Posted tagged ‘Big Government’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

The New Civil War

August 19, 2017

The New Civil War, American Thinker, Tom Trinko, August 19, 2017

(Please see also, Anti-Israel Academics Launch Campus Antifa Group for Faculty. — DM)

The first “shots” in our new civil war were fired after Charlottesville when many Democratic leaders claimed that they had the right to use physical force against anyone they didn’t like.

While cowardly leftist leaders are trying to portray themselves as fighting Hitler they are really fighting anyone they don’t agree with. Remember that some Democrats said that Rep. Steve Scalise had it coming since he opposed gun control and that Democrats have been silent when left-wing violence was used to prevent Republicans marching in a parade in Portland.

Facing a continued loss of power because their radical agenda is toxic to most Americans, the Democrat leadership — which includes the MSM — have decided that they have the right to physically attack anyone who stands in their way.

Like their Nazi and Communist forefathers, today’s Democrat leaders are comfortable sending swarms of Brownshirts out to beat into submission anyone who stands between them and power.

Under Obama, Democrats renounced the rule of law by declaring that they could choose to not enforce laws they didn’t like and make up laws that Congress never passed. Now they’re saying that they have the right to attack anyone who dares speak out in disagreement.  Rep. Scalise wasn’t a Nazi or white nationalist, nor were the Republicans in Portland, or the speakers that Democrats forcibly prevented from speaking in Berkeley. Yet the Democratic leadership’s condemnation of all of those events has been muted at best.

While the first American Civil War was fought to protect that particularly Democrat institution slavery, the new civil war Democrat elites are starting to wage is about transferring power from the people to the rich white oligarchs, judges, and government bureaucrats.

As then, Republicans stand for freedom and Democrats stand for slavery.

The Democratic elite has issued a call to war by supporting and endorsing violence against people who don’t agree with them.

The left has gone from endorsing Nazis marching in a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors to endorsing attacks on Nazis wherever they might appear. We all hate Nazis, but as Americans, Republicans believe in freedom of even odious speech, which is why we’re not tearing down the statues of that mass murderer Lenin that exist in America or the statues of Democrat Robert Byrd, who was a senior official in the KKK.

Republicans have uniformly, including President Trump, condemned Nazis and white nationalists. Yet Democrats are attacking us for not being sufficiently “woke.”

The time for pretending that Democrat leadership is patriotic is over.  It’s time to shout from the rooftops that the Democratic leadership is a fascist cabal intent on overthrowing democracy.

It’s unclear how many of those who voted for Hillary support the clear fascist policies of the Democratic party.  We know that those people tend to be low-information voters who get their “news” from the MSM. Hence, they live in a bubble of lies which make Democrat policies look semi-reasonable.

Even intelligent people fall victim to the Democrat Big Lies. A liberal physicist, for example, was shocked to learn that Osama greenlighted 9/11 because Clinton’s fleeing from Somalia taught Osama that Americans were cowards. He’d never heard that.

Similarly, today many Americans believe that Trump was defending Nazis because the MSM is lying about what he really said.

That’s why we need to be careful and not condemn all Democrats; many of them are honestly unaware of the facts just as the citizens of Nazi Germany didn’t have a clue about how WWII was actually progressing or how the citizens of North Korea thought for decades that though they were starving, they had it better than those poor capitalist South Koreans.

It’s clear that not all of those who voted for Hillary were actually voting for her agenda of taking power from the people and giving it to the elites.

Unlike the average Hillary voter who never heard most of the negative news about her, the Democratic leadership has sinister motives. For decades, they’ve been waging war against America. It started with FDR, a big fan of fascist dictator Mussolini, who began moving this country down the path to socialism with his failed big government policies. Few people remember that those policies didn’t work; it took WWII for the U.S. to recover economically from the Depression.

The next big step was disempowering Americans by giving near absolute power to the unelected Supreme Court. That court overthrew the laws of all 50 states by legalizing abortion for any reason at any time in pregnancy based on a “right to privacy” which is nowhere in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also created numerous rights for criminals and redefined marriage over the votes of 55,000,000 Americans.

In parallel, the Democrats increased the power of unelected government bureaucrats to the point that they felt empowered to demand that Catholic nuns pay for abortions. To Democrats the 1st Amendment only applies to causes they, the Democrats, support.

Trump’s election was a visceral scream from America saying that we want our power back. That we don’t want to be ruled by pretentious, stupid, elitist fascists like Pelosi and the Clintons, or by RINOs whose first loyalty is to the state, not the people.

The Democratic leadership is now following Mao, who said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, while Americans are being forced to defend the core American belief that power flows from the people.

Just as the original Democrats repudiated Lincoln for opposing slavery, modern Democratic leaders are repudiating his belief that the government is of the people, for the people, by the people.

The elite bicoastal ruling class is nearly all white and racist to the core, but they use lies about Republicans, spread by the fawning liberal media, to justify violence.

Today Democrats have crossed the Rubicon.  By saying that it’s okay for Antifa to shut down speakers they don’t like and physically assault anyone they don’t happen to agree with Democrats have renounced the rule of law and summoned the whirlwind of civil war.

Why have Democrats once again started a civil war to achieve their ends?

They thought they had everything sewed up. When Hillary won she’d pack the Supreme Court with fascists who believed that they could make up whatever laws they liked. Hillary would, like Obama, ignore the Constitution and further strengthen the administrative state while waging a war against non-Democratic whites and Asians and ensuring that Blacks stayed uneducated so they couldn’t see how Democrats were exploiting them.

But contrary to their expectations, the American people said no. We don’t want to be ruled, we want to be represented — which is why the Republican failure to get rid of ObamaCare is so offensive.

Even with the lying media spreading Democratic talking points 24/7 the majority of Americans want to be free, not enslaved — not told how much soda they can drink or what type of entertainment they can like — Democrats support violent misogynistic rap music while condemning Americans for liking NASCAR. The Democratic message calling on Americans to accept slavery because, according to Democrats, Americans can’t manage their own lives — the same line Democrats used to justify slavery– can’t win elections because American’s aren’t that stupid. As a result, the Democrat leadership has decided that their only way to power is violence.

If they can’t win in the battlefield of ideas, they’ve decided that they need to silence, by the use of force, any voices they don’t like.

The Democrat leaders have turned to the communists they so admire — remember Obama wishing he could rule like the dictator of China does? — and decided that what they can’t win by the ballot they can win with the baseball bat.

Unless we all take a stand now, this spiral of violence initiated by Democrats will lead to a truly horrible future, just as the Democrat’s violent defense of slavery was the cause of the greatest tragedy in American history. If Democrats had voluntarily abandoned slavery, we could have avoided America’s most costly war. Instead we had to fight to end the scourge of slavery.

Contact the Republican leadership and make it clear that instead of condemning Trump for his stand against all violence, they need to attack the Democrat’s support of violence.

There is still time to avoid a massive escalation of violence but if we fail to take a stand against the Democrat’s use of force we will see our streets running with blood.  We know Democrats don’t care about that, because they don’t care about the thousands of Blacks shot in Chicago each year, but we do because we care about all Americans.

Take action and pray that we are not forced to relive the Civil War in order to prevent Democrats from destroying our democracy.

Categories: "Hate groups", Administrative state, America Divided, American values, Big Government, civil war, Contempt for America, Democracy, Democrat agenda, Divided States of America, Eradication of American history, FDR's America, First Amendment, Future of Democrat Party, Identity politics, Leftists, Media - leftist, Media and Democrats, Media and Obama, Media and Trump, Nationalism, Obama and racism, Political warfare, Trump agenda, U.S. courts
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

President Trump’s Executive Order Could Mean Huge Gov Downsizing

March 14, 2017

President Trump’s Executive Order Could Mean Huge Gov Downsizing, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield, March 14, 2017

[T]his could be the opening for a plan to dramatically transform and downsize the government in a common sense way. Much of this will be in the hands of the OMB director. That would be Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney was a conservative congressman with a business background and a reputation as a fiscal hawk. Now his report may very well remake the government.

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

The Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch is bulky title. But its potential is even bigger. Here’s why.

Section 1.  Purpose.  This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

Note the agencies part.

Sec. 2.  Proposed Plan to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability of Federal Agencies, Including, as Appropriate, to Eliminate or Reorganize Unnecessary or Redundant Federal Agencies.  (a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit to the Director a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.

And…

(d)  In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consider, in addition to any other relevant factors:

(i)    whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

(ii)   whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are redundant, including with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iii)  whether certain administrative capabilities necessary for operating an agency, a component, or a program are redundant with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iv)   whether the costs of continuing to operate an agency, a component, or a program are justified by the public benefits it provides; and

(v)    the costs of shutting down or merging agencies, components, or programs, including the costs of addressing the equities of affected agency staff.

In short, this could be the opening for a plan to dramatically transform and downsize the government in a common sense way. Much of this will be in the hands of the OMB director. That would be Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney was a conservative congressman with a business background and a reputation as a fiscal hawk. Now his report may very well remake the government.

 

 

Categories: Big Government, Downsizing Federal Government, Trump agenda, Trump appointments
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Krauthammer on bureaucratic pushback against President Trump

February 18, 2017

Krauthammer on bureaucratic pushback against President Trump, Fox News via YouTube, February 17, 2017

Categories: Administrative state, Big Government, Deep state, Trump agenda
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Who Rules the United States?

February 17, 2017

Who Rules the United States? Washington Free Beacon, , February 17, 2017

(Update re President Trump’s EPA nominee, Scott Pruitt: He was approved by the Senate 52-46. — DM)

President Donald Trump pauses while speaking during a news conference, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

President Donald Trump pauses while speaking during a news conference, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Donald Trump was elected president last November by winning 306 electoral votes. He pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., to overturn the system of politics that had left the nation’s capital and major financial and tech centers flourishing but large swaths of the country mired in stagnation and decay. “What truly matters,” he said in his Inaugural Address, “is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.”

Is it? By any historical and constitutional standard, “the people” elected Donald Trump and endorsed his program of nation-state populist reform. Yet over the last few weeks America has been in the throes of an unprecedented revolt. Not of the people against the government—that happened last year—but of the government against the people. What this says about the state of American democracy, and what it portends for the future, is incredibly disturbing.

There is, of course, the case of Michael Flynn. He made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career, suffice it to say. And when he exposed himself as vulnerable those enemies pounced. But consider the means: anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations. Yes, the conversation in question was with a foreign national. And no one doubts we spy on ambassadors. But we aren’t supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause. And we most certainly are not supposed to disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the Washington Post because it suits a partisan or personal agenda.

Here was a case of current and former national security officials using their position, their sources, and their methods to crush a political enemy. And no one but supporters of the president seems to be disturbed. Why? Because we are meant to believe that the mysterious, elusive, nefarious, and to date unproven connection between Donald Trump and the Kremlin is more important than the norms of intelligence and the decisions of the voters.

But why should we believe that? And who elected these officials to make this judgment for us?

Nor is Flynn the only example of nameless bureaucrats working to undermine and ultimately overturn the results of last year’s election. According to the New York Times, civil servants at the EPA are lobbying Congress to reject Donald Trump’s nominee to run the agency. Is it because Scott Pruitt lacks qualifications? No. Is it because he is ethically compromised? Sorry. The reason for the opposition is that Pruitt is a critic of the way the EPA was run during the presidency of Barack Obama. He has a policy difference with the men and women who are soon to be his employees. Up until, oh, this month, the normal course of action was for civil servants to follow the direction of the political appointees who serve as proxies for the elected president.

How quaint. These days an architect of the overreaching and antidemocratic Waters of the U.S. regulation worries that her work will be overturned so she undertakes extraordinary means to defeat her potential boss. But a change in policy is a risk of democratic politics. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the decisions of government employees are to be unquestioned and preserved forever. Yet that is precisely the implication of this unprecedented protest. “I can’t think of any other time when people in the bureaucracy have done this,” a professor of government tells the paper. That sentence does not leave me feeling reassured.

Opposition to this president takes many forms. Senate Democrats have slowed confirmations to the most sluggish pace since George Washington. Much of the New York and Beltway media does really function as a sort of opposition party, to the degree that reporters celebrated the sacking of Flynn as a partisan victory for journalism. Discontent manifests itself in direct actions such as the Women’s March.

But here’s the difference. Legislative roadblocks, adversarial journalists, and public marches are typical of a constitutional democracy. They are spelled out in our founding documents: the Senate and its rules, and the rights to speech, a free press, and assembly. Where in those documents is it written that regulators have the right not to be questioned, opposed, overturned, or indeed fired, that intelligence analysts can just call up David Ignatius and spill the beans whenever they feel like it?

The last few weeks have confirmed that there are two systems of government in the United States. The first is the system of government outlined in the U.S. Constitution—its checks, its balances, its dispersion of power, its protection of individual rights. Donald Trump was elected to serve four years as the chief executive of this system. Whether you like it or not.

The second system is comprised of those elements not expressly addressed by the Founders. This is the permanent government, the so-called administrative state of bureaucracies, agencies, quasi-public organizations, and regulatory bodies and commissions, of rule-writers and the byzantine network of administrative law courts. This is the government of unelected judges with lifetime appointments who, far from comprising the “least dangerous branch,” now presume to think they know more about America’s national security interests than the man elected as commander in chief.

For some time, especially during Democratic presidencies, the second system of government was able to live with the first one. But that time has ended. The two systems are now in competition. And the contest is all the more vicious and frightening because more than offices are at stake. This fight is not about policy. It is about wealth, status, the privileges of an exclusive class.

“In our time, as in [Andrew] Jackson’s, the ruling classes claim a monopoly not just on the economy and society but also on the legitimate authority to regulate and restrain it, and even on the language in which such matters are discussed,” writes Christopher Caldwell in a brilliant essay in the Winter 2016/17 Claremont Review of Books.

Elites have full-spectrum dominance of a whole semiotic system. What has just happened in American politics is outside the system of meanings elites usually rely upon. Mike Pence’s neighbors on Tennyson street not only cannot accept their election loss; they cannot fathom it. They are reaching for their old prerogatives in much the way that recent amputees are said to feel an urge to scratch itches on limbs that are no longer there. Their instincts tell them to disbelieve what they rationally know. Their arguments have focused not on the new administration’s policies or its competence but on its very legitimacy.

Donald Trump did not cause the divergence between government of, by, and for the people and government, of, by, and for the residents of Cleveland Park and Arlington and Montgomery and Fairfax counties. But he did exacerbate it. He forced the winners of the global economy and the members of the D.C. establishment to reckon with the fact that they are resented, envied, opposed, and despised by about half the country. But this recognition did not humble the entrenched incumbents of the administrative state. It radicalized them to the point where they are readily accepting, even cheering on, the existence of a “deep state” beyond the control of the people and elected officials.

Who rules the United States? The simple and terrible answer is we do not know. But we are about to find out.

Categories: Administrative state, Big Government, Trump agenda, Trump and fake news, Trump and media, Trump and the Establishment, Trump and U.S. courts, Trump appointments, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The collapse of the political left

December 8, 2016

The collapse of the political left, Washington Examiner, Michael Barone, December 7, 2016

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

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

It’s been a tough decade for the political left. Eight years ago a Time magazine cover portrayed Barack Obama as Franklin Roosevelt, complete with cigarette and holder and a cover line proclaiming “The New New Deal.” A Newsweek cover announced  “We Are All Socialists Now.”

Now the cover story is different. Time has just announced, inevitably though a bit begrudgingly, that its Person of the Year for 2016 is Donald Trump. No mention of New Deals or socialism.

It’s not surprising that newsmagazine editors expected a move to the left. The history they’d been taught by New Deal admirers, influenced by the doctrines of Karl Marx, was that economic distress moves voters to demand a larger and more active government.

There was some empirical evidence in that direction as well. The recession triggered by the financial crisis of 2007-08 was the deepest experienced by anyone not old enough to remember the 1930s. Barack Obama was elected with 53 percent of the popular vote—more than any candidate since the 1980s—and Democrats had won congressional elections with similar majorities in 2006 and 2008.

Things look different now, and not just because Donald Trump was elected president. It has been clear that most voters have been rejecting big government policies, and not just in the United States but in most democratic nations around the world.

Leftist politicians supposed that ordinary voters with modest incomes facing hard times would believe that regulation and redistribution would help them. Evidently most don’t.

The rejection was apparent in the 2010 and subsequent House elections; Republicans have now won House majorities in ten of the last 12 elections, leaving 2006 and 2008 as temporary aberrations. You didn’t hear Hillary Clinton campaign on the glories of Obamacare or the Iran nuclear deal, and her attack on “Trumped-up, trickle-down economics” didn’t strike any chords in the modest-income Midwest.

Republican success has been even greater in governor and state legislature elections, to the point that Democrats hold governorships and legislative control only in California, Hawaii, Delaware and Rhode Island. After eight years of the Obama presidency, Democrats hold fewer elective offices than at any time since the 1920s.

Things look similar abroad. Britain’s Conservatives, returned to government in 2010, are in a commanding position over a left-lurching Labour party. France’s Socialist president, with single-digit approval, declined to run for a second term. European social democratic parties have been hemorrhaging votes, and got walloped in Sunday’s Italian referendum. In Latin America and Asia, the left is declining or on the defensive.

Overall history is not bending toward happy acceptance of ever-larger government at home. Nor toward submersion of national powers and identities into large and inherently undemocratic international organizations. The nation-state remains the focus of most peoples’ loyalties, and in a time of economic and cultural diffusion, as Yuval Levin argues in his recent book The Fractured Republic, big government policies designed for an age of centralization have become increasingly dysfunctional.

Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed this, at least until some time between nine and ten o’clock election night. Shrewder center-left politicians who have shown they know how to win elections have. Bill Clinton urged his wife’s campaign managers to put her out in rural areas speaking to voters’ concerns. The thirty-something geniuses she installed in her trendy Brooklyn headquarters knew better.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in Washington this week, said, “We have to pay attention to culture and identity,” and argued that in response to Islamist extremism, “Political correctness can’t get in the way.”

Such advice suggests that a sharp shift in current leftist strategy, which includes “identity politics” appeals to minorities at home and obeisance to the wisdom of supranational entities like the Paris climate changeconference and the European Union.

What’s missing in that is a concentration on the interests of one’s own citizenry. To the left that smacks of nationalism, which some seem to regard as only a baby step away from Nazism.

It’s not. The United States Constitution was designed to provide a framework in which rights are guaranteed and voters in states can choose policies in line with their different backgrounds and beliefs.

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

Categories: 2016 elections, Big Government, Media, Political left, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, President Reject Obama, Socialism
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Vice President-elect Mike Pence Leading Trump Administration Transition Team

November 12, 2016

Vice President-elect Mike Pence Leading Trump Administration Transition Team

by Alex Swoyer

11 Nov 2016Washington, DC

Source: Vice President-elect Mike Pence Leading Trump Administration Transition Team – Breitbart

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

 

Vice President-elect Mike Pence is heading up President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, assembling a new administration after Trump’s victory earlier this week.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had been in charge of Trump’s transition, but Pence is taking over and will be advised by members of Congress.

Pence will serve as Chairman of the Presidential Transition Team, according to a press release on Friday. It adds:

Dr. Ben Carson, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, USA (Ret.), Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions will join the team’s Executive Committee as Vice Chairs.

According to the press release, the following individuals will serve as leaders on the Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee:

Congressman Lou Barletta
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
Congressman Chris Collins
Jared Kushner
Congressman Tom Marino
Rebekah Mercer
Steven Mnuchin
Congressman Devin Nunes
Anthony Scaramucci
Peter Thiel
Donald Trump Jr.
Eric Trump
Ivanka Trump
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus
Trump Campaign CEO Stephen K. Bannon

“Together this outstanding group of advisors, led by Vice President-elect Mike Pence, will build on the initial work done under the leadership of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to help prepare a transformative government ready to lead from day one,” stated President-elect Donald Trump, adding:

The mission of our team will be clear: put together the most highly qualified group of successful leaders who will be able to implement our change agenda in Washington. Together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding this nation – specifically jobs, security and opportunity. This team is going to get to work immediately to Make America Great Again.

Rick Dearborn will serve as the team’s executive director. Dearborn previously served as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) chief of staff.

Others joining Dearborn on the team are:

Kellyanne Conway, Senior Advisor
David Bossie, Deputy Executive Director
Stephen Miller, National Policy Director
Jason Miller, Communications Director
Hope Hicks, National Press Secretary
Dan Scavino, Director of Social Media
Don McGahn, General Counsel
Katie Walsh, Senior Advisor

Pence will continue to have his top senior advisers, Nick Ayers, Josh Pitcock, and Marc Short, work with him on this process.

“President-elect Trump will bring about fundamental change in Washington, and these are the right people to make that happen,” stated Vice President-elect Pence. “This team of experienced leaders will form the building blocks of our Presidential Transition Team staff leadership roster, and will work with elected officials and tireless volunteers to prepare our government for the transfer of power on January 20th.”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Republican Party Leaders Plot Purge, Civil War

October 17, 2016

Republican Party Leaders Plot Purge, Civil War

by Tom Tancredo

15 Oct 2016

Source: Republican Party Leaders Plot Purge, Civil War – Breitbart

DOMINICK REUTER/AFP/Getty Images

Just when you think Republican Party leaders can’t possibly get more cynical, more hypocritical or more suicidal, they surprise you.

Over the past week, a few dozen prominent Republicans, led by 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain and joined by Utah’s Senator Mike Lee and Colorado’s Cory Gardner, dropped their support for Donald Trump and called on Republican voters to vote for other, “down ticket” candidates but not Trump.

The New York Times on October 9 published a list of “160 Republican Leaders who do not support Trump,” and newspapers everywhere trumpeted the newest addition to the list.

That chorus was joined briefly by House Speaker Paul Ryan, who said he would vote for Trump but would not campaign for him or with him. Ryan also advised the entire Republican congressional delegation to do the same.

This betrayal of the party’s presidential nominee by top echelons of party leadership can only be called overt sabotage. Whether successful or not in denying Trump a victory on November 8, it undoubtedly is the opening shot in a civil war that will erupt full scale on November 9.

The attempted take down of Trump was explained as an effort to “salvage the dignity of the party” in the aftermath of the public release of a recording of lewd remarks about some women made by Trump in 2005. When asked if the recording revealed anything about Donald Trump they did not know before, they had no answer. It is clear that the party leaders who have jumped ship are using the 2005 video recording as the excuse to do something they had been contemplating since Trump won the party nomination in July.

No one citing the recording as an excuse for opposing Trump can say Trump’s lewd remarks are more offensive than the known sexual conduct of former President Bill Clinton — and many other White House occupants. Lewd and crude language is not exactly unknown in the halls of the West Wing, the Rayburn Building, RNC headquarters — or Fox television sound stages.

Are the American people turning against Donald Trump because of remarks he made in private eleven years ago? No. Might they turn against him if every Republican senator and congressman attacked him for those remarks? Yes, quite possibly. In that case, what would be the cause of the defeat, Trump’s remarks or the party establishment’s treason?

The answer lies in looking at the facts, not Glenn Beck’s self-indulgent rants. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 69 percent of voters think Trump’s attitude and remarks about women are either no worse or the same as Bill Clinton’s, and only 23 percent think they are worse. That is a 3-to-1 margin saying it is not an important issue for the large majority of voters.

So, if moral Puritanism is not a credible explanation for he organized insurrection against the party’s presidential nominee, what is the explanation? Why this open declaration of war on the millions of voters who selected Trump as the party’s candidate? The actions of Paul Ryan, McCain and the other party bigwigs only make sense if it is a signal of a planned purge of Trump supporters by the US Chamber of Commerce globalists.

The hypocrisy of the Republican establishment’s attempted take down of the Trump campaign is astonishing even by 2016 standards. After insisting that candidate Trump take the pledge to support the eventual nominee, many refused to accept the verdict of the presidential nomination process. It took months for Senator Cruz to endorse Trump, and Ohio’s Gov. Kasich is still silent.

The other element of hypocrisy is the fear of a Trump victory.

After arguing for a full year that Trump couldn’t possibly win and would lead the party to a catastrophic defeat, many of the same Republican leaders saw Trump steadily gaining ground on Hillary Clinton and decided a Trump victory would be even more catastrophic than a defeat. Immigration enforcement, an America First foreign policy, and sensible international trade treaties must not be allowed to prevail over globalist ambitions of the party establishment. Trump had to be stopped.

That is why the sabotage did not occur earlier. Trump is only a mortal danger to the establishment if he has a chance of winning. As long as he was losing badly in the polls, the saboteurs could remain silent. But after mid-September when polls started showing Trump in a virtual tie with Clinton and gaining ground in all the “battleground states,” the knives were out. Why do you think the 2005 video was released when it was, when the liberal media certainly had it for months?

It is beyond question that the Republican establishment fears a Trump victory more than a Trump defeat. They are more comfortable with Hillary Clinton in the White House than Trump. Only people who have been living on another planet for the last 18 months believe that Washington insiders are opposed to Trump because of his crude language or alleged chauvinistic attitudes toward women.

So the Republican civil war is under way. Whether Trump wins or loses, the party establishment will use every weapon in its arsenal to purge the party not only of Trump’s policy ideas but Trump’s followers as well.

On November 9, the order of the day will be — business-as-usual. The party establishment and its allies in the Chamber of Commerce and the media will be working overtime to guarantee there will be no recognition or acknowledgement of the patriotic rebellion against the “go along to get along” mentality of Republican lawmakers that fueled first the Tea party revolt in 2009-2010 and then the Trump bandwagon.

What the Republican establishment does not understand or will not accept is that Donald Trump is only the symptom, not the cause, of the grassroots rebellion against establishment thinking. Donald Trump gave voice to those concerns, those very justified concerns, about our nation’s direction and our nation’s very survival.

Donald Trump the man and Trump the candidate has flaws and warts and weaknesses that were understandably exploited by opponents. But win or lose on November 8, the grassroots rebellion that fueled the Trump campaign will continue.

That rebellion is now an open civil war within the Republican party, and that is a shame. But at least it is a war over real issues, real concerns, and real worries over the safety and survival of our nation. And that, my friends, will always be a war worth fighting

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 7 Comments

FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email

September 24, 2016

FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email

by Neil W. McCabe

23 Sep 2016Washington

Source: FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email – Breitbart

Is it possible that it goes crazier than this, only if the tell us that the aliens from mars are coming !

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday that President Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012.

Posted at the FBI’s Vault site, the revelation was part of a 189-page document dump of interview notes from conversations its agents conducted about how Clinton handled classified electronic correspondence, other documents, and her private email scheme during her tenure as secretary of State.

Clinton confidante Huma Abedin was interviewed April 5, 2016 in a meeting in the FBI’s Washington field office with FBI agents, her attorneys, and a representative from the Department of Justice’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Office.

During the interview Abedin was showed a June 28, 2012 email sent to Clinton with the subject header “Re: Congratulations!”

The Supreme Court ruled that day that the president’s landmark healthcare reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was not unconstitutional.

Abedin told the FBI she had no idea who the email’s sender was and when agents told her it was the president’s pseudonym, she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?”

The confidante also told the agents that the president’s official email account had filters, so that certain emails could not get through to him–which came to her attention because when the former first lady changed private email accounts, her emails were bounced from the president’s official email account.

In addition to the news that the president, like many other members of his administration, used a fake name and his own private email account, it also means that Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s email arrangement were contrary to his own working knowledge and experience.

Obama told CBS News March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.

Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

In March 2013, The Smoking Gun website posted an article describing Clinton’s private email scheme, but it was not until The New York Times reported March 2, 2015 a full description of how Clinton used not only a private email address, but also a private server, and used this setup for all of her official electronic correspondence when she led State.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest walked back the president’s outright denial March 9:

The president was referring specifically to the arrangement associated with Secretary Clinton’s email. Yes, the president was aware of her email address. He traded emails with her. That shouldn’t be a surprise that the president of the United States is going to trade emails with the secretary of state. But the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal email server and that this was the email address that she was using exclusively for all her business. The president was not aware of that until that had been more widely reported.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Obama and Hillary Let Iran Take Israel and the Jews Hostage

August 21, 2016

Blue State Blues: Obama & Hillary Let Iran Take Israel and the Jews Hostage

by Joel B. Pollak

19 Aug 2016

Source: Obama and Hillary Let Iran Take Israel and the Jews Hostage

Breitbart News

The Obama administration was finally forced to admit this week that it had paid a $400 million cash ransom to the Iranian regime to secure the release of four Americans at the same time the nuclear deal went into effect.

President Barack Obama insisted earlier this month: “We do not pay ransom.” He added: “This wasn’t some nefarious deal.” (Thursday, admitting the cash secured the Americans’ release, the White House called it “leverage,” not ransom — a distinction without a difference.)

The payoff is problematic for several reasons. One is the fact that it creates new incentives for foreign regimes, and terrorists, to seize Americans. Another is that the Obama administration has threatened private citizens, such as the family of James Foley, lest they pay ransom to terrorists; as ever, the Obama administration is above the law.

Yet another reason is that the $400 million is part of a larger $1.7 billion settlement that the Iranian regime has already directed to its military, including potential terrorist operations, plus the ongoing war effort in Syria, where Iran has abetted that regime’s staggering atrocities.

But there are still hostages that remain — both direct and indirect. The direct hostages are those Americans that Iran has taken prisoner since the release in January.

And the indirect hostages are the State of Israel, which is in constant danger of attack by Iran or its terrorist proxies; as well as the Jewish people as a whole, whom Iran continues to target in word and in deed.

Israel’s vulnerability was laid bare this week when it was revealed that Russian warplanes are using a base in Iran to launch attacks inside Syria. In the past, Israel has tried to thwart the delivery of advanced Russian S-300 missiles to Iran as a “red line,” since the missiles would make any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, if necessary, more difficult. Instead of crossing that line, Russia has just walked around it. Putting Russian air assets inside Iran risks a wider conflict if Israel ever strikes.

That is a major strategic failure for Obama and the West. As my friend Ed Morrissey notes at HotAir:

For centuries, the West has employed a policy to deny Russia easy access to major shipping lanes in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean by denying them access to a warm-water port. That is the reason that both Great Britain and later the US deemed Iran and Afghanistan strategically critical. Russian entry into these shipping lanes could create dangerous confrontations and will certainly require more vigorous oversight.

(Amidst all the talk about Donald Trump’s friendly posture towards Russia, it is important to remember just how weak and accommodating Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been.)

Obama’s strategic failure is Israel’s strategic disaster. Iran now enjoys a Russian military and diplomatic shield, meaning that it can continue to threaten Israel — and Europe, by the way — with ballistic missiles and a creeping nuclear research program.

Moreover, Iran can continue to threaten Jewish communities around the world.

In 2012, Iran — via Hezbollah — carried out a terror attack on an Israeli tourist bus in Bulgaria. In 2014, Alberto Nisman, the Argentine prosecutor investigating Iran’s role in a huge terror attack against a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, was assassinated.

These events happened even as the Obama administration — including Hillary Clinton — were pursuing early negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Israel and the Jews are in grave danger, thanks to Obama. And the person he has endorsed is no better.

Not even Clinton’s best defenders can name one thing she has done for Israel. She has embraced the antisemitic Black Lives Matter movement, which accuses Israel of “genocide.” And she not only supported the Iran deal, but also chose a running mate who boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2015 speech against it.

Can we take four more — eight more — years of being hostages?

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Compares Donald Trump to Jihadists: ‘They Will Always Fail in the End’

July 28, 2016

Obama Compares Donald Trump to Jihadists: ‘They Will Always Fail in the End’

by Charlie Spiering

27 Jul 2016

Source: Obama Compares Donald Trump to Jihadists: ‘They Will Always Fail in the End’ – Breitbart

President Barack Obama compared Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to terrorists, lumping him and his supporters with the worst elements of society, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia Wednesday.

During his speech, Obama spoke about the greatness of democracy and the American people, before insisting that Trump would fail.

“That’s why anyone who threatens our values, whether fascists or communists or jihadis or home-grown demagogues will always fail in the end,” he said.

The president painted Trump as a “self-declared” dictator who preyed on people’s fears and tried to divide the country.

“Our power doesn’t come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order as long as we do things his way,” he said. “We don’t look to be ruled.”

He also argued that America was still great, after two terms of his presidency.

“America is already great. America is already strong,” Obama said, adding that America’s greatness “does not depend on Donald Trump.”

Obama insisted that Trump had turned the Republican party into something else entirely, insisting that the party convention last week wasn’t Republican and “sure wasn’t conservative.”

Citing illegal immigration, Obama appeared to excuse illegals for flouting immigration laws to come to America.

“The American Dream is something no wall will ever contain,” he said.

The president also dismissed the idea that race relations between African-Americans and police officers were getting worse, citing “festered” problems that had gone on for decades.

He urged Americans to ignore Trump’s message, calling the upcoming election a serious choice.

“This is a more fundamental choice of who we are as a people,” he said.

Obama’s voice was slightly raspy as he spoke about the achievements of his two terms as president, after taking the stage to his old campaign song “City of Blinding Lights” by U2, as delegates shouted “Yes We Can!” recalling when thousands of Democrats chose him over Hillary Clinton in 2008.

He acknowledged that he beat Clinton in 2008 even though she was “doing everything that I was doing, but just like Ginger Rogers, it was backwards, and in heels.”

“I was worn out,” he admitted, pointing out that Clinton kept fighting back throughout the divisive primary.

On foreign policy, Obama admitted that the fight against Islamic State terrorism wasn’t finished, and that Clinton would take over his unfinished work.

“I know Hillary won’t relent until ISIL is destroyed,” he said. “She will finish the job and she will do it without resorting to torture or banning entire religions from entering our country.”

Obama recalled his 2004 speech that catapulted his national rise to power, saying that he was “filled with faith” in the American people.

He championed his legacy, insisting that he had saved the American economy and successfully passed health care reform, and he bragged once again that he killed Osama Bin Laden. Obama also praised his own achievement of the nuclear deal with Iran and opening up relations with Cuba.

Amid chants of “Yes we can!” and “Four more years!” from the Democratic audience, Obama urged them to “carry Hillary to victory.”

“I’m ready to pass the baton and do my part as a private citizen, so this year in this election,” he said, “I’m asking you to join me to reject cynicism and reject fear and to summon what is best in us to elect Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States,” he concluded.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries