When It Comes to Suppressing Sexual Harassment Scandals, Bernie Sanders a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing


Baa Baa Bernie

Judi McLeod image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—April 30, 2020

When It Comes to Suppressing Sexual Harassment Scandals, Bernie Sanders a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

“BAA!” “BAA!, the sound of Senator Bernie Sanders as he follows, sheep-like in the suppression of Tara Reade’s sexual allegation by presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden.

“Despite the growing uproar from many of his progressive supporters over the sexual assault allegation leveled against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has remained quiet on the matter in recent days.” (Fox News, April 30, 2020)

Millennials can count on Socialist Sanders remaining on the q.t. about the Biden camp’s suppression of the Reade sexual assault allegation straight through the November 3rd election, no matter how betrayed they may feel.

The same “BAA!” “BAAs! can be heard coming from Sanders’ Squad Sister fans, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley.

“The only time Sanders mentioned the allegation against Biden was earlier this month during an interview with CBS, in which the Vermont lawmaker asserted that “any woman who feels that she was assaulted has every right in the world to stand up and make her claims.” But Sanders added that he did not know enough about the claims to comment further. (Fox News)

“I think that she has the right to make her claims and get a public hearing and the public will make their own conclusions about it,” Sanders said. “I just don’t know enough about it to comment further. All right.”

No, Senator Sanders, going along with the Democrat suppression of this sexual assault allegation is not “All Right”—even though you are in like flint with the Democrat Party.

“Sanders, who just days before that interview endorsed Biden’s White House bid upon dropping out of the race, has not publicly commented on the matter since. Fox News has reached out on multiple occasions to Sanders campaign officials and political aides, and has yet to receive a response.” (Fox News)

“The allegation against Biden was made by Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, who claims that in 1993 she was asked by a more senior member of then-Sen. Biden’s staff to bring Biden his gym bag near the Capitol building, which led to the encounter in question.

“He greeted me, he remembered my name, and then we were alone. It was the strangest thing,” Reade told podcast host Katie Halper. “There was no like, exchange really. He just had me up against the wall.”

She continued: “His hands were on me and underneath my clothes, and he went down my skirt and then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers and he was kissing me at the same time and he was saying some things to me.”

“Reade’s claims have drawn a forceful blowback from many of Sanders’ supporters and former aides, with some calling on Biden to drop out of the presidential race and accusing Democrats of trying to suppress progressive voices within the party.

“Nick Brana, Sanders’ former national outreach coordinator, tweeted over the weekend that the Democratic National Committee should either force Biden to drop out or “admit that suppressing progressives is the true purpose of your party.”

Say what you want, but as far as the Democrat Party and its sidekick Justice Democrats are concerned, only Republicans can be accused—without proof or rule of law—as sexual predators.

Something that Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford already proved.

The truth is that sexual predators got a pass from Congress for 15 long years:

‘Congressmen exposing their genitals on the House floor—getting to go unnamed’ (Canada Free Press, Dec. 14, 2018)

“Why wasn’t it until it got to the stage where lawmakers in both parties agreed to move from “voluntary” support for sexual harassment awareness training to “mandatory” sexual harassment training for legislative branch staffers, and until it was revealed that “about $15 million in taxpayer dollars has been paid out by the house on behalf of harassers in the last 10 to 15 years,” that lawmakers saw fit to let their constituents in on the dirty secret that “congressmen expose their genitals and grab private parts—on the House Floor?!”

Three female reps, “Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), “Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)  and “Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) who brought forward the charge about congressmen exposing their genitals and grabbing private parts—on the House Floor, told a tawdry tale.

The male flashers were never named and taxpayers were forced to pay for their dirty deeds.

“None of the three female lawmakers accused any of their colleagues practicing sexual harassment by name. Comstock said she heard the story secondhand and did not know the lawmaker’s identity, only that he is still a member of Congress. (CFP)

“How is it even possible that Comstock does not know the lawmaker’s identity but that he’s still a member of congress?”

“We do know there is about $15 million that has been paid out by the House on behalf of harassers in the last 10 to 15 years,” Speier revealed.

“Well, I think you do have the right to know. But right now, under the system, you don’t have a right to know,” Speier said at the time.”

“The reality is that until all Congress sexual harassers and Capitol Hill flashers are outed by name, the public can suspect all elected officials of dirty deeds.

“As of Dec. 20, 2018 Members of Congress will no longer be able to rely on taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment and sexual misconduct claims, thanks to legislation passed just this week.”

The last word against “BAA!” “BAA!” Bernie belongs to his 2016 campaign director Tezlyn Figaro:

“It’s shocking that this much time has passed and that he (Biden) is an actual nominee for president and they’re not asking the question,” Figaro told “Fox & Friends.” “If this were Donald Trump, would they treat it the same way? If this were Brett Kavanaugh did they treat it the same way? In other words, it’s politics and political agenda playing a role in objective reporting and asking the question.”

You get it Ms. Figaro. Problem is Bernie Sanders doesn’t.

Oh Dear, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie Touches the Third Rail – Reveals DC’s Biggest Secret…


With congress saying they will not be returning to work next week, it appears Kentucky representative Thomas Massie has decided to use the opportunity to expose Washington DC’s biggest secret.  Something 99% of American voters do not understand:

Oh dear, he’s telling secrets.  You see, congress doesn’t actually write legislation.  The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s.  Modern legislation is sub-contracted to K-Street.  Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress commissions for passing their laws.  That’s the modern legislative business in DC.

CTH often describes the background DC motives with the phrase: “There are Trillions at Stake.” The process of creating legislation is behind that phrase.  DC politics is not quite based on the ideas that frame most voter’s reference points.

With people taking notice of DC politics for the first time; and with people not as familiar with the purpose of DC politics; perhaps it is valuable to provide clarity.

Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws.

In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.

Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now.

Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.

Sometimes the groups are social interest groups; activists, climate groups, environmental interests etc. The social interest groups are usually non-profit constructs who depend on the expenditures of government to sustain their cause or need.

The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests.

These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.

In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.

Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.

Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it.

Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.

The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves.

The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it.

“Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.

Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc.

The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.

Recap: 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.

The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.

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 you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your 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.

This is the way legislation is created.

If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism.

The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.

“we’ll have to pass the bill to, well, find out what is in the bill” etc. ~ Nancy Pelosi 2009

“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” ~ Johnathan Gruber 2011, 2012.

Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.

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.

Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.

Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.

Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.

No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.

Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system.

Without the ability to position personal wealth for benefit, why would a politician stay in office? The income of many long-term politicians on both Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle was completely disrupted by President Trump winning the election. That is one of the key reason why so many politicians retired immediately thereafter.

When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.

Lastly, this is why -when signing legislation- President Trump often says “they’ve been trying to get this through for a long time” etc. Most of the legislation passed by congress and signed by President Trump in his first term is older legislative proposals, with little indulgent value, that were shelved in years past.

Example: Criminal justice reform did not carry a financial benefit to the legislative bodies, and there was no financial interest funding the politicians to pass the bill. If you look at most of the bills President Trump has signed, with the exception of a few economic bills, they stem from congressional construction many years, even decades, ago.

One Ping Only…


“relatively speaking”…

.

Notice how President Trump always says: “you’d have been at war with North Korea”.  Notice how President Trump doesn’t say: “you’d have been at war with Kim Jong-un”.

Again, this has always looked like one of the most complex geopolitical hostage rescue operations in history.   China controls the DPRK, which includes the entire military apparatus in/around control over the North Korean people.

The world presents North Korea as a rogue regime without noticing/admitting that in reality North Korea is a proxy province of China.

Chairman Xi is the captor.

Chairman Kim is the captive.

President Trump is the hostage rescuer…. and so they dance.

POTUS knows the status of Kim; both Kim and Trump have discussed the dynamic.  Chairman Xi doesn’t like the Kim and Trump relationship; because it has disrupted the entire purpose of the DPRK as a proxy province providing Beijing plausible deniability.

And so it goes…

“Relatively speaking” of course.

President Trump Answers Question About Iranian Gunboats Harassing U.S. Ships: “We’ll shoot them out of the water.”…


During the coronavirus task force briefing President Trump was asked about his tweet earlier in the day regarding Iranian gunboats harassing U.S. Navy Ships.  The President was unambiguous in his response: “We’ll shoot them out of the water”.

White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro Discusses China’s Manipulation of WHO, and Use of Defense Production Act…


White House Manufacturing Trade Advisor Peter Navarro is also leading the execution of the Defense Production Act to rally American resources in combating the Wuhan Virus. In this interview Navarro discusses the scale of Beijing’s influence over the World Health Organization as a propaganda operation.

Interestingly Navarro notes the Chinese delegation visit in January 2020 and the issues of human-to-human virus spread. CTH has long suspected U.S. intelligence on the Wuhan virus was behind Trump’s proactive health measures in November 2019. It would make sense for POTUS to have a heart-health evaluation prior to beginning a prophylactic regimen [hint hydroxychloriquine] and that might explain a particular advocacy emphasis later on. Just sayin’.

Additionally, Navarro again outlines the importance of returning our critical U.S. manufacturing back to the United States. Honeywell now making masks and GM making ventilators.  Peter Navarro is a patriot; in the right place for this moment in history.

President Trump Announces OPEC+ Agreement to Limit Oil Production…


Though the U.S. and Canada are not part of the “OPEC Plus” group, President Trump has  been leading negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Russia to broker a deal and stop their price war.  Today President Trump announces an agreement between the major petroleum exporting countries to curb oil production by approximately 10 million barrels per day:

Additionally, there was a loggerhead within the negotiations as Mexico did not want to cut their production by the requested amount of 400,000 barrels daily.  Mexico relies on oil as a large part of their economy. AMLO stated his economy could not withstand such a significant drop in state revenue.  Economic security is, after all, national security.

President Trump broke the OPEC+ stalemate by agreeing to decrease U.S. production by 300k/barrels allowing Mexico to drop a more manageable 100k/barrels.  Trump and AMLO reached an undisclosed agreement where Mexico will reimburse the U.S. later on.

I suspect the “reimbursement” will be more, well, strategically geopolitical than financial.  [*nudge-nudge*, *wink-wink*, *say-no-more/say-no-more*]  President Trump has an uncanny knack of collecting leverage for later, more strategic, purposes.  Just sayin’.

(VIA CNBC) […] Sunday’s emergency meeting — the second in four days — came as oil-producing nations scrambled to reach an agreement in an effort to prop up falling prices as the coronavirus outbreak continues to hammer demand. The agreement also ends a price war that broke out between Saudi Arabia and Russia at the beginning of March, which further pressured oil prices as each sought to gain market share.

The group, known as OPEC+, initially proposed cutting production by 10 million barrels per day — amounting to some 10% of global oil supply — on Thursday, but Mexico opposed the amount it was being asked to cut, holding up the final deal.

Talks continued on Friday when energy ministers from the Group of 20 major economies met, and while all agreed that stabilization in the market is needed, the group stopped short of discussing specific production numbers.

Under OPEC+’s new agreement, Mexico will cut 100,000 barrels per day, instead of the 400,000 barrels per day it had initially been asked to cut.

The 9.7 million barrels per day cut will begin on May 1, and will extend through the end of June.  (read more)

With such a significant slow-down in global oil demand due to the coronavirus mitigation efforts, massive tanker ships have been loaded with oil and sit at sea awaiting the global economy to restart generating the need for their cargo.

Two Weeks Ago…. President Trump and Defense Secretary Esper announced a major deployment of U.S. military to interdict narcotics trafficking from Central America.

On the surface the effort to deploy naval assets to the Caribbean and southern pacific is justified based on intelligence drug cartels will exploit the coronavirus pandemic to ship more narcotics into the U.S.

However, in the bigger picture there’s also a likelihood the Chinese Communist Party would work with their geopolitical allies in Central American regimes to further weaken the U.S. during a time of increased vulnerability.

In times of war, or severe geopolitical confrontation, exploiting a vulnerability is a common strategy. Therefore it’s a smart and prudent geopolitical move for President Trump and U.S. military to take very aggressive action against the cartels and their communist sympathizers. There’s more going on here than appears on the surface.

Ergo, sometime in the future…

Barr: “The president is very thankful for your cooperation“…

AMLO: “So you’re saying this is an offer I cannot refuse?“..

Barr: “The President is very thankful for your cooperation“…

 

WHO Feeds the Dragon?


What do you think “folks”? Who feeds the dragon?

Joanna Rosamond image

By  —— Bio and Archives—April 8, 2020

WHO Feeds the Dragon?The number of dangerous “imports” from China has been growing steadily. For years reports on toxic food and products have been swept under the mainstream media’s magic carpet and global outbreak alerts have been normalized by “…in a land far, far away…” fairy tales.

The Virus

Yep, it originated in China. Right now the only legitimate complaint about the name of the virus could come from producers of Corona beer who have already lost more than $161 million in sales. While the leftist likes of an U.S Rep. with Chinese Facebook account flaunt their allergy to facts and lament “word xenophobia” , millions of people are paying the price for the newest “import”. The confined human “mass” doesn’t need to study Information Manipulation Theory (McCornack, 1992) to realize that “given information” provided them with a false perception of a deadly problem. Already in 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) spread “unverified” to 37 countries. Ever since 2001,  WHO’s disease outbreaks news from China  juggled influenza A (H5N1) virus and SARS reports, not to mention  alerts on “melamine-contaminated powdered infant formula”, streptococcus suis (a swine pathogen that causes meningitis, sepsis, pneumonia and endocarditis) and polio virus.

Toxic “Goods”

Affiliates of  Chinese business in the USA and Europe clearly do not worry about customer trust and believe in raiding retail spaces and bombarding shoppers with no matter how harmful (but cheap) products. It’s not only about imposition of weird Chinese sizes and silly “translation” from Amazon: you could be purchasing a radioactive drywall  or an “all-American” lead tainted toy for your kid. With lack of well-deserved penalty for false “Made in the USA” labels we can expect more than “Only American Hockey Puck” to show its true Chinese colors. To add insult to the long list of  “unfair and deceptive acts”  two California based manufacturers “forgot” to inform American soldiers and Veterans that funds from sales of deployment bags and other gear marketed for them (including American flag…) were feeding the dragon.

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has already caused war-like civilian casualties and disruption to economic activity world-wide. Some will deliberate on “pardonable” negligence; those who run towards the danger long enough not to believe in coincidences will consider coercive diplomacy or a leak from Wuhan’s lab. We are entering an era not only of hardship, but also of a great responsibility. Honorable leaders will have a duty  of taking counsel from our best military erudites, we the people will have the task of supporting leaders who want to bring production of our meds, clothes and food back home; the leaders willing to make America, and the world—safe again. In his tweet from the 7th of April, 2020 President Trump rightly concluded “W.H.O really blew it”.

And yep, I do hope that “We will be giving that a good look”. And nope, I do not hate Chinese people; as a matter of fact I think that Dr. Li Wenliang deserves Nobel Prize more than a toxic politician.

What do you think “folks”? Who feeds the dragon?

Trump’s Main Street Marshall Plan


Some call small businesses the backbone of the American economy

Dr. Robert R. Owens image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—April 7, 2020

Trump's Main Street Marshall PlanHow it was:

Basking in the glow of renewed freedom birthed through the Trump era tax cuts and the President’s massive reversal of the regulation noose that’s strangled America for the past three years, small-business success has achieved record highs.  The best economy in half a century unleashed by the lower taxes and fewer regulations inspired small businesses to hire more employees, to pay higher wages, and then to reinvest its capital.

How it is:

This pandemic is what historians call a black swan event.  It came out of nowhere and changed our perceptions forever.  But having said that, the same conditions of lower taxes and less regulation still exist.  Though currently stifled by the stay-at-home orders and self-quarantees this period of confinement and artificial limits is building a tsunami of pent-up demand.

As one of America’s main employers, the Small Business Administration tells us Main Street is the engine of our economy.  Here are some facts about small businesses in America today:

  • There are almost 21.5 million (90%) small businesses in the United States
  • Small businesses are responsible for 39 percent of GNP.
  • Small businesses are responsible for 52 percent of  all U.S. sales and contribute about 21 percent of all manufactured U.S. exports.
  • Small businesses contribute 44 percent of all sales in the country.
  • Small businesses employ 54.4 million people, about 57.3 percent of the private workforce.

Some call these small businesses the backbone of the American economy.  In this time of national sacrifice and emergency they deserve a government that addresses their needs.

Paycheck Protection Program

What’s been done:

In response to this crisis Congress passed, and the President signed the largest direct assistance program in American history. This, the third major bill in a month includes a novel plan for small businesses.  Instead of just tax incentives or emergency loans hidden behind a hedge of bureaucracy it seeks to deliver right-now-relief through the Paycheck Protection Program.

One way to express this effort calls to mind one of the most successful government programs of all time.  This is Trump’s Main Street Marshall Plan.

Through the Paycheck Protection Program businesses with fewer than 500 employees (including startups, sole proprietors, and the self-employed) can receive 100% federally guaranteed loans for eight weeks.  Then if the loan is used to pay employees, rent, or utilities, or rehire employees who were laid off due to the virus, the loan is forgiven.  The loan term is from February 15 to June 30.

This revolutionary piece of legislation saves small businesses the endless hassle of navigating the bewildering maze of the government bureaucracy which normally stands between citizens and government emergency relief.  With this innovative plan small business owners can work with their local bank or any lender backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.   This includes farmers.  Those who feed the world can work with the same farm credit institutions they’re familiar with, the ones they already know and trust.  All this without any bureaucrats in between the lenders and the borrowers.

The coronavirus pandemic is the greatest crisis as a nation we have faced in the lifetime of most Americans

American small businesses can take advantage of these loans right now, the sooner the better.  The applications for these loans are located on the  Treasury Department website.

The goal of the Paycheck Protection Program is to ensure small businesses are ready to relaunch as soon as America reopens for business.  This act seeks to keep Main Street afloat by providing direct relief for small businesses and keeping tens of millions of workers on the payroll.

The coronavirus pandemic is the greatest crisis as a nation we have faced in the lifetime of most Americans.  We have a great cheerleader in President Trump.  He strives day in and day out to raise our spirits and to lead us out of this dire scenario straight back to prosperity and peace.

What to do:

Having said all this, I have to share my belief that government, even one that is being led by the greatest crisis manager of modern times, is not the answer to America’s problems.  Only God can bring salvation whether we’re talking about an individual or a nation.

He once told us, “if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”  And since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever,  we can still claim that promise.  Besides He also told us, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to  His  purpose.”

Trust God and He’ll bring us through.  Some may say, “What if we follow that advice and we catch the virus and die anyway?”  All I can say is if we die trusting God, no matter what the reason, we sure will be healed then.

Kayleigh McEnany Replaces Stephanie Grisham As Press Secretary…


It appears new White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is making a few communications changes. White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham will be returning to the East Wing as First Lady Melania Trump’s chief-of-staff.  Kayleigh McEnany will be replacing Grisham as Press Secretary.

[Politico] […] Alyssa Farah, a top Defense Department spokeswoman and former press secretary for Vice President Mike Pence, will also come aboard as the White House’s director of strategic communications.

Ben Williamson, Meadows’ former chief of staff and communications director, who will be Trump’s senior communications adviser. Farah also has a Meadows connection, previously serving as the communications director for the conservative House Freedom Caucus when Meadows, a former North Carolina lawmaker, was the caucus’s chairman. (link)

Keep in mind that Hope Hicks returned in February as Senior advisor to President Trump on communications.  Ms. Hicks is the primary Trump-whisperer on media strategy.

Advertisements
Powered by wordads.co
Seen ad many times
Not relevant
Offensive
Covers content
Broken
REPORT THIS AD

What Happens to the Money Politicians Raise After they Drop Out?


QUESTION: What happens to the money politicians raise and then they drop out? Do they keep it?

MH

ANSWER: Actually, they use to pocket it, tax-free of course. Did you ever wonder why CEOs of Goldman Sachs take high ranking positions and then leave? Due to the conflict of interest laws, they must sell their stock to take the job. Because they MUST sell their stock, it is tax-free.

With respect to politicians, they’ll often put their leftover funds toward their next race. If they choose not to run, they have to abide by the same FEC rules. However, prior to 1993, U.S. Representatives who took office before January 8, 1980, were allowed to keep any leftover campaign cash when they retired. Politicians were also spending millions in campaign donations on personal items like clothing, jewelry, artwork, personal travel, and dry cleaning. These corrupt practices of Congress were exposed so they passed a law negating this custom for the House; the Senate already had provisions in place so this wouldn’t happen.

Nevertheless, politicians usually find a way to make that cash still work for themselves often under state laws, which differ significantly from federal rules. For example, Chris Christie won reelection as New Jersey’s governor in 2014. He then used the excess money to cover the legal fees racked up during the Bridgegate scandal.

The FEC guide also tells us the money could be refunded to donors, spent on gifts (or “donations of nominal value”) to non-family members, moving expenses after leaving office, home security for officeholders, and work-related “travel expenses for a federal officeholder and his or her accompanying spouse and children,” although a 2007 law puts some restrictions on that. Interestingly, campaign cash can also be used prior to the election to pay candidates a salary – but not to incumbents, and it’s capped at the lesser of what they made last year or what the office they’re seeking pays.

Politicians routinely break the rules. There are no criminal penalties for that on their part. Obama was fined the most for taking illegal money than any politician in history. As long as they can claim some justification, they can use the money tax-free.

The only way to clean this up is to eliminate donations. The reelection cost should be covered by the government