it, the confluence of the Republican consultant lobbyist core of gangsters, the “RICO campaign.” Anyway, I said, “I think something’s happening in the country.”  Lee said, “You know, I think something may be too.  I want you to go out and just find out.”  He wasn’t for anybody or any cause.  It was basically to discover what was there, and it was the most startling research that’s ever been done.  It has been public for some time.  The press has never paid attention.  The political class won’t pay attention.  But what we found from the beginning was the level of discontent in this country was beyond anything measurable, and I believe worse than any time that we have ever seen in our country.

Steve mentioned a couple of the attitudes: about things going in the wrong direction, the 70-75 percent of people who absolutely believe the country was in decline, a narrative so different from what Washington was telling us or the mainstream media if you looked at the way they covered the conventions even.  Oh, my God!  It’s so dark.  It’s like the inaugural speech. That’s so dark! It’s terrible! No. It happened to be the truth, but they’re not allowed to speak that.

And then another attitude, which is really important, was the fact that in a country where we believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead (as Bill Clinton used to tell us), about 15 percent of the people believe that’s what works and 85 percent believe that the rich and powerful have rigged the rules and have the advantage, which is also a truth.

When I was at Harvard — I was at my class reunion, which I’d never been to before for a reason — I had to do a survey of my class, the Class of ’72, which was, I would describe, the epicenter of the white Ivy League privileged class, they actually were higher. The only thing they were higher than the American people on was 95 percent of them knew that’s the way it worked because that’s how they worked it.  But in any event, those things all led to also the fact that a couple of attitudes have maintained themselves, which I realized the real question about them is, would anybody weaponize them? Let me just give you a couple examples because they’re important.

“Political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right for the American people.”  Eighty-one percent of the Americans agree. By the way, we have a divided country except when it comes to how Americans from left to right really think of how this country works.  It isn’t partisan.  At this point, it’s overwhelming.  “The power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day.  Political leaders on both sides fight to protect for their own power and privilege at the expense of the nation’s wellbeing.”  Seventy-nine percent agree. These are from just a few months ago. “Powerful interests from Wall Street banks to corporations, unions, political interest groups, have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for themselves.  They’re looting the national treasury of billions of dollars at the expense of every man, woman and child.”  That’s 72 to 75 percent who agree.

“I believe the government is working for the people’s best interest.”  Twenty-eight percent say that’s true.  Sixty-seven percent don’t think it’s true.  “Politicians really care about me” — when I first started polling and then Bennet wrote this question, the result was it was about a 40/50 split.  It’s now 19 percent say yes, agree, and 76 disagree.  And perhaps most interesting of all is the question we asked on whether the Declaration of Independence says that the government receives their authority from the consent of the people.  “Does the federal government today have the consent of the people?”  And it’s 68 to 75 percent we’ve ranged saying no, and I call that, when I first saw that result in 2013, a pre-revolutionary moment.  And the question was whether anybody would speak to any of this.

And from the beginning, Donald Trump, a lot of his own instincts were – it’s not exactly the way I would’ve designed it – but he managed to make a campaign and he stood up against 16 other people who were, in their own ways, essentially epitomizing the political class or the ideological class of their party, when the issue was neither ideology or the right of kings of our political class to rule.

I said the day before the election, I wrote a piece because I needed to get it out, because I’d been doing some work for Breitbart and had been doing some polling, and we were asking some more in-depth questions and I could see what I had found in a big study we had done in September, which was that you had a quarter of the country who were not favorable to either Clinton or Trump.  Most of those people were concerned about Trump’s qualifications, whether he had the temperament to be President, things that would’ve normally disqualified.  Hillary Clinton was viewed as a, let’s put it this way: 75 percent of the people, including almost a majority of her own people, believe that there are two sets of rules of law, one for everyone else and the one for the Clintons.

And corruption is a problem and we’ll talk about that today, but at the heart of much of this was a sense of the corruption and loss of our country.  Those people started breaking for Donald Trump.  Well, I was waiting for that to happen.  I’d seen some evidence in a different situation in 1980 with Reagan and Carter, but what was important was when I saw the exit polls. Everyone saw the exit polls when we got them at 5:00, 5:30, the networks and everyone were going, “Oh, Hillary’s got it!  Hillary’s got it!”  Well first of all, nobody remembers that those polls are always wrong because of the bias in them, but more importantly, nobody bothered to look inside. The people who had said that they were unfavorable to both were now breaking to Trump by 18 points.  And I called Steve and said, these exit polls are all wrong.  This is a key break.  And it is breaking for Trump.

I do believe, and I don’t want to get into it, but this mistake of early voting: we were supposed to have an election, not a rolling election.  It is a problem with all the unintended consequences, people vote who will change their mind.  So, there you have it.  Trump won and everyone else in the media was stunned because they would not look at the country that they actually deplore.

Steve Bannon: What do you think was the specific messaging that drove those low propensity voters to actually, at the end of the day, pull the trigger for Trump?

Pat Caddell: Yeah, as I said, my question all along had been whether those voters would respond.  Alienation can often make people depressed and not participate.  What did it, I think, is if you look at the last 8 to 10 days of Trump’s message, where he said, “This isn’t about me and Hillary.  This is about you and them.”  Essentially a campaign that said your country is going to hell.  You have to do something.  And whether it was on immigration, which was a big issue, trade, where the country had taken a huge leap, or basically the idea, which I think was the most powerful of all, of “drain the swamp” and the corruption. Enough people felt that they, with good reason, would want a change, and they took the biggest gamble in history.

By every other measure we have had, this never should have happened.  But the reason it did is because the country has never been where we are except twice before. I believe in the 1820s and the Civil War – well three times – and the Great Depression.  And what we have is a new paradigm in politics.  This isn’t the traditional Democrat/Republican, Liberal and Conservative.  This is inside, outside, us, them and the question of who’s country it is, and I have said to Steve the other day, and I’ll end on this note: At the heart of it is a perception. The subtext is that they know that their leaders are trying to manage the decline of America.

Steve Bannon: This is the key point.

Pat Caddell: They think that their job is to make –

Steve Bannon: The reason, okay, we’re going to frick and frack this a little bit.  This is the key point.  The American people have a great common sense.  Right?

Pat Caddell: Yes. That’s the ideology of America.

Steve Bannon: When Pat Caddell starts to stand, we’re in trouble.

Pat Caddell: Yes, you are.  Yes, you are.

Steve Bannon: Now he’s really about to go Old Testament prophet. If you remember CPAC a couple of years ago, he was in a ballroom this size, and people were Tweeting, “you gotta get up there.”  Caddell was so over the top. He was Caddell unchained.  I thought they were going to throw a net over him and, you know, escort him out.

Pat Caddell: And they never had me back after that.

Steve Bannon: No, the issue of the polling and the analytical work, which was so thorough — this is not some slapdash poll like is done all the time. This was really deep analytical work.  The question that the American people answered — 75 percent of your countrymen think America’s in decline. And what they understand is the country is in decline, right?  Particularly vis-à-vis the rest of the world.  And that’s what the elites, that was the whole contrast in the campaign.  Hillary Clinton and the Republican elites are very comfortable managing that decline.

Pat Caddell: Yes, they believe their destiny, I think, is to make sure it’s soft, we’ll be like the British.  I have news for them: this election in 2016 and the ones that are coming are really about the fact that this country will not go gently into that good night of decline.  They will rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Steve Bannon: Now here’s the great news is that who understands this is the American working man and woman. I mean, that’s why Trump’s brilliance of “make American great again” resonates so strongly.

Pat Caddell: The single greatest slogan in my lifetime in American politics, in terms of what summed it all up.

Steve Bannon: That was compared and contrasted to — what was Hillary’s? “Happy together”?  What was that? “Forward together” or whatever it was. “Happy forward together.”  Always forward, never back.

Pat Caddell: The millions of dollars they spent to come up with the dumbest slogan I’ve ever heard of is amazing.

Steve Bannon: Before we get to the victory and talk about what happened the next day, you’ve got to remember — and this is very pertinent, I think, to the folks in the audience.  I think 85 percent of the votes in the Republican primary, if you totally take away all the bistate stuff and you look at the total vote count, I think 85 percent went to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Dr. Ben Carson. But you couldn’t get three more anti-establishment guys, right? It shows you the party — this is what McConnell and the donors don’t get.  The votes are with the working men and women of this country, the Republican Party.

Pat Caddell: Well, let me make a point on that.  All during the primaries, I was on a show we had on Fox which a lot of people watch called Political Insiders with Doug Schoen and John LeBoutillier, and all along we kept noticing — they’d look at the vote of the anti-establishment candidates everywhere you go, and you’re right.  Yes?

Audience Member: Give Steve some time on the microphone, please.

Steve Bannon: Hang on, we’re fricking and fracking, we got it. My agent right there.  I’d like to introduce my agent. Thank you.  As you were saying?

Pat Caddell: Nah, I’m done. I know when I’m not wanted. No, this is the fact that in both parties — look what you have with Bernie Sanders. And we’ll hopefully get to a point to talk about that rigging of that system.  But Bernie Sanders, who nobody ever cared about and whatever, he rolls up, he and Trump were, as I like to say, were supping out of the same trough.  Like on trade and corruption and whatever, Wall Street.  The same thing on both from opposite ends.  And that’s what the unity of these numbers were about.

Steve Bannon: And the numbers show you — and the strategy we had, we had kind of two plans.  But the first plan we had to take — remember this is 85 days to go.  You’re basically going to get blown out, and if you read their books, they thought they were going to win by 25 or 30 points.  Take the House, the Senate, the courts.  It was basically over.  Break the back of the Republican Party.  But the key, we had to win Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa just to get to the table.  And by the way, I don’t think in living memory any Republican has done that. You had to get there just to get to the final, that was the bridge that got you to the final. We had a Plan A and a Plan B, but Plan B, which was shattering the blue wall in the upper Midwest, we did some very specific demographic analysis around how the messaging that Pat had overall talked about was playing. And we see could see it in places like Youngstown, Ohio, and Dubuque, Iowa, and other places, that the message was resonating with not just Republicans, but with blue-collar Democrats or Independents that had not voted for a Republican in living memory.  And that’s why we could see western Pennsylvania, we could see Wisconsin, we could see Michigan. We could see that something was changing, and that was the message, this underlying discontent in the country and wanting fundamental change. And Trump’s ability to be the instrument or the messenger that was starting to galvanize people.

It was interesting, the only question I had internally is that the math looked so dramatic. And we kind of knew. We were working on this and it was coming together, because we could see the crowds were getting bigger at the rallies and were getting more vocal. The Facebook and all the social media stuff was working. Her campaign specifically didn’t come to these places.  They didn’t come to Wisconsin until — they never came to Wisconsin.  I don’t think they came to Michigan until the very 11th hour, and so we really knew that there was something underlying the Trump message, and that’s this discontent in the country that’s still there today.  In fact, I would actually respectfully submit it’s probably greater today than it was even a year ago, and that’s about the progress or maybe the lack of progress that’s been made.

I want to talk about the morning after.  And Pat, you’ve got a thing with the Clinton campaign of one of her books. David talked about a honeymoon.  There was no intention of a honeymoon, and here’s why.  They do not think that this was a legitimate election and that we won legitimately.  They will never be able to admit that the working men and women of this country basically revolted, essentially from both political parties, and elected a total and complete outsider.  Someone who’s not a professional politician.  Someone who can connect and does not use the vernacular of the political class, but somebody that can connect viscerally with the working men and women of this country and had an agenda of being a complete disrupter among the institutions that really govern the imperial city.  If you think about it, and I’ll talk a little bit more about it tonight, the geopolitical situation we’re in that’s driving the economics of this country.  But the ascended economy of Silicon Valley and Wall Street and Hollywood and the imperial city of Washington, D.C. is completely detached from the reality of everyday life in the rest of America.  And they will never ratify the election of 2016, because to ratify it is actually calling into question their own tenuous grip on power.  We saw that immediately, and Pat’s got a very interesting quote he’s pulled out from one of the Clinton books.

Pat Caddell: The book “Shattered,” which was written by the two embedded reporters in the Clinton campaign, who were to chronicle the great victory and ascendancy of Hillary Clinton, and this is what it says. This is how it started.  “The strategy had been set well within 24 hours of the concession speech.  Mook and Podesta, the campaign manager and chairman, assembled their communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up and up.  For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public.  Already Russian hacking was at the centerpiece of their arguments.”  And that’s how it began.

Steve Bannon: Yeah, this nullification project, which was both from the left and also from, I think, the Republican establishment, started immediately on the morning of the 9th and the 10th. They had to come up with an excuse for why they lost.  It wasn’t the fact they had $2.2 billion.  It wasn’t the fact that they spent $750,000,000.00, I think is the number I’ve heard, on negative ads against Donald Trump.  It’s not the fact that they had, I believe, the worst candidate for President of the United States in memory.

They kept saying how brilliant she is, how genius she is, how smart she is.  I think she’s dumb as a stick. She’s doing her book tour.  It’s another 900-page book that she’s written.  In fact, I would just like to have the corrupt media and publishing industry just write her a $10,000,000.00 check and don’t force another 900-page book on us. But no, I do think, in her current tour, or at least until the Donna Brazil situation came up, that Pat will talk about in a minute, that she’s got every intention of testing the water to run again in 2020. And my response is, “Bring it baby.  Bring it.”  Would you not love to see a rematch of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?  C’mon.

Pat Caddell: As Saturday Night Live predicted last week, with her in the final episode for the Democrats, “One more time for me.  Maybe one more time.”

Steve Bannon: Let’s talk about this nullification.  The Russian whatever this thing is, the collusion project, is, look, as the campaign CEO in the last 85 days as we drove to victory, I can tell you categorically that we had a very difficult time colluding between the Trump ground game in Pennsylvania and the RNC. So collude that. It’s a complete phony, hide-the-football misdirection play, but it shows you their desperation.

Pat Caddell: Let me make just two quick points on this.  First of all, the one I wanted to make, if Barack Obama knew about this in August, so did the “intelligence team,” those hacks, that as Trump described them, which they are. And if it were such a threat to America, why was the President of the United States keeping his mouth shut until the day after the election, and how come nobody bothered to tell America it was under attack?  Because it didn’t matter.  On the Facebook stuff, Mark Penn, who had run Hillary’s great campaign in 2008, did say the $100,000 on Facebook ads, $56,000 of it after the election, half of it in states that were California, New York and Texas? Let me tell you something, the Stanford University Economics Department did a major study on this, and they found nobody believes what they see on Facebook.  It’s the least credible source.  And, yet, you know why they have to glom on to that?  Because underlying is the subtext that you people, the American people, are too damn stupid that you could — all of the billions spent, the debates, people know what they’re getting.  They’re weighing this heavily.  No, no, no.  You’re so stupid, you can be misled because you didn’t listen to us, and that is their message.

Steve Bannon: That is why it’s so important I think for the defense of the President is we’re seeing something unprecedented here in American history. And I think it’s very important we fight it and we drive it into the ground as much for the Democrats as for Republicans. And the fact that if we allow this nullification project to continue to go forward, if we allow this nullification project to really get traction and to try to bring charges or whatever against the President, every election here on in, trust me, is going to be contested.  We’ll be like a banana republic.  You won’t have elections that matter.

Now, let’s talk about the nullification project where they’re trying to drive the President into the ground.  There are currently, I think, five or six major investigations going on with the President right now.  You’ve got — and this is what upset me so much when I left the White House.  My specific project was against Republican leadership because you have three, count them, three committees on Capitol Hill with full subpoena power and the unlimited budgets.  You had Devin Nunes today, one of the great young men on Capitol Hill. He’s a hero, and he should be running the investigation on the House Intelligence.  Why is he not?  Because Paul Ryan doesn’t have a spine.  The media screwed Paul Ryan.  By the way, Paul Ryan’s a nice guy.  He’s a good guy, but he doesn’t have backbone in this regard.  The Republicans, the media can spook these guys and they’ll run.  Nunes has turned it over essentially to Schiff, so you have a Democrat running the House Intel Committee.  You have Mark Warner, who’s going to run for the presidency in 2020 against President Trump, you have him running the Senate Intelligence because Burr’s just taking a pass on this. So you have two Democrats running this and leaking everything to the media.  The thing’s gone way outside Russian collusion.  They’ve got Michael Cohen and his lawyer and other guys up there talking about real estate deals, taxes, whatever.  The Judiciary Committee is hauling in Don, Jr. and these other guys.  Can you imagine, can you imagine if Hillary Clinton had won?  Would Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have three committees on the Hill investigating Hillary Clinton and her campaign and her finances and let two Republicans run it?  No.  Because they are professionals.  They run the Democratic Party like it’s supposed to be run, and they never give up, and they understand this is a war, and they understand the way they’re going to win is be unified.

In addition to that, you’ve got Bob Mueller. And I was one of the biggest advocates in the White House saying, “You can’t fire Comey.” For a whole host of reasons, because, at the end of the day, you’re going to end up with something like a special council like a Bob Mueller, and I’ve been adamant.  Bob Mueller, in regards to his mandate of looking at anything with Russian collusion, he should be able to do that.  He should have a budget for that, but I support Ron DeSantis.  When he’s outside the range there –and on Manafort, all 12 indictments are about back taxes and “money laundering” and stuff he took from other people.  Rick Gates didn’t even have — he walked in with a public defendant.  He didn’t even know that he was under investigation.  So this thing, I think, has gone way off the rails in the fact that it’s much too broad and not within a mandate.  And look, Jeff Sessions, I consider him a dear friend, but I think Sessions and people on the Hill got to support the DeSantis Amendment, which says hey, there’s going to be a time period and a budget to look at collusion with Russia.  Anything else is off limits.

Pat Caddell: Yeah.  Well, I want to add just a quick comment to this, which is I want to hear from my good friend Mr. Abrams.  When he speaks about the Justice Department, it seems to me that department is still embedded deeply with the people who have been in the business of supporting whatever the political class and particularly Democrats want done.  And let me say something.  When you get someone appointed like Bob Mueller, who is “highly respected by everyone in Washington,” grab your wallet.  The last person that they told me that about was James Comey.  I mean really.  Anybody who everyone says is this great, respectable guy, you got to watch out because he is there doing business that is not going to be very productive for the country.

Steve Bannon: The nullification project, also, is a joint venture.  It’s both the Democratic Party and the Republicans.  Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, in fact, it has taken tremendous pressure on them even to say these things have got to be brought to an end.  They’ve got to end around Christmas, and they got to have joint reports.  You can’t let them have two reports. And that’s not officially done yet, but these guys are just as culpable in this as the Democrats that are baying from the left.

Pat Caddell: Look, Donald Trump’s greatest opposition is not from the Democrats.  It is from the Never Trump Republicans who fill now several networks, cable news networks, with people whose virulence to Donald Trump makes the Democrats in those places look tame.  And the Jennifer Rubins, the Washington Post and its 15 pieces a day attacking Trump, the New York Times, all of which, by the way — and it’s another point that we’re getting a little progress on the rest of the corruption.  It seems to me that the notion that we should move on, and, by the way, all this other stuff never happened, which I don’t know if we’ll get to, but it’s just bullshit, but pardon my language, but it is.  The corruption here is so deep.

And the difference with the Democrats and the Republicans as, David pointed out and Steve just said, let me tell you something, the Clintons, as I once wrote in 1998, have forced the Democrats to squeeze themselves into that tiny little space that’s known as Clinton morality.  My party’s had to give up all of its principles in order to sustain corruption, which is why the left is in motion.  And, by the way, one point, when you have a large majority saying both the Democrats and the Republicans are out of touch with the country, that coalition is in jeopardy except as long as you fight them.  And the Republicans not only don’t fight, they stab themselves in the back and their President.

Steve Bannon: See, that’s the point.  Remember, the point of the nullification project is, their ultimate goal is to remove President Trump from office or to force him to resign.  That’s their goal, but they’ve got a second goal, which they’re just as comfortable with, and that is to so damage him in the eyes of the American people that he’s very restricted on what he can do and what he can accomplish, and so that’s why every day you see this drumbeat.  And I will tell you, outside of Breitbart and Gateway Pundit and a handful of others, the sore losers in the media, in the conservative media, starting with my beloved Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert Murdoch, they’re just Never Trump organs every day.  The Never Trump guys have a complete ability to just launch on the President, and so I think if you’re a supporter of President Trump, we’ve only really started this fight because this is going to get really gnarly over the next couple of months.  I think it’s going to get, by the end of the first quarter of 2018, I think it’s going to get quite volatile, and so the President is going to need all of his supporters to fall in and have his back on this thing.

Pat Caddell: Let me say, I’ve been thinking about 2018 election, and now I know what this is going to be about. And I believe the Democrats can’t control their left.  It’s going to be from beginning to end, if the President is smart — and sometimes I don’t understand, frankly, the politics around the President, because in some ways I think he is being misled and taken down the primrose path by the very people he clobbered and wiped out. And I’m sorry, I’m independent.  I can say this.  It makes me very sad because the swamp — I won’t even get into the tax bill, which I think is an example of this, but let me tell you what, the campaign starts on the issue of if the Democrats win, they are going to impeach the President in the House for sure.

The question we’re going to have is the one we kind of had in Wisconsin.  Do we have what Steve said: our democracy collapses now because now we can throw out who’s in there that we don’t like, and that question is bigger than Trump, and it is about the democracy.  And the real question is who is sovereign in this country, and the American people intend to be the sovereign masters of their country.  And you got to appeal to them on that basis in this kind of fight.

Steve Bannon: One thing to keep in mind on the 14th, the first phone call I made was to Reince Priebus at the RNC to work out a partnership in which we could work together.  I’m a fire-breathing populist and a nationalist, and I am damn proud of it.  But in order to win, we win as a coalition. And this is one thing I could never forgive Bush 41 for when he said the other day in this book, “The Last Republicans” — I think it would be better titled, I hope, “The Last Bush Republicans.”  When old man Bush, between grabbing women in the oval –yeah, I went there — when he says that he voted for Hillary Clinton and when Bush 43, the most destructive president and the most destructive presidency in the history of our country, including James Buchanan, when he says he didn’t vote; he voted some write-in or he didn’t vote for President Trump, that’s all you’ve got to know about those guys.  If they can’t see the basic fundamental difference between what the regime of the Clintons would be versus what President Trump offered, then I’ve got no time for them.  Right?

But to Pat’s research, it shows in high relief exactly what we’re fighting.  Everything you see on cable TV, everything you see in the foreground is just pro wrestling.  It’s really to divert the attention of what’s really going on.  At the end of the day, the Bushes, this is the Bush that goes around with Bill Clinton and he says it’s like the son I never had.  Old man Bush is going around saying Bill Clinton, because the permanent political class is inextricably linked with themselves, and you see it on this current tax bill.  The donor corporatist lobbyist consultant apparatus that runs Washington, D.C. — and I’m very proud of Peter Schweizer, that hero. A true patriot hero.  Peter Schweizer’s effort in the three books, “Throw Them All Out,” “Extortion,” and then “Clinton Cash,” which exposed how the apparatus works and why the seven of the nine richest counties in the country surround Washington, D.C.; why the per capita income in those counties is higher than the per capita income in Silicon Valley for the first time in our history.  And Silicon Valley is the greatest generator of wealth in human history.  So you see, it’s a business model, and they’re not prepared to give it up, and they’re not prepared to go. They’re not prepared to go quietly.

But on that campaign, the establishment, at least some of them, came together and worked with us, and that’s how we got a win.  We have to be unified.  We’re not going to get everything.  I’m much more of a protectionist when it comes to trade.  I happen to think that free trade is a radical idea.  I think it’s a radical idea, particularly against a mercantilist authoritative dictatorship like China.  You cannot allow your markets to be totally open.  Not everybody agrees with that.  A lot of guys at Heritage don’t.  A lot of guys at Cato don’t.  A lot of guys at AEI don’t.  But we’ve got to work together to pull this off because if we lose we’re never going to get this country back.

Now, you’re seeing that, I think David brought up this point on our show this morning.  He just brought it up here in his introduction.  The question before us is very simple as conservatives.  Does the establishment that still controls the apparatus of the Republican Party, is it better for them to control that apparatus in a minority or is it better for us to take that apparatus and keep a majority?  Because, quite frankly, they would rather be in a minority as long as they control that apparatus because it’s central to their business model.

Pat Caddell: Right.  Exactly.  They never cared about losing.  I learned that in 2012.  The most important thing was to maintain their piece of the action.  And let me just say something because this is a time for real, thoughtful, intellectual, political debates about where to go.  My problem with the Republican Party is the voters want nothing to do with their leadership.  They have proven that over and over.  Look at the latest poll in Alabama where McConnell has a rating of 21 percent favorable and almost 60 negative among Republicans.  The people know this.  They voted them out.  They beat them every chance they could, and the question is whether that group — and I’m concerned about the Independents who supported Trump.  And many Democrats on the other side, particularly labor, blue-collar people, that is a governing and ruling majority if one can achieve it.  And how this all works itself out is the real challenge.  But I think you have to go to high ground.

The issue is the country.  It’s not which party.  It’s going to be who owns the country, them or you.  And the question is is America going to go into general night of decline or are we going to turn things around for our children and grandchildren.  These are great moral questions.  And that is the new battleground that needs to be fought.  And let me just say something.  The media. The press, which was you could argue is adversarial, but what we have is not adversarial.  We have a partisan opposition press which works hand in glove with the Democrats, which is the most corrupt media, and which, by the way, as a believer in the First Amendment, totally threatens the First Amendment, because as I have tried to say to people, when they figure out, which they have, that they can not only tell you who you must vote for, but they can tell you what truth you’re allowed to know or not to know, as we have seen in all of this other stuff with Russia, all of the stuff with the Clinton Foundation, all these things. The real question becomes why do we need a First Amendment if they’re not going to do their job, which is to be the tribune of the people and instead become the outriders of one political movement or another.

Steve Bannon: See, I look at it differently than Pat.  I like having the media as the opposition party because they’re so dumb and lazy.  I detest them.  I detest them.  Dumb, lazy, worthless.  A great opponent.  One last thing, we’ve got to wrap up here, is that it’s about the President.  It’s about Donald J. Trump.  Look, I got the great opportunity.  I’ve known him for years, but I didn’t know him that well until I got into the campaign.  I saw it every day.  Here’s a guy, everything you see in the mainstream media is basically nonsense.  Here’s a guy that was worth, I don’t know, five, six, seven, eight billion dollars.  I don’t know the exact number, but a lot of money.  He was 70 years old.  He has a lovely wife, a great family, great kids, grandchildren.  The friends he’s got from the sports and entertainment world and the business world are so close to him and such great people.  He just had a perfect lifestyle.  I mean here’s a guy at 70 years old that’s going around not just buying great hotels and refurbishing them and making them part of his Trump organization, but buying great golf courses and making them better and getting them in the U.S. Open or the Open Championship.  It’s the kind of thing you would do, all of us would do when we’re 70 years old.  He ran for President of the United States.  He’s not a narcissist and not in it for his ego or anything like that.  You couldn’t do it for that.  I saw this guy every day on the politics of personal destruction where they came after him hammer and tong.  And you guys only saw a tenth of it.  If you saw the other 90 percent, you’d just be stunned.  These people know no bounds.  I don’t really disagree with it because I see what they’re trying to do.  They’re trying to take control of the most powerful nation on earth, and they’re prepared to do anything to do that.

Donald Trump is an American hero because he had the courage to step up and run.  In that primary, if you think about it, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and Christie, go through all of them, 16.  That was the Republican Party’s an entire generation of their best politicians that have been kind of bred for 10, 20, 30 years.  And as good as those gentlemen are and Carly Fiorina, there’s not one, or even combined could they have taken on the Clinton apparatus.  The Clinton apparatus is a killing machine, and it took somebody like Donald Trump, a blunt-force instrument, to defeat it.

Pat Caddell: Let me make a point, then you can finish.  I just want to say one quick thing. The authenticity question, which is important, even during the election better than two-thirds of people believed that Trump was authentic and that Hillary wasn’t, including almost half of Hillary’s own voters, so that will tell you something.  And the last comment I have to make is what you’re seeing with Mr. Franken, when you see what’s coming, when they announce, when they have to release the $15 million of your money that was paid out in 260 settlements secretly for sexual harassment, it’s going to make the bank scandal of 1990 look like nothing.

Steve Bannon: One last thing, David.  Look, I would love to wave a magic wand and tell you it’s all going to be better, right.  Take your nappy off, powder your bottom, pat you on the head and tell you that November 8th, we’re going to celebrate it every year, November 8th and 9th as MAGA Day.  It’s a high holy day for the populist-nationalist conservative movement, but this is why things like Restoration Weekend are so important.  Every day’s a fight.  And the guys on the other side of the football, and they showed this in Virginia, they’re going to outwork you.  They’re going to out-hustle you.  If we’re not prepared to line up and fight every day, we’re going to lose this country. We’re going to lose it.  If you’re prepared — and I’ll take the guys on our side of the football.  I’ll take the hobbits.  I’ll take the deplorables.  I’ll take the working men and women of this country, but as long as you’re prepared to lead them and prepared to say we’re prepared to fight this every day.  We’re prepared to have Donald Trump’s back every day, and we’re not going to take defeat, and when something happens like Judge Moore down there, on the first allegations you run for the tall grass, to hell with you.  Thank you.

Manafort surrenders…What has this got to do with Trump?

October 30, 2017

Manafort surrenders…What has this got to do with Trump? IWB, Mark Angelides, October 30, 2017

GWB. Remarks at Graduation Ceremony for FBI Special Agents. Quantico, VA.

It seems fairly obvious that when Manafort’s home was raided and he was warned by prosecutors that he would be facing charges, it was an attempt to get him to roll over on the president and either give up some real evidence or make up some tales to extricate himself. Those who know Manafort personally have stated that “he wouldn’t lie,” (at least not to get others IN trouble, getting himself OUT is clearly a different matter).

**********************************

Former Campaign manager to the Trump team, Paul Manafort has turned himself into the authorities after the long-awaited charges were finally filed on Friday. It is not our place to judge his guilt, but we can ask one question…What has this got to do with Donald Trump and the Russian conspiracy?

Back in the summer, the media had a frenzy about the FBI raiding Manafort’s home searching for evidence of money laundering from his days as a Ukraine spin master and lobbyist. According to the filed charges (you can read them here), they’ve found it. But not one of the charges mentions a single word about Donald Trump, his campaign team, his presidential bid, or in fact anything whatsoever that you would expect from an investigation into the aforementioned!

So why are the charges coming out now? If I were of a more paranoid bent, I would suggest that since the eruption of at least four major scandals over the last two weeks (all of which concerning Russia, Mueller himself, and the DNC) that Mueller, along with press, are trying desperately to get back to “the narrative.”

It seems fairly obvious that when Manafort’s home was raided and he was warned by prosecutors that he would be facing charges, it was an attempt to get him to roll over on the president and either give up some real evidence or make up some tales to extricate himself. Those who know Manafort personally have stated that “he wouldn’t lie,” (at least not to get others IN trouble, getting himself OUT is clearly a different matter).

So with Manafort refusing to dish the dirt, they have just gone ahead with the charges of money laundering, tax evasion, and of course, lying to authorities about it. Yet this really seems to have nothing to do with the president.

Lest you think this is an indulgent flattery piece that suggests the president can do no wrong, rest assured, I think it highly likely that at some point in time, the president has been involved in some questionable practices (especially with regards to his business dealings). But this is about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and this has turned up nothing to do with a Trump-Russia collusion deal! So what is the purpose?

Simply, the prosecutors (most of whom were large Clinton donors), Mueller (who was the guy who tried to falsify evidence in the case of trying arrest Julian Assange in Iceland), and the DNC, who have the most to gain by getting rid of Trump, have no realistic route back to power other than forcing the president to leave in disgrace. They have no new policies, no new ideas, and no new candidates…All they have are hints and allegations of some mysterious scandal that even today, with Manafort’s arrest, has still failed to materialize.

It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me

September 21, 2017

It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me, The Hill, Sharyl Attkisson, September 20, 2017

Many in the media are diving deeply into minutiae in order to discredit any notion that President Trump might have been onto something in March when he fired off a series of tweets claiming President Obama had “tapped” “wires” in Trump Tower just before the election.

According to media reports this week, the FBI did indeed “wiretap” the former head of Trump’s campaign, Paul Manafort, both before and after Trump was elected. If Trump officials — or Trump himself — communicated with Manafort during the wiretaps, they would have been recorded, too.

But we’re missing the bigger story.

If these reports are accurate, it means U.S. intelligence agencies secretly surveilled at least a half dozen Trump associates. And those are just the ones we know about.

Besides Manafort, the officials include former Trump advisers Carter Page and Michael Flynn. Last week, we discovered multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official. We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted “unmasking,” or asking to know the identities of, the officials. Spying on U.S. citizens is considered so sensitive, their names are supposed to be hidden or “masked,” even inside the government, to protect their privacy.

In May, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates acknowledged they, too, reviewed communications of political figures, secretly collected under President Obama.

Trump: I was “wire tapped”
CNN: Haha. That idiot @realDonaldTrump thinks he was wiretapped.
..Six months later..
CNN: Trump was wiretapped

Weaponization of intel agencies?

Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.

You’ll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.

In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.

There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama. The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

Journalists have been targeted, too. This internal email, exposed by WikiLeaks, should give everyone chills. It did me.

Dated Sept. 21, 2010, the “global intelligence” firm Stratfor wrote:

[John] Brennan [then an Obama Homeland Security adviser] is behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside the beltway sources.

Note — There is specific tasker from the WH to go after anyone printing materials negative to the Obama agenda (oh my.) Even the FBI is shocked. The Wonder Boys must be in meltdown mode…

The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News. On Aug. 7, 2013, CBS News publicly announced:

… correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by ‘an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions,’ confirming Attkisson’s previous revelation of the hacking.

Then, as now, instead of getting the bigger story, some in the news media and quasi-news media published false and misleading narratives pushed by government interests. They implied the computer intrusions were the stuff of vivid imagination, conveniently dismissed forensic evidence from three independent examinations that they didn’t review. All seemed happy enough to let news of the government’s alleged unlawful behavior fade away, rather than get to the bottom of it.

I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating the computer’s microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files.

We survived the government’s latest attempt to dismiss my lawsuit. There’s another hearing Friday. To date, the Trump Department of Justice — like the Obama Department of Justice — is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.

Evidence continues to build. I recently filed new information unearthed through forensic exams. As one expert told the court, it was “not a mistake; it is not a random event; and it is not technically possible for these IP addresses to simply appear on her computer systems without activity by someone using them as part of the cyber-attack.”

Patterns

It’s difficult not to see patterns in the government’s behavior, unless you’re wearing blinders.

  • The intelligence community secretly expanded its authority in 2011 so it can monitor innocent U.S. citizens like you and me for doing nothing more than mentioning a target’s name a single time.
  • In January 2016, a top secret inspector general report found the NSA violated the very laws designed to prevent abuse.
  • In 2016, Obama officials searched through intelligence on U.S. citizens a record 30,000 times, up from 9,500 in 2013.
  • Two weeks before the election, at a secret hearing before the FISA court overseeing government surveillance, NSA officials confessed they’d violated privacy safeguards “with much greater frequency” than they’d admitted. The judge accused them of “institutional lack of candor” and said, “this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

Officials involved in the surveillance and unmasking of U.S. citizens have said their actions were legal and not politically motivated. And there are certainly legitimate areas of inquiry to be made by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But look at the patterns. It seems that government monitoring of journalists, members of Congress and political enemies — under multiple administrations — has become more common than anyone would have imagined two decades ago. So has the unmasking of sensitive and highly protected names by political officials.

Those deflecting with minutiae are missing the point. To me, they sound like the ones who aren’t thinking.

 

Man of the Year: Chief Trump Strategist Stephen K. Bannon

January 3, 2017

Man of the Year: Chief Trump Strategist Stephen K. Bannon, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz and Matthew Vadum, December 30, 2016

skb

Donald Trump is America’s champion and deservedly TIME’s “person of the year.” But in the absence of his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the promise he now holds out for America – and freedom lovers everywhere – might never have reached the White House, the seat of power where he will have the ability to implement his agendas. Which is why an unsung hero, Steve Bannon, is our “Man of the Year.”

***********************************

TIME magazine named Donald Trump “Person of the Year” for 2016, and we could have done the same. But this would have been to over-simplify a victory that millions of Americans believe has brought this nation back from the brink of destruction, and has done so against what seemed impossible odds. In the just completed election campaign, a vicious partisan press substituted character assassination for reporting and joined malicious Democrats in demonizing Trump and his supporters as racists, sexists, Islamophobes, xenophobes and religious bigots, while dismissing the candidate as “unfit to sit in the White House.”

From the outset Trump distinguished himself as a self-confident warrior who refused to be “politically correct.” Trump won the primaries and eventually the election because, unlike Republicans before him, he refused to be intimidated by leftist witch-hunters and their reputation-burning attacks.

But Trump’s very fearlessness, self-confidence and disregard for progressive bigotry – his indisputable strengths – came with a downside that threatened to undo him. Even as he responded to the defamation from whatever quarter it came, his campaign message was pushed into the background until it was in danger of being altogether lost. Questions began to be raised and not only by opponents. Could Trump be presidential? Could he stick to a winning message? Lackluster polling numbers sparked a panic among feckless Republicans who began demanding that Trump be replaced as the nominee. Even in the camp of the faithful, supporters began to wonder if their candidate was too thin-skinned and undisciplined to win, and – equally important – whether such a strong-willed individual could listen to a voice that was not his own. Could he ever trust and then avail himself of a counselor, who would focus his message and keep him on course?

The answer came within four months of the election when Trump, then trailing in the polls, shook up his team and made Stephen K. Bannon the CEO of his campaign. Within weeks the Trump ship began to turn around, then move forward until the final long push through the battleground states where the shape of a presidential winner at last came into view. While Donald J. Trump on his own had already changed the political landscape, if he had not hired Steve Bannon as his chief executive officer, it is doubtful he would be president-elect today.

A former naval officer, investment banker, movie producer, documentary filmmaker, and publisher of the online news giant Breitbart.com, Bannon was a kindred spirit to Trump and also a complementary one. “I come from a blue-collar, Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats,” Bannon said in a Bloomberg Businessweek profile last year. “I wasn’t political until I got into the service and saw how badly Jimmy Carter f—ed things up. I became a huge Reagan admirer. Still am. But what turned me against the whole establishment was coming back from running companies in Asia in 2008 and seeing that [George W.] Bush had f—ed up as badly as Carter. The whole country was a disaster.” Explaining his disdain for the Bushes, Bannon said: “[They are] not as cinematic as the Clintons, with their warlords and Russian gangsters and that whole cast of bad guys, Bush is more prosaic. It’s really just grimy, low-energy crony capitalism.”

In a sense Bannon and Trump were brothers under the skin. They both went to Ivy League schools (Trump to Wharton at U. Penn and Bannon to Harvard) and yet both had an affinity for working Americans, the blue-collar voters who eventually put Trump over the top. Both were businessmen who turned to politics to repair the damage they saw being done to their country. Both were passionate patriots, distressed over America’s progressive decline, determined to restore the values and virtues that had made it a symbol of liberty and national greatness to the world at large. Both were instinctively combative and not shy about using political speech as a blunt instrument to counter the attacks of the politically correct. Both were fed up with the accommodations Republicans had made to the destructive agendas of a Democratic Party that had become captive to its leftwing.

To this shared outlook, Bannon brought crucial additions. First, unlike Trump he had for decades been involved as a conservative partisan in the political and cultural wars that traditional Republicans were losing. He knew the terrain and its pitfalls as Trump, whose careers were in the popular culture and business could not.

Second, Bannon brought Trump his experience as an entrepreneur who in Breitbart.com had built one of the largest media sites in the world. Unlike others, Bannon was never horrified by candidate Trump’s stream-of-consciousness Twitter feed though he saw the need for more discipline in its contents. Unlike Trump’s critics, Bannon understood how important it was for the candidate to break free from the mainstream media filter that was busy crucifying him. With a feed that reached 40 million followers, Trump was able to speak directly to a larger audience than the hostile networks or the cable news shows could provide. Bannon helped Trump narrow his Twitter focus and become more effective as a candidate.

He also helped to persuade him to use teleprompters at his public events. This limited the degree to which the news media could distort his remarks and turn them against him. The teleprompters helped Trump to stay on message although the impulsive personality and direct address that so endeared him to his followers was still evident in the ad libs and asides which spiced his remarks. The results were immediately positive, as Trump began to climb in the polls.

Most importantly, Bannon and Trump shared a courage unique in Republican quarters. Call it character. The ability to stand firm under fire. The absence of this quality is the primary reason the Obama left has been able to steamroll Republicans in the past. Eight long years of incessant, in-your-face race-baiting by President Obama, attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, and the left-wing networks served to cow Republicans and cause them to abandon their own agendas. Even when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, President Obama still managed to get his major legislative priorities through. The millions of voters who flocked to the Trump camp understood and appreciated these facts. They had been waiting eight years – and more likely 28 years – for a candidate like Trump backed by a strategist like Bannon to stand up for them.

For Bannon and Trump getting things done – getting America back on track – took precedence over hurt progressive feelings. They did not back down under even the heaviest left-wing fire. Trump was maligned from the outset as Hitler, a misogynist and a racist. Once Bannon joined the Trump campaign, he too was smeared in the same dark colors. He was called a white nationalist, a racist and an anti-Semite. Yet he didn’t allow these calumnies to become a political distraction. He didn’t fire back. He worried about the candidate, not his personal reputation.

In these battles against the libels of the hate-driven left, epitomized by Hillary’s “basket of deplorables,” Trump has emerged as a paladin of integrity and common sense – therefore the nemesis of the politically correct. For they count on Republicans backing off for fear of their slanders. Faced with similar smears against his top political aide there is absolutely no other Republican president-elect who would have failed to throw Steve Bannon under the bus. Just to appease the left. Trump’s faith in Bannon and readiness to stand by him against those scurrilous attacks is an emblem of why Trump is the next president, and why Americans can take confidence in his ability to lead them in the predictable wars ahead.

But it is also the basis of Trump’s bond with Bannon whose own courage, bluntness, media-savvy, love of working Americans and ardent patriotism reflects his own. Donald Trump is America’s champion and deservedly TIME’s “person of the year.” But in the absence of his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the promise he now holds out for America – and freedom lovers everywhere – might never have reached the White House, the seat of power where he will have the ability to implement his agendas. Which is why an unsung hero, Steve Bannon, is our “Man of the Year.”

Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat

December 1, 2016

Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat, The Federalist, December 1, 2016

kellyanne

Now that President-Elect Trump is appointing women to key posts such as UN Ambassador, Secretary of Education, and Deputy National Security Advisor, their anger is rising rather than abating. If anything, this election has further revealed the hypocrisy of the left—particularly modern-day feminists—who despite all their talk of empowerment, are now exposed as a weak and whiny sisterhood of victims.

**************************************

If you’re a woman still anguishing over “what to tell our daughters” about the 2016 election, I suggest you point to Kellyanne Conway: the first woman to run a presidential campaign. This smart, tough, cool mom of four was the winning campaign manager for the most brutal presidential race in history—and she kept a steely smile on her face the whole time. She’s now poised to become either White House press secretary, or the most sought-after political consultant in the world.

After taking the helm of the listless Trump campaign in August, Conway helped shape a more disciplined candidate, with a message focused on a stronger economy and national defense. Conway is like the pretty brainiac who tamed the school jock, got him to shut up in class, and made him carry her books. Hell, she even got him to study once in a while. She’s the kind of example I want for my own daughters on how to handle an egotistical, sometimes boorish male boss: with firmness, class, and calm.

But Conway didn’t just take on Trump. She faced down an antagonistic, male-dominated media that had declared was acting as a de facto arm of the Clinton campaign. One of the few bright spots leading up to Election Day was watching political commentators lose their cool and credibility trying to rile Conway. It didn’t work (and still isn’t). This lawyer, pollster, and business owner should be the new hero of the post-feminism era: a super mom who rose to the top of her field and is now, unquestionably, the most influential woman in Washington.

Why Don’t Feminists Love Conway?

But modern-day feminists are still wringing out their “I’m With Her” crying towels and snubbing Conway’s historic victory because, well, she’s a Republican.

Without any sense of irony, they ignore the achievements of a self-made woman (Conway), while lamenting the loss of a candidate who earned fame and power largely because of her husband. If she were a Democrat, Conway would be the toast of women’s groups across the country, feted in the media, splashed across the pages of Vogue and Cosmo. She would be touted as a future candidate herself. Maybe even Lena Dunham would’ve thrown out a tweet or two after her Election Night shower-cry.

But I suspect there’s even more to this than partisan politics. After all, you can’t accuse a man of misogyny—which literally means “hatred of women”—if he puts a female in charge of the riskiest, most important endeavor of his life. Trump can’t be a sexist pig who hates women if he fires two men and replaces them with a woman, right? Acknowledging, even celebrating, Conway’s success would undermine that entire plotline.

Conway Undermined Trump’s Misogynist Image

The Trump-is-a-misogynist meme was the cornerstone of Clinton’s campaign message: a Google search of “Trump” plus “misogynist” yields 579,000 results—not counting the approximately five billion tweets making the same accusation.

The day of the election, The Telegraph UK published a lengthy list of allegedly sexist Trumpisms dating back to the 1980s. Some were not bad (in 1994, he said he gets mad if dinner isn’t on the table when he gets home, so what did that make my grandfather). Many were cringe-worthy—particularly remarks he made as a guest on the Howard Stern show, perhaps one of Trump’s worst judgment calls of all time. Some were downright slap-worthy, and nothing you would want to hear from your husband or son or boss. But when people put a microphone in front of your face for three decades, you’re bound to have to live down a trove of dumb comments.

But raw, even offensive remarks do not a misogynist make. Yet the pearl clutching by the female left went into overdrive after Trump was elected, with women weeping and fearing for their daughters—as if Trump is a one-man Boko Haram ready to swipe them out of their classrooms and turn them into drink cart girls.

Now that President-Elect Trump is appointing women to key posts such as UN Ambassador, Secretary of Education, and Deputy National Security Advisor, their anger is rising rather than abating. If anything, this election has further revealed the hypocrisy of the left—particularly modern-day feminists—who despite all their talk of empowerment, are now exposed as a weak and whiny sisterhood of victims.

So what do we tell our daughters? Be less like Lena and more like Kellyanne.

Are Hillary’s Henchmen Trying to Take Out a Trump Advisor with Fake Antisemitism Charges?

August 23, 2016

Are Hillary’s Henchmen Trying to Take Out a Trump Advisor with Fake Antisemitism Charges? PJ MediaLiz Sheld, August 23, 2016

JoeSchmitz.sized-770x415x0x156x800x431

The media continues its role as propagandist for the Democratic 2016 presidential ticket with astory showcasing “allegations of antisemitism” that “have surfaced” about presidential candidate Donald Trump advisor Joe Schmitz. But those who know him best say the allegations are “laughable, ugly and profoundly false” and that Schmitz exhibits “the highest character qualities.”

The article highlighting these allegations explains that “the revelations feed two themes that his opponent Hillary Clinton has used to erode Trump’s credibility: That he is a foreign policy neophyte, and that his campaign, at times, has offended Jews and other minorities.” In other words, the allegations that have “surfaced” are convenient if you have an interest in pushing either one of those Clinton campaign narratives.

Schmitz is a Naval Academy distinguished graduate, has a law degree from Stanford, and was formerly the Senate-confirmed inspector general of the Department of Defense. He is currently in private practice in Washington, D.C. Most recently, Schmitz has been advocating for and advising Donald Trump.

The allegations that have “surfaced” originate from a report filed by Dan Meyer, executive director of the intelligence community whistleblowing and source protection program.

Meyer, whose job it is to deal with whistleblowers, filed his own whistleblower complaint after he found himself punished for disclosing possible public corruption. The public corruption in question was the editing of an inspector general’s report that accused former Secretary of Defense and Clinton family pal Leon Panetta of leaking classified information to the makers of the film “Zero Dark Thirty.”  Meyer says in his complaint that his DoD bosses had manipulated “a final report to curry favor” with Defense Secretary Panetta.  The final report contained no such claims about Panetta leaking classified information. Meyer also alleges that he was targeted by the department because he was gay.

The details and circumstances of Meyer’s complaint are described in a McClatchy story from last month titled “Official who oversees whistleblower complaints files one of his own” which makes no reference to either Joe Schmitz or to the alleged anti-Semitism that is the subject of their latest story about the very same complaint.  The story written last week now advances the political narrative that Trump offends “Jews and other minorities,” using Meyer’s complaint as a springboard to smear Schmitz.

Schmitz hired the openly gay Meyer in January of 2004, and left the Department of Defense towards the end of 2005, so the men worked together a little under two years. Meyer’s office told PJ Media “Mr. Meyer never filed any complaints against Mr. Schmitz.”

So where does this sensational statement written by McClatchy about Schmitz come from?

“His summary of his tenure’s achievement reported as ‘…I fired the Jews,’ ” wrote Meyer, a former official in the Pentagon inspector general’s office whose grievance was obtained by McClatchy.

This statement is not from Meyer, it is a description of an allegation made by someone else that Meyer is summarizing. It’s deceptively presented to look like it is an assertion from Meyer and that Meyer’s complaint involves Schmitz.

The Meyer complaint says that former Pentagon official John Crane was a “source and witness” to these remarks. So the allegations of antisemitism come from third-party Crane.

Crane also alleges that Schmitz downplayed the Holocaust. Meyer further summarizes Crane’s allegations, according to the McClatchy piece: “In his final days, he allegedly lectured Mr. Crane on the details of concentration camps and how the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews.”

To be clear, these are not proven or verified facts. They have not been examined by the appropriate officials. The statements are claims by a former employee who has not seen fit to file his own formal complaint about the very things he alleges. Were there other statements in the Meyer report claiming Schmitz made anti-Semitic remarks that support Crane’s allegations? McClatchy has the Meyer complaint (PJ Media does not) and they did not offer up any such corroboration (and I have to believe they would if it was in there). One has to wonder who leaked a confidential whistleblower complaint and why.

According to McClatchy, Crane would not comment on his allegations, saying: “If, when, I am required to testify under oath in a [Merit Systems Protection Board] MSPB hearing, I would then comment on the statement attributed to me by Mr. Meyer.”

“Statements made under oath at the request of a judge in a formal proceeding would also remove my vulnerability to any potential civil litigation by any party involved in the filings by Mr. Meyer,” he added.

The McClatchy piece subsequently piles on Schmitz with another case that deals with antisemitism in the Department of Defense, but one that has nothing to do with Schmitz at all.

The Tenenbaum case is “decades old” and Mr. Tenenbaum’s original complaint focused on Inspector General General Counsel Henry Shelley, who worked on Tenenbaum’s discrimination case eight years ago, after Schmitz had left the DoD. In 2008, the Pentagon’s inspector general found in Tenenbaum’s favor that religious discrimination was a factor in the accusation that Tenenbaum was an Israeli spy.

McClatchy describes:

David Tenenbaum, an Army engineer at the Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan, is now citing the allegations in a letter this week to Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn Fine as new evidence that current and former Pentagon officials helped perpetrate an anti-Semitic culture within the military that left him vulnerable.“The anti-Semitic environment began under a prior Inspector General, Mr. Joseph Schmitz,” the letter from Tenenbaum’s lawyer Mayer Morganroth of Birmingham, Mich., states.

“The allegations”? The same allegations made about Schmitz by Crane? Not additional, different allegations from another person, but the same allegations by the person who made hearsay statements in the Meyer complaint. The article confirms as much:

 The letter from Tenenbaum’s lawyer Mayer Morganroth also alleges Schmitz made remarks about firing Jews and playing down the extent of the Holocaust, citing a “sworn statement” from an unnamed source with knowledge of the Tenenbaum case.A federal official with knowledge of the matter told McClatchy that Crane testified, under oath, about anti-Semitic remarks Schmitz made to him.

No word as to whether Crane’s allegations have been cross-examined or verified yet, or that there are corroborating witnesses to hearsay conjecture. Only that they were repeated as regards to a different situation.

Schmitz denied any accusations of antisemitism to McClatchy.

“The allegations are completely false and defamatory,” Schmitz said.

“I do not recall ever even hearing of any ‘allegations of anti-Semitism against [me],’ which would be preposterously false and defamatory because, among other reason(s), I am quite proud of the Jewish heritage of my wife of 38 years.”

Schmitz also denied any and all allegations of antisemitism to PJ Media and added that he has no familiarity with Tenenbaum at all.

PJ Media spoke with several associates of Schmitz, inquiring about the newly “surfaced” charges of antisemitism.

Professor Michael Halbig, retired vice academic dean at the U.S. Naval Academy and retired Naval Reserve captain, was a former Naval Academy professor of Schmitz. Halbig had this to say:

I’ve known Joe Schmitz since he was a youngster (a sophomore) in my German class at the Naval Academy.  I was then an officer instructor and ended up spending a 40 year career there, retiring in 2012.  My wife of 43 years is Jewish, our two sons have had bar mitzvahs, and I am in the process of converting to Judaism (next Friday, to be precise).   We have maintained a Jewish household for 43 years.  Joe and his wife Molly (and their son Nick, when he was a midshipman) have been to our home many times.  We have known Joe and Mollie since before they were married in 1978.  Joe was a close colleague in the Naval Reserve Intelligence Command, and was of particular assistance to me as inspector general when I was Chief of Staff in the years surrounding 9/11.   I disagree with many aspects of Joe’s politics, about which we usually don’t talk much, but I have never, ever witnessed a whiff of Anti-semitism in Joe or his family.  In fact, I cannot imagine it.

Bill Levin, Esq., was a co-clerk in the chambers of Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with Schmitz. Mr. Levin  told PJ Media:

Joe Schmitz has been a good friend going now on 30 years since we clerked together on the DC Circuit for Jim Buckley. In all that time, Joe has never exhibited even the slightest hint of antisemitism. To the contrary, we openly have shared our faith with great mutual respect. The allegation of antisemitism is laughable, ugly and profoundly false.

Consultant to the DoD Office of the Inspector General Roger Golden, Esq., said of Schmitz: “I’ve known Joe Schmitz personally and professionally for over 20 years.  Joe always has exhibited the highest character qualities.  The attribution of ‘antisemitic behavior’ to Joe is absurd and unimaginable based on my experience.  If anything, the opposite is true; Joe is strongly pro-Judaism.”

The media is selectively interested in cases of antisemitism. It’s a convenient slur to be directed at the proper political target, but ignored when it doesn’t serve the leftist narrative. Don’t buy into convenient stories the media tells you. Dave Reaboi over Red State said it well: “Let’s not allow ourselves to get into a lather, leading us to smear good people we don’t know simply because we want to score points against Donald Trump or any of our other political enemies.”

FBI, DOJ launch Probe into Firm of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta

August 21, 2016

FBI, DOJ launch Probe into Firm of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, BreitbartJerome Hudson, August 20, 2016

clin podGetty

The FBI and Justice Department have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.

The federal probe is, CNN reports, “examining the work of other firms linked to the former Ukrainian government, including that of the Podesta Group.”

The Podesta Group, run by John Podest’s brother Tony Podesta, was retained by the Russia-controlled firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015, to lobby Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The lobbying firm was paid a total of $180,000 according to public records.

Yanukovych took office in February 2010. He was forced to flee to Russian after a political uprising in Ukraine. Federal prosecutors are probing the work Yanukovych’s regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.

As it was first detailed in the New York Times bestselling book Clinton CashUranium One — which hired the Podesta Group — is the firm that funneled millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.

According to the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

The Times reported last April:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” the Times report said.

According to the Daily Caller, Uranium One “paid the Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service, and the National Security Council for ‘international mining projects,’ according to a July 20, 2012 filing.”

Distancing itself from the work it did for an organization with ties to Yanukovych’s pro-Russian regime, the Podesta group said it hired lawyers to examine its relationship with the organization linked to the ousted Ukrainian president.

“The firm has retained Caplin & Drysdale as independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre’s potential ties to foreign governments or political parties,” a Podesta Group statement said, according to CNN. The statement continued:

When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that ‘none of the activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.’ We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Centre.

The FBI and DOJ investigation is also examining former Donald Trump presidential campaign manager Paul Manafort’s firm, according to CNN.

Spokesman from the federal agencies as well as Manafort’s firm have not commented on the ongoing investigation.