If the upcoming presidential election on November 3, 2020, were not so serious, it would be downright hilarious just watching the Democrats twist themselves into pretzels in their efforts to project onto President Trump their own lengthy and shameful record of racism.
As Bill Federer of AmericanMinute.com has exhaustively documented:
In 1857, the Supreme Court, with seven of the nine justices being Democrats, decided that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a citizen, but property.
After the Civil War, when Republicans enacted the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in America, southern Democrats reacted by creating the vicious anti-black Jim Crow laws.
In 1866, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens introduced legislation to give former slaves “40 acres and a mule,” but Democrats opposed it.
This lopsided picture continued unabated through the 19thcentury and into the 20th century. Only space limitations prevent me from providing a doctoral thesis worth of sordid documentation.
In 1953, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (DDE) proposed “to use whatever authority exists in the office of the President to end segregation”…but Southern Democrat governors objected!
In 1964, Democrat senators held the longest filibuster in U.S. history––75 days––to try to prevent the Civil Rights Act from passing. Finally, Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) persuaded the leaders of his party to support a compromised bill, saying: “I’ll have those (N-words) -voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
In 1994, as Stephen Frank documents, then-Senator Joe Biden sponsored a Bill that put tens of thousands of black men in prison—and it took 15 years till President Trump was able to get rid of that discriminatory law.
21st CENTURY DEMOCRAT RACISM
In 2009, Sammy Benoit in AmericanThinker.com wrote an article exposing former President Jimmy Carter’s lifelong animosity, contempt, indeed hatred toward Jews and Israel. Among numerous egregious examples he cited was this: “Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were ‘too many Jews’ on the government’s Holocaust Memorial Council.”
We all know that Democrats lionized their fellow Democrat, WVA Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the Civil Rights Bill for 14 hours and 13 minutes on June 10, 1964.
In 2010, Byrd was still around and the Senate’s president pro tempore. And as all his colleagues knew, for many years he had also been a high-ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan–– Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle. That’s right, and Byrd also recruited 150 of his friends to start a new KKK chapter, as well as using the N-word on live television in 2001.
Not to omit that then-Senator Biden praised Byrd lavishly in his eulogy on the former-KKK member’s death in 2010, as did current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
It comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed Biden’s career that he also eulogized arch segregationist Strom Thurmond (D-SC), and had high praise for proud segregationists Sens. James Eastland (D-MS) and Herman Talmadge (D-GA), as well as for Governor George Wallace––“segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”––who blocked black students from entering the University of Alabama.
CRINGE-PRODUCING DEMOCRAT RACISM
First Prize definitely goes to Hillary Clinton who never fails to break into a thick Southern accent when speaking before a black audience, as in this cringe-producing performance in a church in Alabama when quoting a hymn familiar to the audience––“I don’t feel no ways tired.”
Then there is the Democrat Governor of Virginia. Ralph Northam, all smeared in blackface and saying he’s not sure if it’s him but that he distinctly remembers wearing blackface on a different occasion. Can’t make it up.
And who can ever forget Joe Biden’s unforgettable words on hearing of the candidacy of Barack Obama for president: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
“Bright and clean.” Really.
And yet, former VP Biden is the only candidate the Democrats could think of to run for the presidency! And now he says he prefers a “woman of color” to be his VP. Right here, I could say “I rest my case” about Democrats being racists.
How utterly patronizing! How pathetically bowing to political correctness! How blazingly typical of a Democrat to cite race instead of experience, credentials, track record, character, voting record, on and on.
Biden sounds like his old boss, Barack Obama, who wanted his regime to “look like America,” and in the name of political correctness and a fetish with a globalist/Islamist philosophy ended up––by design, I believe––with the worst economy, the weakest military, and the most failed medical and education systems in American history….which didn’t look like any America most of the country recognized.
At this point, the Democrat Machine hopes they can get Joe Biden across the finish line so the really extreme far-leftist powers-that-be can inflict their noxious anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and inherent racism––via Antifa and Black Lives Matter––on our entire country.
Clearly, what is systemic about racism in America can be found in the Democrats’ DNA.
People have no idea that the government can already track your movement and can determine if you are a protestor or not. A company named Mobilewalla released a report titled, “George Floyd Protester Demographics: Insights Across 4 Major US Cities.” It produced 60 pie charts detailing what percent of protesters in these demonstrations were male or female, young adult (18–34); middle-aged (35-54), or older (55+); and “African-American,” “Caucasian/Others,” “Hispanic,” or “Asian-American.” This data is available now and can provide a questionable practice constitutionally.
You better get a burner phone and leave the smartphone home if you are getting near any protest, for you can be determined to be part of it.
Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) formally designated Chinese’s Huawei Technologies Co and ZTE Corp as posing as posing national security threats to the United States. This designation and declaration blocks U.S. firms from tapping an $8.3 billion government fund to purchase equipment from either company.
This is an important step toward eliminating Huawei 5G data risks within U.S. telecommunication networks. Additionally, the designation will have the forward impact of restricting U.S. allies from linking networks if they use Huawei/ZTE components.
(Via Reuters) – The U.S. telecommunications regulator voted in November 5-0 to issue the declaration and proposed requiring rural carriers to remove and replace equipment from the two Chinese companies from existing U.S. networks. “We cannot and will not allow the Chinese Communist Party to exploit network vulnerabilities and compromise our critical communications infrastructure,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement Tuesday. (more)
This is another policy alignment from the Trump administration toward the ongoing confrontation with China. Beijing will not be happy; and this follows only a day after the Trump administration removed the ‘special trade status’ afforded to Hong Kong.
President Trump and all executive branch offices are strategically targeting China from multiple simultaneous angles. The scale of the strategy is very comprehensive.
This FCC position today aligns with the Commerce Department (Wilbur Ross) setting up new advanced chip manufacturing in the U.S. which will facilitate further decoupling from China. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) announced in May they will build an advanced chip manufacturing facility in Arizona. A manufacturing facility for advanced 5 nanometer chip manufacturing is a steep investment decision costing around $10 billion.
Economic decoupling by a thousand paper cuts.
President Trump has been methodically advancing an economic position for several years that showcases a remarkable duality.
On one hand President Trump demands that China increase purchases from the U.S. to offset the trade imbalance; this approach is Trump using a deliberate panda mask and includes praise each time Beijing responds positively. China expected this approach.
However, on the other hand President Trump has been removing the tentacles of Chinese economic influence both in the U.S. and globally. This approach deconstructs the One Belt – One Road plan of Beijing; this approach is Trump using the dragon strategy. China did not see this part coming.
The duality of the panda mask and the dragon strategy is very unique for Beijing to confront because it is the exact same strategy used by China. By expressing a public panda mask, yet concealing the underlying dragon moves, President Trump’s policy to China is a mirror of their own economic plan.
Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.
Each time China takes aggressive action (dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues.
The CCP dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately. The Art of War.
President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the CCP dragon hides behind the panda mask. He has now exposed that historic playbook to the world.
First President Trump got their attention with tariffs. Then… On one hand President Trump has engaged in very public and friendly trade negotiations with China (panda approach); yet on the other hand, long before the Wuhan virus, Trump fractured their global supply chains, influenced the movement of industrial goods to alternate nations, and incentivized an exodus of manufacturing (dragon result).
It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.
In essence Trump is mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.
There is no doubt in my mind that President Trump has a very well thought out long-term strategy regarding China. President Trump takes strategic messaging toward the people of china very importantly. President Trump has, very publicly, complimented the friendship he feels toward President Xi Jinping; and praises Chairman Xi for his character, strength and purposeful leadership.
To build upon that projected and strategic message – President Trump seeded the background by appointing Ambassador Terry Branstad, a 30-year personal friend of President Xi Jinping.
To enhance and amplify the message – and broadcast cultural respect – President Trump used Mar-a-Lago as the venue for their first visit, not the White House. And President Trump’s beautiful granddaughter, Arabella, sweetly serenaded the Chinese First Familytwice in Mandarin Chinese song showing the utmost respect for the guests and later for the hosts.
All of this activity mirrors the duplicity of China. From the November 2017 tour of Asia to the January 2020 China phase-1 trade deal, President Trump has been positioning, for an economic decoupling and a complete realignment of global trade and manufacturing.
Remarkably, at the same time… inch by inch… President Trump has been able to keep the international financial markets stable while he has moved to completely reset global trade.
For those who follow carefully, you can see President Trump advancing public positions against China at strategic times that keeps the multinational corporations on the U.S. stock exchange from major losses. Forward policy, then pause. Forward policy, then pause. Within this process the financial markets pull back, then regain… pull back, then regain.
This very strategic approach keeps the overall wealth (value) within the U.S. market, while the decoupling is fundamentally taking place. Smart U.S. corporations have made, and/or are making, shifts in their forward business decisions to offset the inevitable end.
It is quite remarkable to stand back and watch how the Trump administration is accomplishing the reversal of decades of exfiltration of wealth, and returning jobs and manufacturing back to the U.S through the America First agenda. No other person could have ever accomplished this.
Unfortunately, this success also explains the opposition. Those who have aligned their personal affluence by selling the wealth of the U.S. are fighting like hell to stop President Trump from Making America Great Again.
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is holding a press briefing from the Brady room. Anticipated start time 3:30pm ET.
UPDATE: Video Added
.
[Transcript] – MS. MCENANY: Hello, everyone. The front page of the New York Times is not the venue for discussing classified information. The White House podium is not the venue for discussing classified information. We are here today, having this discussion, because of an irresponsible, anonymous leak to the New York Times. There is no good scenario as a result of this New York Times report.
Who’s going to want to cooperate with the United States intelligence community, who’s going to want to be a source or an asset, if they know that their identity could be disclosed? Which allies will want to share information with us if they know that some rogue intelligence officer can go splash that information on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper?
Specifically, there are two bad scenarios that emerge from this report: Number one, this report makes it more difficult to come to a consensus on this matter, to verify intelligence. And number two, this level of controversy and discord plays directly into the hands of Russia and, unfortunately, serves their interests.
Since before President Trump assumed office, damaging and oftentimes erroneous leaks seeking to undermine or delegitimize the duly elected president have been published. According to the DOJ, classified leaks surged in this administration. There were, under President Obama, just 39, on average, criminal leak referrals. In this administration, we’ve seen 100 criminal leak referrals to the DOJ in 2017, 88 in 2018, and 104 on average per year.
We have seen targeted leaks of classified information against this President, and it is irresponsible: phone calls with foreign leaders, meetings with government officials, and now reports of alleged intelligence. Make no mistake: This damages our ability, as a nation, to collect intelligence.
As the National Security Council noted just yesterday, “To those government officials who betray the trust of the people of the United States by leaking classified information, your actions endanger our national security.”
The ODNI said, “The selective leaking of any classified information disrupts the vital interagency work to collect, assess, and mitigate threats, and places our forces at risk. It is also, simply put, a crime.”
And finally, the CIA said this: that “Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability.”
To the anonymous sources who leak classified information, you should know this: You may seek to undermine our President, but in fact, you undermine our country’s safety and our country’s security.
And with that, I’ll take questions.
Kristin.
Q Thank you, Kayleigh. When did White House officials first learn that this intelligence about Russian bounties existed?
MS. MCENANY: I will say this: The President was never briefed on this, this intelligence still has not been verified, and there is no consensus among the intelligence community.
Q Does the President wish that he had been briefed sooner? I mean, today, Joe Biden called it a “dereliction of duty.”
MS. MCENANY: This is a piece of intelligence information that had no consensus, has not been verified. Still, to this day, has not been verified. And there are several intelligence agencies on the record noting that. You have the Department of Defense saying that there has — they have no corroborating evidence to validate [sic] — validate the recent allegations. The NSC: “…Allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substantiated by the intelligence community…” And the ODNI: “We are still investigating the alleged intelligence referenced in recent media reportings.”
But that didn’t stop the New York Times from putting it on the very first page of their newspaper and stopping us from getting to an ultimate conclusion and an ultimate place of having a consensus on the alleged intelligence.
Darlene.
Q You said that —
Q Just one more question. If this intelligence does turn out to be true, is the President prepared to take some serious action against Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin?
MS. MCENANY: The President has always taken tough, unadulterated action against Russia. We saw that there’s no diplomatic presence on the West Coast of our country, of Russia, because the President closed the consulates. We saw he expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers; sanctioned hundreds of targets; withdrew from the INF Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty; tried to halt Nord Stream — still trying to do that; impose visa sanctions, and many other actions.
So make no mistake: This President is prepared to act and will always act in protecting our American troops. We saw in Syria, in the strikes in 2018, that dozens of Russian mercenaries were killed. He will always act, prot- — to protect American troops. That is indeed his track record.
Darlene.
Q There’s a briefing — an intel briefing on the President’s schedule today. Will this matter be part of his briefing this afternoon?
MS. MCENANY: The President has been briefed on what is unfortunately in the public domain because of the New York Times and the irresponsible leak. Yes, he has been briefed, but that does not change the fact that there is no consensus on this intelligence that still has yet to be verified.
Q I have one more question.
MS. MCENANY: Yeah. Darlene?
Q On another subject: Republican allies of the President, like Kevin McCarthy and Lamar Alexander, have said that it would be great if the President would wear a mask in public, sometimes, to set an example. How much weight do words from McCarthy and Lamar Alexander carry with the President?
MS. MCENANY: The President has said he has no problem with masks; that he encourages people to make whatever decision is best for their safety and to follow what their local jurisdictions say. CDC guidelines are still recommended, but not required. And the President is the most tested man in America. It’s his decision whether to wear a mask.
Justin.
Q But to set an example?
MS. MCENANY: Justin.
Q I wanted to look back on you saying that the President had never been briefed. There’s, I think, some dispute over whether, in February, his PDB included this intelligence information. And so I’m wondering if you can say whether or not, you know, he may not have read the briefing book that he was presented with, but was he at some point at least given access to this information.
MS. MCENANY: So the PDB is a top-secret document that is widely disseminated among government. I will never sit here and confirm or deny what is in a top-secret document. So I’ll leave it at that.
One thing I will say that is routine is when there is intelligence — and I was speaking with some folks over at NSC about this earlier and some other folks around the White House — when we get intelligence — verified or unverified, deemed credible or not credible, deemed consensus or no consensus — if that information in any way impinges upon the safety of our troops, that information goes to our troops on the ground and to our allies so they can take the appropriate measures.
What is briefed up to the President — and in this case, it was not the case; was never briefed to the President of the United States because there was no consensus — what is briefed to the President is when there’s a strategic decision to be made. So in this case, if there was a strategic decision to be made vis-à-vis Russia, those are the kind of things that are briefed to the President when they’re deemed credible. But in this case, it was not briefed to the President, there is no consensus, it was not credible.
But make no mistake: This President will always protect American troops.
Q I mean — sorry, just — just to follow on that. I think there’s two points. One, I would say that press secretaries in the past have disclosed, in certain instances, what was in the PDB.
But secondly, I mean, this is a relevant issue because — and I think critics have seized on this and said, “Well, if the President isn’t reading his PDB, he might not know that there are these policy decisions to be made,” right? If a President was presented with this information, it’s unverified, he could be alarmed; change his posture towards Russia; conceivably ask intelligence officials to work harder to determine whether or not this was true; make, you know, a series of judgments.
And so, I guess more broadly, you know, I would re-ask the question of whether it was in his material, but asking maybe to defend why the President isn’t necessarily reading his PDB when there are these types of issues that could arise.
MS. MCENANY: The President does read, and he also consumes intelligence —
Q So, then it wasn’t in his PDB?
MS. MCENANY: — verbally. This President, I’ll tell you, is the most informed person on planet Earth when it comes to the threats that we face. You have Ambassador O’Brien, who sees him in person twice a day, who sometimes takes the upwards of half a dozen calls with this President. He’s constantly being informed and briefed on intelligence matters.
But I’m not going to allow the New York Times to dictate when we give top-secret information and don’t give top-secret information. That’s —
Q But let me just square the —
MS. MCENANY: — an untenable proposition.
Q Just to square the circle there, then —
MS. MCENANY: Yes, Emerald.
Q Thanks, Kayleigh. Does the White House have any comment on Bruce Ohr testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Hill today?
MS. MCENANY: So, no comment on that specifically. But what I would say more generally is that what Bruce Ohr and others in the Obama-era government have to answer for is quite substantial: When you had a dossier full of lies weaponizing against this President — Bruce Ohr’s wife, of course, being involved in the creation of that dossier, which was funded by the Democrat National Committee and in coordination with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and was used to spy on the Trump campaign, to be the basis for two FISA warrants, to launch a three-year investigation into Russia collusion that ultimately ended in an exoneration of this President and an immense waste of taxpayer dollars — Mr. Ohr and many others have a whole lot of questions to answer for.
Q So why wasn’t it — why was it behind closed doors? Why wasn’t it televised, given the public interest in these players in the Russia investigation?
MS. MCENANY: That would be a question for Congress, but I think the public deserves to know Mr. Ohr’s answers on those matters.
Q And then one more, if I may. You opened about leakers. Democrat lawmakers are calling for a briefing from intelligence officials. They aren’t satisfied with the White House personnel today. Is there a concern to brief Democrat lawmakers, especially Adam Schiff, given the leaks out of his committee?
MS. MCENANY: Look, I mean, I think that Democrats should come forward in good faith. And if anyone has politicized intelligence — we’ve had the New York Times acting entirely irresponsibly, and you have the Democrat Party politicizing this information, which I think is absolutely disgraceful.
Alayna.
Q Hi. Yes. Thank you, Kayleigh. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should, quote, “absolutely not,” unquote, be allowed back into the G7. Does President Trump agree with Mitch McConnell?
MS. MCENANY: Look, I haven’t spoken to him on that matter. The President believes that we have to have diplomatic relationship — relations with the top economies of the world. But there’s been no one that’s been tougher on Russia than this President. I went through several of those actions.
And also, I would note that when it comes to acting on viable, actionable, credible intelligence, there has been no one who has acted more forcefully than this President. He has a track record of that. He has made protecting our American troops overseas his highest and strongest priority.
As you know, Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and thousands maimed from, quote, “explosively formed penetrators, other improvised explosive devices, improvised rocket-assisted munitions, rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, small-arms, snipers, and other attacks in Iraq.” This is what Soleimani did to our American troops.
You had President Bush, who declined to strike Soleimani, who was, quote “in the crosshairs,” according to the New York Times. You had Obama-Biden who, quote, “never made an effort to strike Soleimani.”
But you had this President who, when he had actionable intelligence to protect American troops, he did it. He took that option. He was criticized by Democrats. “Democrats condemn Trump’s strike on Soleimani,” as your publication, Axios, had in a headline. NBC said, “Democrats demand answers on Soleimani killing.” Politico, “Top Democrats blast Trump’s ‘false’ justification for Soleimani killing.” And the Atlantic asked, “Why Kill Soleimani Now?”
We removed Soleimani from the battlefield — President Trump did — to protect our American troops, based on credible intelligence. He did the same with al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for 300 public beheadings, who killed thousands of captured prisoners of war. When this President had actionable intelligence, he took action, criticized by Democrats for it, but that’s what this President does: He acts in defense of our American troops.
David.
Q You said it was “targeted leaking” in the New York Times. Who’s doing the targeting and why are they doing it?
MS. MCENANY: It’s a — it’s a great question. But these are rogue intelligence officers who are imperiling our troops’ lives. We will not be able to get — very likely not be able to get a consensus on this intelligence because of what was leaked to the New York Times. And you have both the NSC, ODNI, and CIA all noting what damage this leaks does, not just to the safety of our troops, which is paramount, but to the ability of the United States to aggregate information from our allies and have assets and have — get this valuable information. So who’s doing it? It’s —
Q Are you saying members of the IC are going after Trump? Is that what you’re saying?
MS. MCENANY: It very possibly could be. And if that’s the case, it is absolutely despicable.
Q Kayleigh —
MS. MCENANY: Yes.
Q On that note, is the Trump administration doing anything or taking any action, like an audit of the IC? Or what steps are you planning on taking to try to find the source of the leaks?
MS. MCENANY: Well, make no mistake: The DOJ has done several criminal leak referrals — 120 in 2017, 88 in 2018, 104 on average, per year, under President Trump. So we do take those steps.
And we do have a President who, ultimately, when it comes down to the safety of our troops, he doesn’t take impulsive action, he takes deliberate action. And we saw that in the killing of Soleimani and the killing of al-Baghdadi and the protecting of our troops. And at the same time, when you had Iran, who shot down a drone, he chose not to strike back in that instance. He chose to protect civilians, protect our troops. It was the measured response; it was a proportionate response.
And ultimately, the ultimate way to protect American troops is to not get into needless foreign wars. This President is on record for decades and decades and decades opposing — opposing foreign wars. And Iraq is a great example, a 20 — nearly two-decade war. You have this President who, when Washington was unanimous in saying, “We’re going into Iraq,” this President said, “No, that’s not the right decision.”
He’s wound down our troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. And he’s ultimately protected American troops and kept this country safe. And this President has a very strong foreign policy record to be incredibly proud of.
In a statement earlier today, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has announced the U.S. is revoking the special trade status of Hong Kong in response to escalating encroachment by China in violation of the prior agreement for autonomy.
It is a challenging status to modify because the administration does not want to reduce the ability of Hong Kong to operate as an autonomous economic region. However, at the same time Beijing is taking control of all systems within Hong Kong and as such policies must be adjusted. It would be an exercise in futility to expect China to retreat.
WILBUR ROSS – “With the Chinese Communist Party’s imposition of new security measures on Hong Kong, the risk that sensitive U.S. technology will be diverted to the People’s Liberation Army or Ministry of State Security has increased, all while undermining the territory’s autonomy. Those are risks the U.S. refuses to accept and have resulted in the revocation of Hong Kong’s special status.”
“Commerce Department regulations affording preferential treatment to Hong Kong over China, including the availability of export license exceptions, are suspended. Further actions to eliminate differential treatment are also being evaluated. We urge Beijing to immediately reverse course and fulfill the promises it has made to the people of Hong Kong and the world.”
The biggest issue surrounds Hong Kong’s exemptions to tariffs the administration has placed against China. The statement by Wilbur Ross does not address that key aspect, yet.
As accurately noted: “The end of Hong Kong’s special status became a real possibility once the security law came into play, since its implementation will likely render “one country, two systems” nothing more than a slogan, and the U.S. had already announced it no longer considers the city autonomous from Beijing. The move will likely place Hong Kong’s role as a leading global financial hub in jeopardy. ”
Moving forward, as we previously have discussed, there primary entity who should/could assemble a coalition to defend Hong Kong’s interests would be the United Kingdom. However, as with most geopolitical issues involving European politics, the British government prefers to abdicate their role and hope the U.S. will fill the gap.
Trump administration detractors will likely use the Hong Kong issue to criticize President Trump for not doing enough to curb Beijing’s aggression, while simultaneously ignoring their own 3 decades of inaction -and support for China- which created the crisis.
President Trump is the first U.S. President to stand up to the aggressive Chinese Communist Party (CCP), while most U.S. politicians and their Wall Street multinational allies have done everything possible to support the same communist economic system they now claim has become dangerous for the world. There is a lot of insufferable hypocrisy in/around all things China.
Bottom line – It is better to accept the situation as it exists, rather than pretend it could be something else. With that in mind, the move by Secretary Ross is a step in the right direction. It’s time to accept Hong Kong as part of China, modify all policies toward that end, accept Beijing is going to take full control, and offer support for the people of Hong Kong as they deal with the reality of their new communist rulers.
Freedom is a tenuous proposition; and we seem to have our hands full in the U.S. trying to retain our own.
This is a great example why law-abiding citizens need to be very involved in local elections. The husband and wife who defended themselves and protected their property from looters/protestors are now being threatened by a Soros funded STL Circuit Attorney.
Ms. Kimberly M Gardner is an activist within the legal profession who has an expressed purpose to destroy property rights, advance the cause of a socialist society, and collapse the legal system that allows citizens to protect themselves from the rampaging mob.
ST. Louis Dispatch […] The McCloskeys had been at home and heard a loud commotion coming from the street; they went to investigate and saw “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs,” police said.
“The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims,” police said. “When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”
Police are continuing the investigate the incident on Portland Place but are labeling it as a case of trespassing and fourth-degree assault by intimidation.
Meanwhile, were the couple, as they stood on their own property, within their rights to point weapons at protesters? Gun rights advocates say yes. A police spokesperson said to ask “the courts.”
Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it’s “very dangerous” to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.
“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”
Luckily, Walker said, no one got shot.
“There’s no right to protest on those streets,” Walker said. “The protesters thought they had a right to protest, but as a technical matter, they were not allowed to be there. … It’s essentially a private estate. If anyone was violating the law, it was the protesters. In fact, if (the McCloskeys) have photos of the protesters, they could go after them for trespassing.”
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner appeared to take a different view, releasing a statement Monday that said she’s “alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend where peaceful protestors (sic) were met by guns and a violent assault.”
Gardner said her office is investigating. (read more)
I often wonder when will the majority of Americans wake up to the concept of the UniParty. There is only one political ideology within the institutional construct of Washington DC. We did not have two parties until President Donald Trump showed up.
Mitch McConnell joins in Uniparty alignment with Nancy Pelosi.
Other than President Trump, approximately half of America doesn’t have a representative voice in Washington DC. It is very frustrating.
We cannot say we were not warned [ SEE HERE ] it was obvious immediately after the Democrats won the House in 2018 that McConnell was breathing a sigh of relief. [Also a reminder: the SSCI doesn’t run an operation against the President and the Leader of the Senate not know about it.]
Through his power structure McConnell directly controls about 8 to 15 republican senators; we have called them “The Decepticons” for years. [Cornyn, Thune, Porter, Blunt, Portman, Burr, Barasso, Crapo, Murkowski, Gardner, Roberts, Sasse, Tillis, Rubio, Graham and now Romney]
McConnell has a well-used playbook he deploys to retain power at all costs and select candidates that will be indebted to his Senate schemes. Senate candidate Doug Collins is up against the same Mitch McConnell machine readers here are very familiar with.
To remind ourselves how Minority and Majority Senator McConnell took down the threat of the Tea Party revisit these old articles: CNN Part I and CNN Part II both showcase how McConnell works. Then do some research on how McConnell worked with Haley Barbour in Mississippi [SEE HERE].
Remember October last year?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announcee his resolution warning President Trump not to remove troops from Syria or Afghanistan. [Not coincidentally the two countries visited by Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff the prior weekend.]
Of course the obvious, albeit unwritten “or else” part, was McConnell threatening to join with with Senator Lindsey Graham and support President Trump’s impeachment.
Of course this comes on the heels of Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announcing he was “especially proud” of passage for his amendments requiring the U.S. military to continue operations in Afghanistan and Syria:
The bill passed 77-yea, 23-nea. [Vote Tally Here] The only Republican who voted against perpetual war in the middle east and supported President Trump was Rand Paul.
Every time this happens victims of battered conservative syndrome start a process of reconciling the reason for their abuse by excusing and justifying their abuser, Mitch McConnell.
There are massive numbers of Republicans who view Senate Majority Mitch McConnell as a brilliant strategist and staunch supporter of President Trump. Unfortunately, those voices once again have to reconcile McConnell’s comprehensive failure on any President Trump priority action. McConnell even negotiated for less border security.
For those who follow the deep weeds of politics, McConnnell’s schemes are brutally transparent. For the remaining 97% of the voting electorate, they still don’t understand how the UniParty works. Decepticon leader McConnell doesn’t want the American electorate to see purchased senate republicans voting NO on border security.
Consider Senator Mitch McConnell telling the President of the United States that he had “excessive expectations” because President Trump doesn’t understand how things are done around here:
“A Congress goes on for two years. Part of the reason I think that the storyline is that we haven’t done much is because, in part, the president and others have set these early timelines about things need to be done by a certain point.”
“Our new president, of course, has not been in this line of work before, and I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the Democratic process.”
That rebuke irked President Trump, as it should. President Trump responded via twitter: “I don’t think so”…
McConnell must preserve the trough – Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.
Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.
When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.
The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.
Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.
Why?
Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.
Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.
President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.
The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.
As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.
McConnell has a history of getting caught in his schemes. However, fortunately for him people also have a tendency to forget [see McConnell’s scheme in the Mississippi 2014Cochran race as an example]. Almost no-one remembers that U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, the founder of the Senate Conservative Fund, quit the Senate specifically because of the schemes and internal Machiavellian power moves of Mitch McConnell.
Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has one major career alliance that has been unbroken and unchanged for well over two decades. That alliance is with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and specifically with CoC President Tom Donohue. [SEE HERE and SEE HERE].
If the president continues to remain focused exclusively on what is in the U.S. best interests, he must be stopped. Politicians in DC cannot just sit-by and allow the U.S. economy to be based on the interests of Americans; it would mean the destruction of years of central planning by DC Lobbyists, multinational banks, Wall Street and multinational corporations.
Familiar faces, perhaps faces you previously thought were decent, are now revealing their alignment with larger entities that are our abusers. The ‘America First’ economy and Trump-trade doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Additionally, under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped. This approach put many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of paying for interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump. Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.
When we are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator we are not voting for a person who will write laws. Our rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.
While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.
Politicians like Mitch McConnell are not happy without their indulgences, but the issue is actually bigger. Less K-Street expenditure also means less personal benefit; and worse still, no opportunity to advance financial wealth from the insider trading system.
His primary worry has passed. There’s no reason to play nice. Mitch McConnell will now undermine President Trump with greater visibility. It has nothing to do with the wearing of a mask per se’, the issue is much more foundational.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) was originally created by congress (Elizabeth Warren lead) as a quasi-constitutional watchdog agency to reach into the banking and financial system, under the guise of oversight, and extract money by fining entities for CFPB defined regulatory and/or compliance violations.
Essentially, the CFPB is a congressionally authorized far-left extortion scheme in the banking sector. The CFPB levies fines; the fines generate income; however, unlike traditional fines that go to the U.S. treasury, the CFBP fines are then redistributed to left-wing organizations to help fund their political activism.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren as an outcome of the Dodd-Frank legislation. Within the CFPB Warren tried to set up the head of the agency, the Director, in a manner that that he/she would operate without oversight. Unfortunately, her dictatorial-fiat-design collapsed when challenged in court. Backstory #1– Backstory #2
A federal court found the CFPB Director position held too much power and deemed it unconstitutional. The court decision noted that giving the President power to fire the Director would fix the constitutional problem. This issue was argued extensively after President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as interim Director. Elizabeth Warren declaring the CFPB Director could not be fired by the executive. The legal battle worked its way to the Supreme Court.
♦ Today the Supreme Court ruled (full pdf here) the structure of the CFPB Director position is unconstitutional and the President can fire the head of the agency. However, SCOTUS kept the CFPB agency in place by severing the part of the law that created the agency head from the rest of the law.
The CFPB remains as a quasi-constitutional agency; the CFPB remains an extortion racket to target any organization within the banking and finance sector; however, the president can fire and appoint the Director of the CFPB.
The decision could have significant implications for the future of the similarly structured Federal Housing Finance Agency, the overseer of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. like the head of the CFPB, the FHFA director is appointed to a five-year term and can only be removed for cause. ~ Politico
BACKSTORY: When Senator Elizabeth Warren and crew set up the Director of the CFPB, in the aftermath of the Dodd-Frank Act, they made it so that the appointed director can only be fired for cause by the President.
This design was so the Director could operate outside the control of congress and outside the control of the White House. In essence the CFPB director position was created to work above the reach of any oversight; almost like a tenured position no-one could ever remove.
The position was intentionally put together so that he/she would be untouchable, and the ideologue occupying the position would work on the goals of the CFPB without any oversight.
Elizabeth Warren herself wanted to be the appointed director; however, the reality of her never passing senate confirmation made her drop out.
The CFPB Director has the power to regulate pensions, retirement investment, mortgages, bank loans, credit cards and essentially every aspect of all consumer financial transactions.
However, in response to legal challenges by Credit Unions and Mortgage providers, in October 2016 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that placing so much power in a single Czar or Commissioner was unconstitutional:
[…] The five-year-old agency violates the Constitution’s separation of powers because too much power is in the hands of its director, found the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Giving the president the power to get rid of the CFPB’s director and to oversee the agency would fix the situation, the court said. (more)
After the November 8, 2016, election (during the lame-duck Obama period), the CFPB sought an en banc review of the decision by the circuit court panel. However, in March 2017 the Trump administration reversed the government’s position.
Today the Supreme Court finally settled the issue.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 