Category Globalism -vs- Nationalism

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Paul Ryan Dismisses 75 million Member MAGA Movement, Claims Corporations Will Win Power Struggle Within GOP Battle


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

This interview is excellent news as Paul Ryan delivers a full-throated dismissal of Donald Trump and puts himself as the arbiter of “acceptable republicans” moving forward.

This Big Club operation in public is exactly what we need to see happen in order to wage a war against uniformed enemies within the republican party.  Keep in mind, as Paul Ryan talks about winning elections he recently campaigned for Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger in their failed 2020 midterm reelection campaigns.

Nothing about this interview where Paul Ryan positions himself against the blue-collar working-class MAGA movement is bad.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and for Paul Ryan to openly proclaim his anti-Donald Trump allegiances, which will soon evolve into open promotion for Ron DeSantis, will only help the awakening as we highlight the Republican Club strategy for 2024.  WATCH:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_4ZLM1ph6w%3Ffeature%3Doembed

As I have said for years, there was no doubt in my mind that Paul Ryan was positioning himself to lead the “establishment” republican wing of the UniParty.  He has now openly and publicly embraced that role.  Pretenses are dropping, and that is a glorious thing. However, in reality, Paul Ryan as a candidate for Vice-President in 2012 received less votes in his own state of Wisconsin than candidate Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.

The ‘America First’ national agenda, both economically and in larger global terms, was not represented in either wing of the UniParty system until Donald Trump came into politics.  The economics of the thing, the financial graft that oils the wheels of politics, is the source of all opposition.

On the part where Ryan outlines his view of the current financial situation, I can only laugh in his face.

This is the guy who was Speaker of the House of Representatives when he dispatched regular budgetary order in order to facilitate President Obama’s need for omnibus spending and continuing resolution bills.  Obviously, Ryan needs to pretend not to know that, and counting on, as Jonathan Gruber would say, “the stupidity of the American electorate.”

This battle into 2024 is going to be epic and fun.

Ryan named Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott as his three favorites. {source} DeSantis fighting Disney was “really good for him, from a political perspective,” Ryan said.

As the House Speaker, Paul Ryan undercut President Trump at every turn in the first two years of his administration.  Ryan’s duplicity included his unwillingness to support Devin Nunes and other House chairman in their subpoena efforts against the bad actors in the intelligence community.  Paul Ryan was, in deliberate terms, knowingly and with specific intent protecting the corrupt DC interests.

Yes, it is something he would rather people not remember, but it was Speaker Paul Ryan who blocked republicans in the House from issuing subpoenas in 2017 and 2018 for the election surveillance and FBI lies against President Trump.  It is also worth remembering that Paul Ryan’s leadership PAC funded democrat Conner Lamb in the 2018 mid-term election after Ryan announced his intended departure.

Paul Ryan has always been the type of DeceptiCon who could get the CPAC audience to stand and cheer for him only minutes after passing a massive omnibus spending package to support President Obama.  Thus, the UniParty maneuvers are always present; including when Ryan said: “I am not going to defend Trump – not now, and not in the future.”

Additionally, former House Speaker Paul Ryan previously held a fundraising event for Liz Cheney (March 2021), and then Paul Ryan announced a failed attempt to fundraise for Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger.. ..

A week after saying any Democrat who made the 2020 presidential race about “Trump’s personality” will beat him, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch hired Paul Ryan to serve as a board member for the news organization.  This announcement followed on the heels of Fox News hiring the former head of the DNC, Donna “Debate-Gate” Brazile, as a contributor.  Yes, it is clear to see the direction and intent of Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch.

[…] Lachlan Murdoch, the heir apparent and eldest son, who co-chairs News Corp and runs the parent company of Fox News, has reportedly told DeSantis that the group would back him if he ran in the next election. “Lachlan has been keen on Ron for some time,” said the i’s source. “He’s viewed within the organization as a sanitized version of Donald.” (read more)

It must also be remembered that in 2013 Fox News worked behind the scenes to facilitate the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform platform.  Additionally, a year later, Murdoch himself advocated for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio as the preferred candidates in 2016, using Megyn Kelly to achieve their objective.

Yes, it is all one unfortunate, political and ideological continuum.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “RINO Paul Ryan, who became a lame duck Speaker of the House, lost all vote-getting capability with the people he represented in Wisconsin, and was the single biggest factor, other than Romney himself, for the monumental Romney/Ryan loss in the Presidential race of 2012 (I got more votes by far, 75M, than any sitting president in history!), and he is now speaking to other Republicans telling them how to win elections. Interestingly, I was in the Great State of Wisconsin when they booed him off the podium—I literally had to come to his rescue.

Ryan should instead be telling them how to stop the cheating of elections and that we would have won if Republican leadership fought the way the Democrats did.

It was the day that Ryan went on the board of Fox (Fox will never be the same!) that Fox totally lost its way and became a much different place, with millions of its greatest supporters fleeing for good. Paul Ryan has been a curse to the Republican Party. He has no clue as to what needs to be done for our Country, was a weak and ineffective leader, and spends all of his time fighting Republicans as opposed to Democrats who are destroying our Country.

As a Republican, having Paul Ryan on your side almost guarantees a loss, for both you, the Party, and America itself!” (link)

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Democrat J6 Committee Confirms Intent to Transfer Evidence to Special Counsel During Lame Duck to Begin Republican Targeting Operations


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance 

If you doubted the intent of the primary function of the appointment for Special Counsel John Smith, you can put that doubt to rest now.  Appearing on CBS FtN Democrat Rep Zoe Lofgren confirms the intent of the Garland appointment is to receive evidence from the J6 Committee and utilize that evidence in the targeting operation against Republicans in congress.

Read the carefully worded statements from Lofgren and compare them to the background we previously outlined.  Everything is clear.  WATCH:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3oC8Z6rgZcM%3Ffeature%3Doembed

Primary goal, create enough of a legal mess as to obstruct any republican legislative effort against the Biden White House.  Additionally, if Smith’s DC team can pick-off a few republican House members under charges of “supporting an insurrection“, the political power will revert back to the Democrats in office.

They didn’t just think this up overnight.

This is why the January 6 committee never ended.  They are using J6 as a weapon against their losing the House to republicans.  The Democrats are now structurally targeting Republicans with the appointment of Jack Smith.  It’s actually a brilliant move.  The executive is now investigating the legislative branch; the legal structure of this eliminates the separation of powers issue.

The DOJ is not investigating republicans, they are investigating defined criminals; insurrectionists that are national security threats, that happen to be republicans.  See how that works?

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She serves on the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee investigating January 6. Good morning to you, Congresswoman. I want to get straight to it. Does the refusal of the Vice President and the former president to comply with your investigation in any way impede the impact or outcome?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, we wish they had come in. Certainly other Presidents have come in when asked by the Congress, including Gerald Ford, Teddy Roosevelt, many others. It is almost Thanksgiving, and the committee turns into a pumpkin at the end of December. So we don’t have time to litigate this. But I think they’ve cheated history. And they should have done otherwise. We, on the other hand, have received substantial information from other sources. And we’re in the process of, as I’m sure you know, writing our report now, and —

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re continuing to gather information, as I understand it, speaking to two Secret Service officials recently. What more do you need? And are you still sharing that information with the Justice Department?

LOFGREN: Well, we’re not sharing information with the Justice Department. We’re doing our own investigation. However, we anticipate when our report is released, to release all of the evidence that we have assembled so the public can see it, including the Department of Justice.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, what do you have? I understand the committee has released documents to the Department of Justice, is that not the case?

LOFGREN: Well, we’re not – we’re no, we’re, we’re, we’re doing our own investigation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

LOFGREN: And within a month, they – the public will have everything that we’ve found, all the evidence. For good or ill. And I think we’ve, as we’ve shown in our hearings, made a compelling presentation, that the former president was at the center of the effort to overturn a duly elected election, assembled the mob, sent it over to Congress to try and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. It’s pretty shocking.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, as we know, the Justice Department has its own investigation. And that’s what led us to the Attorney General making news just a few days ago with this special counsel to take up the events surrounding January 6. But what does putting this in the hands of a Special Counsel accomplish here? Do you think it actually removes politics? Or does it still just keep it there since the Attorney General will still have oversight of the special counsel?

LOFGREN: Well, I think from what the Attorney General said he sought to depoliticize this investigation. Obviously, career professionals are doing it and to have a special counsel overseeing it. But you know, the right wing never fails, up is down and down is up. The effort to depoliticize they are now criticizing is somehow a political measure. So, you know, the effort to say segregated the investigation from the Attorney General himself, is in the eye of the beholder. And of course, the former president is saying he won’t partake as if you know, it’s a – it’s a slice of pizza. I mean, it’s not up to him. He is being investigated for these offenses, and we’ll see what they find.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You sit on the Judiciary Committee, you just heard Rod Rosenstein say that he thinks the US Attorney in Delaware is sufficient in terms of being able to independently decide on what to do with Hunter Biden and that case. I wonder if you agree with that, or if you think your Republican colleagues are right to ask for a special counsel to deal with the current president’s son?

LOFGREN: Well, I don’t know anything about that case. Certainly, in the case of –

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you do have oversight of the Justice Department?

LOFGREN: Yeah. Yes, but we don’t, you know, I served with Mike Pence on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t oversee and interfere with individual investigations in cases. That would be improper in terms of oversight. You know, if if the president’s son has committed offenses, then, you know, there’ll be a judgment on whether to prosecute or not, and that’s the rule of law. Just as the rule of law applies to the former president, people in this country have to adhere to the law. And, you know, if you don’t, if you commit an offense and the facts are there, then there’ll be a prosecution. And that’s what it’s about living in a country where the rule of law, not just politics, leads us. That’s about our democratic republic.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the issue of what to do with Hunter Biden will come before your committee as the chair – the incoming chair of it has said along with the head of oversight, they want to lead investigations.

LOFGREN: There’s nothing – no role for the legislative body and a prosecution.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, but are you prepared as Democrats for this knife fight?

LOFGREN: Well, I mean, we’re going to be there and the incoming Judiciary Committee Chair has a history of playing fast and loose with the truth. We’re aware of that. And we will be there as truth-sayers.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be watching Congresswoman. Thank you.

[End Transcript]

The overarching Lawfare framework has been transparently created by President Obama’s former White House Legal Counsel and current U.S. Asst Attorney General Lisa Monaco.

In essence, the J6 investigation – with an emphasis on congress – transfers to Special Counsel Jack Smith:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of [Special Counsel Regulations 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)]. (pdf)

This is an extension of the January 6th Committee special investigation that transfers the committee’s investigative findings, ie phone records, text messages, transcripts, emails, prior testimony and all evidentiary records, into the newly appointed Special Counsel.

However, all prior and current DOJ prosecutions against citizen individuals will remain within the control and direction of Main Justice.  This structure frees up Jack Smith to target the new republican controlled congressional members, their staff, families and/or communication network.   Main Justice keeps focus on the citizen insurrectionists, Jack Smith now appointed to go after the public officials.

J6 Committee staff, committee investigators, FBI agents and DOJ lawyers will now transfer from the committee to the special counsel office.

As you can see from the simple (non-pretending) explanation of what is being done, the Lawfare process becomes clear.

Everything a republican congress now begins to question falls under the protective blanket of an “ongoing investigation,” exactly as we predicted.  Plus, you get the additional Lawfare elements of congressional leadership under investigation which provides an entirely new ‘conflict of interest dynamic’ to the political equation.

Then you have the congressional representatives under investigation and search warrants on their phones, text messages, emails, etc…. AND the added benefit of using DOJ-NSD defined terms of “national security threat” (that’s why they emphasized insurrection) to gain FISA warrants on an entire incoming congressional delegation.

How slick is that? 

All of the congressional J6 and DOJ main justice teams will now assemble in new DC offices to set up the 2023 targeting operation.  The announcement was made a few days ago, but the planning of the construct has been in place for months, contingent upon the number of actual House seats that could flip.  The Lawfare design is transparent when you stop looking at the obfuscation reporting from mainstream media.

Think of it like the legal ideology of the United Nations (democracy as defined by progressives) prosecuting members of the United States government for acts of rebellion under the framework of a constitutional republican form of government they abhor.  That’s Jack Smith.

In addition, the same ideological Lawfare elements will be targeting the threat represented by U.S. nationalist politician Donald J Trump.   It’s like The Great Reset crew inserting an operative inside a corrupt and friendly United States Dept of Justice, with the intent to remove the threat Donald J Trump represents to their interests.

On the multinational corporate side, while all this is special counsel stuff is taking place, the Wall Street billionaires and multinationals -those who control the two Big Clubs known as the DNC and RNC- will be providing the illusion of choice for the American electorate.

More on that aspect coming soon….. 

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Prepping the Landscape CBS Interviews Former DAG Rod Rosenstein About Garland Special Counsel Appointment


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

DATA Links:  (1) Merrick Garland DOJ Statement on Appointment of Special Counsel ~ (2) pdf of Legal Appointment ~ (3) Statement of John Smith upon Appointment ~ (4) Transcript of AG Merrick Garland Public Announcement.

The pretending is severe as CBS recruits former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to discuss the decision by Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate republicans in congress and President Donald Trump.

You can tell the pretending is severe because neither Rosenstein nor Brennan even touches on the primary aspect to the written instructions by Garland to special counsel John Smith.  The primary function of the special counsel is completely avoided in the interview, [again, read the pdf of the appointment]. Instead, the conversation with Rosenstein focuses on the second, lesser included instruction, the Trump-centric portion.

The corporate media engineers, working on concert with the DC agenda, are pulling Rosenstein into the picture to frame the narrative toward an announcement of an indictment against President Trump. WATCH:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0cvQ4X6-J5g%3Ffeature%3Doembed

In response to the question of the appointment itself, Rosenstein noted he “probably would not” have made the decision to appoint a special counsel.  However, don’t get too caught up in the granules of the interview itself.  Instead, ask why the media is pulling Rosenstein into the prosecutorial debate?   What benefit is there?  Within those answers you then overlay the fact the primary function of the appointment itself is not part of the conversation.  [Transcript Below]

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin this morning with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and to determine if there were links between that country and former President Trump’s campaign. And he joins us in studio. It is good to have you here in an extraordinary week.

FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN: Good morning. Glad to be here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get right to it. Due to the former president launching his campaign, the current president may also run for president, the attorney general said it is absolutely necessary to have a special counsel oversee this investigation into the classified documents found at Mar a Lago and what happened with trying to change the outcome of the 2020 election. If you were in that old role you once had, would you have appointed a special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: You know, it’s easy to second guess from outside the department. I don’t know exactly what Merrick Garland knows, what information was available to him. He didn’t say that he was required to appoint the special counsel. He said that he thought it was the right thing to do. I believed the circumstances that I faced, that the appointment of Robert Mueller was the right thing to do with regard to the Russia investigation. But I think in this case, Merrick Garland clearly made a discretionary decision. The department had been handling this itself for two years. Could have continued to handle it itself. But he believed that this would help to promote public confidence. I think it remains to be seen whether that’s the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you wouldn’t have done this to yourself?

ROSENSTEIN: As I said, it’s it’s easy to second guess from outside. I think, you know, my inclination, given that the investigation had been going on for some time and given the stage which they’ve reached, is that I probably would not have, but I just can’t tell from the outside.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So from where you sit, does the appointment of a special counsel indicate at least a willingness on Merrick Garland part to go ahead with a prosecution, or is that overreading the decision?

ROSENSTEIN: I think what it indicates is that, you know, despite the fact the department has been at this for some time, almost two years on the January six investigation, close to a year, the Mar a Lago investigation, that they still believe that they have a viable potential case. It doesn’t mean they made a decision to go forward. But it certainly is an indication they believe it’s a possibility.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Now, one case that’s been going on longer, the investigation into Hunter Biden, which CBS has learned the FBI has gathered sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes, and that is before the U.S. attorney in Delaware. David Weiss, I believe you know him since he was a Trump appointee. Can he independently oversee this or do we need another special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, yeah, This investigation, as you said, has been going on for a very long time, which is not good for anybody. You know, it promotes conspiracy theories and suspicions. So my hope is the department will make a decision in the near future about whether to go forward. And hopefully that decision will be accepted by the public. I do believe that the U.S. attorney in Delaware- I know has the right experience to make that decision. So I think we can be confident that he’ll make the right decision in that case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So not in that case. But let me ask you about the content of what is being scrutinized here with the former president. I know when you were U.S. attorney in Maryland, you dealt with individuals who took classified material, sometimes top secret, high level clearances and kept it at home. And you prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. Why should the president be any different?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you’re right. We did have a lot of federal agencies in Maryland. And so we had a number of cases that came up during my 12 years as U.S. attorney, both under President Obama and President Bush. And we prosecuted those cases because we believe the facts justified it. Now, if the facts justify prosecution, President Trump, I think the department will make that decision. But we just don’t know from the outside. You know, there are extenuating circumstances when it’s the president, when there are a lot of staffers and lawyers involved. And so I think we have to wait to see how that all shakes out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Former Attorney General Barr sat with PBS, and this was right before Merrick Garland’s announcement. But he said that to indict the Justice Department needs to show Mr. Trump was consciously involved. Let’s hear what he had to say.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the press. I don’t know. I’m speculating, but but given what’s gone on, I think they probably have the evidence that would check the box. They have the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you agree?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, I don’t know. I think the Attorney General Barr, that is, you know, mentioned later in that interview that he was speculating. And I think it’s you know, there are multiple levels of issues that the department needs to consider, Margaret. Number one is, you know, is the evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction? Number two, is, is it an appropriate use of federal resources to bring that case and a case against a former president, obviously, with the extraordinary would raise unique concerns. And so I would hope that Merrick Garland and his team would be very careful about scrutinizing that evidence, not just checking the box, but making sure that they’re prepared to stand behind the decision that they make.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So when you say sustain a conviction, what do you mean by that? Does that mean looking at the courts that are likely to prosecute me, where would you prosecute this case, Florida or Washington, D.C.?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, it means ensuring that, number one, you get past a jury that has been able to persuade 12 random citizens that your case proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And number two, that it will be sustained or upheld on appeal. You know, the department sometimes brings cases in which they use novel theories that prevail in district court but are overruled on appeal if they’re to bring a case against the former president, you want to make sure they had a solid case and they were confident both of conviction and of prevailing on any appeal.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And that there wouldn’t be some national security implication such as political violence?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you know, that’s and that’s a difficult issue, Margaret, as to whether or not the attorney general should consider the the potential for public unrest if they were to bring a case against the president,

MARGARET BRENNAN: It has to be considered.

ROSENSTEIN: I think it highlights the importance of the department ensuring that they have a solid case that is that they’re going to win a conviction and they’re going to be able to sustain an appeal. The circumstances, the stakes are higher than an ordinary case. You need to make sure if you bring that case that you can persuade people that is meritorious that you deserve to win.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that gets at the fundamentals, the distrust of institution where we are these days. But the former president is already said he’s not going to comply with any investigations. He said that on Friday. So what does this mean for the timeline? Are we running right into the 2024 presidential campaign?

ROSENSTEIN: I’m concerned about about the timing. Obviously, the the new special counsel, Jack Smith, needs to get up to speed in the case. He’s not even in the U.S. so he needs to come back and get engaged and supervise his team. He may need to bring in additional team members, people he trusts to review the circumstances. And then there are other potential delays as well. You know, one of the downsides of appointing a special counsel is the possibility of litigation over the validity of the appointment of the special counsel. And that has always been upheld by the courts. But litigation can impose additional delay. So I think there’s a fair chance that this is going to drag in well into the campaign season.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And then the question of whether the candidate wins or not. Rod Rosenstein, thank you for your insight and for joining us today.

ROSENSTEIN: Thank you.

{End Transcript}

Nov 15 2022

The Big Club Is Openly Reassembling


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 14, 2022 | Sundance

When we are intellectually honest with each other, we accept the traditional Republican apparatus has always been in favor of Wall Street interests, multinational corporations, multination trade agreements, offshoring jobs, overseas manufacturing, open borders to provide endless supplies of unskilled service workers to fulfill their affluent needs, and, in the most general sense, economically no different than the traditional Democrat apparatus.   After all, both wings of the DC UniParty feed from the same trough.

The counter economic position to this multinational system has always been the America First outlook.  An economic outlook that puts the U.S. worker at the heart of policy. Perhaps encapsulated by saying ‘Main Street over Wall Street’ etc.

It was also the economics of the thing that created the Bernie Bros (Bernie Sanders) and the MAGA team (Donald Trump) commonality.

As a result, the Big Club distraction and distinction game has always been played on the field of social issues.  Social issues continually used as a wedge to keep the working class from recognizing their common assembly.

Skilled politicians, those tenured in the ways of the club power retention, play up the social stuff publicly, while both wings of the UniParty give a wink and a nod to each other as they pass through the halls.  The “reach across the aisle” code of Omerta exists.

I have no idea how the pragmatic and angered view of President Trump, with full intent to fracture this UniParty apparatus, is going to play out.  Fighting both enemies simultaneously has proven to be a massive whac-a-mole undertaking. However, that said, what is abundantly clear is the reassembly of the group trying desperately to block the populist upheaval.

The Multinational corporations are all-in within the process of this inverted Fascism. Corporations now determining the political agenda, and it’s not just here in the United States.  We are seeing in in North America, Great Britain and throughout Europe.  The larger “western democracy” assembly is expanding the corporate dynamic, while media run cover for the totality of modern expansion.

Specifically in the United States, we can clearly see the K-Street multinational lobbying groups trying to exploit the outcome of a midterm election they helped construct.

(Politico) The conservative Club for Growth is sending a warning shot at former President Donald Trump on the eve of his expected 2024 campaign launch — and indicating it might back his chief potential rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. […] provided POLITICO with a polling memo showing the former president trailing DeSantis by double digits in one-on-one matchups in Iowa and New Hampshire. (read more)

The transparency of the timing, amid an election outcome they helped create, is remarkable.

The CfG corporate folks are not good people, and CTH will battle them at every level as we have every moment in the past decade.  Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is not my/our enemy; however, if he aligns his political interests with the attempted refooting of the multinationals in the Republican party, then he has made a choice.

I am not going to draw a distinction between a group of multinational corporations who wants to diminish Main Street USA, and a potential ally who would align with them for political convenience.  Pick up a weapon from inside the multinational armory and you become an America First enemy.

Align with The Big Club, and you are aligned with The Big Club.

Align with The Big Club, and you have chosen to align with The Big Club.

( Business Insider) – Plans for a Super PAC supporting a Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis presidential run are back on after a weak showing for former President Donald Trump’s favored candidates. 

This is a reversal from just a few months ago. GOP strategist John Thomas, who is leading the soon-to-be unveiled super PAC called Ron to the Rescue, told Insider in August that DeSantis should not run for president against Trump. He’d even paused plans for the super PAC this summer after the primaries, in which Trump’s endorsed candidates did well. Trump, apparently pleased, shared the Insider interview on Truth Social.

But Thomas, founder and president of the political advertising and strategy group Thomas Partners Strategies, told Insider on Friday that the midterms have reset the calculus. Even in August, he’d said the one caveat for DeSantis pursuing a 2024 presidential run would be poor performance for Trump-favored Republicans in the midterms. 

That caveat became reality on Tuesday. In addition to Trump’s weak showing, DeSantis won Florida by a historic, nearly 20-point margin that Thomas called “the perfect cascading of events politically for the governor.” Now, Thomas told Insider, his plans for the Super PAC are back on “full throttle with seven-figure gifts” and the group is ready to “get this show on the road.” (read more)

A presidential Super PAC does not exist without the approval of the candidate who it represents.

“Ron to the Rescue” does not exist without the group representing the interests contacting the people in/around Ron for approval of the creation.  It’s just how the system operates.   Super PAC’s cannot go out and solicit funds from supporters without gaining prior approval from the candidate network to make those contacts.  It is a basic rule of fundraising, even amid the nudge, nudge – wink, wink, of Super PAC creation and plausible deniability.

If a Super PAC was fundraising for a candidate objective – and that candidate did not support the objective – the Super PAC doesn’t happen.  Quite simply, this unspoken code exists so that donors do not get bilked out of their money by Super PAC’s being deceptive in their representation.

If a multinational Wall Street DeSantis 2024 Super PAC launches, it is with the support of Ron DeSantis, period.

New readers should be well aware, CTH is not going to play the pretending game.

Nov 10 2022

Dear Tyrants, You’re LOSING!


ProgressiveTruthSeekers Published originally on Rumble on November 9, 2022

We are the good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse. Challenges are a good thing; they strengthen us and forge our identities. They free us from complacency and limited thinking. They free us from living life on autopilot. When challenged, live in grace; no fear, no retreat, no surrender. You are not alone, and we SO got this!

Sep 22 2022

Interview WORLD FIRST: The Plot to Seize Russia, War Propaganda, and More


Armstrong Economics Blog/Armstrong in the Media Re-Posted Sep 22, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Listen to my latest interview with Maria from Zeee Media.

Description from Maria:

World renowned economist Martin Armstrong joins us to break the story of the several-decade long plan to seize Russia, detailing how he has obtained declassified documents from the Clinton Administration, and how he was previously targeted for possessing this knowledge – which he is finally able to release.

Martin takes us through his encounter with an alleged terrorist from 9/11 while he served in prison, who was actually a Pakistani Christian that was framed by the US Government. We also discuss world events, war propaganda, and Martin’s insight into where we are heading.

Sep 15 2022

Debt Diplomacy – Is China the East IMF?


Armstrong Economics Blog/China Re-Posted Sep 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The International Monetary Fund is not the only option for countries in desperate need of funding. The Financial Times recently reported that China has been sending out tens of billions in secretive “emergency loans” to countries facing financial hardship.

China and others have been known to invest in emerging or struggling economies, but China seems to be upping its aid and has provided more funds than even the World Bank. AidData revealed that Pakistan, Argentina, and Sri Lanka alone had received $32.83 billion since 2017. Former Vice President Mike Pence accused China of using “’debt diplomacy’ to expand its influence. [China] is offering hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure loans to governments from Asia to Africa to Europe and even Latin America. Yet the terms of those loans are opaque at best, and the benefits invariably flow overwhelmingly to Beijing.” Pence claimed that China would prey upon poor nations and take ownership of key infrastructure upon default. Another example of the pot calling the kettle black, so to speak.

Pence used the example of Sri Lanka who was pushed into default, opening room for China to construct a military base in the port of Hambantota. The Atlantic published an article in 2021 to say that Pence’s claims of China ushering in their military to Sri Lanka was a lie, as if China wouldn’t jump on such an opportunity. Last month, in August 2022, China dispatched military ships to Hambantota with the intention of using the port for dual commercial and military use. Remember that Sri Lanka recently overthrew its president and has been in utter disarray — their economy completely collapsed.

“Sri Lanka needs financial assistance, and it would not want to displease China by revoking the permission,” Jehan Perera, executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, told VOA. At this time, they are not building a military base, but it is possible as Chinese companies took out a 99-year lease on the area in 2017. Sri Lanka was seeking a loan from the IMF, but they were unwilling to take on such risky debt. Business is business. Sri Lanka was desperate, and China was willing to come to their aid, but governments only act in their self-interest and would not take on risks if they did not see a way to monetize that risk.

So yes, China is willing to take on the risks that the IMF will not. Unlike the IMF, China does not need to disclose its investments. China is investing less in US and Western debt and has turned its attention to indebted nations. This may be one of the reasons that our computer predicts China will become the next financial capital of the world by 2037.25.

Sep 10 2022

Why Liberals Hate The Queen (Ep. 1848) – The Dan Bongino Show


The Dan Bongino Show Published originally on Rumble on September 9, 2022

Dan always has a good story