Posts

DEFEND THE ELECTION: President Trump’s Fight to Protect Every American’s ‘Legal’ Vote [Video]

“If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.” – President Donald J. Trump


UPDATE:

TRANSCRIPT:

Donald Trump: (00:02)
Thank you very much. Thank you.

Donald Trump: (00:08)
Good evening. I’d like to provide the American people with an update on our efforts to protect the integrity of our very important 2020 election. If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us. If you count the votes that came in late, we’re looking to them very strongly, but a lot of votes came in late.

Donald Trump: (00:36)
I’ve already decisively won many critical states, including massive victories in Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, to name just a few. We won these and many other victories despite historic election interference from big media, big money, and big tech. As everybody saw, we won by historic numbers, and the pollsters got it knowingly wrong. They got it knowingly wrong. We had polls that were so ridiculous and everybody knew it at the time.

Donald Trump: (01:06)
There was no blue wave that they predicted. They thought there was going to be a big blue wave. That was false. That was done for suppression reasons. But instead there was a big red wave, and it’s been properly acknowledged actually by the media. They were, I think, very impressed, but that was after the fact. That doesn’t do us any good.

Donald Trump: (01:26)
We kept the Senate despite having twice as many seats to defend as Democrats, and in a really much more competitive states. We did a fantastic job with the Senate. I think we’re very proud of what’s happened there. We had many more seats to defend. They spent almost $200 million on Senate races in South Carolina and Kentucky alone, two races, and hundreds of millions of dollars overall against us.

Donald Trump: (01:57)
At the national level, our opponents major donors were Wall Street bankers and special interests. Our major donors were police officers, farmers, everyday citizens. Yet for the first time ever, we lost zero races in the House. I was talking to Kevin McCarthy today. He said he couldn’t believe it. Zero races, very unusual thing, zero, and actually won many new seats with, I think, many more on the way.

Donald Trump: (02:24)
This was also the year of the Republican woman. More Republican women were elected to Congress than ever before. That’s a great achievement. I won the largest share of non-white voters of any Republican in 60 years, including historic numbers of Latino, African American, Asian American, and Native American voters. The largest ever in our history. We grew our party by 4 million voters. The greatest turnout in Republican Party history.

Donald Trump: (03:00)
Democrats are the party of the big donors. The big media, the big tech, it seems, and Republicans have become the party of the American worker, and that’s what’s happened. And we’re also, I believe the party of inclusion. As everyone now recognizes, media polling was election interference in the truest sense of that word, by powerful special interests.

Donald Trump: (03:25)
These really phony polls, I have to call them phony polls, fake polls, were designed to keep our voters at home, create the illusion of momentum for Mr. Biden and diminish Republican’s ability to raise funds. They were what’s called suppression polls, everyone knows that now, and it’s never been used to the extent that it’s been used on this last election.

Donald Trump: (03:51)
To highlight just a few examples, the day before election, Quinnipiac, which was wrong on every occasion that I know of, had Joe Biden up by five points in Florida, and they were off by 8.4 points and I won Florida easily, easily. So they had me losing Florida by a lot and I ended up winning Florida by a lot. Other than that, they were very accurate.

Donald Trump: (04:22)
They had him up four points in Ohio and they were off by 12.2 points, and I also won Ohio, great state of Ohio very easily. And the Washington Post said, “Biden up 17 points in Wisconsin,” and it was basically even. They were off by about 17 points, and they knew that, they’re not stupid people. They knew that. Suppression.

Donald Trump: (04:49)
There are now only a few states yet to be decided in the presidential race. The voting apparatus of those states are run in all cases by Democrats. We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually, and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret and they wouldn’t allow legally permissible observers.

Donald Trump: (05:15)
We went to court in a couple of instances and we were able to get the observers put in. And when the observers got there, they wanted them 60, 70 feet away, 80 feet, 100 feet away or outside the building to observe people inside the building. And we won a case, a big case, and we have others happening.

Donald Trump: (05:33)
There are lots of litigation, even beyond our litigation. There’s a tremendous amount of litigation generally because of how unfair this process was, and I predicted that. I’ve been talking about mail-in voting for a long time. It’s really destroyed our system. It’s a corrupt system and it makes people corrupt, even if they aren’t by nature, but they become corrupt. It’s too easy. They want to find out how many votes they need, and then they seem to be able to find them. They wait and wait, and then they find them, and you see that on Election Night.

Donald Trump: (06:09)
We were ahead in vote in North Carolina by a lot, a tremendous number of votes, and we’re still ahead by a lot, but not as many because they’re finding ballots all of a sudden. “Oh, we have some mail-in ballots.” It’s amazing how those mail-in ballots are so one-sided too. I know that it’s supposed to be to the advantage of the Democrats, but in all cases they’re so one-sided.

Donald Trump: (06:34)
We were up by nearly 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania. I won Pennsylvania by a lot. And that gets whittled down to, I think they said now we’re up by 90,000 votes and they’ll keep coming and coming and coming. They find them all over and they don’t want us to have any observers. Although we won a court case, the judge said, “You have to have observers.” Likewise in Georgia … And they’re appealing, actually they’re appealing. We want a case that we want people to watch and we want to observers and they’re actually appealing, which is sort of interesting. I wonder why they’d appeal? All we want to do is have people watch as they do the vote tabulations.

Donald Trump: (07:16)
Likewise in Georgia, I won by a lot, a lot, with a lead of over getting close to 300,000 votes on Election Night in Georgia. And by the way, got whittled down and now it’s getting to be to a point where I’ll go from winning by a lot to perhaps being even down a little bit.

Donald Trump: (07:37)
In Georgia, a pipe burst in a far away location, totally unrelated to the location of what was happening and they stopped counting for four hours. And a lot of things happened. The election apparatus in Georgia is run by Democrats. We also had margins of 300,000 in Michigan. We were way up in Michigan, won the state. And in Wisconsin, we did likewise fantastically well, and that got whittled down. In every case, they got whittled down.

Donald Trump: (08:12)
Today, we’re on track to win Arizona. We only need to carry, I guess, 55% of the remaining vote, 55% margins, and that’s a margin that we’ve significantly exceeded. So we’ll see what happens with that, but we’re on track to do okay in Arizona. Our goal is to defend the integrity of the election. We’ll not allow the corruption to steal such an important election, or any election for that manner. And we can’t allow silence, anybody to silence our voters and manufacture results.

Donald Trump: (08:46)
I’ve never had, I’ve been doing a lot of public things for a long time, I’ve never had anything that’s been as inspirational by people calling, talking, sending things to us. I’ve never seen such love and such affection and such spirit as I’ve seen for this. People know what’s happening and they see what’s happening and just before their eyes, and there are many instances which will be reported very shortly.

Donald Trump: (09:16)
There’s tremendous litigation going on, and this is a case where they’re trying to steal an election. They’re trying to rig an election and we can’t let that happen. Detroit and Philadelphia, known as two of the most corrupt political places anywhere in our country easily, cannot be responsible for engineering the outcome of a presidential race, a very important presidential race.

Donald Trump: (09:39)
In Pennsylvania, Democrats have gone to the State Supreme Court to try and ban our election observers and very strongly. Now we won the case, but they’re going forward. They don’t want anybody in there. They don’t want anybody watching them as they count the ballots, and I can’t imagine why. There’s absolutely no legitimate reason why they would not want to have people watching this process, because if it’s straight, they should be proud of it. Instead, they’re trying obviously to commit fraud. There’s no question about that.

Donald Trump: (10:20)
In Philadelphia, observers have been kept far away, very far away. So far that people are using binoculars to try and see, and there’s been tremendous problems caused. They put a paper on all of the windows so you can’t see in, and the people that are banned are very unhappy and become somewhat violent.

Donald Trump: (10:41)
The Eleventh Circuit ruled that in Georgia, the votes have been in by Election Day, that they should be in by Election Day, and they weren’t. Votes are coming in after Election Day. And they had a ruling already that you have to have the votes in by Election Day. To the best of my knowledge, votes should be in by Election Day, and they didn’t do that. Democrat officials never believed they could win this election honestly, I really believe that. That’s why they did the mail-in ballots, where there’s tremendous corruption and fraud going on.

Donald Trump: (11:15)
That’s why they mailed out tens of millions of unsolicited ballots without any verification measures whatsoever, and I’ve told everybody that these things would happen because I’ve seen it happen. I watched a lot of different elections before they decided to go with this big, massive election with tens of millions of ballots going out to everybody. In many cases, totally unsolicited.

Donald Trump: (11:43)
This was unprecedented in American history. This was by design. Despite years of claiming to care about the election security, they refuse to include any requirement to verify signatures, identities, or even determined whether they’re eligible or ineligible to vote. People are walking in there, they have no idea. They just take in the numbers. They’re writing down things, the workers, and doing a lot of bad things. And we have a lot of information coming and litigation that you’ll see that will shake even you people up, and you’ve seen it all.

Donald Trump: (12:16)
The officials overseeing the counting in Pennsylvania and other key states are all part of a corrupt Democrat machine that you’ve written about. And for a long time, you’ve been writing about the corrupt Democrat machine. I went to school there and I know a lot about it. It hasn’t changed since a long time ago and hasn’t changed. It has gotten worse.

Donald Trump: (12:36)
In Pennsylvania, partisan Democrats have allowed ballots in the state to be received three days after the election, and we think much more than that, and they’re counting those without even postmarks or any identification whatsoever. So you don’t have postmarks, you don’t have identification.

Donald Trump: (12:56)
There have been a number of disturbing irregularities across the nation. Our campaign has been denied access to observe any counting in Detroit. Detroit is another place, and I wouldn’t say has the best reputation for election integrity. Poll workers in Michigan were duplicating ballots. But when our observers attempted to challenge the activity, those poll workers jumped in front of the volunteers to block their views so that they couldn’t see what they were doing and it became a little bit dangerous.

Donald Trump: (13:32)
One major hub for counting ballots in Detroit covered up the windows again with large pieces of cardboard, and so they wanted to protect and block the counting area. They didn’t want anybody seeing the counting, even though these were observers who were legal observers that were supposed to be there.

Donald Trump: (13:49)
In Detroit, there were hours of unexplained delay in delivering many of the votes for counting. The final batch did not arrive until 4:00 in the morning. And even though the polls closed at 8:00 o’clock, so they brought it in and the batches came in and nobody knew where they came from.

Donald Trump: (14:06)
We’ve also been denied access to observe in critical places in Georgia. In multiple swing states, counting was halted for hours and hours on Election Night. With results withheld from major Democrat run locations only to appear later, and they certainly appeared and they all had the name Biden on them, or just about all. I think almost all. They all had the name Biden on them, which is a little strange.

Donald Trump: (14:34)
I challenge Joe and every Democrat to clarify that they only want legal votes because they talk about votes and I think they should use the word legal, legal votes. We want every legal vote counted, and I want every legal vote counted. We want openness and transparency, no secret count rooms, no mystery ballots, no illegal votes being cast after Election Day. You have Election Day and the laws are very strong on that. You have an Election Day and they don’t want votes cast after Election Day and they want the process to be an honest one. It’s so important.

Donald Trump: (15:09)
We want an honest election and we want an honest count and we want honest people working back there because it’s a very important job. So that’s the way this country is going to win. That’s the way the United States will win, and we think we will win the election very easily. We think there’s going to be a lot of litigation because we have so much evidence, so much proof, and it’s going to end up perhaps at the highest court in the land, we’ll see. But we think there’ll be a lot of litigation because we can’t have an election stolen by like this.

Donald Trump: (15:43)
And I tell you, He trum Small elections were a disaster. Small, very easy to handle elections were disastrous. This is a large scale version, and it’s getting worse and worse every day. We’re hearing stories that are horror stories, absolute horror stories, and we can’t let that happen to the United States of America.

Donald Trump: (16:11)
It’s not a question of who wins, Republican, Democrat, Joe, myself. We can’t let that happen to our country. We can’t be disgraced by having something like this happen. So it will be hopefully cleared up. Maybe soon, I hope soon, but it’ll probably go through a process, a legal process. And as you know, I’ve claimed certain states and he’s claiming states and we can both claim the States, but ultimately I have a feeling judges are going to have to rule. But there’s been a lot of shenanigans and we can’t stand for that in our country. Thank you very much.

‘Natural Inheritor of Justice Scalia’s Legacy,’ Conservatives Say of Barrett

The first day of confirmation hearings for federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court showed clearly how conservative women are treated differently than their liberal counterparts, Sen. Marsha Blackburn said Monday.

“You know there is a double standard when it comes to how the left and the media treat conservative women, as opposed to how they treat liberal women,” Blackburn, R-Tenn., a conservative  member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said after the hearing at a virtual press conference sponsored by Heritage Action for America.

“You’ve had 164 American citizens who have stood before that committee to be a Supreme Court justice. That’s throughout our nation’s entire history,” Blackburn said. “Today was only the fifth time that an American citizen has been a female judge.”

“Look at how they are treating her,” she added. “Just as the media treats conservative women differently, they are doing the same thing to Judge Barrett. They want to send a signal, if you are pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business, pro-military, they do not think your voice counts, because you are not in agreement with what the left says should be ‘women’s issues.’”


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Blackburn was joined by other members of Congress, along with a number of conservative leaders.

President Donald Trump nominated Barrett, now a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for the high court on Sept. 26  to fill the vacancy of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had died eight days earlier.

Blackburn also noted that Barrett, if confirmed, would be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the high court.

Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, expressed appreciation for Blackburn’s point.

“For all working moms, this means so much for us today,” Anderson said at the virtual press conference. “She represents so many of us that have children and are also pursuing a career.”

Anderson went on to note her strong “incredible, impeccable record” as a jurist.

“She is an originalist, a constitutionalist, and we are all eager to see her move forward, first with the Senate judiciary and second to the Senate floor,” Anderson said.

Since then, some Democrats and some in the media have attacked Barrett’s Catholic faith.

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said opponents of Barrett are embracing a risky strategy with what she called their “bigoted ‘handmaid’ claims.”

Some Democrats and liberal commentators likened Barrett’s membership in a Christian organization to women being handmaids similar to the Margaret Atwood novel and Hulu TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian tale in which women are property of their husbands.

“We believe it is time for a woman of faith, for a working mom to be on the court and represent our perspective,” Nance said. “I’m reminded that Ruth Bader Ginsburg felt very strongly that women were to serve on juries because she thought correctly that for us to be able to judge other women, that our perspective was needed. I will say that as well about the Supreme Court. There has never been a conservative constitutionalist woman on the Supreme Court. We are, as conservative women, an underrepresented group on the court and in government.”

Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., chairman of the conserative Republican Study Committee in the House, said he had previously suggested Trump nominate Barrett because she is “the natural inheritor of Justice [Antonin] Scalia’s legacy.”

Barrett clerked for Scalia, who was known for his originalism and served on the high court from 1986 until his death in 2016.

“I’ve spoken to the president on multiple occasions over the past couple of years that she should indeed be the nominee for the next vacancy on the court,” Johnson said.

“When I had a few minutes to talk to him about Amy Coney Barrett over the last couple of years, I said, ‘You know, Mr. President, she is the natural inheritor of Justice Scalia’s legacy.’ President Trump had committed to the American people that he would nominate someone like Scalia,” Johnson said. “I said, ‘Mr. President, you can’t find a better person because she clerked for him. She studied the Constitution under him, the great master that we all revere him to be. She’s cut out of the same mold. You know exactly what you will get with this jurist. She will be an originalist. She will adhere to the original intent.’”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

9 Takeaways From Day 1 of Barrett Confirmation Hearings

Opening Day: Sens. Blackburn, Ernst on Barrett Hearing

What to Watch for During Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate Confirmation Hearings

4 Women Who Clerked or Studied Under Her Share How They View Amy Coney Barrett


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Replacing RBG with ACB – Delinquent Democrats Deserve No Quarter

There is a bitter & infuriating irony in the fact that it was the Democrats themselves, who committed the very transgressions they endeavored to attribute to their Republican adversaries.


… it is necessary for a prince, wishing to hold his own, to know how to do wrong…he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity –Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), The Prince, Ch. XV.

Politics is the art of the possibleA statesman…must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events; then leap up and grasp the hem of his garment.– Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898).


Prologue

As this is a significantly longer essay than my usual “INTO THE FRAY” column, I have decided to provide a list of the sections headings as a brief “overview” guide for the readers. Accordingly, this rather lengthy—and extensively researched—piece will be composed of the following 200-300 word sections).

1.     The pot calling the kettle black 10.   The pot calling the kettle black …once again?
2.     “Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility…” 11.  Chaotic kaleidoscope of corruption
3.     Dubious deals & corrupt contributions? 12.  Down the rabbit hole?
4.     The dubious & the corrupt (cont.) 13.  Rabbit hole? (cont.)
5.     “No reasonable prosecutor…” Really?? 14.  A withering Senate report
6.     The need to condemn but not convict 15.  Visceral, vicious and vindictive
7.     When “extreme carelessness” is not “gross negligence” 16.  “…a terrible & profoundly immoral dirty trick”
8.     An iniquitous impeachment over invented infractions 17.  “Nothing is off the table…”
9.     Impeaching the unimpeachable?  

As the end of September approached, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who passed away just a week earlier, to the US Supreme Court.

The pot calling the kettle black

The nomination sparked an eruption of apoplectic protest and incandescent rage from Trump’s political rivals in the Democratic party—particularly as near the end of the Obama incumbency, the GOP prevented the confirmation of then-Democratic nominee, Merrick Garland, as a Supreme Court justice.

There is no doubt that several reasoned arguments can be raised against the Trump administration exploiting the opportunity that the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has created, to advance a Trump nomination to replace her on the bench of the US Supreme Court.

They all should—indeed, must—be ignored!

After all, in light of the long, loathsome litany of vile, venomous villainy that has characterized the (mis)conduct of the Democratic Party over last half-decade and more, its members have little moral right to expect any quarter from their GOP adversaries. Indeed, their sustained malice and misdeeds have left an abysmal trail of needlessly ruined lives, tarnished reputations and squandered public resources.

Indeed, there is a bitter—and infuriating—irony in the fact that it was the Democrats themselves who, irrefutably and incontrovertibly committed the very transgressions they endeavored to attribute, with such blatant disingenuity to their political opponents in the Republican Party. (This sense of rage—and outrage—is intensified by the stunning news involving recently declassified documents showing profound complicity of the previous administration and sympathetic senior CIA and FBI officials, to undermine the Trump campaign and subsequent administration.)

“Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility…”

Take for example, the allegations of collusion with Russia, something Trump and his associates have been accused of, virtually from the time he first announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential elections. Yet, years previously (March, 2012), while attending the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Democratic President Barack Obama, was overheard inadvertently in conversation with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, assuring him of enhanced coordination—read “cooperation”, read “collusion”—on an array of issues in dispute between the two countries.

Thus, Obama pledged “greater flexibility” on these topics—particularly regarding a planned NATO missile defense system in Europe, which had been a sticking point in relations between the two nations for some time, and to which Russia was strongly opposed.

The widely reported conversation, which took place shortly before the reelected Vladimir Putin was to take over the presidency from Medvedev, went as follows:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: “… I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].”

Clearly, it is hard to interpret this exchange as anything but an expression by Obama of his far-reaching willingness to accommodate Russia’s concerns—despite those of NATO allies—once he was no longer answerable to the American voter and constrained by the US electorate.

Unsurprisingly, publication of the Obama-Medvedev exchange sparked sharp criticism from political rivals in the Republican Party, but perhaps the most telling came from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who mused: “I’m curious: how many other countries has the president promised that he’d have a lot more flexibility the morning he doesn’t have to answer to the American people?”

Dubious deals & corrupt contributions?

Indeed, when it comes to collaboration with the Russians, the conduct of the Democrats is far more substantive, substantial—and questionable—than that of the Trump team.

After all, while Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State (2009-2013), the Clinton Foundation received around 150 million dollars in donations, while Bill Clinton himself received a half-million dollar fee for a Moscow lecture—just prior to the US government confirmation of a sale (December 2010) entailing transfer of control of around 20% of US uranium resources to Uranium One, a subsidiary of a State owned Russian company, Rosatom. (Also see Cash flowed to Clinton-Foundation as Russians pressed for control of uranium company, New York Times, April 23, 2015.)

Although an FBI investigation of the events surrounding this incident, known as the “Uranium One Episode”, did not result in any criminal indictments, numerous troubling questions continue to enshroud the affair.

These questions were aptly catalogued by The Wall Street Journal editorial board member, Holman W. Jenkins Jr., in a 2018 piece, Uranium One Is A Curious Case. He writes: “…it [is] interesting that the FBI, under its then-chief Robert Mueller, appears to have sat on the case—only getting around quietly to announcing a plea deal with the Russian executive five years later, in 2015…The FBI handled the Uranium One matter in a manner that avoided making immediate trouble for the policy and political interests of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” 

The dubious & the corrupt (cont.)

He asks acerbically: “What if it had been known that the FBI was sitting on a case involving demonstrable malfeasance (bribery and kickbacks) by the Russian company’s U.S. arm? What if an eyewitness who had helped crack the case told the FBI (as he now claims he did) that Russian uranium executives had spoken openly of currying favor with the Clinton Foundation to advance their U.S. business?”

In the same caustic tone, he continues: “Would it have been embarrassing for the Obama policy if it were known that the uranium assets the Russian government sought to buy had been accumulated by…entrepreneurs working closely with Bill Clinton? That the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledged contributions from people associated with these transactions? That Mr. Clinton had been paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow?

His unequivocal answer was: “Yes. It would have raised political difficulties for Mr. Obama’s Russia policy. It would have harmed the reputation of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.” 

Expressing his skepticism as to the efficacy of the FBI investigation, he remarks in reference to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: “…if the FBI didn’t find a basis to charge her aides with obstruction and evidence tampering, it’s only because it didn’t want to [sic].”

“No reasonable prosecutor…” Really??

Of course, there are solid grounds for Jenkins’s cynicism regarding the performance of the FBI—particularly with regard to the Clinton email scandal.

Indeed, any fair-minded observer of the then-FBI Director, James Comey, in his testimony before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on this matter, would almost certainly be astonished by the stunning contradiction between the substance of his testimony and his recommendation not to file criminal charges against anyone involved in the affair.

Nowhere was this more evident than when Comey was questioned by then-South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy. Gowdy pressed Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.

During the exchange, Comey was repeatedly forced to admit that Clinton has lied as to the handling of her emails, which in effect constituted “false exculpatory statements”. By his own admission, Comey conceded that such statements are generally used “Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.”

Gauged against these responses of his, Comey’s earlier almost oxymoronic public statement is—to be charitable–profoundly mystifying: “Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” 

The need to condemn but not convict 

Accordingly, it is not difficult to understand Gowdy’s exasperation and frustration in his closing statement: “So you have a rogue email system set up before she [Clinton]took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time.…And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent.”

All this brings us back to Holden Jenkin’s previously cited assessment: “…if the FBI didn’t find a basis to charge her aides with obstruction and evidence tampering, it’s only because it didn’t want to.” 

Solid corroboration for this assertion comes from a report by CNN—hardly a bed of Rightwing conspiracy theories. The report, citing a well-placed source, stated that “Comey and his FBI colleagues were ‘playing with the language throughout’ the process”, and believed that they “needed to condemn Clinton’s handling of classified information while asserting they would not bring charges.” 

Thus, again contrary to his admission in the exchange with Gowdy, Comey claimed: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” 

When “extreme carelessness” is not “gross negligence” 

Significantly, the CNN report explains why Comey insisted on using the term “extremely careless” while studiously avoiding use of the term “grossly negligent”, which was dropped after appearing in an earlier draft of Comey’s memo on the Clinton email affair.

According to the CNN report: “‘Grossly negligent,’ the language dropped from the draft, is a term that carries with it legal ramifications. ‘Extremely careless,’ the term Comey ended up using, does not [sic].” Indeed, as “The Hill” points out “…federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time…

All this prompted Gowdy’s stern reproach of Comey: “…my real fear is this…[the] double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to…[to] understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be.”

An iniquitous impeachment over invented infractions

The same unscrupulous and unprincipled ruthlessness was reflected in the Democrats doomed attempt to impeach Trump over invented infractions—the very infractions that that irrefutably were committed by the former Democratic Vice-President and present Democratic candidate for President, Joe Biden. (See here min 02.31.)

Without delving into the depth of the details surrounding the episode, readers will recall that the impeachment initiative was launched on the basis of two purportedly incriminating telephone calls between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.

According to an unidentified whistleblower(s), reportedly employed in the intelligence community, the calls provided evidence that Trump threatened to withhold US aid to Ukraine as leverage to induce the Ukrainian government to provide incriminating material on Joe Biden, a political rival, and on Biden’s son, Hunter—who, shortly after having been discharged from the Navy, after testing positive for cocaine use, was appointed to the board of a large Ukrainian energy company, Burisma—despite having no obvious experience for the job or the lucrative payments it entailed… and a long record of previous drug and drink addiction.

For transcripts of the Trump-Zelensky talks, declassified and released by the White House, see here & here.

Personally, I would be intrigued to learn how any remotely impeachable act could be gleaned from the contents of the transcripts and would be grateful for any persuasive guidance in this regard.

Impeaching the unimpeachable?

Indeed, the Democrats impeachment initiative raises several troubling questions.

For instance, are the Democratic instigators seriously suggesting that the US President should not be concerned as to conditions of governance in a country that is the recipient of US aid? If he should, then surely nothing could be more appropriate than to inquire as to those conditions and seek to investigate whether or not US citizens are, in anyway, playing a detrimental role in them.

Accordingly, then, should Biden snr. and his family members be immune to such investigation just because, at the time, he happened to be a possible candidate in an upcoming presidential race?? For if so, would the request for an investigation be unimpeachable (pardon the pun), if it related to someone who is not a political rival of the President—leaving his rivals free to engage in whatever nefarious activity they may choose?

The pot calling the kettle black…once again?

Of course, the jaw-dropping truth is that Joe Biden himself engaged, by his own admission, in precisely the act for which Trump was impeached: Using foreign aid as a lever for furthering personal interests.

Thus, in December 2015, Joe Biden, then-U.S. Vice President, warned Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President that, if he did not fire Viktor Shokin, then Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, he would block the transfer of a billion dollars of US aid to the country. Biden snr. boasted openly about getting Shokin fired. During a 2018 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, he proudly proclaimed he withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees for Ukraine in order to force the government to address the problem with its top prosecutor. (Also see here min. 52.30-53.15.)

In Biden snr’s own words: “I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said…I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Chaotic kaleidoscope of corruption

Interestingly, the individual that Biden snr. referred to as “solid”, was Yuriy Lutsenko , who several years previously was sentenced to four years in prison for embezzlement and abuse of office (with confiscation of his property).

Of course in the chaotic, kinetic kaleidoscope of corruption that is Ukrainian politics, it is difficult to know when, and if, the state organs of law and order have been exploited to settle political scores—and Lutsenko’s conviction was criticized by many as political persecution. Thus, despite doubts in this regard, it is interesting to note that the liberal/left leaning “New Yorker” commented: “Lutsenko, sometimes referred to simply as “the corrupt prosecutor general” of Ukraine, has been portrayed, hardly without reason, as an unscrupulous politician prone to telling lies to further his personal ambitions.” A similar assessment was expressed by former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, a central witness in the impeachment process against Trump, in a closed-door deposition, describing Lutsenko as an “opportunist” who “will ally himself, sometimes simultaneously, with whatever political or economic forces he believes will suit his interests best at the time.

This characterization of Lutsenko appears rather accurate.

Indeed, there is a bitter irony in the fact that it was Lutsenko, who reportedly fed damaging information to Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani—which in itself seems to raise doubt as to judgement of the former vice-president, in view of his earlier characterization of Lutsenko as “solid”.

Down the rabbit hole?

The revelation of Biden snr’s use of US aid to coerce the Ukrainians over conduct of the investigation of corruption in the country, including into a company of whose board Biden jnr. was a member, sent the Democrats scrambling to concoct unlikely unconvincing accounts as to the real motivation behind the then-Vice-President’s strongarm tactics.

According to this version, the purpose of Biden snr’s demand to replace the then-Ukrainian prosecutor was to beef up investigation into corruption including into Burisma—thus exposing Biden jnr. to greater scrutiny, rather than covering for him.

For example, James Risen of “The Intercept” wrote: Joe Biden …was not trying to protect his son — quite the reverse. The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not lessen — the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.

There are good reasons for treating this version with a healthy dose of skepticism.

On the one hand, as Pulitzer laureate Adam Entous reveals in Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?, members of Biden’s staff found him highly sensitive—even intimidating—with regard to any criticism of his family. A former Biden adviser told Entous, “Everyone who works for him has been screamed at”, and a business associate remarked that having difficult conversations with Biden about his family seemed like “…really touching a very fragile part of him.”

On the other hand, as Entous writes elsewhere: “Hunter, who had long struggled with severe drug and alcohol problems, had almost no expertise in the region or in energy, and many U.S. and Ukrainian officials suspected that Zlochevsky [Burisma’s founder /owner] had put Hunter on the [Burisma]board in the hope of protecting himself from prosecution.”

Rabbit hole? (cont.)

According to Entous: “Some White House and State Department officials disapproved of Hunter’s role at Burisma, concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest, but they mostly avoided discussing the matter with Joe Biden. The Vice-President had an unwritten “Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy when it came to his family members’ business decisions. The issue seemed too sensitive to raise…”

Accordingly, given: (a) Joe Biden’s extreme sensitivity regarding any adverse criticism of members of his family and their business dealings; (b) the fact the Burisma and its founder were the focus of ongoing corruption investigations; (c) the concern voiced both in Washington and Kiev over Hunter Biden’s presence on the Burisma board; the record of Hunter Biden’s “problematic past”, to which option would an unbiased adjudicator attribute greater credence:

  • That which maintains that the purpose of Joe Biden’s strongarm action was to protect his son from greater scrutiny by the Ukrainian authorities; or
  • That which maintains that the purpose of Joe Biden’s threats of punitive action was to expose his son to greater scrutiny by the Ukrainian investigators?

Clearly, under the specified circumstances, there seems very little reason to believe that the wish to institute greater scrutiny was a more plausible motive than the desire to protect—and every reason to believe the converse.

Accordingly, the latter should be assumed to be the true version of events–i.e. the US foreign aid was used to further personal interest—precisely the purported foundation for the Democrats impeachment initiative against Trump…on the basis of far more tenuous grounds.

A withering Senate report

Indeed, in September 2020, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs published a withering report into the allegations of corruption against Hunter Biden in Ukraine vis-à-vis his dealings with Burisma.

This official US Senate Report strongly underpins the validity of the notion that Biden snr. would have been very loath to expose Biden jnr. to enhanced scrutiny (See for example “Key Findings pp. 4-6).

A few selected citations from the almost 90-page document will illustrate the point.

In the executive summary (p.3), we read: “On April 16, 2014, Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer [recently convicted for securities fraud and conspiracy], at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the ‘public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.’

The report continues: “The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.”

The BBC cites from the reports, noting: “Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine… Biden relatives ‘cashed in on Joe Biden’s vice presidency’ ..‘Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board cast a shadow over the work of those advancing anticorruption reforms in Ukraine…creating criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns’”. 

The report ends with the following disturbing statement: “The…investigation has faced many obstacles from the [Democratic] minority and from executive agencies that have failed to comply with document requests. Accordingly, there remains much work to be done.

Visceral, vicious and vindictive

The malevolent malfeasance of the Democrats was on stark display in mid-2018 with the nomination, and later appointment, of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Justice.

As readers will recall, Democrats endeavored to derail Kavanaugh’s conformation by raising flimsy allegations regarding a purported over-amorous teenage episode, involving one, Christine Blasey Ford, today a psychology professor, which supposedly took place almost 40 years in the past, when both were minors—as if that had any bearing on Kavanaugh’s attitude, aptitude and/or acumen as a full-grown adult…almost four decades later. In their fervor to block Kavanagh’s appointment, the Democrats showed they would baulk at nothing, however underhand and meanspirited, and that they had no compunction in trying to destroy his good name, and professional standing, regardless of the cost on his family.

Significantly, although Blasy Ford claimed to recall the alleged attack itself in some detail, she somehow could not remember any other potentially corroborative details—such as where the incident supposedly took place, how she got there and how she got back home. Moreover, no corroborating witnesses could be located and those named as such by Blasy-Ford, such as Leland Ingham Keyser, did not substantiate her accusations—even claiming to have been pressured by Blasy-Ford sympathizers to falsely implicate Kavanaugh.

“…a terrible & profoundly immoral dirty trick”

It is thus difficult to disagree with David French, who referred to the Democratic initiative as “a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick”.

He writes: “What Dianne Feinstein [the Democratic Senator whom Blasy-Ford initially contacted] has done to Brett Kavanaugh is unconscionable. She sat on a vague, anonymous accusation for months, refused to question Kavanaugh about it, refused to demand further substantiation, and then actually had the audacity to publicly refer it to law enforcement without providing a single shred of evidence that the referral was warranted. This is character assassination on a grand scale.”

It was hardly surprising, therefore, that Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who chaired the Judiciary Committee during Kavanaugh’s bitter confirmation process, voiced grave disapproval at the shameful tactics adopted by the Democrats and the motley collection of Kavanaugh accusers that emerged in their wake, several of whom he referred for criminal investigation by the Dept. of Justice. He commented: “When individuals intentionally mislead the committee, they divert important committee resources during time sensitive investigations and materially impede its work. Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct committee investigations.”

Grassley also expressed his concern for future judicial confirmation hearings, warning that false allegations simply bog down the committee and squander its resources.

He urged: “The next Supreme Court nominee should not have to defend himself or herself against baseless and fabricated allegations, and committee staff should not have to spend valuable time investigating them”, which brings us back full circle to the issue with which we began this essay—the upcoming confirmation hearing for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s replacement on the bench of the Supreme court—Amy Cony-Barrett.

“Nothing is off the table…”

The placement of Supreme Court justices is arguably one of the most impactful and indelible actions an incumbent president can perform. It is precisely because of this reason that the Democrats oppose it with such vehement passion.

Thus, even before Trump had nominated Cony Barrett, the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer (D., NY), warned that if the confirmation procedure goes ahead “nothing is off the table”. He underscored: “Our No. 1 goal must be to communicate the stakes of this Supreme Court fight to the American people,”—which is, of course, exactly why the Republicans must press on regardless.

Indeed, in light of the long—yet far from exhaustive—litany of loathsome conduct of the Democratic Party, showing scant regard for personal lives of political adversaries or respect for national institutions, the Republicans must be relentless in pushing forward with the upcoming confirmation hearing of Amy Cony Barrett.

In this regard, they must unequivocally show that “everything, indeed, is on the table”.

©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: It’s No Longer Just Left vs. Right

My father always liked to tell me: “Politics, a truly filthy business. But my, is it interesting.”

And he was right.

For those of us who live and work in the “swamp,” we get daily reminders of that reality. It’s easy to fall into a belief that politics is just a cycle.

For four or eight years, one side is in ascendance. One side influences the course of the nation and American lives, and then it’s the other side’s turn.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Not anymore.

To understand how things have changed, you need to understand what real life and death issues beneath the surface of American life compelled many Americans, for the first time since the Revolutionary War, to check the box in 2016 for someone who had nothing to do with Washington, D.C., or our political class.

The choice seemed unusual at the time—instead of a governor, general, senator, or congressman, a construction magnate with 14 seasons of a reality TV show behind him somehow had garnered 304 votes in the Electoral College, not to mention almost 63 million votes, in his first run for the White House.

But why?

To answer that, you need to read the autobiography of a man whose experience is crucial to understanding why voters felt compelled to make that kind of choice.

That man is J.D. Vance and the book is “Hillbilly Elegy.”

I don’t read biographies, auto- or otherwise, as I just don’t have the patience. But thanks to the recommendation of someone in the White House, I made an exception and read Vance’s story over one Thanksgiving weekend and it changed everything.

Why? Because Vance’s book fully explained the life and death issues that made such a choice even possible.

Ostensibly, the work was about Vance’s growing up in Ohio, a member of a working-class family from the Appalachian region of Kentucky in an environment of dashed dreams, drug abuse, and broken human beings.

For the full story, read Vance’s book. The deeper conclusion is that America became a land of opportunity and the world’s sole superpower because a promise was made and kept between its citizens and the political class. That promise was based upon a common belief: America is the freest and greatest nation on God’s Earth.

Both groups—citizens and the political class—believed in our being the “great experiment in democracy.” That if you worked hard, you would prosper. That you would be represented by a political class that would protect that prosperity and keep your family safe.

But then the compact was broken. Year after year, those who had built America were systematically betrayed. Jobs disappeared. Factories closed.

Our enemies and competitors—namely China—were given favorable deals. Drugs like fentanyl were “imported,” ravaging our communities. In exchange, more and more of the “elite” in Washington subscribed to an inexorable “managed decline” for America.

We have been able to surmount some of these issues in the time since then with a roaring economy until COVID-19 hit, jobs returning to America, and foreign policy successes such as smashing the ISIS caliphate.

But our political clashes now go much deeper and are more existential. They are rooted in issues that those who occupy the commanding heights of our media and our traditional political class have no interest in addressing.

These issues strike deeply at our social compact—the shared commitment to Anglo-American values, norms, customs, and traditions, available to Americans of any background—that give us common ground and make a modicum of a free, orderly, decent, and healthy political order even possible.

These same panjandrums of our media and political class, and the street thugs they have enabled, the rabble-rousers performing this dangerous political street theater in tearing down our statues and history, no longer are practicing politics as usual. They have been captured by the radicalism that has been bubbling under the surface of left-wing politics for decades.

That is how a rising generation of Americans subscribes to the most extreme policies, including:

  • Amnesty and citizenship for 11 million illegal aliens.
  • An aggressively unconstitutional and anti-Second Amendment confiscatory gun platform.
  • Open borders.
  • Nationalization of medicine and abolition of private health insurance.
  • Destruction not only of statues, but America’s history, customs, norms, and tradition.
  • Sanctioned harassment of fellow citizens until they publicly manifest agreement.
  • Erasure of America’s history as a force for good in the world, replacing it with a civics education mired in the 1619 Project narrative of America as founded on slavery.
  • Defunding our police or doing away with the idea of law enforcement altogether.

These policies will lead to anarchy and further loss of liberty in the freest country the world has ever seen.

We should keep this in mind if America is to remain America.

COMMENTARY BY

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D., is former deputy assistant for strategy to President Trump, host of the nationally syndicated “America First,” and senior fellow for strategic affairs with Liberty University’s Falkirk Center. His latest book is “The War for America’s Soul.” Twitter: .

RELATED VIDEO: Trump: ‘Press Is Fueling the Riots More Than Biden’ — Joe ‘Doesn’t Know He’s Alive’ [Watch]

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Pledges Millions to Rebuild Kenosha After Looting, Arson

Liberal Media Alternate Between Denying and Excusing Rioters, Looters

What You Need to Know About Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Kenosha Violence


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Communist Led War on America’s Police

It is apparent, even to the most naïve or gullible, that there is a war against our police officers. This is nothing new; it’s been going on for many years. However, what we are now witnessing is the Marxist war against American society by first destroying those who protect us. This has been a Communist objective for over a hundred years.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels outlined their overall strategy. First of all, they stated that what they wanted was to win the battle for democracy. Second, they wanted a social revolution.  But what they don’t tell you is that a democracy is mob rule, a representative republic is based on the “rule of law” the latter of which Marxists want destroyed.  Link

Democracy v. Republic

They knew that with a democracy the masses could be manipulated in such a way as to incrementally destroy the republic and thus the law which results in the end of liberty for the individual thereby having a disastrous effect on society as a whole. Also, they wanted a social revolution, since the communist revolution could fail without first destroying the social fabric of the country.  We are watching the social fabric being destroyed.

They want to destroy the various aspects of society that hold a civilization together; BLM has openly stated their desire to destroy the nuclear family, church, business, local government.  The very history of the community had to be eliminated to make room for the new society, the new reality, run by communists like Black Lives Matter and Antifa.  The three lesbian founders of Black Lives Matter have stated they are trained Marxists.  And they were trained by Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground.  Antifa was founded in 1932 in Nazi Germany, they were against fascism because they loved communism.

Equality for All Americans

Black lives do matter, just as all American lives matter.  Total equality for black Americans reached a crescendo in the 1960s by Americans who fought for freedom for all.  In the 50s, when Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround Central High School to keep the nine black students from entering the schoolPresident Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to ensure the safety of the “Little Rock Nine” and that the rulings of the Supreme Court were upheld.

Education was integrated that very day and America stood proud.  But behind some of the civil rights movements were those who promoted violence, and it hurt America’s cause of freedom for all.

Civil Rights

The so-called “Civil Rights” struggle which was allegedly spearheaded by Martin Luther King with a program of non-violence.  But violence followed the preacher.  Chicago’s Mayor John Daley would not allow the violence into his city.  He knew that communists followed Dr. King.

According to John McManus, former Public Relations Director and later President, and now President Emeritus of the John Birch Society, stated,

When rioting, burning, looting, and anarchy engulfed numerous American cities, Robert Welch, Founder and President of the Society, began urging that more attention be given to exposing the so-called “civil rights” struggle. He praised the effective educational campaigns that had already been undertaken by member-created Truth About Civil Turmoil (TACT) committees and he urged starting more of them. Those who participated weren’t asked to join the Society; they were enlisted to help spread sound information that dealt with this single problem. TACT committees sprang up in numerous locales and so did TRAIN (To Restore American Independence Now) and (Support Your Local Police) SYLP committees – all using the guidelines supplied by headquarters.

Continuing on from the report of McManus, in the History of the John Birch Society – recounted by someone who was there,

As a part of the campaign to spread truth about civil turmoil, the Society reprinted two small booklets openly published by Communists. These were the 1928 “American Negro Problems” written by Hungarian Communist Joseph Pogany using the alias John Pepper, and the 1935 “Negros in a Soviet America” authored by American Communists James W. Ford and James S. Allen. These small publications called for two revolutions – one aimed at establishing Communist control over the nation’s southeastern states (creating a Soviet Negro Republic) and the other aiming for Communist control of the entire nation (establishing a Soviet United States).  The Ford and Allen booklet spelled out the twin goals: “The revolution for land and freedom in the South and the proletarian revolution in the country as a whole will develop hand in hand.”

After Society members distributed these two very revealing publications, Welch produced his own analysis of the Communist designs in a booklet entitled “Two Revolutions at Once.” In it he targeted Martin Luther King as a favorite of the Communists who trained and financed him, and who looked to him to lead the campaign to implement their plans.

Then and now, political leaders and the mass media consistently portrayed King as a champion of non-violence and an apostle of peace. But in a widely distributed article first appearing in the October 1965 issue of American Opinion, JBS writer Alan Stang corrected these and several other notions about King. Regarding the oft-stated claim that King and his cohorts relied on non-violence, Stang presented the King strategy as it had been spelled out by King himself in the April 3, 1965 issue of Saturday Review. The “non-violent” Martin Luther King freely admitted that his strategy relied on creating violence and that it couldn’t succeed unless some was created. As recounted in Saturday Review, the four-step King program called for:

  1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights.
  2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them.
  3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation.
  4. The administration, under mass pressure, initiates immediate measures of  intervention and remedial legislation.

By reading Alan Stang’s Uncelebrate King, part one, one can be brought to a complete understanding of how the King strategy played out, as well as the fact that when the non-violent demonstrators violated the law, such as spitting on the police, or throwing bottles or bricks at them, the photographers were inactive but when the police responded, as they should, then the cameras became active to show the racists resisting. (Bold type mine)

These are examples of what would be reported throughout the fake news. Following is an excerpt from Stang’s article, “Uncelebrate King, part one:”

Drue Lackey was Montgomery, Alabama’s Chief of police…he stated that when the Selma march reached Montgomery, that so-called “non-violet demonstrators” tried to provoke his policemen to react by throwing “non-violent bottles and bricks, and bedecking them with gobs of spit, while other “non-violent” demonstrators waited nearby to take pictures.

Here is Chief Lackey’s rendition, in part, of the event: “Those four days on the road had turned into a habitual sex orgy by the time they reached the capitol, King was always seen on TV marching in the front row among clean, well-disciplined performers. It was all a sham. He stayed partying separately most of those days, and would only arrive in a chauffeured limousine for appointed press deadlines, leaving immediately after.

Most of the others put off at least until nightfall, what they had come for, as this mob had been bused in from across the country and around the world.  They were unemployed blacks, white students, party activists of both races, all on promises of free food, booze and all the sex they wanted.  We witnessed them sleeping on the ground all together, and a lot of sexual activity went on throughout the night, with frequently changed partners. This is what the federal government sponsored; a bunch of Communists and moral degenerates.”

The Communist Conspiracy Exposed

Over and over, Robert Welch repeated the slogan he had created: “Fully expose the civil rights fraud and you will break the back of the Communist’s Conspiracy.”

In response to the revolutionary activity, Welch marshaled his forces made up of the members of the John Birch Society along with many who were not members. Across the nation, members responded with distribution of literature, parade floats, letter writing, speaker events and more. In communities throughout the nation, but especially in Southeastern states, members succeeded in hiring halls, gathering audiences, and hosting such knowledgeable experts as black ex-communists Leonard Patterson and Lola Belle Holmes, former FBI undercover operatives Julia Brown and Gerald Kirk, widely respected journalist George Schuyler, Rev. Freeman Yearling, Charles Smith, and others – all Black Americans who were totally convinced of the need to expose the Communist threat posing as a crusade for “civil rights”.

Early in 1966, the Society released its 75-minute film “Anarchy USA” to aid member efforts in combating civil rights agitation; it was the work of Society official G. Edward Griffin. The film presented the Communist strategy given in film clips featuring their own destructive strategy. It then presented Julia Brown recounting her experiences in the Communist Party and her first-hand testimony about being instructed to follow King and implement his strategy.

Experiences recounted by Leonard Patterson during the film were somewhat different from those of Mrs. Brown, but he concluded as she had about the fundamental goal of the Communists. In part, he stated:

When I was a young man only 23 years old, I joined the Communist Party. I knew (Communist Party Leader) Gus Hall and other top-ranking American Communists very well because I trained with them (during the 1930s) at the Lenin University in Moscow. I broke away from the party when it became clear to me what the Communists were really up to was to use the Negro people in this country as cannon-fodder in a violent and bloody revolution aimed at the establishment  of an American Soviet dictatorship….I’m not speaking of things I read about! These are things I personally participated in.

In the late sixties, my wife and I attended an event in Alexandria, Louisiana in which Leonard Patterson, speaking of his involvement in activities in the Communists war against the police, referred to an event in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in which, according to him, they killed one of their own members to make it appear that it was the police who were guilty.

The impact of the film, “Anarchy USA” along with all the “ Support Your Local Police Committees” and with all the concerted action by the many Black Americans as well as that of the John Birch Society in exposing the Communist civil rights agenda for a war on the local police, drove the campaign underground.

But the war on the police was not yet dead; it had only been forced into a smoldering dormancy biding its time to once again renew its attack on our local police. This time it’s not only a war on our police but also a war on American Society and the law. Reportedly, some authorities in control of the law have actually caved to the invaders. In the military that would be called treason and that’s what it is.

Today we can see that very fraud in Black Lives Matter whose three female founders were tutored and indoctrinated by the Weatherman Underground and have professed that they are trained Marxists.  We are being invaded and the perpetrators are being protected by the very politicians in charge of the cities. May God reward them according to their service – the only way they will receive justice will be by God.

Conclusion

What we are currently witnessing is not only the acquiescing with the Communist agenda, but the deceit of many of our elected officials. J. Edward Hoover referred to them in “Masters Of Deceit” as Sleepers in the Communist ranks who pose as Conservatives or Anti-Communists, but are actually those who are only waiting for the time or times when they can use their influence to either advance the Communist agenda, or to prevent action that would be detrimental to it. We have many of this kind throughout local, state and federal government, and in the total society.

If we continue to let our officials go along with the dialectical program of the opposition – accepting one compromise after another, we are going to see our local law enforcement taken over by the federal government and consequently very shortly after by the United Nations. This will result in law enforcement that will protect the U.N. from any pro-American action which will develop to restore our independence.

According to what the UN has planned for us we most likely won’t have the liberty of working against it.

So, as a starter, we need to get as many Support Your Local Police Committees set up across the nation as possible and also as quickly as possible. Get a few people together and if you don’t know how to proceed with starting a program for supporting your local police – get in-touch with the John Birch Society or contact the New American Magazine.

These are the first things we need for people to do; then follow up by learning as much about this issue as you can, but above all – get involved.

©J.W. Bryan. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘I’m Ready To Put These Police In The F**king Grave’: DC Protester Calls For More Violence

RELATED TWEET:

‘Everybody Is Afraid’: Kenosha Residents Appear To Pivot Toward Trump Due To Democratic Leadership Amid Riots

Some Kenosha residents are rethinking their support for Democrats amid the rioting and violence that has erupted in the city, the New York Times (NYT) reported.

Several residents of the Wisconsin city expressed their fear in an interview with the NYT as the riots that struck many cities across the country following police shootings of Black men arrived at their doorstep.

Jacob Blake was shot by police Sunday in Kenosha, and later that night, unrest began to escalate, resulting in arson, vandalism and, a few days after, two people being shot to death.

Many residents say that Democratic leadership has been absent, and Democrats seem reluctant to denounce the violence.

John Geraghty, 41, works at a tractor factory and doesn’t pay attention to the presidential race. Although he was on the fence about who to vote for in November, he’s now unsure whether the Democratic state leaders are willing to remedy the violence.

“It’s crazy that it’s now happening in my home city,” he told the NYT. “We have to have a serious conversation about what are we going to do about it. It doesn’t seem like the powers that be want to do much.”

Former Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden responded Monday to the shooting of Jacob Blake, saying that “Equal justice has not been real for black Americans and so many others” and that the country “must dismantle systemic racism.”

Biden later condemned Wednesday the “needless violence” in Kenosha, and said that the protests over police brutality were “right and absolutely necessary” but that “burning down communities is not protest.”

Republicans have focused their attention on Wisconsin, which Trump won in 2016. The rioting was also mentioned at the Republican National Convention, which is taking place the same week that riots emerged in Kenosha.

Geraghty, a former Marine, told the Times his city began to resemble a “war zone” and that Democrats were “letting people down big time.” He also believes Trump bungled his management of the coronavirus pandemic, describing it as “laughable,” and that he didn’t like how Trump talked.

But he also said that it seemed the Democratic Party seemed most interested in attacking Trump and calling him a racist, an accusation made so often that it was only alienating people.

“The Democratic agenda to me right now is America is systematically racist and evil and the only people who can fix it are Democrats,” he said. “That’s the vibe I get.”

“I’m not 100 percent sure of anything yet,” Mr. Geraghty said of November. “But as of now I’m really not happy about how Democrats are handling any of this.”

The RNC dedicated several moments to emphasizing Trump’s “law and order” platform, and also criticized the movement to defund the police, attributing such a push to Democratic leadership.

Public support for protests following the death of George Floyd has dropped in Wisconsin by 25 points since June according to a poll published by Marquette Law School Wednesday. While support for demonstrations against police killings stood at 61% approval to 36% disapproval in June, both figures changed to 48% in August. The poll was conducted before the protests and riots in Kenosha that began Sunday.

Don Biehn, 62, owns a flooring company in Kenosha, and he bought a pistol for the first time in his life Tuesday amid the chaos in his city, citing the need to protect his business. He told the NYT he had been calling county and state officials for days to explain how grave the situation was in Kenosha.

“There’s people running all over with guns — it’s like some Wild West town,” Biehn said. “We are just waiting here like sitting ducks waiting to get picked off.”

“It’s chaos — everybody is afraid,” he added.

Although Biehn didn’t initially support Trump, he’s now grateful he’s president because he understand the situation in a way other politicians didn’t.

“There’s nobody fighting back,” he said. “Nobody is paying attention to what’s going on.”

Priscella Gazda, a waitress at a pizza restaurant, said she had voted only once in her life, and it was for Barack Obama in 2008, in hopes of getting health insurance. She told the Times she’s “not the one who would ever vote,” but after the unrest in Kenosha, she’s voting for Trump.

“He seems to be more about the American people and what we need,” she said.

COLUMN BY

MARLO SAFI

Culture reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

POLL: Support For Protests Plummets In Wisconsin, Dropping 25 Points In Two Months

Local Kenosha Politician Tells Anderson Cooper Residents Should Defend Their Property

Here Are The 6 Charges Against The Alleged Kenosha Shooter

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Democratic Officials Responsible For ‘Chaos’ In Cities, Police Organization President Says At RNC

National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) President Michael McHale lambasted Democratic leaders nationwide at the Republican National Convention Wednesday blaming them for the “chaos” that has occurred in American cities recently.

The death of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake have sparked mass anti-police protests and riots across the country. In the aftermath of Floyd’s death, police morale drastically declined, according to multiple police union officials.

“Chaos results when elected officials in cities like Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York make the conscious and very public decision not to support law enforcement,” said McHale, who is also the president of the southwest Florida chapter of the Police Benevolent Association. “Shootings, murders, looting and rioting occur unabated.”

He continued: “The violence we are seeing in these and other cities isn’t happening by chance; it’s the direct result of elected leaders refusing to allow law enforcement to protect our communities.”

WATCH:

McHale also attacked Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris for their views on law enforcement.

“I’m shocked and disgusted by how far left Joe Biden has swung and how anti-law enforcement he has become,” said McHale. “And Kamala Harris’ legislation to further restrict police would make our American communities and streets even more dangerous than they already are.”

He added: “Like many others on the left who want to defund the police, Senator Harris’ legislation provides less training, not more, for law enforcement.”

Harris said departments should be “reimagined” when asked about defunding the police in June.

Founded in 1978, NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations, according to the organization’s website. It represents more than 241,000 law enforcement personnel and 1,000 police associations nationwide.

NAPO officially endorsed President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign for president on July 15, according to a letter addressed to Trump posted on the organization’s website.

“Our endorsement recognizes your steadfast and very public support for our men and women on the front lines, especially during this time of unfair and inaccurate opprobrium being directed at our members by so many,” the letter said.

The New York Police Benevolent Association, the largest police union in the United States, endorsed Trump on Aug. 14. It was the union’s first presidential endorsement in at least 36 years, according to its president Michael Lynch.

“We need your strong voice across the country to say, ‘We have the support of law enforcement across this country,’” Lynch told Trump at the endorsement event.

COLUMN BY

THOMAS CATENACCI

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Debate Rages On Police Reform, Role Of Police Unions In Wake Of Floyd’s Death

One Trend Is Clear After These Police Killings: Families Begging Rioters To Stop The Violence

The Deaths In Wisconsin Are Just The Latest In A String Of Fatalities Resulting From Nationwide Riots

‘My Family And I Are Very Hurt’: Julia Jackson, Mother Of Jacob Blake, Says Rioting, Looting Are ‘Not Acceptable’

EXCLUSIVE: Alleged Kenosha Shooter Told The Daily Caller He Was There To ‘Help People,’ Protect Property Before Shooting

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PODCAST: Interview with Evan Sayet a Conservative Comedian, Master Of Ceremonies and political Philosopher

GUEST:  EVAN SAYET

Evan Sayet is a Conservative Comedian, Master Of Ceremonies and political Philosopher, which isn’t easy to be!  He was born in New York and moved to California to pursue a career in stand- up comedy.  After 9-11 he re- thought, or actually thought about his political beliefs for the first time.  He came to realize he was a knee- jerk Liberal but in reality was a Conservative at heart.  Evan’s book, “In The Kindergarten Of Eden, How The Modern Liberal Thinks”, was a bestseller.

His new book titled: The Woke Supremacy, available at EvenSayet.com  and at all the usual places!  Evan’s speech before The Heritage  Foundation was touted by Andrew Breitbart at the time and remains, to this day, one of the single most viewed lectures in the Heritage Foundation’s history.  He has written  for Breitbart and TownHall.com among others and you can see all his work and purchase his new book at his website:  EvanSayet.com, or through Amazon.  Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter and Parler @EvanSayet.

©All rights reserved.

More Than 100 Protested Outside Joe Biden’s Democratic National Convention Acceptance Speech

More than 100 people rallied outside the Chase Center in Wilmington, Delaware, on Thursday to protest former Vice President Joe Biden, according to Delaware Online.

Biden officially accepted the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night at the Chase Center in Wilmington, Delaware, according to USA Today. Protesters gathered outside the speech singing “God Bless America” and later chanted “USA” near a CBS News tent.

Delaware Trump Campaign Rob Arlett said his group organized the protest with the Delaware Republicans, Delaware Online reported.

“We were honestly a little nervous going and protesting in Biden’s hometown. What we discovered is that the enthusiasm for Biden, even in Delaware is practically nonexistent, and the DNC convention feels like the equivalent of a deflated balloon,” Chief Operating Officer of Students for Trump Tyler Bowyer told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Billboard trucks paid for by Turning Point Action drove around the city bearing slogans like “Sleepy Joe Biden,” according to Delaware Online. Before the demonstration, an airplane with a banner that said, “JOE BIDEN IS LOSING IT — VOTE TRUMP 2020” flew over the Chase Center.

“To see so much support for President Trump was electrifying. I hope it inspires more young Americans to proudly speak up about what they believe in and what their values are, knowing there are thousands of other young conservatives out there,” activist and influencer Isabel Brown on the ground told the DCNF.

COLUMN BY

MARY ROSE CORKERY

Reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

DNC Night 3 Focuses On Democratic Women

Democrats Blamed The Feds For Violence In Portland. But The Chaos Continued Even After They Pulled Back

Chicago City Council Members Call For State Of Emergency Declaration, Request National Guard

‘Wake Up Motherf**ker, Wake Up’: Portland Protesters Vow To Keep Up Entire Neighborhoods As Unrest Continues

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DNC Committee Omits ‘Under God’ From The Pledge Of Allegiance

Godless. monsters.

DNC Committee Omits ‘Under God’ From The Pledge Of Allegiance

By Kylee Zempel, The Federalist, August 19, 2020:

A Democratic National Convention moderator omitted sacred words from the Pledge of Allegiance during a panel discussion Tuesday: “under God.”

During the Muslim Delegates Assembly, the video of the livestreamed event shows A.J. Durani led the pledge but left out an important part, saying, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Durani was elected to be a super delegate for the 2016-2020 term of the Democratic National Committee.

The pledge has included the phrase “one nation under God” since Congress passed a law, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1954 to add it to the recitation. So, regardless of this 2020 panel’s objectives, the official pledge includes the religious phrase. “Under God” was added largely in response to the Cold War era’s threats of communism and the ideas of Marxist-Leninist countries. Ironically, many leaders of the Democratic Party are once again advocating Marxism through revisionist history and the Black Lives Matter organization.

Anyone who has watched the trajectory of the Democratic Party, now with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris at the helm, shouldn’t be surprised at the omission. After all, this presidential nominee pledged to go after nuns for refusing to violate their consciences in providing abortifacients. Catholic churches denied Biden Holy Communion for his aggressively pro-abortion policy positions, and he signaled support for using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, directly contradicting the most basic of biblical principles.

Biden’s running mate is arguably leagues worse with regard to religious bigotry. Harris’s anti-Catholic posture led her to fight the confirmation of Judge Brian Buescher over his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal service order. As attorney general of California, Harris also launched an intrusive investigation into citizen journalist David Daleiden for taking undercover videos that exposed abortion giant Planned Parenthood for trafficking aborted baby body parts. Congress continues to do nothing about this appalling atrocity.

All this is also to say nothing of the Democratic Party’s increasing disdain for traditional religious teaching on marriage, the family, and church, to name a few.

As the convention progresses, we shouldn’t be surprised when Democratic Party and committee leaders take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. They’re usually trying to take Him out of everything else.


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fox News Host Ends Interview After Black Lives Matter Leader Refuses To Answer Question About Looting

LeBron James And Other Members Of The Lakers Mock MAGA

American Ahmadi Man Accused of Blasphemy Under Islam Shot Dead in Court

Black Lives Matter Defends Chicago Looting

HA! GOP congressional candidate Kimberly Klacik’s viral ad dwarfs viewership of Michelle Obama speech

Bold, Outspoken Young Conservatives Loomer and Paulina Luna Decisively Win Primaries In Florida

RINO GOP Goes DNC: Quisling Line-Up Is Old Guard GOP Establishment from 1996 RNC

RIOT DECLARED: Fire set inside Portland’s Multnomah Building during unrest

Senate Intelligence report finds NO RUSSIA COLLUSION

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Radical Hate-Rep. Ayanna Pressley Calls for Unrest in the Streets, Targeting Republicans

The only way these haters get attention is to incite and destroy. Never does anything positive or good come from their quarters. Never.

The evidence is overwhelming. The Democrat Party is dangerous. They must go down hard in November. No party that is this radical should have any kind of political power. By the way, if Joe Biden wins in November it is folks such as Pressley, Omar, Tlaib, AOC and others who will be in charge of the country. Biden needs their support, so he will always appease them as POTUS.

Rep Ayanna Pressley Calls for Unrest in the Streets, Targeting Republicans

By David Harris Jr. August 16, 2020

Ayanna Pressley has sent the message out to the Democrat friends rioting across the country to continue to do what they do, but to make sure you target Republicans when you do it.

If President Trump had sent out a message like this the mainstream press would having a field day… but it’s okay when it’s a Democrat.

What does she mean when she says unrest I wonder? I think we all know what that means. After all, the squad refuses to condemn violence from Muslim terrorists.

Should they expect less from Godless terrorists? Democrats for some strange reason believe the riots benefit them in 2020 even when the voters feel that they are siding with the rioters.

Remember when the passive Tea Party came onto the scene? The mainstream media played them up as the second coming of the Nazis. But now that the Democrats approve of, or at least refuse to condemn the riots, the silence is deafening.

In fact the media is avoiding even talking about the looting, the burning of private and public property and the assaults on anyone who gets in their way, as if they aren’t really happening.

The IRS should investigate the media because their favored treatment of Democrats is the largest in-kind contribution they have ever gotten. In fact they would be guilty of making contributions far beyond legal limits.

Pressley is a member of The Squad that also includes fellow radicals AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, or as I affectionately call them “The Four Horse’s A**e* of the Apocalypse.

They are the most radical group in the US Congress. They consider Moa, Stalin and Lenin as being too far right wing for their tastes.


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED ARTICLES:

Chris Wallace: Biden ‘Not Doing Really Any Serious Interviews’ – ‘Damnedest Thing’ He Isn’t Putting Anyone on Sunday Shows

Antifa thugs go to Motorcycle Rally and quickly regret it

VILE Media, Democrats Use Death Of Trump’s Brother To Attack The President: ‘The Wrong Trump’ Died

Black candidate brings BLM mob to the burbs, terrorizes white teen girls: ‘We sick of yo white a*s!’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Will President Biden Give Pro-Constitution Americans Any Assurances?

My latest at PJ Media:

If Joe Biden is sworn in as president on January 20, 2021, and all the polls are telling us he absolutely has it in the bag, he will swear on that day to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” so help him, you know, the thing. But no matter what mandate the Democratic Party propaganda machine known as the American media, and the farce known as mail-in voting, can give the affable grifter, roughly half the country will still be absolutely unwilling to go down the path of managed decline, internationalism, and socialism that a Biden administration promises to give us.

Can Biden offer the Americans who really do want to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution any assurances?

Take, for example, the Second Amendment, Americans’ final safeguard against tyranny. Will Biden pledge not to appoint Beto O’Rourke, who vowed, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” to any position in which he actually would be able to disarm Americans and leave them defenseless in an age of ever-escalating antifa and Black Lives Matter violence?

Also in regard to security, Biden has vowed, on his first day in office, to remove what he calls Trump’s “Muslim ban,” which in reality is a travel ban on thirteen countries, eight of which are Muslim, that cannot or will not provide accurate information about prospective immigrants. Biden excoriated this travel ban as “vile” and characterized it as “Donald Trump’s assault on black and brown communities in this country.”

If he does indeed become president and scraps this travel ban on his first day in office, what safeguards will he put into place to ensure that jihad terrorists and others who wish to harm Americans (“black and brown” ones as well as those of other hues) will not take advantage of his hospitality? Migrants, including the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino shooters, murdered and maimed Americans during the Obama administration. What will Biden do to reassure Americans that this sort of thing won’t happen again?

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Palestinian Rutgers Prof Spins Vehicular Jihad Attack as “Car Accident”

Nigeria: Muslims murder wife, mother, all children and other relatives of one Christian, 13 people in all

Syrian Government Enraged That Kurds Intend to Sell Kurdish Oil

UK: Illegal Muslim migrants given VIP treatment and filling hotels on taxpayer dime

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Let’s Talk About Racism In America Featuring Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington and More

The Freedom Forum posted the below comments and video on YouTube.

This is the conversation about racism in America that the Mainstream Is hiding from you. Honest moments from interviews featuring people like Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Lil Wayne, Larry Elder, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, and others give their take on racism in America right now.

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

Swing Voters In Michigan Focus Group Say They Are Voting For Trump, Call Biden A ‘Puppet’: Axios Report

Former Vice President Joe Biden is not mentally fit for the presidency, and he would likely become a “puppet” for the “deep state,” several Michigan of swing voters said during an Axios focus group session released Monday.

The focus group included nine people who voted for former President Barack Obama in 2012 but voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. Seven of the nine swing voters said would vote for Trump in November’s election, Axios noted in a report Monday on the group.

The focus group, part of Axios’s monthly Engagious/Schlesinger swing-voter series, is not a scientific poll, but it does provide a snapshot into how a select number of voters in the battleground state are thinking ahead of the election, according to Axios. The session was conducted last week, Axios said.

Biden is “showing signs of dementia” and would likely become a “puppet … controlled by a lot of people in the deep state,” one member of the focus group calling himself Matt T said. He used the term “deep state” to describe “the lobbyists, the people that have influence on a lot of the politicians,” he said.

WATCH:

Another panelist echoed that position.

“I don’t think that Biden is going to be running our country. Whoever his vice president is, is going to be running the country. The vice president or whoever the puppet people are telling him what to say,” a woman calling herself Shelly D said.

Vicki S, another member of the panel of nine, said she is voting for Biden because of the president’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which originated in China before spreading to the United States, where it has reportedly killed nearly 146,000 people, according to John Hopkins University’s tracking system.

“I don’t want either of them. It’s the lesser of two evils in my book,” Vicki S told the other panelists.

Biden is leading Trump by significant margins in battleground states, including in Michigan.

The former vice president opened up a 13-point lead on the incumbent in the state of Florida, according to a Quinnipiac poll published on July 23. He now leads Trump 51-38 in that state, the poll showed. Trump is behind Biden in five other battleground states the president won in 2016, and is trailing Biden by nine points in Michigan, according to July 24 Fox News poll.

Biden led the presidential race by seven points in Arizona, nine points in North Carolina, and 10 points in Pennsylvania, according to a New York Times poll conducted in late June. Trump’s poor numbers coincide with a surging pandemic and civil unrest following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in May after a police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly 9-minutes, video shows.

COLUMN BY

CHRIS WHITE

Tech reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dan Crenshaw Says ‘Well-Coordinated’ Riots Are Designed To Hold Americans ‘Hostage Until You Give Them Power’

‘Take Them At Their Word’: Rep. Dan Crenshaw Says Democrats Want To ‘Destroy The Things That Bring Us Together’

Jerry Nadler Says Antifa Violence In Portland Is ‘A Myth’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Infiltration Not Invasion All Assets Deployed

We have entered the phase in this war where all assets are now being deployed (against us). This has been an infiltration not invasion. Q-Post 4612 July 22, 2020 states that many thousands of MSDNC (MSNBC), direct attacks have failed to control and sway opinion and prevent growth and free thought. When direct attacks fail, i.e. censorship being deployed as aggressive method to slow and limit growth. So what’s next? More acts of violence. The controlled information dissemination system that is designed to control you is now threatened. If you posed no threat to their control, (information dominance), they would not continue to expend ammunition. They simply would not care. We are in an information and intelligence warfare. Infiltration not invasion. This is not a civil war.

Infiltration Not Invasion All Assets Deployed

With the infiltration that has taken place certainly through Clinton, Bush and Obama, we must know that all assets are now being deployed. With less than four months to go until the landslide re-election of President Donald Trump, and the escalation of the declassification of intel on multiple fronts, the stakes are quite high. This one is for all the marbles. It’s either us or them.

All Assets deployed? U.N., ANTIFA, BLM. Corporate, Hollywood, Political, Geopolitical, media, Democrats, RINO’S on so on. China-China-China! The Lincoln Project (already backfiring and boomeranging like most everything else).

Well we see the million man civilian army (ANTIFA, BLM others) that Obama pledged way back when on his campaign trail for President deployed on the streets of America today.  We see the last desperate attempts of the unleashed Covid-19 Plandemic wreaking havoc and attempting to keep the country shutdown and the people controlled frozen by fear. Refuse to be fearful. We see censorship run amok.

On July 17, 2020, Retired Major Jeffrey Prather on my daily live news broadcast told us to watch for cyber attacks and blackouts of sorts on the horizon. Then in Q Post 4587 dated July 17th, Q tells us the Covid-19 narrative ends the day after the election and to expect cyber attacks and attempts on November 4th stating that C19 narrative kill date: Election Day +1. Prepare for zero-day [massive cyber-power] attacks [attempts] on 11.4.

Summary

Things will intensify and become increasingly more dangerous on multiple fronts. I mean multiple, as all assets are being deployed. This will get uglier. This is occurring because we are now directly over the target. Flynn case. Roger Stone’s commutation. FISA findings. Senate Judiciary Hearings. Epstein intel and so much more.

Truth be told, while making defensive moves, know this, we are on the offense. The Deep State and the rest are in full scale panic mode. This is war and while in the thick of the battle, it’s hard to see, perhaps hard for you to grasp. But know this. We are winning. Watch what happens between August and November 3rd. Just you watch. Meanwhile stay safe, Be prepared physically, spiritually, financially and so on. Batten down the hatches. Refuse to be fearful. Do NOT believe the fake polls. Know this too. We are the majority not only here at home in our beloved America but all across the world. Stay the course and trust the plan. Vote Trump. Vote for the best non RINO’S on the ticket. Maintain the White House and Senate. Take over the House. Victory is ours. God always wins. And the best is yet to come. May God continue to bless and protect our President and our country.

©All rights reserved.