Anyone with a reasonable amount of political knowledge is aware that within Florida the epicenter of voter fraud takes place in Broward and Palm Beach counties.  Both of these areas are not just filled with corrupt election officials; as was noted in the background of the Parkland school shooting, every element of county and city government is corrupt.

Broward County Supervisor of Elections, Brenda Snipes, has an exhaustively documented history of rampant and ‘in-your-face’ unapologetic fraud within the election process.  In the latest example, Snipes is once again producing ballots -filled out by her political operatives- long after the election is over.  Everyone in Florida knows the Snipes routine.

Brenda Snipes keeps “her people” working to produce ballots until law enforcement arrive.  Once she is confronted she shouts “racism”, and officials back away allowing the corruption to continue.  This process has worked very well for her in the past and she is openly compensated by left-wing political operations for her efforts.  In the 2016 election the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Brenda Snipes to send two ballots to every democrat.

So it doesn’t come as a surprise to see Ms. Snipes at the center of the operation to steal yet another set of election in 2018; the objective this time is to give the governors race and senate race to the democrat party…  Prior endeavors in 2012 and 2014 were successful.

CTH has received multiple requests for a review of predictable consequences as a result of the midterm election.  Thankfully, and perhaps unfortunately, we have solid references to base these predictions on – because there’s a solid frame of reference from the 2006 midterm and the subsequent consequences we saw in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

If we take the empirical 2006 example as the starting point and overlay the 2018 landscape to modernize the predictive model, what results is a most likely scenario.

First, any intellectually honest review must overlay the current political environment.  In 2018 the scale of unchecked lawless behavior is a significant influence toward the differences we can expect from the last time Democrat/Marxists held congressional power. The term “Democrat-socialism”, in essence a Marxist approach, is now the dominant fuel within the professional DNC  political operations.

When the Democrats last held power in 2006, their actionable objective was toward a far-left, Saul Alinsky-type aggressive tone and influence; however, there was a need to couch that intention as they positioned Senator Barack Obama for the 2008 presidential election.

In 2006 the radicals, needed to downplay their radicalism.  In 2018 the severity and aggression of the left, as assisted by the dropping of all media pretense, no longer needs to hide the intention.  When Democrat-Marxists take control in January of 2019 they no longer need to couch the extremism, the American electorate have been prepped.

Secondly, it cannot be overstated how violent and confrontational the House of Representatives will be as soon as they are sworn in.  They will work with an immediate purposeful intention. All political violence will be approved to attain their objectives.  The recent behavior of Jim Acosta (CNN media), and ANTIFA toward Tucker Carlson, is now, and will be going forward, the new normal.

There will be extreme political violence.

In 2006 it was the SEIU and AFSCME union foot-soldiers who smashed windows, advanced upon polling places and engaged in the most severe examples of voter fraud and intimidation.  In 2018, with the help of uber-Alinsky DNC Chairman Tom Perez, that corrupt sentiment is now institutionalized within democrat-socialist political apparatus.  ANTIFA is now the DNC grassroots activist approach.

Failing to accept the severity of this shift in the past decade is intellectually dishonest.  As Nancy Pelosi said of the Occupy Wall Street violent anarchists: “God bless these people.”  Indeed the OWS precursor to ANTIFA were laying the groundwork for the new severity of power in Democrat leadership.  Nothing is out-of-bounds; no level of corrupt behavior will be avoided; everything will happen openly and without any backlash from a compliant media apparatus; the social fabric will be shredded.

The Democrat mantra: “never let a crisis go to waste” is the modern version of the Fabian-Socialist: “remould it closer to the heart’s desire“.  Both approaches rely upon the destruction of acceptable norms in order to advance the political objective.

♦Specifics: When Democrats last took power in January 2007, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer took control in the final two years of George Bush second term.  Immediately they set about a process laying the groundwork for the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama.  This was a priority objective.

One of the techniques was the removal of the budget process. By eliminating the federal budget process in 2007 (fiscal year ’08) the Democrats paved the way for the next democrat president to demand massive open-ended spending.

By the time the year of the general election came around (2008), the lengthy budget process was replaced with Omnibus spending bills (fiscal year 2009).  Obviously when Obama was successfully installed in November of 2008, the useful crisis was financial. The subsequent TARP bailout, auto bailout, ARRA ($1 trillion stimulus) and QE1 were all accomplished with massive omnibus spending packages.

[NOTE: These are important references because from that moment forward, despite the GOP taking back control in January 2011, the constraining budgetary process was forever destroyed. There was never regular-order budgetary spending again.]

It is also critical to emphasize the difference between Democrats taking control in the last two years of Bush’s second term, and Democrats taking control in the last two years of Trump’s first term.  Within this difference you will predictably see a shift in strategic operations from the Marxists.

George W Bush was exiting, and unlimited spending was used to empower the entry of Obama; however, now the Marxists need to knee-cap President Trump by weaponizing the power of the purse – the biggest weapon of the House of Representatives.

After a ten year UniParty hiatus the Marxists will now go back to using budgets in the structural defunding and dismantling of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the Southern Border Wall, and any program, initiative, policy or institution the Marxists want to see removed.   This is a strategy of the Democrat crisis-makers; and they are exceptionally better at achieving their desired results than Republicans.

When it comes to political weaponization and political power constructs the Marxists have exceptional work ethics; they will outwork anyone on the other side who opposes them.  They are far, far, better at political strategy and scheme than conservative politicians.  Part of the reason for their success is that crooks, cons and swindlers are far more cunning than honorable, virtuous and moral people.  It is unfortunate, but true; and the same truth applies beyond politics.

♦ Two other thoughts on this issue.  First, you might remember when this massive spending, and the government takeover of healthcare, led to the Marxists losing the 2010 midterm election in a massive defeat.   But do you remember what the democrats did in the lame-duck congress between November 2010 and January 2011?

Does the term “Porkulous” ring a bell?

While 63 democrat seats were lost in the November 2010 election (and six democrat senate seats), those exiting Marxists, despite just having suffered the worst defeat in almost 100 years, audaciously –and apologetically– voted in the December 2010 lame-duck session, to fully fund President Obama’s next two years in office.  This was done by Speaker Nancy Pelosi specifically to block the incoming GOP wave from upending the priorities of the Obama administration in 2011.  That was called the “Porkulous” spending bill; and the democrat-marxists didn’t give a snit about how it looked.

Now, do you think Speaker Paul Ryan will do anything as bold to fund and secure the budgetary priorities of President Donald Trump in this lame-duck?

Secondly, about the overall unilateral commitment and cunning historically displayed by the Marxists.  They are so committed to the long-term view they are willing to sacrifice anything for the biggest, most consequential, advances toward their objectives.  In 2010 the democrats killed their own “blue-dog” coalition to advance their ideological goals.

Within the 63 House seats the Marxists lost in that 2010 midterm election; they killed off the entire 40 member Bart Stupak coalition; the blue-dog caucus.  Totally willing to sacrifice 40 seats to attain a generational ideological objective (ObamaCare); and they are about to step back into power a mere eight years later.  Stunning when you think about it.

In my opinion few reading this have any idea just how bad these next two years are going to be. It’s not your fault.  We are the normal people who don’t spend every moment of our day scheming, conniving, and developing plans to dismantle the lives of your freedom loving community and rebuild it as a collective society.  For these Marxists who are about to take power that’s all they do.   Every moment of their existence they spend thinking about how to gain power and dominate, 24/7/365  that’s all they do.

Lastly, future predictions: Michael Bloomberg will be the Democrat/Marxist nominee for 2020.  There will be a field of candidates; but the professional Democrat machine will run the splitter strategy, and the back-room crowd who really control the elements of power have already pre-selected their nominee, Michael Bloomberg.  Marxists always have the plan mapped out well in advance. (A woman will be the VP nominee)

If you start now looking at what actions the Marxists are taking, through the prism of their goal being President Michael Bloomberg, lots of things will make a lot more sense.