President Obama Just Made the Dakota Access Pipeline Situation Worse

KEY TAKEAWAY

With a few words to a reporter, President Barack Obama just took the rule of law, crumpled it up, and tossed along a riverbank in North Dakota.

Here’s what he told NowThis about the recent actions by his administration and the protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline:

I think, right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline. So we are going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved.

This was “resolved” months ago, after state and federal agencies signed off on the project.

The point of the rule of law is to protect rights by having a known, understandable, and certain process.

The pipeline’s builders, Energy Transfer Partners, did what they were supposed to do: They worked with state and federal regulators, applied for the appropriate permits, held local hearings with people concerned about the project—including Native American tribes—and spent years making adjustments to the pipeline’s route after hearing concerns—140 times in North Dakota alone(!) to preserve cultural sites and minimize environmental harm.

After following the rules, all state and federal permits were acquired (including from the Army Corps of Engineers). Energy Transfer Partners was awaiting a final easement from the Army Corp to go under the Missouri River, so building started.

Only then did anti-energy extremists rile up people to protest the pipeline by setting up camp near its construction, chaining themselves to equipment, and regularly confronting law enforcement, security guards, and construction workers.

We’re more than three-quarters through the game and President Obama thinks it’s okay to pull a Lucy and yank the football away from billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs by changing the rules of the game. We’re long past the point of no return for a project that went by the book.

For reaction to the president’s comments, here’s Rob Port, a North Dakota blogger who has been covering the story for months:

It’s worth keeping in mind that almost the entirety of this pipeline traverses private land. “In fact, DAPL needs almost no federal permitting of any kind because 99% of its route traverses private land,” Obama-appointed federal judge James Boasberg wrote in his September opinion rejecting arguments against the pipeline from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

It’s actually more than 99 percent. It’s like 99.8 percent. Just 0.2 percent of this pipeline is on federal land.

But Obama, apparently, thinks that 0.2 percent gives the federal government the authority to re-route the 99.8 percent of the pipeline on private property.

Pipeline supporters also weighed in.

“While a reroute sounds simple enough, it is in fact incredibly difficult, time intensive, costly and may actually be impossible,” said Craig Stevens, spokesman for the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now. “It would require new easements, new environmental and cultural studies, and hundreds of millions in additional costs.”

Stevens added, it also puts future energy infrastructure projects as risk: “It would send the signal to other companies seeking to invest in the U.S. infrastructure that the country is closed for business. Because no company would invest the billions of dollars necessary to complete the already time-consuming and onerous regulatory process only to be subject to a re-review in the latter stages of construction and shut down.”

This is an important point. Over the next few years we’ll need all types of energy infrastructure. Renewable energy supporters should be worried at Obama’s words and actions. It’s not just about oil and natural gas infrastructure. Long-haul electrical transmission lines require similar permitting and public comment periods as pipelines. Often, they run into local objections.

When federal agencies upend the results of a fair regulatory process, everyone suffers.

Under this Obama administration precedent, a transmission line supplying customers with electricity from solar or wind that made it through the permitting process could be “rerouted” by presidential decree.

Don’t expect reliable energy supplies in that kind of environment. It doesn’t matter how much energy abundance you have, if you can’t get it to where consumers can use it—which is exactly the point of the extremist protesters. “There’s no reroute that doesn’t involve the same risks to water and climate,” Sara Shor, 350.org’s Keep It in the Ground campaign manager is quoted by The Hill.

Back to the rule of law. A letter from 22 pro-energy groups last month to the administration, including the Institute for 21st Century Energy, cited John Adams who wrote the United States is a “government of laws, not of men.” The letter continues:

This North Dakota project has complied with the procedures laid out in law, engaged in more than two years of federal review and has received the necessary federal approvals.

The previous decisions now being “reconsidered” were properly considered and made through a fair and thorough process on which the company and others are entitled to rely. In our “nation of laws,” when an established legal process is complete, it is just that—complete.

When your agencies upend or modify the results of a full and fair regulatory process for an infrastructure project, these actions do not merely impact a single company. The industries that manufacture and develop the infrastructure, the labor that builds it, and the American consumers that depend on it all suffer.

The AFL-CIO also understands the importance of abiding by a fair and certain process:

We believe that community involvement in decisions about constructing and locating pipelines is important and necessary, particularly in sensitive situations like those involving places of significance to Native Americans. However, once these processes have been completed, it is fundamentally unfair to hold union members’ livelihoods and their families’ financial security hostage to endless delay.

Along with damaging the rule of the law, with his words, the president has emboldened extremists like Bill McKibben who reject all fossil fuels use and pour fire on an already volatile situation.

In North Dakota, cars have been burned, explosive projectiles have been launched, shots have been fired, and hundreds of people have been arrested. (92% arrested have been from out of state, according to the National Sheriff’s Association.) Along the pipeline’s route in Iowa, millions of dollars of construction equipment has been destroyed.

This is chaos, and it could continue for “several more weeks.”

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been unnecessarily politiziced. Unfortunately, the president’s words and actions have only made things worse.

Celebrate today, but tomorrow the real work begins!

“It does you no good to have local grassroots action in a vacuum that never gets to the ears of your Washington reps!”

Get some sleep and then celebrate.

It’s a wonderful day here on the farm because it’s raining (we’ve had a drought!) and of course because the country class has risen up and soundly defeated the elite establishment ruling class all across America.

ryan_trump_split_2

Since Donald Trump, President-elect of the United States, has succeeded in maintaining the Republican majority (coattails!) in both houses of Congress, it will soon be very clear whether the Republicans will work to scrap/reform the  the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program (RAP) or let it move full steam ahead.

If you think that you can relax, that Trump will take care of this problem for you—forget it!  The work has just begun!

Heretofore, the open borders Republicans could point to an Obama with a veto pen as their excuse not to undertake any scaling back or reform of the RAP.  They can no longer shirk their duty!

Congress returns with Republican majorities pretty much intact for the lame duck session next week, and we will have the first test of Paul Ryan’s speakership as it relates to the budget and this program.

It is about the POWER OF THE PURSE!

Will Ryan bow to what he knows Trump wants—a scaling back of the RAP especially as it relates to refugees from countries which hate us—or will he agree to fully fund the RAP at the high level Obama wants for FY2017?

Until January 20th, Obama would likely veto a budget that defunds the RAP, but that is no excuse not to force his hand.

This is going to be the ultimate and clear test for us!

And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be showing his colors too on the budget.  By the way, they could continue the present FY2016 level (not enough money for 110,000 refugees) into say March giving a Trump Administration time to weigh in on the final 6 months of the year.

You must get to work tomorrow, especially in Republican House Districts to tell your member of Congress to DEFUND the program! (We expect to see a repeat effort by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), and hopefully Dave Brat (R-VA) to attach an amendment to the Appropriations bill that must be passed, or kicked down the road, by December 9th).

If Paul Ryan blocks such an effort, we will then clearly know whether he will work with a Trump Administration or not!

congress

You can see all of my posts on the budget process by visiting the tag ‘Where is Congress.’

So many of you are working in your towns and cities to investigate the RAP, to pressure local elected officials, to look for ways to sue the federal government, to pressure your state legislators and governors to say no to more refugees, which is all good and necessary work.

However, in the next few weeks all of that effort should be directed at one outcome—DEFUNDING the program.  So, every grassroots effort must be directed at your House member and Senators.

Do not assume that if you hold a rally or other public meeting, or call upon the governor to sue the feds to oppose resettlement where you live, that your Congressman and Senators will hear about it—they are some of the least informed people you know—they live in a beltway bubble!

It does you no good to have local grassroots action in a vacuum that never gets to the ears of your Washington reps!

What must Trump do on January 21st?

First, if they haven’t resigned already, he must demand the resignations of the political appointees running the RAP.

They include Anne Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population Refugees and Migration and Robert Cary, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement and any of their underlings who are there in politically appointed jobs. There is nothing to be done right now about career federal employees, let’s just hope that a recent poll that said a quarter of federal employees in DC would quit if Trump was elected follow through.

Of course, much of what happens with this program going forward depends on who Trump will place in his cabinet as Secretary of State, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security.  Will they be people willing to slow or stop some immigration programs?

As we discussed above, Trump must work with Congress to cut the budget—appropriations are policy!

As for Obama’s ‘determination’ submitted to Congress this past September where Obama said he wanted 110,000 refugees placed in America by September 30th 2017, Trump has the power to stop that flow on January 21st.

Obama’s proposal is a ceiling only, it is not a legally mandated goal! Of course those Obama appointees and the federal contractors are already working day and night to get as many refugees, especially from Syria, in to your towns and cities by January 20th.  They are also getting as many placed in a pipeline as well so they can scream and shout about how mean Trump is to close the spigot with people in the pipeline.

And, that is why curtailing the budget NOW, in the lame duck, is so important.  It sends the signal that the spigot is closing!

One final thing! This Trump landslide victory sends a message to our friends in Europe that they can resist the Islamification by migration of Europe!

Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice!

Climate Depot’s statement on President Elect Donald J. Trump: 

“Climate sanity has been restored to the U.S. No longer do we have to hear otherwise intelligent people in charge in DC blather on about how UN treaties or EPA regulations will control the Earth’s temperature or storminess.

The election of Trump tonight was one of pure enjoyment for those concerned about silly, sovereignty threatening and purely symbolic climate policies that have been imposed on the U.S. without a single vote. Skeptics also enjoyed watching the grieving faces of the mainstream media on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, as the Trump election night shock sunk in.

“What they (the Democrats & warmists) are so afraid of is this: Trump is the first Republican Presidential nominee that has ever staked out a strongly science supported skeptical position not only on climate science claims, but also on the so-called ‘solutions’. (See: CLIMATE TRUTH FILE: 2016: Skeptical Talking Points from A-Z on Global Warming – Point-By-Point)

Trump is right on climate science and Trump rightly scares the hell out of the warmists.

Climate skeptics are ready to get down to the serious business of working with a Trump Administration to begin overhauling the U.S. climate and energy policy and battling the climate activists and their ill-gotten agenda achieved through bypassing democracy.

The time for a Clexit has arrived, a U.S. exit from the UN Paris climate agreement.

Trump can now move forward with his scientifically sound and coherent climate and energy policy that he laid out during the campaign.

Skeptics look forward to the following Trump climate agenda:

Donald Trump said on May 26, 2016

1) Trump pledges to rip up Paris climate agreement in energy speech

2) Trump railed against “draconian climate rules”

3) Trump said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement –

4) and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming.

End Morano statement

Background Info on Trump’s plans:

Breitbart’s James Delingpole analysis:

“To get an idea of the horrors to come for the greenies, look at how they reacted to the prospect of his new Environmental Protection Agency Dismantler-in-Chief Myron Ebell. Ebell is an old friend of mine who works on climate and energy issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that he’s an old friend of mine probably tells you all you need to know about where he stands on global warming.

Here’s how Newsweek views him:

Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief, and he revels in it, crowing in his biography that he’s been called one of the leading “misleaders” on climate change and “villain of the month” by one environmental group. David Goldston, a policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, says Ebell “doesn’t believe in climate change and wants to reverse the advances we’ve had in environmental protection and decimate—if not utterly destroy—the Environmental Protection Agency.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ebell’s employer, “has done everything it can politically and through litigation to block any forward movement on climate and to try to harass anybody who is trying to get forward movement,” Goldston says.
Ebell is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, more than two dozen nonprofit groups “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies,” according to the coalition’s website. Those positions line up nicely with Trump’s goals, which include “saving” the coal industry, reviving the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expanding offshore oil drilling.
Ebell has attacked nearly every aspect of Obama’s environmental policies and accomplishments. He has said that the president’s decision in September to sign the Paris climate accord—which commits nations to sharp reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change—was “clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority” because treaties need approval by two-thirds of the Senate. (The White House argued that it was an agreement, not a treaty.) In a speech in August at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said he would cancel the agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. climate change programs.

Yup, greenies. That climate change gravy train you’ve been riding these last four decades looks like it’s headed for a major, Atlas-Shrugged-style tunnel incident…

Wash Times features Morano: The ‘time has come for a U.S. led ‘Clexit’ from UN the climate treaty’ – Marc Morano, who runs the skeptics’ website Climate Depot, said Tuesday that the cold feet on global warming shows that some countries are realizing the international climate agreement is “not in their best interests.” “More and more nations are realizing that the U.N. climate treaty is nothing more than an effort to empower the U.N. and attack national sovereignty while doing absolutely nothing for the climate,” said Mr. Morano, who debuted his film “Climate Hustle” during the negotiations in Paris. He said that the “time has come for a U.S. led ‘Clexit’ from UN the climate treaty.”

Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Trump echoes Climate Depot’s call to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Flashback January 2016 – Marc Morano wrote: “The GOP nominee for president in 2016 must present a basic plan to roll back Obama’s climate regulations. Here is a simple breakdown of what is needed:

Morano wrote in Jan. 2016: 1) Repeal all EPA climate regulations; 2) Withdraw the U.S. from any Paris agreement (nonbinding) ‘commitments’; 3) Withdraw the U.S. from the UN climate treaty process entirely; 4) The U.S. should defund the UN IPCC climate panel;

Donald Trump said on May 26, 2016: 1) Trump pledges to rip up Paris climate agreement in energy speech – 2) Trump railed against “draconian climate rules” – 3) and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement -4) and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming.

Via MSNBC – May 26, 2016:

Trump railed against the “totalitarian tactics” of the Environmental Protection Agency. He pledged to dismantle the EPA entirely in an April town hall, although he referred to it at the time as the “Department of Environmental” and “DEP.” He assailed Hillary Clinton for saying in March that fracking projects would be unlikely to pass muster under her environmental regime.

“Hillary’s agenda is job destruction. My agenda is job creation,” Trump said.

He railed against “draconian climate rules” and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” in the past…”

Flashback January 14, 2016 – Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on dismantling UN/EPA climate agenda:

Morano: “President Obama laid out his final vision in the State of the Union address. Republicans need to get their act together quickly in order to prevent Obama’s climate legacy from being cemented.

Morano: “The GOP nominee for president in 2016 must present a basic plan to roll back Obama’s climate regulations. Here is a simple breakdown of what is needed:

1) Repeal all EPA climate regulations;

2) Withdraw the U.S. from any Paris agreement (nonbinding) ‘commitments’;

3) Withdraw the U.S. from the UN climate treaty process entirely;

4) The U.S. should defund the UN IPCC climate panel;

‘Yes! We Should Defund The UN IPCC': ‘It seems along with 17 years of flat global temps there is some evidence that we are witnessing some cooling on global warming hype & hysteria in DC as well’

5) Start praising carbon based energy as one of the greatest liberators of mankind and the best hope for the developing world’s poor.

Anything short of this clear and comprehensive approach will lead to failure and guarantee Obama’s climate policies will become permanent in the U.S. The Republicans need to get a coherent plan and articulate their course of action.

End Morano excerpt. 

Cheers! WaPo Editorial Board: ‘A President Trump could wreck progress on global warming’

Hail to the New Commander-in-Chief, President Donald J. Trump!

What have we learned over the past 16 months in the presidential campaign that pitted billionaire business mogul Donald J. Trump against career-grifter Hillary Rodham Clinton? We’ve learned that:

  • George Soros––the billionaire puppet-master and sugar daddy behind Trojan Horse Barack Obama and money prostitute Hillary––is now irrelevant. The moneybags hedge-funder, who once boasted that his days as a young man in Hungary collaborating with the Nazis to identify his fellow Jews and send them to their grisly deaths were among the best of his life. But President-elect Trump trumped Soros into oblivion!
  • The polls are always wrong, manipulated and skewed as they are by leftists.
  • The media are comprised largely of leftwing shills, including the narcissistic scribes, broadcasters and legislators who spent eight years touting Obama’s incentive-killing, socialist-promoting, and utterly failed ideas, among them Obamacare and Common Core, just two examples of the disastrous programs that will be scrubbed in a Trump presidency, resulting in genuine help for people in matters of health and education for their children.
  • The pop-up, Soros-financed leftist groups like Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, even the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement against Israel––all based on the left’s hatred and prejudice––will vanish as Americans under President Trump go back to work and come to realize that the psychotic jealousy that fuels these groups has hurt and not helped either themselves or our country.
  • The IRS, FBI, Justice Department, even a Supreme Court justice, et al, can be had for a price or a threat.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood, now seeded throughout every department and in the highest reaches of our government, were determined to implement Sharia law in the U.S.––throwing gays off roofs, murdering women for dating infidels, et al––will be abolished under President Trump after he takes the biggest broom in history to sweep them out of our constitutional republic and into the trash bin of American history.
  • The Republicans in Name Only (RINOS) who were oh-so-cozy with the Democrats they pretended to fight were exposed as generally execrable weaklings and traitors to conservatism, and they too will be history as President Trump accomplishes more in eight months than all of them accomplished in eight years.
  • The temper-tantrum conservative set––Wm. Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Jonathan Tobin of Commentary, Rich Lowry of NRO, at least half of the “fair and balanced” panelists on Fox News, the sellout list is too long to enumerate here––will never regain their credibility. And that is not to omit preening broadcasters like Norah O’Donnell of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, George Stephanopoulos of ABC, Andrea Mitchell and Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, and the entire staff of the Clinton News Network (CNN).

All of them were WRONG––100 percent wrong in predicting a Hillary victory!

WHAT THE LEFT HAS FOUGHT FOR BUT THANK GOD LOST

Ask yourself, what were all these media leftists fighting for? Why did they support the most dishonest, manipulative, corrupt, money-obsessed, and––most important––unaccomplished un-feminist in U.S. history? Clearly their bosses, from the six organizations now responsible for 90 percent of all the “news” we read, watch and listen to, had a vested interest in supporting Hillary because they colluded with her in both her embrace of globalism and in her vast pay-to-play schemes. These delusional one-world-order people have invested their millions and billions with the conviction that:

  • American strength is a bad thing because––oh, horrors!––America has more wealth, military strength, and freedoms than other countries, and that is plain “not fair,” ala the Communist doctrine the left embraces. According to that historically failed doctrine, everyone should suffer equally, except for the oligarchs who live lavishly and take decadent vacations on the money their slavish subjects pay them in taxes. Sound familiar?
  • Sharing wealth is a good thing. But, of course, it’s totally phony, given that poor people never see the benefits. See the records of the Clinton Foundation’s slush fund where billions of dollars were raked in but less than six percent given to charity, while other billions were raised for Haiti, but Haitians are still sleeping in the streets! Now we learn that the immoral chip doesn’t fall far from the old blocks; Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation money to pay for her wedding and afford herself an $11-million-dollar apartment in NY City, and her husband used Foundation money to help finance his hedge-fund business.
  • Supporting tin-pot dictators, communist strongmen, and theocratic regimes is a good thing, and that includes sending billions to the terrorist state of Iran to bolster its nuclear program, a program that the murderous mullahs admit every day is designed to “obliterate Israel.”
  • Electing a half-black president is a good thing because it “empowered” the 14-percent of black people in our country to feel good about themselves. The net result? Sky-high unemployment and more crime, imprisonment, food stamps, broken families, misery and dependency in the black community than in the past 40 years! But, in fairness, a few rocking moments when Jay Z, police-hater Beyoncé, and other performers went on stage in Ohio the other day and out of respect for Hillary proceeded to spew the words nigga and f.ck and sh.t dozens of times. This is what we’ve come to!

Luckily, happily, blessedly, America is so much stronger than the toxic invasion we’ve experienced over the past eight years––including a “president” who went around the world bad-mouthing our country. But neither he, nor his wife. nor the skewed polls, nor the embrace by the show business lefties, nor the almost-uniform lack of endorsement or support Donald Trump received from Republicans in his amazingly energetic and inspiring campaign could stop the AMERICAN PEOPLE from electing this brave man.

Brave because he went up against an almost impenetrable wall of resistance, lies, slurs, and over-reactions from both left and right know-it-alls and a vicious but ultimately impotent media.

Yet, in the end, President-elect Trump prevailed, again thanks to the AMERICAN PEOPLE!

At the very beginning of his campaign, when he spoke about building a wall to keep out drug dealers and rapists, and having Mexico pay for it, a CNN reporter took exception to his use of the words “illegal aliens.” Like a school marm, she lectured the candidate: “they are now referred to as undocumented citizens.” Mr. Trump looked at her and said, “Well, I call them illegal aliens.”

That exchange, in my opinion, was the moment that most Americans––the Americans who made him the President tonight––connected to this immensely wealthy but plain-spoken man who told it like it is, who rejected outright the politically correct phrasing that has turned grown men into 97-pound weaklings, grown women into tongue-tied children, and politicians into spineless wusses.

ON BOARD FROM DAY ONE

Personally, I was on board from day one. On June 16, 2015, I was watching TV with my husband Steve when we witnessed an unprecedented event––a fabulously successful billionaire real-estate magnate, philanthropist, and TV personality announcing that he was running to be President of the United States.

I immediately hit my computer and three days later my article appeared on multiple conservative sites, de facto endorsing Donald Trump, the only candidate––out of a field of 16––to offer credible solutions to the overwhelming problems now plaguing our country, problems created with malice aforethought by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their Marxist ilk.

While several of the other candidates suggested some pretty good solutions, the quality they all lacked––which Donald Trump had in spades––was an actual track record. Each candidate talked a good game, but after eight years of Barack Obama trampling on our Constitution, circumventing the political process with his dictatorial Executive Orders, and spitting on our Bill of Rights, the candidates running against Trump had nothing to show for all their fancy words. They had either joined the opposition, caved to bribes and threats, or simply exhibited their own endemic character weaknesses.

In stark contrast, candidate Trump was all about accomplishment. Say you’re going to rebuild an ice-skating rink in NY City from decades of decay and leadership that never got it done, and he presented a show-stopping new rink in a matter of months and remarkably under budget––and he paid for it himself!

Say you’re going to restore the landmark 1899 Old Post Office and Clock Tower on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. that incompetent people wanted to tear down, and President-elect Trump once again, just a week or so ago, came in in record time and under budget and completed the magnificent luxury hotel right in time for his 2017 presidential inaugural parade!

Mr. Trump was like no presidential candidate Americans had ever seen. He didn’t parse his words to conform to the preposterous and destructive political correctness and multiculturalism that has plagued our country since liberals entered their radical Alinsky years  in the 1960s. And when Mr. Trump enumerated the sky-high mountain of Barack Obama’s failures, Americans believed that the master builder himself was more than capable of both fixing the problems and draining the D.C. swamp. Here is a partial list of the challenges before him:

  • An annihilating national debt––$20 billion and climbing daily.
  • Crippling unemployment with 94-million people unemployed––nearly a third of our population––out of work.
  • Porous borders over which millions of illegal aliens––many of them career criminals––pour every day.
  • Sanctuary cities that spend taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to support illegals, again often criminals, but most often deadbeats who bleed our social-welfare systems dry.
  • Obamacare, doomed to fail from its inception, is now leaving millions without any coverage, forget about “affordable” healthcare.
  • Race relations that were at an all-time high until a racist president, two racist attorneys general, and a racist secretary of state created and fanned their racist agendas throughout our country.
  • A so-called foreign policy that bowed to America’s enemies and alienated our faithful allies, resulting in a terrorist state (Iran) with nukes, North Korea detonating nukes, Russia taking over the Middle East, the military of our enemies more equipped to combat attacks on our homeland than we are, on and on.

But the good news is that America’s allies are more eager than ever to have a President Trump on their side, and that our strongest ally Israel is now being embraced by former enemies Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, thanks to the mortal threat B. Obama created by his seemingly erotic attraction to our enemies.

HALLELUJAH!

Break out the champagne, let loose the balloons and confetti, give praise to our Founding Fathers for creating an America of freedom and opportunity that still, 240 years later, resonates with the American people.

As everyone wakes up to a President Trump on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, they can thank God to finally be rid of George Soros and his employees Barack Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton, and their vast retinues, as well as the thoroughly discredited and corrupt media, the hundreds if not thousands of writers and commentators who will never again be taken seriously.

They can also be thankful, as blogger Jeff Dunetz spells out, that a President Trump will bring about significant changes in the following areas (this is the short list):

  • A conservative Supreme Court.
  • Improving the American gene pool by supporting the threats of far-leftists like Al Sharpton, Barbra Streisand, Stephen King, Alec Baldwin, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Cher, et al, to leave the country in the event of a Trump victory.
  • Restoring America as leader of the free world.
  • Ripping up the Iran deal to protect Israel, and declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Quite a difference from Hillary and her virulently anti-Semitic advisors Sidney Blumenthal and his rabid son Max.
  • Lowering taxes across the board.
  • Directing all departments of government to cut the strangulating regulations.
  • Mandating that America win again in any conflict our country engages in, and absolutely supporting our military to crush ISIS!

This is what the American people heard loud and clear from candidate Trump, and supported and applauded and came out in record numbers to let the skeptics and naysayers and haters know that they believed he was capable of leading the charge to Make America Great Again.

What last night’s victory means is that for the next four and hopefully eight years, we’ll have someone in the White House who actually loves America, and that it is not the self-appointed political so-called experts who choose the American President, but rather We the People!

The Investment Implications of the 2016 Election

MORRISTOWN, N.J. /PRNewswire/ — Next week’s elections are among the most hotly contested in recent history. Undoubtedly, there will be winners and losers beyond the individual candidates running for office. In this report, we analyze some of the potential investment implications of the election, while maintaining a neutral tone with respect to any political party. Our analysis is based largely on the stated positions of each major party’s Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and the research of unrelated parties.

What Wall Street Really Wants – A Split Decision

First, the market tends to favor a “split decision” with respect to which political party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Under this “split decision” or “gridlock” scenario, it will be challenging for either party to enact major legislative changes, allowing free market forces, not central planning, to drive the economy’s future.

Most projections suggest the Republicans will retain the majority of positions in the House of Representatives, while the Democrats are likely to gain control of the Senate. If these projections hold true, regardless of which Presidential candidate wins the White House, one party will not sweep all three elections, resulting in Wall Street’s desired split decision.

But we caution that a split decision is not always a panacea, since it may delay progress on important issues, such as addressing the projected deficits in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. An extension of the debt ceiling in 2017 will also be necessary, potentially creating a contentious battle viewed unfavorably by the financial markets.

And The Winner Is … Infrastructure

If there is one common sector or industry that is likely to do well under either candidate, it is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes the repair or building of bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, power grids, communication networks and may even be extended to items such as electronic medical records. Candidate Clinton proposed $275 billion in government spending on infrastructure over a five-year period and having another $225 billionspent on infrastructure through private investment. Candidate Trump has proposed an even larger plan, spending up to $1 trillion on infrastructure, through a mix of governmental and private sources, over a ten-year period.

The benefits of preventing a crumbling bridge are obvious, but the implications of a stronger and smarter infrastructure may not be quite as apparent. For example, smarter and properly maintained transportation networks may be able to reduce traffic congestion, commuting times and the number of accidents. An enhanced power grid may reduce the likelihood of blackouts and conserve energy. An improved electronic medical records system may improve the quality of healthcare, reduce medical errors and cut insurance payments. Each of these items may result in increased productivity for the economy over a long period of time.

Energy and Healthcare Policies: A Tale of Two Cities

The Presidential candidates have sharply different policies in the Energy and Healthcare sectors. Candidate Clinton favors further progress in the direction of a “green” future for America’s energy needs. Solar, renewable energy and natural gas firms may be prime beneficiaries under her energy plan. In contrast, candidate Trump has strongly supported “clean coal” technology as well as conventional oil and gas energy sources. He supports the Keystone Pipeline, which plans to run from Canada through the United States, so long as the deal is “favorable” for America. In contrast, candidate Clinton has announced her opposition to the Keystone Pipeline.

Candidate Trump is vehemently opposed to the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare.” If elected, he plans to repeal Obamacare, although a full dismantling of the program may be challenging without Congressional approval. Candidate Clinton favors slight modifications to Obamacare and price controls on some pharmaceutical products. She expressed outrage at firms, such as Mylan, maker of the EpiPen, after the firm raised the price on its product more than 450% in less than ten years. Similar large price increases have been observed in pharmaceutical products with little or no competition. Candidate Trump favors competition and market forces as a way of modulating prices as opposed to formal price controls.

In our view, hospitals and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are likely winners under a Clinton victory, while traditional Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology firms, especially those that produce high priced drugs, are likely losers. The reverse is likely true under a Trump victory.

Some Relief May Be in Sight for the Financial Sector

The Financial Sector has been dramatically impacted by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which resulted in the largest set of new financial regulations since The Great Depression. Financial firms – primarily the large, national banks – have also been hit with billions of dollars in fines due to misdeeds committed during the period leading up to The Great Recession of 2007-2009. Candidate Trump has stated that he favors repealing the bulk of Dodd- Frank, claiming it makes it nearly impossible for bankers to function.

Candidate Clinton has supported Dodd Frank, especially in the context of large “too big to fail” banks, and seems to favor a tax on short-term trading activity. However, she seems to have a more dovish view on bank regulation than the Obama administration. For example, she has expressed support for reducing the regulatory burden on community banks. In her speeches to banks, in a private setting, she has expressed a somewhat more balanced approach to financial regulation.

A (Tax) Holiday May Be on the Horizon … For Corporate America

American corporations labor among the highest tax rates in the industrialized world, with domestic firms generally in a 35% tax bracket. In contrast, other regions, such as Bermuda, charge no corporate taxes, while others, such as Ireland and Canada, have a net tax rate of 15% or less. One implication of these widely varying tax brackets is that corporations tend to keep cash and securities held for investment, overseas. American companies hold roughly $2 trillion dollars in cash, with the vast bulk of it held overseas. For example, Microsoft recently held $96.3 billion of its $102.6 billion in cash (94%) overseas. If a firm brings money held overseas back to America (i.e., repatriates its cash), it is subject to paying tax at the 35% federal rate.

Both candidates have supported a “tax holiday” for cash held overseas, resulting in a temporary tax rate of 15% or less. Candidate Trump has proposed slashing the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. If enacted into law, a 15% corporate tax would be a large boon to companies, such as Costco, Home Depot and Chipotle that derive most of their profits domestically. Candidate Clinton has not endorsed cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, but seems amenable to the tax holiday. In theory, if firms repatriate their cash, it may result in sizeable investment increases in the domestic economy. However, if the last tax repatriation period (2004/2005) is any indication, the bulk of the cash will be used for stock buybacks and dividend increases, which may also be a benefit to shareholders.

Your Income Taxes May Be Going Up… Or Down

Another sharp contrast between the two candidates is in their personal income tax policies. Candidate Trump has proposed a tax cut for virtually all domestic taxpayers. However, his plan may also increase the national debt between $5 and $10 trillion, according to several independent estimates.

In contrast, candidate Clinton has proposed a tax cut for most low- and middle-income families, but a tax increase for the highest income earners, those earning more than $250,000 a year. She favors a “Buffett Rule,” requiring a minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent on incomes over $1 million. She has also proposed an additional 4 percent “fair share surcharge” for those earning $5 million dollars or more a year. Analysts estimate that candidate Clinton’s tax plan, if enacted, would raise in excess of $1.5 trillion in new revenue, with the proceeds being spent on her domestic initiatives, such as on infrastructure and educational programs. Both candidates have proposed closing the “carried interest” tax loophole, which currently enables (mostly high income) individuals to convert earnings to long-term capital gains, generally taxed at a 15% rate. A more detailed summary table, produced by the website, Diffen.com, is reproduced below.

 

Donald Trump’s Tax Plan

Hillary Clinton’s Tax Plan

current rating is 3.79/5

current rating is 3.13/5

(133 ratings)

(136 ratings)

Tax Philosophy

Cut taxes for everyone

Increase taxes, especially on high-income earners.

Tax Brackets
– Ordinary Income

Three – 12%, 25%, 33%. Earlier proposal: 10%, 20%, 25%

Eight – 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, 39.6%, 43.6%

Tax Brackets
– Investment Income

Three – 0%, 15%, 20%

Complex. Long-term gains will be redefined to assets held > 6 years. Tax rates of 0%, 15%, 20% and 24% on long-term. Additional surcharges on some. Higher rates for all if assets held for fewer than 6 years.

Net
Investment Income Tax

Repeal

Retain

Estate Tax

Repeal

Retain and expand. Increase tax rate from 40% to 45%; and add new tax brackets for 50%, 55% and 65% for estates worth more than $10 million, $50 million and $500 million respectively.

Gift tax

Repeal

Retain

Impact on
GDP

Positive 11% (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Negative 1% (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Impact on
Job Creation

Positive. 5.3 million new jobs (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Negative. 311,000 fewer jobs (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Impact on Government Debt

Negative. $10 trillion higher government debt (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Positive. $191 billion lower national debt (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Impact on Wages

Positive. +6.5% wage growth (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Negative. -0.8% wage growth (as estimated by the Tax Foundation)

Biggest Beneficiaries

High-income earners

Low-income earners

“Clinton vs Trump – Tax Plans Compared.” Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 3 Nov 2016.
< http://www.diffen.com/difference/Trump-vs-Clinton-Tax-Plan >

Source: Diffen.com

International Trade Policies: A Potential “Black Swan” On the Horizon

Another stark contrast in the economic policies of the two candidates is apparent in their views on international trade. In general, both candidates favor a less open policy on international trade, relative to recent Presidential administrations. This could result in “risk-off’ investment sentiment that would benefit US Treasury debt and the U.S. Dollar.

Candidate Trump strongly supports repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), rejects the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has taken a hardline stance on China, deeming it a “currency manipulator,” a tactic that would likely sour relations with the country that is home to the world’s second largest economy. His positions on international trade may be a positive for U.S. firms that have been hurt by cheaper overseas imports, such as steel companies, and defense firms that are likely to benefit from increased spending on national security.

In contrast, candidate Clinton has expressed support for NAFTA and has declined to formally accuse China of currency manipulation. Although she was once supportive of TPP, her current stance seems to be against the prospective Partnership.

Between a third and half of the profits for S&P 500 firms come from overseas. The stock market, in aggregate, seems to dislike candidate Trump’s position on international trade. His policies, if enacted, bring an element of uncertainty to corporate profits, as well as increase the risk of trade wars with foreign countries, most notably with China.

Conclusion

Political elections are one of the greatest change agents of the American economic system. The contrast between the two Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, is the starkest in recent memory. There appears to be less drama in the Congressional elections, with most forecasters predicting a split decision, with Republicans maintaining control of the House and the Democrats gaining control of the Senate. This type of result is generally cheered by Wall Street, which likes “gridlock” so the free market system can drive the economy.

But make no mistake, there will be clear winners and losers, beyond the candidates running for office. A summary table on our views is in the Appendix that follows. To some extent, the market has already priced in some of the anticipated movement. For example, Healthcare stocks have lagged the market on a year-to-date basis, and the Mexican Peso has risen versus the U.S. Dollar, anticipating a Clinton victory. However, the election is too close to call and we believe there is a high likelihood of a sharp move in the market, regardless of who wins, as some uncertainty is resolved and cash either pours into the market, or flees it. We welcome a further discussion of the investment implications of the election on your personal portfolio at any time and we encourage you to exercise your privilege to vote.

 

Appendix: Summary Table

If Hillary Clinton Wins…

If Donald Trump Wins…

Likely Winners

Likely Losers

Likely Winners

Likely Losers

Infrastructure

Big Banks

Infrastructure

Emerging Markets

Hospitals

Pharmaceutical

Domestic Firms

Multinational Firms

HMOs

Biotechnology

Defense

China

Low/Middle Income Families

High Income Families

High Income Families

Canada  

Education

Coal

Coal / Oil

Mexico

Alternative Energy

Oil

Financials

Alternative Energy

Important Information: Beacon Trust (“Beacon”) is the name used by two separate investment advisers and a trust company: Beacon Investment Advisory Services, Inc. (“BIAS”), Acertus Capital Management, LLC (“Acertus”) and Beacon Trust Company (“BTC”).  Both BIAS and Acertus are SEC registered investment advisers wholly owned by BTC, which is a subsidiary of Provident Bank. Provident Bank is a subsidiary of Provident Financial Services, Inc, a holding company whose common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Beacon does not provide investment advice for any affiliated securities or obligations. Additional information is contained in the respective Form ADV disclosure documents, the most recent versions of which are available on the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website at http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov.

SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT PRODUCTS: NOT FDIC INSURED – MAY GO DOWN IN VALUE – NOT GUARANTEED BY A BANK OR BANK AFFILIATE – NOT A DEPOSIT – NOT INSURED BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY

This publication is limited to the dissemination of general information pertaining to the wealth management products and services offered by Beacon to U.S. residents of those states where not prohibited by applicable law. No portion is to be construed as a solicitation to effect transactions in securities or the provision of personalized investment, tax, or legal advice. Investing involves risks which may lead to losses, including loss of principal. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be profitable.

Past performance is not a predictor of future results. It should not be assumed that any information discussed herein will prove to be profitable or that decisions in the future will be profitable or provide specific performance results.  Any discussion of tax matters contained within this communication should not be used for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax related penalties or promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Beacon Trust does not provide legal advice.

Before investing, carefully consider fund investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and other information that should be read carefully, please request a prospectus or summary prospectus from your financial advisor or Beacon Trust at 973-206-7100 or visit www.beacontrust.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

S&P 500’s 9-day losing streak longest since December 1980

Market Indicator Gives Trump An 86% Chance Of Winning The Election

FILM: Sing a Little Louder — If not you then who?

sing-louder-posterA bully is an overbearing person (or persons) who is quarrelsome, and browbeats smaller or weaker people into submission. Each individual reading this immediately knows someone who has been bullied, or him/herself has been bullied. The memory and reality of such experience is shame producing and emotionally painful. Maybe it happened to you in school, maybe in later years during a marriage or even at work. The impressions left from such an experience can linger for years even decades unless a supernatural intervention occurs to make things right, to promote healing in the deeply embedded emotional wound, and to allow life to return from the shattered existence that has followed the person. Countries can be bullied, too. Much like an individual a country can become shattered and torn, a mere shell of its once dynamic life.

America has been bullied and shamed over the past eight years for sure, and a strong argument can be made to suggest ever since Ronald Reagan was President. With days remaining until the crucial national elections America is on the ropes in a fight with seemingly no rules for the aggressor(s), the bullies. Who are these bullies? How did they get to be bullies in the first place? The second question is easier to answer than the first. Bullies exist as unchecked overbearing bruits who pick on anyone who gets in their way or even if the victim doesn’t get in the way but is determined to be an easy mark, and can further enhance the image of the all-powerful bully. How the bully became a bully is a bit more complex and multidimensional, but one universal characteristic of a bully is that they want what they want, and they don’t much care how they get it just as long as they get what they want! Until they are stopped; until someone sets a boundary and enforces the boundary; until the bully either changes his ways or comes to realize there shall be certain consequences each and every time they act out their bully ways, the bully will continue, and even become more emboldened. Periodically a bully will attempt to sweet-talk his way or promise something in return for getting his way. More likely the bully simply, well, bullies his way including belittling and shaming his opponent, threatening whoever stands up to him, or actually taking aggressive actions to bring opposition to its’ knees. In between actual incidents the bully works a psychological game of intimidation to keep others in check from jumping in and stopping the order established by the bully.

Our country has fallen victim to the bully of political correctness and progressive/repressive Socialist agenda’s put forward by haters of anti-American principles and values as established by our Forefathers, and written clearly in the Founding Documents they presented to us as a gift. These bullies hate our Judeo-Christian heritage. These bullies hate the values by which America was born, and which made us exceptional. These bullies hate all who don’t think as they do, who don’t subscribe to their agenda in the national sandbox to which they have taken up residence as their own with no room for anyone they don’t like or cFILMan’t use to keep them in power. Money, control, furthering their beliefs at the expense of another’s freedom, changing/recreating the national sandbox into their own utopian place of being, dominating every aspect of not only the sandbox, but the entire playground surrounding the sandbox so as to be the undisputed authority. The bully, and his gang of like minded thugs, may smile and attempt to make nice but always with the motive of stomping and casting away opposition, thereby, promoting dominance of their wants, their agenda. America has been undergoing such a series of attacks to completely eliminate any resemblance of what our Founders strove to create. There is even subtle elimination of people built-into the present day bully game plan; coupled with destruction of property, wealth, health, business, dreams, family. Will Mr. Trump be the one who finally stands up to the bully, or is it a ground swell movement collecting strength from every sector of the national playground to confront and even defeat the bully?

Or will people simply sing a little louder to attempt and block out the sickening and heart wrenching noise of a nation on its’ way to death? Will you stand and begin the singing hoping to influence others to join you? If you don’t stand against the bully, even if it means getting a bloody nose, then who? And if you say not now, then when?

SING A LITTLE LOUDER Inspired by the true story of an elderly man who in his youth witnessed the horrors of the Jewish Holocaust from the pews of his Church. The 12-minute short film provides a stunning message for the twenty-first century and the current genocide that’s taking place with unborn children in America. This film was shot on location in Holland in August 2014 and is being used to help raise awareness for the one in five children who are aborted before they have a voice. Produced in Partnership with Catholic Witnesses.

Another Reason Why Trump is Right: No Conceding a Rigged Election

“Hey, lie just like Hillary Clinton and the rest of the establishment” is the message. After Donald Trump said he’d only accept the results of the November 8 contest if they were fair, pundits and politicians disgorged a new narrative: Trump has demeaned our “democracy” and, as coward-con John Podhoretz put it, “has earned his place in the history of American ignominy.” Stick a fork in Trump — he’s done. Of course, it seems as if we heard that epitaph about every two weeks during the primaries.

And even making the point that Ozone Man Al Gore challenged the 2000 election doesn’t deter the critics. Their not-so-clever response is that he never said before the votes were even cast that he wouldn’t accept the outcome, which misses the obvious fact that Gore was never asked about the matter before the votes were cast.

No doubt, though, Gore would have said he’d accept the outcome — and then challenge it, anyway. And it has been opined that Trump should have proceeded likewise and that no one would have blamed him if he later did mount a challenge.

Translation: Trump should do things just like everyone else — play the game — just like the establishment.

You see a problem with that?

Trump’s whole claim to political fame, the wind beneath his White House wings, has been that he doesn’t play establishment games. Of course the establishment wants him to operate by their rules, just as other European generals wanted Napoleon to abide by the established rules of warfare (and lose). But given that Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, it is that very course of action that would be a liability.

I know I speak for many when saying I want someone who doesn’t play the game, someone who’s willing to fight, who stands up and serves notice: you engage in dirty tricks and try stealing this election and I’ll be just as dirty. I’ll throw sand in your eyes and kick your kneecaps off.

Moreover, playing the game here is to place yourself in a position no honorable man could abide: a dilemma in which you either must accept a stolen election or go back on your word. And this is called “respecting our democracy”?

As for the GOP establishment, its advice is the voice of the opportunistic leper in Braveheart, waxing romantic about “compromise.” Of course, you dupes, the Left wants you to be good little gentlemen who posture about accepting the “outcome of our ‘democratic’ process.” This roll-over, three-monkeys attitude is what allows the Left to steal elections with impunity. And this is what they’re upset about. Trump is spoiling their con.

You darn well know, you leftist snakes in the grass, that vote fraud is rampant. It was never a secret in establishment circles, but even the dimmest bulbs can view Project Veritas’ “Rigging the Election” series and watch Democrat officials and operatives admit there’s “a lot of vote fraud” and discuss how they’re going to commit even more of it. And what should our reaction be? Gentility? If someone were plotting to steal your car and were brazen enough to not scuttle his nefarious plans even though you were onto him, you’d feel justified thwarting the theft with a tire iron to the head. What should our response be when someone intends to steal our right to self-determination?

This brings us to the notion that Trump threatens our republic (not “democracy”) and to create a constitutional crisis. Here’s a clue:

When our elections are being undermined there already is a threat to our republic and a constitutional crisis — and a grave one.

Shining the light of truth on this is not the disease, but the cure. Oh, it can be painful in the way nauseating cancer treatments or excising a malignant tumor can be so. But far worse is sitting by, head in the sand, as metastasis proceeds and death grows nigh.

To ignore corruption is to perpetuate it and become complicit in its spread and institutionalization; it is to descend into Third Worldism. And to sit idly by as someone steals your vote and your civilization isn’t the behavior of a gentleman, but of a coward.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Problems with Political Polling And How they are Being Used to Rig the Election – Huffington Post

Clinton Campaign Chairman Had Multiple Dinners With Top DOJ Official During Clinton Email Investigation

Complete List by State of Phone Numbers to Report Voter Fraud

A list of numbers to report any cases of voter fraud and intimidation in all 50 States are listed below, thanks to Trump51 – Massachusetts for sharing this information.

Alabama 334-242-7210
Alaska 907-465-4611
Arizona 602-542-8683
Arkansas 501-682-5070
California 916 657-2166
Colorado 303-894-2200
Connecticut 860-509-6100
Delaware 302-739-4277
Florida 877-868-3737
Georgia 877-725-9797
Hawaii 808-453-8683
Idaho 208-334-2852
Illinois 217-782-4141
Indiana 317-232-6531
Iowa 888-767-8683
Kansas 785-296-4561
Kentucky 502-564-3490
Louisiana 225-922-0900
Maine 207-624-7736
Maryland 410-269-2840
Massachusetts 617-727-7030
Michigan 888-767-6424
Minnesota 877-600-8683
Mississippi 601-576-2550
Missouri 573-751-2301
Montana 406-444-3976
Nebraska 402-471-2555
Nevada 775-684-5705
New Hampshire 603-271-3242
New Jersey 609-292-3760
New Mexico 505-827-3600
New York 518-473-5086
North Carolina 919-733-7173
North Dakota 701-328-4146
Ohio 614-466-2585
Oklahoma 405-521-6457
Oregon 503-986-1518
Pennsylvania 717-787-5280
Rhode Island 401-222-2345
South Carolina 803-734-9060
South Dakota 605-773-3537
Tennessee 615-741-7956
Texas 512-463-5650
Utah 801-538-1041
Vermont 800-439-8683
Virginia 804-864-8901
Washington 360-902-4151
Washington DC 202-727-2525
West Virginia 304-558-6000
Wisconsin 608-261-2028
Wyoming 307-777-5860

RELATED ARTICLE: Clinton Campaign Chairman Had Multiple Dinners With Top DOJ Official During Clinton Email Investigation

EDITORS NOTE: This list is courtesy of Kirk F. MacKenzie (c)2016. All rights reserved. Citizens Newswire (TM) is a free, volunteer digest of news  views you won’t hear on TV. It spans a wide array of topics regarding the future of our world. For more information about Citizens Newswire contact Kirk@SilentNoMorePublications.com or visit http://www.DefendRuralAmerica.com.

Rigged Elections? Yes. Think Broadly.

There has been much hot-air hissing over Donald Trump’s continual charge that the election is rigged against him. The gaseous releases come from Trump’s Democrat opponents, naturally enough, the media, also naturally enough, but also many Republicans.

This is an ongoing revelation in this election cycle. The elites (oh for a better word) in the media and the two-party structure separated from the heartlands of America cannot grasp how the ground has shifted under their Guccis.

The shift explains Trump’s appeal, Bernie Sanders’ appeal, even the appeal of the Libertarian and Green Party candidates plus third-party independents such as Evan McMullin, who has a very real chance of winning Utah in the presidential election. There is an almost bottomless pit of frustration with the country, both the direction it is going and the way it is getting there.

The frustration is appropriate. “Rigging” in the common, original sense refers to the system of ropes, cables or chains used to support a ship’s masts. These become part of the mechanism that controls the direction of the vessel. Think in those terms.

It’s almost like everything is rigged against every traditional thought and impulse of Americans, directing the ship of the nation and politics in a different direction. But the yawning chasm between elites (urgh…) in the three culture-moving centers of the nation — Hollywood, D.C., New York — and the rest of the country keeps each group from even understanding what the other is saying.

Let’s see if we can…rig up a bridge.

Before the ground shifted, a rigged election was understood to mean gross tampering with the actual vote. People voting illegally multiple times, ghost ballots sent in and ballots “lost” and “found” (think Minnesota and the 2008 election of Al Franken, where ballots kept mysteriously materializing over months until he had enough votes to flip from loss to win.)

When the elites (culture centers?) hear the charge of the election being rigged, that is what they are thinking. And in that respect, a nationwide rigging does sound far-fetched. Although to be fair, the Democrats and some in the media made that exact charge about the 2000 election where Bush beat Gore after the Florida recounts and appeals up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Selective memory.

But when others say rigged, including perhaps Trump, they are meaning the entire process is rigged. So for Trump — or any Republican — this means that the entirety of the formidable culture-moving apparatus is arrayed against him during the election.

The traditional mainstream media coverage from the alphabet soup of TV networks to the major and minor newspapers, all provide deeply biased coverage — often not even recognizing it. In this election, it is overt. But there is also Hollywood, which pillories Republicans on sitcoms, in movies and on late night shows. The music culture also throws in against the Republican, loving on Gore, Kerry, really on Obama, and Clinton. All these cultural stars have mammoth social media followings and often take to them on behalf of partisan politics. This mammoth assemblage of idea-moving firepower is almost impossible to fight against.

The same dynamic was in effect against Mitt Romney — perhaps the most opposite man from Trump that you can get. Yet this exceedingly decent man was also demonized (as was John McCain and George W. Bush) by the cultural centers.

And finally there is the university system where Democrat professors outnumber Republican up to 11 to 1, according to a study published in Econ Journal Watch. That system churns out millions of indoctrinated students voting Democratic at a rate of about 4 to 1.

So, in this broad sense, yes, the entire election process is rigged and rigged heavily against the Republican. That Republicans actually win sometimes approaches the miraculous.

The “professional” media particularly will tut-tut about using the word “rigged.” Trump is truly incautious with word choice. But a lot of Americans know what he is talking about. And it is that very elitist tut-tutting that makes them so distant and betrays their insularity. Out of touch does not do it justice.

There are deep dynamics running beneath our nation like fault lines. Use of the word “rigged” is just a little tectonic friction along those fault lines.

RELATED VIDEO: Rigging the Election – Video III: Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Involvement

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Recent Hacking Reveals About Election Security

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through “Oversamples”

Voter fraud a valid concern

The Fear of Accountability

“If you’re 25 and you’re not a liberal, you have no heart. If you’re 35 and not a conservative, you have no brain.”

In a world where accountability is becoming increasingly more obsolete, it is far from surprising that people are more outraged by harsh words than they are heinous actions. More likely than not, at one point in your life or another, your parents uttered to you the age old adage, “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.” So my question to you is, when did this change? At what point did we begin to care more about the things people said to us rather than what they did to us? If I say I’d like to punch someone square in the mouth and the person next to me actually throws a punch in silence, who should be held accountable? Should I? Or should they? Now, why can’t we apply this simple logic to what is going on in our country today?

I’m not going to sit here and act like I’ve never been hurt or offended by someone’s words before, because I have—everyone has. The difference, however, is the ability to see the bigger picture. I’ll give it to you, if you are on any form of social media today, it is extremely difficult to take a step back and see the big picture. Things get so petty and so twisted as a result of the convenience and ease of the Internet; I am constantly guilty of this. Nevertheless, we have to start taking a step back and examining what really matters for the good of the country rather than winning a pointless argument on a Facebook post. What is the most important issue facing us right now? Is it national security or is it political correctness? Is it immigration or is it political correctness? Is it the economy or is it political correctness? Is it health care or political correctness? Is it ISIS or political correctness? See my point?

I, for the longest time, couldn’t figure out why people opposed Trump so strongly. Yes, I understand, he’s hurt a lot of people’s feelings. But I cannot help but believe that it goes beyond that. I think it comes down to idea of accountability. In the society we live in today, accountability is vanishing faster than a Clinton e-mail. Today, if we don’t want to do something, more likely than not, we don’t have to. People are petrified at the thought of being held accountable for anything and I believe that Donald Trump personifies accountability, which is the antithesis of who we have now and who we’ll have if Hillary wins.

In Obama’s America if you don’t want to work and contribute to society, you don’t have to—you’re not held accountable. In Obama’s America, if a county wants to take advantage of our country and pay nothing for our trade, services, our protection, they can—they’re not held accountable. In Obama’s America, if you want to go out and have sex with whoever you want and you don’t want to have a child, you don’t have to—you’re not held accountable. In Obama’s America, if an immigrant wants to come and live here illegally and take advantage of our education, our healthcare, and our social programs, they can—they’re not held accountable. If a radical Islamic terrorist, practicing a 9th or 10th century form of Islam, want to come here and declare Jihad on our soil, take the lives and sense of security of our citizens, they can—they’re not held accountable so long as they do so in the name of Allah. In Donald Trump’s America, these things will not be so. In Donald Trump’s America, we will be accountable, each and every one of us.

For those of you who are on the fence and are leaning away from Trump because the GOP establishment are distancing themselves from him, remember this: Neither John McCain, nor Paul Ryan, nor Glenn Beck, nor John Kasich got Donald Trump to where he is today. If they had been doing their jobs then not only would there have been no need for Donald Trump to run, but there would have been no way for him to have gotten this far. The establishment is comprised of politicians who are afraid of being held accountable themselves. Donald Trump has them scared to death. What scares them? Accountability. These politicians are wolves in sheep’s clothing and Donald Trump is dangerously close to exposing them for what they are and they are running scared.

We live in a country that invalidates and belittles the importance of a strong male role. Turn on a television at anytime of the day and see how every show or sitcom portrays the father as dumb and incompetent, so much so that it is pouring over into our societal expectations. A society that can no longer recognize the fact that as a leader, Donald Trump is much like a strong and stern father who expects and demands the most of his children, not because he hates them but because he loves them. The worst parents are the ones who let their children run rampant and give them whatever they want, whenever they want it. The best parents say and do the things that their children don’t necessarily like at the time, but are thankful for in the long run—they hold them accountable. A demagogue like Hillary Clinton will, without a doubt, be the nail in the coffin for this country. This November, vote for the long term, for the bigger picture. Vote for accountability, not for what has been disguised to you as cool or accepting or progressive, in order to make you feel good in the moment.

More Clinton Leaked Emails Detail Devotion to Executive Gun Control

More emails from Hillary Clinton campaign staffers were made public by WikiLeaks this week, granting insight into the campaign’s deceptive attacks on your rights and the extent to which Clinton is in league with the country’s most powerful anti-gun forces. Further, the emails provide more information about Clinton’s insistence on pursuing gun control by executive order.

Medium.com purports to be “a community of readers and writers offering unique perspectives on ideas large and small.” However, there’s nothing unique about the perspective of a January 12 item purportedly authored by a gun control advocate who was the victim of domestic violence. In fact, according to leaked emails, the piece was authored by Clinton campaign consultants and planted on Medium.com by campaign staff.

On January 8, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta forwarded an email titled, “Draft medium post on guns.” The author of the original email is not clear from the WikiLeaks archive. The email states, in part:        

Hey everyone –

Ron Klain wrote a riff for HRC and sent it to Teddy on guns. We thought it could make a strong Medium post from someone who could really speak to this issue (not HRC and not someone on our campaign).

Here’s the draft, which I edited and can personalize depending on who we want to use as an author. A survivor of gun violence? An advocate or family member?

If we can find someone, and if folks want, we could get this posted today to Medium in someone’s name (not us). Here it is, let me know your thoughts!

The email goes on to provide a draft of the commentary.

Ronald Klain is a prominent Democratic operative who served as the chief of staff to both Vice President Al Gore and Vice President Joe Biden. Most recently, Klain has consulted on the Clinton campaign.

From the email, it appears Klain developed an anti-gun commentary intended to be used by Clinton herself. However, the campaign seemed to have thought the item would carry more weight if it appeared under the name of someone outside the campaign who had a history with the issue.

The plan outlined in this email was carried out, as on January 12 a piece titled “I’m With Hillary” was posted to Medium.com with Clai Lasher listed as its author. Lasher was shot by her stepfather in 1970 and is a survivor engagement lead at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Just as the email suggested, portions of the piece were personalized for Lasher. The majority of Klain’s commentary was not altered.

This incident should prompt the public to question just how much of the pro-Clinton content appearing in the media has been directly orchestrated by the Clinton campaign itself.

Recently released emails also give more insight into the unsavory nature of the Clinton campaign’s attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The emails show that Clinton’s anti-Sanders messaging was tailored to the racial background of the target audience. In a February 7 email exchange between Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald and Clinton campaign staff, potential attacks on Sanders were discussed. Specifically, the emails contemplated using the gun issue to attack Sanders’ support among African Americans. In one email, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote, “We may need to use guns tactically in the AA community–just like we’ll have tactical skirmishes on crime bill, etc.”

During the Democratic primaries, Sanders called on Clinton to produce the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton refused, but WikiLeaks obtained the transcripts and has made them available to the public. While much of the speeches address financial and foreign policy, during a June 4, 2013 question and answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Clinton used the forum to take a swipe at NRA.

Despite NRA being a nonpartisan organization that routinely supports candidates across the political spectrum, Clinton blamed NRA, in part, for what she perceived is an increase in partisanship that stymied her preferred agenda. In doing so, Clinton gave a ham-handed retelling of an instance where NRA pursued the best interests of our members by supporting the opponent of a Tennessee lawmaker that had obstructed the passage of important Right-to-Carry legislation. Clinton characterized NRA’s vigorous defense of the rights of the state’s gun owners as unreasonable.

With respect to selecting a running mate, the emails have a tale to tell here as well.  In Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Clinton chose a running-mate with a 20 year record of unwavering support for severe gun control. However, a March 17 email written by Podesta shows that several of the other candidates for the position were equally hostile to the Second Amendment.

Among those listed was former Attorney General Eric Holder, who called the Obama administration’s inability to convince Congress to enact new gun control measure, “my single failure.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led an anti-gun filibuster on the Senate floor in June, was also considered.

Most disturbing, Podesta’s list included the gun control movement’s primary financier, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Worse, other emails suggest that Bloomberg could still hold a position in a potential Clinton administration. In a June 3, 2015 email, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden asked Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson, “Is there something Mike Bloomberg would want to do in his life in an Admin?” Wolfson responded, “Secty of state.” Tanden then forwarded the email to Podesta, with the line, “Something to know for down the road.” The influence a potential Secretary of State Bloomberg could exert over U.S. policy pertaining to international efforts to restrict the private ownership of firearms is an obvious concern to law-abiding gun owners.

The new emails also further reveal Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights. Over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton has shared her intent to flout federal law and the U.S. Constitution by unilaterally restricting the private transfer of firearms. More specifically, on October 5, 2015, Clinton formally proposed to restrict the private transfer of firearms at gun shows by executive action. As this journal noted last week, under current federal law the president cannot use their executive authority to curtail private transfers at gun shows, or anywhere else; as evidenced by the actions of the Obama administration.

Shortly after Clinton formally announced her proposal, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent authored a story titled, “Obama administration has doubts that key Hillary gun proposal can work,” that severely undercut Clinton’s plan. In it, Sargent cites “current and former senior administration officials,” who noted that the Obama administration had already explored Clinton’s private transfer proposal multiple times and determined that it was unworkable in practice and subject to legal challenge.

It seems that the Obama administration’s acknowledgement of federal law, and Sargent’s reporting, didn’t sit well with the Clinton campaign. On October 7, 2015, Tanden emailed Sargent’s article to Ann O’Leary, a senior policy advisor for the Clinton campaign, along with the sentence, “What is the White House doing?” O’Leary responded, “Being really annoying,” adding, “We should all check in with our folks there about it – health care (Robert Pear article); guns; and it is going to get worse…”

While the Clinton campaign might find the Obama administration’s public recognition of the limits of their own power to restrict firearms “annoying,” many Americans are sure to find Clinton’s plans to usurp the Congress’ legislative power downright obnoxious.

As more of the Clinton staff emails are made public, vigilant gun owners are provided with a greater understanding of the wide-ranging and sophisticated attack on their rights. It is vital that all gun owners are made to understand the scale of threat we face and the deception our opponents are willing to employ to achieve their goals.

Wallace’s Rigged Question about a Rigged Election

It was déjà vu all over again when Fox News debate moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump the question that has dominated the news media ever since, drawing new attacks on Trump from political establishment stooges everywhere.

Back in the spring, during the primaries, Trump was asked if he would sign a pledge to support whomever the eventual GOP nominee might be, pledging not to challenge that nominee and in the end, support that nominee. Trump, along with every other GOP primary candidate agreed to take that pledge, only in the end, to watch other GOP candidates refuse to keep that pledge and support Trump once he was the GOP nominee.

Trump was forced to make that pledge in the blind and then watch some of his opponents who forced that pledge on Trump, break that pledge themselves. It’s déjà vu all over again as Wallace sought a blind commitment from Trump to accept the outcome of a rigged election for the alleged sake of national unity, peace and tranquility.

Trump didn’t fall for the same trick twice. This time, he answered Wallace by saying he would look at the situation at the time and leave everyone in suspense on the matter, a very conservative approach to a blind loaded question aimed more at Trump’s supporters than Trump himself. The real question was, would Trump supporters accept the outcome of a rigged election?

Wallace had posed a loaded question and much to the disdain of the pro-Clinton propaganda media, Trump was smart enough to stay out of the corner this time.

Finally grasping the level of anger in millions of American voters who are fed up with establishment politicians, their complicit news media, phony polling data and a growing mountain of evidence proving that the election is indeed “rigged” in favor of Hillary Clinton, the media is in a mad search for any way available to quell the rising tide of angry voters before the pot boils over on November 8th.

Hard evidence of “election rigging” is so overwhelming at this point that the only way to deny it is to flat out lie about it.

Hillary Clinton insulted Trump’s answer to Wallace’s rigged question, saying “This is how democracy works!”

But it’s not how it worked in 2000 when Democrat Presidential candidate Al Gore refused to accept his loss and wanted those “hanging chads” counted again and again and again until the election would have swung in his favor, once there were enough hanging chads on the floor.

It’s not how it worked when Hillary Clinton claimed that George W. Bush was “selected, not elected” in 2002, or when John Kerry stated that the 2004 election, which he lost handily to Bush, was “rigged.”

Asking Trump if he would accept the results of a “rigged election” before the election is even held reminds me of the time Nancy Pelosi told Americans that they would have to pass ObamaCare to see what was in it… Both were insanely foolish, but not on Trumps part.

A day later in Delaware Ohio and under fire from the Clinton-media, Trump announces he will accept the outcome if he wins. Exactly… the fight isn’t over until it’s over and this fight is FAR from over.

Last on this matter, why didn’t Chris Wallace ask Hillary Clinton if she would accept defeat by Trump?

Could it be because everyone including Chris Wallace knows exactly how “rigged” this election is?

Massive election rigging certainly is no secret… Besides, Wallace’s question wasn’t aimed at Donald Trump, but rather is millions of angry voters who will NOT accept a Clinton victory no matter what Donald does. They were trying to get Trump to help them quell the violence in the likely event that Hillary and her media steal this election.

Mr. Fair and Balanced certainly wasn’t Fair or Balanced with this question.

Chris Wallace should never have asked that question… It was inappropriate unless he asked it of Hillary Clinton, a career criminal and the most unpopular Democrat candidate in DNC history. That would have been appropriate!

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may click here to urge Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee to immediately sue to compel states to remove non-citizens, dead people and multi-state registrations from the voter rolls!

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election

Crooks on the left, cowards on the right. Where do we go to find integrity?

One of the most talked about parts of last night’s final presidential debate was Donald Trump’s statement that he’d let us know on election night if he’d accept the balloting results. An NBC commentator expressed her bubble-headed opinion that the statement lost him the election. Worse still, “conservative” commentator John Podhoretz wrote that Trump’s comment was “a shocking and cravenly irresponsible thing to say, the sort of thing that threatens to rend our national fabric, and for that alone, Trump has earned his place in the history of American ignominy.” But Podhoretz’ criticism is what’s shocking and cravenly irresponsible — and reflective of profound ignorance.

Are some of us living in an alternate-reality universe? We just saw NYC’s Democrat election commissioner, Alan Schulkin, caught on video admitting “there’s a lot of vote fraud,” as he talked about how people are “bussed” around to vote illegally. This was followed by a Project Veritas sting video showing a Democrat operative slug named Scott Foval giving advice on how to commit the fraud, saying that it has been going on for 50 years and that it “doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this m****rf****r.” There was also the WikiLeaks released email showing that Clinton allies, also Democrats, presumably, believe that Obama forces committed vote fraud in 2008. Then there’s another WikiLeaks email in which Clinton campaign manager John Podesta wrote that “if you show up on Election Day with a drivers [sic] license with a picture [and 12 states and D.C. allow illegals  to get licenses], attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.” Add to this the 2012 Pew study showing that approximately “24 million — one of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. [And] [a]pproximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state,” and what does it add up to?

That the John Podhoretzes of the world are, through their cowardice and sins of omission, hurting our republic.

Reality # 1: There is vote fraud.

Reality # 2: Since there’s vote fraud, it’s possible an election — especially a close one — could be stolen.

Yet the three-little-monkey coward-cons think that, somehow, it’s noble and healthy to view a possibly stolen election and say “Nothing to see here; move along.” Maybe if we pretend hard enough, everything will be okay.

I have no idea how Trump’s statement will play out, given that he didn’t explain the matter well and we have coward-cons doing the jobs (real) Americans wouldn’t do, but I suspect the average person doesn’t share Podhoretz’ concern over violation of a twisted view of propriety. But here’s the answer I would have given debate moderator Chris Wallace when he stated, to Trump, that we have a “tradition” in this country of a peaceful transfer of power:

Yes, sir, and we have another American tradition: it’s called the “rule of law.” And when you suspect an election has been stolen, and allow it to go unanswered, you become complicit in the undermining of our rule of law. Moreover, vote fraud that swings an election thwarts the people’s will. You may not care about that. Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t care about that. But if I have reasonable suspicion that the Nov. 8 contest has been stolen, I will stand against the thwarting of the rule of law and the people’s will — even if I’m the only person in America to do it.

In addition, what is Wallace talking about? Trump isn’t proposing that tanks roll into Washington, D.C., and forcibly extract usurpers of power. He’s talking about what has happened before — most recently when Democrat Al Gore contested the 2000 election — and what Hillary Clinton wouldn’t hesitate to do if she thought it would benefit her. And did the punditry say that Gore rent America’s fabric and earned his place in the history of American ignominy?

I cannot tell you how disgusting I find the coward-cons’ cravenness. It is, sadly, a common failing of man to prefer to rationalize, or stick one’s head in the sand, than to face up to tough challenges and hard truths. This is the mentality causing coward-cons to tell Sheriff Joe Arpaio not to look into Obama’s birth certificate and judges to refuse to hand down anti-establishment rulings for fear of opening “that can of worms.” But tolerating criminality gets you more criminality. This is, mind you, a hallmark of Third World nations. Corruption is rife, tolerated, and many pretend it isn’t going on. You want to descend fully into Third Worldism? Listen to the coward-cons.

What the coward-cons miss, in their infinite lack of wisdom, is that unanswered corruption means our national fabric is already being rent.  And their prescription is to allow corruption to fester, to grow, to become status quo? It’s as with cancer: attacking it early involves some pain, perhaps enduring nauseating treatments or an operation to excise a malignant tumor. But ignoring it, refusing to face reality, means a metastasis that will consume the whole body and lead, ultimately, to death. Tolerate a bit of visible rending now — or risk having nothing left to rend later.

The coward-cons are the people who get elected to office…and then get nothing done; they’re the weak sisters who never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose. If you suspect your vote has been negated by electoral fraud, would you want those charged with ensuring the system’s integrity to look the other way? Or would you want the matter sifted to the very bottom?

If the coward-cons would choose the former, then they’ve earned their place in the history of American ignominy.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

The ‘Globalist Elite’ Threat to America by Jim McKinney

Make no mistake, this election may make or break America.  We, the American people, face a crisis of national unity, national security, and national survival from an elitist, mythical dream of “globalism.”

Americans are more divided than any time since the war and race riots of the 1960’s. We are fighting among ourselves.  Over 800,000 police serve our communities – but they fear for their lives.  Our own President and Department of Justice accept false accusations against our police. They inspire protest, division, and hatred of those who protect us.  We are losing trust in the FBI, our Justice system, and the Supreme Court to act constitutionally.  We are losing faith in our elected leaders.

Our national security is at grave risk.  Russians threaten us with nuclear weapons.  Iran mocks our armed forces and laughs at billions of dollars in US payoffs for nuclear negotiations.  China spends untold amounts to buy arms and global influence, greatly improving her militarily while threating America and her allies.  200 rich, elitist, communist power brokers, ruling 1.6 billion people in China, will soon rival the US in “global” influence, economic strength and military power.

In 2008, ISIS didn’t exist.  Al Qaeda in Iraq, the fore-runner of ISIS, was on its heels.  In 4 years the ISIS “JV team” became a global terror threat.  Today, ISIS has between 80 and 120 thousand well trained, resourced, experienced, devoted and blood thirsty fighters in multiple countries.  ISIS is growing, not shrinking.  It’s spreading in North Africa, Central Asia, and Western Europe.  The Caliphate is an idea; it’s not a place.  ISIS and its many surrogates hate America.  They will not go way with a bombing campaign.

Our leadership has no effective strategy, it has no commitment, and it has no idea what to do to solve the dilemma it created in the frantic 2011 pre-election withdrawal from Iraq.   The President, with the media’s help, is desperately trying to keep the American people distracted from foreign policy disasters through this election.  Meanwhile, he and his designated successor continually speak of a fictional, peaceful, integrated “global” economic world with open borders and a bright future. 

What does this integrated “global” world do for America? US Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, Apple, and US manufacturers like Ford, GM, GE get cheap labor and open trade borders – not to better this nation, but to better their profits.  They manipulate governments with histories of bad economic managers – not equal and fair trade partners.  And they pay-off corrupt officials to get their way.

America, like the rest of the developed world, is paying the bills with a Federal Reserve credit card.  But our incomes are down.  Our national debt has increased well over 80% in 8 years.  Our growth is staggeringly low, and we have gone from a manufacturing nation to a lower wage service economy in a single generation.  We have increased the numbers of poor in this nation 3 fold in 8 years.  We can’t borrow our way out of debt.  It just doesn’t work.  This is what globalization has done for America.

While we face terrible threats from abroad, our own President encourages internal strife, divisions, and forces tolerance – Forced tolerance is the worst form of intolerance.  His global trade policies and spending increases invite bankruptcy.  He promotes a mythical vision of an integrated world, and a false narrative of his designated heir that contradicts any measure of reality.  Who could do more harm?

Our unity, our security and our survival are at risk.  Make no mistake; to the “global elite” the independence of the American voter is an impediment to their vision of open borders, unrestricted global trade, and massive profits.  Freedom of speech is a problem.  Freedom of religion is a problem.  Freedom of thought is a problem.  “We, the People” are a problem for them.

The “globalist elite” strategy is obvious.  Divide us.  Undermine our security.  Distract us.  Keep us from the polls. Cut faith in the candidate who supports America first, and accuse supporters of intolerance.  They will use our honor, our integrity and our fear against us.  And the “globalist elite,” with immeasurable financial resources, the support of media moguls, naive idealists, and pseudo intellectuals, will win – if we, the American people, allow it.

For our unity, our security and the very survival of the United States of America, we cannot allow them to win.  We, our citizens, must control our future – as intended in the founding of this great Nation – not corporate giants, foreign dictators, international trade bodies or global elitists.  Speak out, get people in the street, out of the pews, in the neighborhood, and on the job – tell your friends to vote to make America united again, vote to make America safe again, and vote to make America great again!  And vote to hold ALL candidates, right and left, accountable to the Constitution of the United States of America.  And fear not, with faith in God, America and the American people will always prevail – he will fight with us!

 

RELATED ARTICLE: Bozell: NBC ‘Guilty of Journalistic Corruption of the Highest Order’

WIKILEAKS: Clinton’s Emails Reveal True Gun Control Intentions

No matter the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Senate and House races, Hillary Clinton, if victorious, intends to attack your gun rights. Recently leaked emails of Clinton campaign staffers published by WikiLeaks show that the candidate plans to bypass Congress to enact gun control by executive order. Moreover, undercover video of U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold, released this week by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, further exposed Clinton’s intent to impose new gun restrictions by executive fiat.

Starting on October 7, WikiLeaks began releasing batches of emails purportedly hacked from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. The Clinton campaign emails have caused a great deal of controversy as they exposed the campaign’s collusion with a fawning press, its efforts to defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and campaign staffers’ disparaging remarks about Latinos and Catholics. Among the several thousand emails released by WikiLeaks were several dispatches that pertained to the campaign’s approach to gun control.

Of particular note is an October 4, 2015 email written by Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, which detailed the campaign’s intent to share with reporters the types of gun control proposals a President Clinton would support. The email stated:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Less than a week after WikiLeaks released this email, activist James O’Keefe released an undercover video filmed in August that bolsters the disturbing content of Fallon’s email. The video shows a disguised O’Keefe and a fellow activist attending a fundraiser for U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold of Wisconsin being held in Palo Alto, Calif. O’Keefe’s partner approaches Feingold and asks the candidate, in regards to guns, “If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do?” Feingold answers, “Well, there might be executive order.”

The video also includes footage of one of the hosts of the fundraiser, Integrated Archive Systems CEO Amy Rao, expressing how she thinks Clinton would pursue control. In regards to guns, Rao told O’Keefe, “Hillary wants to shut it down,” adding, “If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close loopholes, she’ll get rid of assault weapons, she will get rid of being able to buy, you know, unlimited bullets…” Rao also hosted a fundraiser for Clinton last August.

That Clinton is intent on pursuing gun control by executive order shows not only her contempt for gun owners, but also the rule of law. The president does not have the legitimate authority to unilaterally restrict private firearm transfers at gun shows; and this fact is supported by the behavior of the Obama administration.

In their eagerness to burden gun owners, the Obama administration has already stretched existing federal law to, and in some cases far beyond, its limits. In late 2015, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Shultz told reporters that Obama “has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively,” adding, “The president has made clear he’s not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon.” Given these statements and the Obama administration’s antipathy towards firearms, it is difficult to imagine that if an executive order of the type Clinton contemplates were permissible the Obama administration would not have pursued it. Perhaps Obama, unlike Clinton, acknowledges the Constitution imposes at least some limits on the power of the executive.

As is custom, the Washington Post rushed to defend Clinton from the gun control leaks. However, rather than deny Clinton’s illegitimate plans to restrict gun rights, the Post sought to brush it off as old news. Indeed, NRA has previously highlighted Clinton’s plans to unilaterally impose new gun controls. However, as is so often the case, the Post fails to grasp the concerns of gun owners and the fact that any further information regarding the contours of Clinton’s anti-gun efforts, and statements from a candidate for U.S. Senate on this matter, are of significant interest to those seeking to protect their fundamental rights.

Aside from the matter of executive gun controls, the Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks include a number of other items of interest to gun rights supporters. Several emails detail the Clinton campaign’s orchestrated attacks on Sanders’ gun control record. An email titled “Sanders Hits,” contains a “Guns” “hit” to be “deployed” against Sanders. Other emails chronicle the campaign’s development of a Clinton anti-gun op-ed for the New York Daily News, including a debate over how hard to “hit Sanders.”

A leaked email that has received significant attention makes clear that Clinton believes “you need both a public and a private position” on a given policy. Other emails appear to show this strategy at work on gun control, as her aides expressed concern about the candidate publicly supporting New York’s ill-named SAFE Act.

On November 19, 2015, Clinton was presented with an award and spoke at a Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gala in Manhattan. The event was also attended by N.Y. Governor Andrew Cuomo. In the run-up to the event, Clinton campaign research director Tony Carrk and policy advisor Corey Ciorciari discussed the extent to which Clinton should endorse the SAFE Act. Ciorciari emailed Carrk, “Don’t see a need to fully embrace the SAFE Act. There are some controversial items in there.” Carrk concurred, responding, “I agree. SAFE is not a safe bet.”

Throughout her career Clinton has supported gun controls that exceed the SAFE Act’s onerous restrictions. Illustrating Clinton’s dual nature, while at the Brady event Clinton was careful to navigate around the controversial SAFE Act, but less than two months earlier Clinton contended that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms when she told the attendees of a private Manhattan fundraiser, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment…” In District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the federal government could not restrict an individual from keeping an operable handgun in their home for self-defense.

The recent email and undercover video revelations serve as just the latest entries in a voluminous and wide-ranging dossier of evidence showing that Clinton intends to demolish our fundamental rights. However they are important, as Clinton and her camp’s repeated acknowledgments that they intend to usurp Congress’ sole authority to legislate in order to attack our rights reveals the full character of the danger gun owners face.