AG William Barr Constitution Day Speech – Transcript…


Last night U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr delivered a speech in celebration of constitution day to an audience at Hillsdale College. Here’s the transcript:

[VIA DOJ] –  I am pleased to be at this Hillsdale College celebration of Constitution Day.  Sadly, many colleges these days don’t even teach the Constitution, much less celebrate it.  But at Hillsdale, you recognize that the principles of the Founding are as relevant today as ever—and vital to the success of our free society.  I appreciate your observance of this important day and all you do for civic education in the United States.

When many people think about the virtues of our Constitution, they first mention the Bill of Rights.  That makes sense.  The great guarantees of the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, just to name the first few—are critical safeguards of liberty.  But as President Reagan used to remind people, the Soviet Union had a constitution too, and it even included some lofty-sounding rights.  Ultimately, however, those promises were just empty words, because there was no rule of law to enforce them.

 

The rule of law is the lynchpin of American freedom.  And the critical guarantee of the rule of law comes from the Constitution’s structure of separated powers.  The Framers recognized that by dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial powers— each significant, but each limited—they would minimize the risk of any form of tyranny.  That is the real genius of the Constitution, and it is ultimately more important to securing liberty than the Bill of Rights.  After all, the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the original Constitution, which the Framers did not think needed an express enumeration of rights.

I want to focus today on the power that the Constitution allocates to the Executive, particularly in the area of criminal justice.  The Supreme Court has correctly held that, under Article II of the Constitution, the Executive has virtually unchecked discretion to decide whether to prosecute individuals for suspected federal crimes.  The only significant limitation on that discretion comes from other provisions of the Constitution.  Thus, for example, a United States Attorney could not decide to prosecute only people of a particular race or religion.  But aside from that limitation — which thankfully has remained a true hypothetical at the Department of Justice — the Executive has broad discretion to decide whether to bring criminal prosecutions in particular cases.

The key question, then, is how the Executive should exercise its prosecutorial discretion.  Eighty years ago this spring, one of my predecessors in this job —then-Attorney General Robert Jackson — gave a famous speech to a conference of United States Attorneys in which he described the proper role and qualities of federal prosecutors.  (By the way, Jackson was one of several former Attorneys General who went on become a Supreme Court Justice.  But I am one of only two former Attorneys General who went on to become Attorney General again.)

Much has changed in the eight decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks.  But he was a man of uncommon wisdom, and it is appropriate to consider his views in the modern era.

The criminal process is a juggernaut.  That was true then and it is true today.  Once the criminal process starts rolling, it is very difficult to slow it down or knock it off course.  And that means federal prosecutors possess tremendous power — power that is necessary to enforce our laws and punish wrongdoing, but power that, like any power, carries inherent potential for abuse or misuse.

Justice Jackson recognized this.  As he put it, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.”  Prosecutors have the power to investigate people and interview their friends, and they can do so on the basis of mere suspicion of general wrongdoing.  People facing federal investigations incur ruinous legal costs and often see their lives reduced to rubble before a charge is even filed.  Justice Jackson was not exaggerating when he said that “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

The power to, as he called it, “strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself” must be carefully calibrated and closely supervised.  Left unchecked, it has the potential to inflict far more harm than it prevents.

1. Political Supervision

The most basic check on prosecutorial power is politics.  It is counter-intuitive to say that, as we rightly strive to maintain an apolitical system of criminal justice.  But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake.  Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny.

Justice Jackson understood this.  As he explained, presidential appointment and senate confirmation of U.S. Attorneys and senior DOJ officials is what legitimizes their exercises of the sovereign’s power.  You are “required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.”

Yet in the decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks, it has become fashionable to argue that prosecutorial decisions are legitimate only when they are made by the lowest-level line prosecutor handling any given case.  Ironically, some of those same critics see no problem in campaigning for highly political, elected District Attorneys to remake state and local prosecutorial offices in their preferred progressive image, which often involves overriding the considered judgment of career prosecutors and police officers.  But aside from hypocrisy, the notion that line prosecutors should make the final decisions within the Department of Justice is completely wrong and it is antithetical to the basic values underlying our system.

The Justice Department is not a praetorian guard that watches over society impervious to the ebbs and flows of politics.  It is an agency within the Executive Branch of a democratic republic — a form of government where the power of the state is ultimately reposed in the people acting through their elected president and elected representatives.

The men and women who have ultimate authority in the Justice Department are thus the ones on whom our elected officials have conferred that responsibility — by presidential appointment and senate confirmation.  That blessing by the two political branches of government gives these officials democratic legitimacy that career officials simply do not possess.

The same process that produces these officials also holds them accountable.  The elected President can fire senior DOJ officials at will and the elected Congress can summon them to explain their decisions to the people’s representatives and to the public.  And because these officials have the imprimatur of both the President and Congress, they also have the stature to resist these political pressures when necessary.  They can take the heat for what the Justice Department does or doesn’t do.

Line prosecutors, by contrast, are generally part of the permanent bureaucracy.  They do not have the political legitimacy to be the public face of tough decisions and they lack the political buy-in necessary to publicly defend those decisions.  Nor can the public and its representatives hold civil servants accountable in the same way as appointed officials.  Indeed, the public’s only tool to hold the government accountable is an election — and the bureaucracy is neither elected nor easily replaced by those who are.

Moreover, because these officials are installed by the democratic process, they are most equipped to make the complex judgment calls concerning how we should wield our prosecutorial power.  As Justice Scalia observed in perhaps his most admired judicial opinion, his dissent in Morrison v. Olson: “Almost all investigative and prosecutorial decisions—including the ultimate decision whether, after a technical violation of the law has been found, prosecution is warranted—involve the balancing of innumerable legal and practical considerations.”

And those considerations do need to be balanced in each and every case.  As Justice Scalia also pointed out, it is nice to say “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.”  But it does not comport with reality.  It would do far more harm than good to abandon all perspective and proportion in an attempt to ensure that every technical violation of criminal law by every person is tracked down, investigated, and prosecuted to the Nth degree.

Our system works best when leavened by judgment, discretion, proportionality, and consideration of alternative sanctions — all the things that supervisors provide.  Cases must be supervised by someone who does not have a narrow focus, but who is broad gauged and pursuing a general agenda.  And that person need not be a prosecutor, but someone who can balance the importance of vigorous prosecution with other competing values.

In short, the Attorney General, senior DOJ officials, and U.S. Attorneys are indeed political.  But they are political in a good and necessary sense.

Indeed, aside from the importance of not fully decoupling law enforcement from the constraining and moderating forces of politics, devolving all authority down to the most junior officials does not even make sense as a matter of basic management.  Name one successful organization where the lowest level employees’ decisions are deemed sacrosanct.  There aren’t any.  Letting the most junior members set the agenda might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it’s no way to run a federal agency.  Good leaders at the Justice Department—as at any organization—need to trust and support their subordinates.  But that does not mean blindly deferring to whatever those subordinates want to do.

This is what Presidents, the Congress, and the public expect.  When something goes wrong at the Department of Justice, the buck stops at the top.  28 U.S.C. § 509 could not be plainer:  “All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General.”

And because I am ultimately accountable for every decision the Department makes, I have an obligation to ensure we make the correct ones.  The Attorney General, the Assistant Attorneys General, and the U.S. Attorneys are not figureheads selected for their good looks and profound eloquence.

They are supervisors.  Their job is to supervise.   Anything less is an abdication.

Active engagement in our cases by senior officials is also essential to the rule of law.  The essence of the rule of law is that whatever rule you apply in one case must be the same rule you would apply to similar cases.  Treating each person equally before the law includes how the Department enforces the law.

We should not prosecute someone for wire fraud in Manhattan using a legal theory we would not equally pursue in Madison or in Montgomery, or allow prosecutors in one division to bring charges using a theory that a group of prosecutors in the division down the hall would not deploy against someone who engaged in indistinguishable conduct.

We must strive for consistency.  And that is yet another reason why centralized senior leadership exists—to harmonize the disparate views of our many prosecutors into a consistent policy for the Department.  As Justice Jackson explained, “we must proceed in all districts with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the prestige of federal law.”

2. Detachment in Prosecutions

All the supervision in the world will not be enough, though, without a strong culture across the Department of fairness and commitment to even-handed justice.  This is what Justice Jackson described as “the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor.”  In his memorable turn of phrase, even when “the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.”

We want our prosecutors to be aggressive and tenacious in their pursuit of justice, but we also want to ensure that justice is ultimately administered dispassionately.

We are all human.  Like any person, a prosecutor can become overly invested in a particular goal.  Prosecutors who devote months or years of their lives to investigating a particular target may become deeply invested in their case and assured of the rightness of their cause.

When a prosecution becomes “your prosecution”—particularly if the investigation is highly public, or has been acrimonious, or if you are confident early on that the target committed serious crimes—there is always a temptation to will a prosecution into existence even when the facts, the law, or the fair-handed administration of justice do not support bringing charges.

This risk is inevitable and cannot be avoided simply by — as we certainly strive to do — hiring as prosecutors only moral people with righteous motivations.  I am reminded of a passage by C.S. Lewis:

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.

Even the most well-meaning people can do great damage if they lose perspective.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

That is yet another reason that having layers of supervision is so important.  Individual prosecutors can sometimes become headhunters, consumed with taking down their target.  Subjecting their decisions to review by detached supervisors ensures the involvement of dispassionate decision-makers in the process.

This was of course the central problem with the independent-counsel statute that Justice Scalia criticized in Morrison v. Olson.  Indeed, creating an unaccountable headhunter was not some unfortunate byproduct of that statute; it was the stated purpose of that statute.  That was what Justice Scalia meant by his famous line, “this wolf comes as a wolf.”  As he went on to explain:  “How frightening it must be to have your own independent counsel and staff appointed, with nothing else to do but to investigate you until investigation is no longer worthwhile—with whether it is worthwhile not depending upon what such judgments usually hinge on, competing responsibilities.  And to have that counsel and staff decide, with no basis for comparison, whether what you have done is bad enough, willful enough, and provable enough, to warrant an indictment.  How admirable the constitutional system that provides the means to avoid such a distortion.  And how unfortunate the judicial decision that has permitted it.”

Justice Jackson understood this too.  As he explained in his speech:  “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”  Any erosion in prosecutorial detachment is extraordinarily perilous.  For, “it is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

  • Advocate Just and Reasonable Legal Positions

In exercising our prosecutorial discretion, one area in which I think the Department of Justice has some work to do is recalibrating how we interpret criminal statutes.

In recent years, the Justice Department has sometimes acted more like a trade association for federal prosecutors than the administrator of a fair system of justice based on clear and sensible legal rules.  In case after case, we have advanced and defended hyper-aggressive extensions of the criminal law.  This is wrong and we must stop doing it.

The rule of law requires that the law be clear, that it be communicated to the public, and that we respect its limits.  We are the Department of Justice, not the Department of Prosecution.

We should want a fair system with clear rules that the people can understand.  It does not serve the ends of justice to advocate for fuzzy and manipulable criminal prohibitions that maximize our options as prosecutors.  Preventing that sort of pro-prosecutor uncertainty is what the ancient rule of lenity is all about.  That rule should likewise inform how we at the Justice Department think about the criminal law.

Advocating for clear and defined prohibitions will sometimes mean we cannot bring charges against someone whom we believe engaged in questionable conduct.  But that is what it means to have a government of laws and not of men.  We cannot let our desire to prosecute “bad” people turn us into the functional equivalent of the mad Emperor Caligula, who inscribed criminal laws in tiny script atop a tall pillar where nobody could see them.

To be clear, what I am describing is not the Al Capone situation — where you have someone who committed countless crimes and you decide to prosecute him for only the clearest violation that carries a sufficient penalty.  I am talking about taking vague statutory language and then applying it to a criminal target in a novel way that is, at a minimum, hardly the clear consequence of the statutory text.

This is inherently unfair because criminal prosecutions are backward-looking.  We charge people with crimes based on past conduct.  If it was unknown or even unclear that the conduct was illegal when the person engaged in it, that raises real questions about whether it is fair to prosecute the person criminally for it.

Examples of the Department defending these sorts of extreme positions are unfortunately numerous, as are rejections of our novel arguments by the Supreme Court.  These include arguments as varied as the Department insisting that a Philadelphia woman violated the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act — which implemented the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction — by putting chemicals on her neighbor’s doorknob as part of an acrimonious love triangle involving the woman’s husband, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Bond v. United States … to arguing that a fisherman violated the “anti-shredding” provision in Sarbanes-Oxley when he threw undersized grouper over the side of his boat, which the Supreme Court rejected in Yates v. United States … to arguing that aides to the Governor of New Jersey fraudulently “obtained property” from the government when they realigned the lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create a traffic jam, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected earlier this year in Kelly v. United States.   There are other examples, but these illustrate the point.

Taking a capacious approach to criminal law is not only unfair to criminal defendants and bad for the Justice Department’s track record at the Supreme Court, it is corrosive to our political system.  If criminal statutes are endlessly manipulable, then everything becomes a potential crime.  Rather than watch policy experts debate the merits or demerits of a particular policy choice, we are nowadays treated to ad naseum speculation by legal pundits — often former prosecutors themselves — that some action by the President, a senior official, or a member of congress constitutes a federal felony under this or that vague federal criminal statute.

This criminalization of politics is not healthy.  The criminal law is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious misconduct — conduct so bad that our society has decided it requires serious punishment, up to and including being locked away in a cage.  These tools are not built to resolve political disputes and it would be a decidedly bad development for us to go the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state.  The political winners ritually prosecuting the political losers is not the stuff of a mature democracy.

The Justice Department abets this culture of criminalization when we are not disciplined about what charges we will bring and what legal theories we will bless.  Rather than root out true crimes — while leaving ethically dubious conduct to the voters — our prosecutors have all too often inserted themselves into the political process based on the flimsiest of legal theories.  We have seen this time and again, with prosecutors bringing ill-conceived charges against prominent political figures, or launching debilitating investigations that thrust the Justice Department into the middle of the political process and preempt the ability of the people to decide.

This criminalization of politics will only worsen until we change the culture of concocting new legal theories to criminalize all manner of questionable conduct.  Smart, ambitious lawyers have sought to amass glory by prosecuting prominent public figures since the Roman Republic.  It is utterly unsurprising that prosecutors continue to do so today to the extent the Justice Department’s leaders will permit it.

As long as I am Attorney General, we will not.

Our job is to prosecute people who commit clear crimes.  It is not to use vague criminal statutes to police the mores of politics or general conduct of the citizenry.  Indulging fanciful legal theories may seem right in a particular case under particular circumstances with a particularly unsavory defendant—but the systemic cost to our justice system is too much to bear.

We need to recognize that and must take to heart the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous admonition that “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

If we do not, more lives will be unfairly ruined.  And more unanimous admonitions from the Supreme Court will come.

3. Conclusion

In short, it is important for prosecutors at the Department of Justice to understand that their mission — above all others — is to do justice.  That means following the letter of the law, and the spirit of fairness.  Sometimes that will mean investing months or years in an investigation and then concluding it without criminal charges.  Other times it will mean aggressively prosecuting a person through trial and then recommending a lenient sentence, perhaps even one with no incarceration.

Our job is to be just as dogged in preventing injustice as we are in pursuing wrongdoing.  On this score, as on many, Justice Jackson said it best:

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman.  And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway.  A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

Thank you.

[LINK]

.

“MAGA vs. The Deep State Swamp”


“MAGA vs. The Deep State Swamp” Number 5 in the Drain the Swamp Series.

For the last four years President Trump has tirelessly exposed the Deep State Swamp. Trump has shown the American people the ruthless corruption in our government and called out the endless propaganda of the controlled mainstream media complex.

President Trump’s first term went by quickly and although much was accomplished, there was still a lot left to do.

The swamp runs deeper than anyone ever imagined.

Now the Democrat nominee, Joe Biden, claims he represents ‘decency.’ He’s a career politician known for gr op ing and sniffing females—adults and children alike.

He made it possible for his son Hunter to receive graft from Communist China. He believes taxpayers should fund abortion on demand. He believes in more taxes, a bigger and more bloated government, political correctness, BLM and ANTIFA, endless lockdowns, and a mask mandate. Joe is pro-war, a globalist, and he supported tossing low-level drug offenders into prison. Does this sound decent to you? Trump is not perfect, but he stands in sharp contrast to Biden. While Joe is pro-China, Trump is pro-jobs for Americans. He wants to preserve our free speech and our right to own firearms. He is a nationalist, not a globalist. He wants to put an end to the rioting and looting. He wants elections to be held in a fair and traditional manner, while Democrats want mail-in ballots, which will open the door to fraud. Trump is anti-war. That alone is a good reason to reelect him. The contrast between the two presidential candidates is obvious and definite. President Trump remains the only decent choice.

—Grrr Team

American History


President Trump MAGA Rally, Freeland Michigan – 7:00pm Livestream


Tonight President Trump heads to Freeland Michigan for a campaign stop at Avflight Saginaw. The anticipated start time is 7:00pm ET. Livestream Links Below:

Donald Trump Livestream Link – RSBN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link

 

.

.

Greater Fool Theory: Financial and Political Markets


Financial expectations have become over-inflated and can suffer a profound deflation. Exhausted, the Left could lose its fever which would favor the Republicans on the November 3rd election

Bob Hoye image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 8, 2020

Greater Fool Theory

Along-standing observation in wild stock markets is the “Greater Fool Theory”, which is a practical explanation of compulsively buying a soaring market. At excessive valuations, buying the hot stock today assumes that another fool will bid it higher tomorrow. And beyond. Such recklessness typically marks the buying climax that completes a bull market.

Intense political action also seems to be reaching a mania. This and the consequent reversals have happened before.

Of course, in retrospect the buying frenzy can be widely seen as foolishness. Chagrin, dismay and sometimes insolvency follows. Like clockwork.

The intensity of the activists (Antifa, BLM and Democrats) is approaching that seen early in the Russian and French Revolutions

And also of course, extreme passions have been expressed in the political markets. Foolishness, chagrin and dismay are likely to follow. Are Dems running on the “Greater Fool Theory” now? Don’t have to decide for yourself. Here’s what Bernie Sanders stated recently “Many of the ideas we fought for, that just a few years ago were considered radical, are now mainstream”. 

It is fascinating that a “straight up” market has been accompanied by virtually the same thing in politics.

Participants in both financial and political arenas have been compulsively outbidding each other.

The intensity of the activists (Antifa, BLM and Democrats) is approaching that seen early in the Russian and French Revolutions. Both occurred during highly speculative action in stocks and commodities.

Another example was the “Sturm und Drang” movement that roiled Europe. The final huge surge in the financial side of it completed in 1825 and consequent asset deflation was accompanied by deflating political ambitions and agitations.

The turmoil of the Revolution and Napoleon finally ended.

However, one of England’s greatest bankers in the 1860s dryly observed “No warning can save people determined to grow suddenly rich”. 

Political and financial markets also became wild in the early 1900s

In the case of the ambitious Left, “suddenly rich” now means advancing your political quest for position and power. Everyone must be controlled and “you must listen” to the experts. And always for “your own good”.

Political and financial markets also became wild in the early 1900s. Under the guidance of neurotic intellectuals Russia had their murderous revolution. The Webbs in England promoted “Fabian Socialism”, as a fashionable alternative to Soviet mayhem. Also, possibly their enthusiasm for violence was tempered by the obvious poor manners and tailors of the Bolsheviks.

Even American policymakers were nationalizing railroads until the financial and political violence completed in 1920. Wall Street was bombed on that September 6.

Russia went from full Communism to a softer socialism. The US changed to privatizing railroads. And late in the “Roaring Twenties” John Moody explained that it was a unique era based upon the change to practical politics creating more retail consumption in America and even in Europe.

Now, every left-wing politician, operator or media star seems crazed in trying to outdo each other with reckless intrusions upon the normal order of society. Obviously, a frenzy to impose control.

Similar volatility occurred in the late 1960s and was followed by deflating financial assets and political ambition. “Reagan Democrats” found a home in the GOP.

During the preceding troubles, stocks were flying, commodities soaring, and inflation was becoming concerning. Then, and it seemed suddenly, students were protesting with “What about the people?” which sounded like socialists in England. But without the accents.

Today’s vandals have spared colleges; probably because most faculty are revolutionaries, at heart

However, there are differences. Then, rioters trashed and even burned campus offices. Most faculty were not revolutionaries. Today’s vandals have spared colleges; probably because most faculty are revolutionaries, at heart.

Radicals then funded themselves sometimes through bank robberies. The so-called Symbionese Liberation Army murdered bystanders while robbing banks.

Glaringly obvious is that the SLA was not professionally funded as today’s domestic terrorist groups are. Without sugar daddies, agitators could not afford months of rioting.

The equally aggressive Black Panthers were more widespread and dedicated to Marxist demands.  Capitalism was bad and everything should be free. Ironically, fund raising included buying bulk-discounted volumes of Mao’s Little Red Book and selling them at triple the price. Often in a manner that could not be refused.

And they had a chant that today’s MSM would herald “The Revolution has Come, it’s time to pick up the gun. Off the pigs!”

Beyond today’s funding and food trucks for the night-shift pros, there has been remarkable organization in spreading and arming the violence. Bricks and shields staged at convenient corners. Organized mayhem perhaps unseen since the street disorders in Germany in the early 1930s. Those conflicts involved two sets of professionals. Each with a distinguishing uniform, both desperate to impose their totalitarian visions.

The domestic team was the National Socialists who were contending against the visiting International Socialists, and the world eventually understood the horrors that go with experiments in unlimited government.

This writer’s independent research notes that the early 1900s started a long experiment in authoritarian government and the current attempt to corrupt the US Constitution is extraordinary but seems to be ending action. Indeed, ordinary voters or Hillary’s “deplorables”, or the “petit bourgeois” as deplored by legions of European intellectuals, are beginning to say “enough”.

Indeed, the recession is emphasizing the differences between the governing classes and those who are ruled. In-your-face and in-your-wallet government is becoming altogether too much.  And the financial markets are suffering a whack that typically precedes a severe contraction.

Financial expectations have become over-inflated and can suffer a profound deflation. Exhausted, the Left could lose its fever which would favor the Republicans on the November 3rd election.

Every successful reform has been conducted by ordinary folk.

President Trump Press Conference – 5:00pm ET Livestream


President Trump is scheduled to hold a press conference at 5:00pm ET.

White House Livestream – Fox News Livestream Link – Alternate Livestream Link

 

.

.

“Peace is The Prize” – President Trump Negotiates Beginning of Historic Cooperation Between Serbia and Kosovo…


Once again showcasing the strategic success of the Trump Doctrine: focusing on economic security as a tool for national security – President Vučić of Serbia and Prime Minister Hoti of Kosovo joined President Trump in the oval office today to sign a joint statement of economic cooperation between the two nations. Truly a remarkable accomplishment.

.

[White House] – Statement by the President Regarding Economic Normalization between Serbia and Kosovo

Today, I am pleased to announce yet another historic commitment. Serbia and Kosovo have each committed to economic normalization. After a violent and tragic history and years of failed negotiations, my Administration proposed a new way of bridging the divide. By focusing on job creation and economic growth, the two countries were able to reach a real breakthrough on economic cooperation across a broad range of issues.

 

We have also made additional progress on reaching peace in the Middle East. Kosovo and Israel have agreed to normalization of ties and the establishment of diplomatic relations. Serbia has committed to opening a commercial office in Jerusalem this month and to move its embassy to Jerusalem by July.

It has taken tremendous bravery by President Vučić of Serbia and Prime Minister Hoti of Kosovo to embark on these talks and to come to Washington to finalize these commitments. By doing so, they have made their countries, the Balkans, and the world safer. I look forward to seeing Serbia and Kosovo prosper as we work together on economic cooperation in the region going forward.

President Trump has been executing a foreign policy, a clear doctrine of sorts, where national security is achieved by leveraging U.S. economic power. It is a fundamental shift in approaching both allies and adversaries; summarized within the oft repeated phrase: “economic security is national security.”

The Trump Doctrine of using economics to achieve national security objectives is a fundamental paradigm shift. Modern U.S. history provides no easy reference.

Peace is the prize” ~ President Donald Trump

The nature of the Trump foreign policy doctrine, as it has become visible, is to hold manipulative influence agents accountable for regional impact(s); and simultaneously work to stop any corrupted influence from oppressing free expression of national values held by the subservient, dis-empowered, people within the nation being influenced.

There have been clear examples of this doctrine at work. When President Trump first visited the Middle-East he confronted the international audience with a message about dealing with extremist influence agents. President Trump simply said: “drive them out.”

Toward that end, as Qatar was identified as a financier of extremist ideology, President Trump placed the goal of confrontation upon the Gulf Cooperation Council, not the U.S.

The U.S. role was clearly outlined as supporting the confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates needed to confront the toxic regional influence; the U.S. would support their objective. That’s what happened.

Another example: To confront the extremism creating the turmoil in Afghanistan, President Trump placed the burden of bringing the Taliban to the table of governance upon primary influence agent Pakistan. Here again, with U.S. support. Pakistan is the leading influence agent over the Taliban in Afghanistan; the Trump administration correctly established the responsibility and gives clear expectations for U.S. support.

If Pakistan doesn’t change their influence objective toward a more constructive alignment with a nationally representative Afghanistan government, it is Pakistan who will be held accountable. Again, the correct and effective appropriation of responsibility upon the influence agent who can initiate the solution, Pakistan.

The process of accurate regional assignment of influence comes with disconcerting sunlight. Often these influences are not discussed openly. However, for President Trump the lack of honesty is only a crutch to continue enabling poor actors. This is a consistent theme throughout all of President Trump’s foreign policy engagements.

The European Union is a collective co-dependent enabler to the corrupt influences of Iran. Therefore the assignment of responsibility to change the status is placed upon the EU.

The U.S. will fully support the EU effort, but as seen in the withdrawal from the Iran Deal, the U.S. will not enable growth of toxic behavior. The U.S. stands with the people of Iran, but the U.S. will not support the enabling of Iranian oppression, terrorism and/or dangerous military expansion that will ultimately destabilize the region. Trump holds the EU accountable for influencing change. Again, we see the Trump Doctrine at work.

Perhaps the most obvious application of the Trump Doctrine is found in how the U.S. administration approached the challenging behavior of North Korea. Rather than continuing a decades-long policy of ignoring the influence of China, President Trump directly assigned primary responsibility for a reset to Beijing.

China held, and holds, all influence upon North Korea and has long-treated the DPRK as a proxy province to do the bidding of Beijing’s communist old guard. By directly confronting the influence agent, and admitting openly for the world to see (albeit with jaw-dropping tactical sanction diplomacy) President Trump positioned the U.S. to support a peace objective on the entire Korean peninsula and simultaneously forced China to openly display their closely-guarded influence.

While the Red Dragon -vs- Panda influence dynamic is still ongoing, the benefit of this new and strategic approach has brought the possibility of peace closer than ever in recent history.

No longer is it outlandish to think of North Korea joining with the rest of the world in achieving a better quality of life for its people.

Not only is President Trump openly sharing a willingness to engage in a new and dynamic future for North Korea, but his approach is removing the toxic influences that have held down the possibility for generations. By leveraging China (through economics) to stop manipulating North Korea, President Trump is opening up a door of possibilities for the North Korean people. This is what I mean when I say Trump is providing North Korea with an opportunity to create an authentic version of itself.

♦The commonality in these foreign policy engagements is the strategic placement of responsibility upon the primary influence agent; and a clear understanding upon those nation(s) of influence, that all forward efforts must ultimately provide positive results for people impacted who lack the ability to create positive influence themselves.

One of the reasons President Trump is able to take this approach is specifically because he is beholden to no outside influence himself. It is only from the position of complete independence that accurate assignments based on the underlying truth can be made; and that takes us to the ultimate confrontations – the trillion dollar confrontations.

A U.S. foreign policy that provides the opportunity for fully-realized national authenticity is a paradigm shift amid a world that has grown accustomed to corrupt globalists, bankers and financial elites who have established a business model by dictating terms to national leaders they control and influence. We have our own frame of reference with K-Street lobbyists in Washington DC. Much of President Trump’s global trade reset is based on confronting these multinational influence agents.

When you take the influence of corporate/financial brokers out of foreign policy, all of a sudden those global influence peddlers are worthless. Absent of their ability to provide any benefit, nations no longer purchase these brokered services.

As soon as influence brokers are dispatched, national politicians become accountable to the voices of their citizens. When representing the voices of citizens becomes the primary political driver of national policy, the authentic image of the nation is allowed to surface.

Fortunately we are living in a time of great history, and we have multiple examples surfacing around the world. National elections in Poland, Hungary, Italy, Brazil and right here in the U.S. via Donald Trump highlight responses to dysfunctional multiculturalism and financial influences from corrupt elites within the institutions of globalist advocacy: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Globalism can only thrive amid a class structure where the elites, though few in number, have more controlling power over the direction of government. It is not accidental the EU has appointed officials and unelected bureaucrats in Brussels as the primary decision-making authority.

As the Trump Doctrine clashes with the European global elite, the withdrawal of the U.S. financial underwriting creates a natural problem. Subsidies are needed to retain multiculturalism.

If a national citizenry has to pay for the indulgent decisions of the influence class, a crisis becomes only a matter of time.

Wealth distribution requires a host.

Since the end of World War II the U.S. has been a bottomless treasury for EU subsidy. The payments have been direct and indirect. The indirect have been via U.S. military bases providing security, the NATO alliance, and also by U.S. trade policy permitting one-way tariff systems. Both forms of indirect payment are now being reversed as part of the modern Trump Doctrine.

We are living in historic times….

 

 

 

August Jobs Report: 1.4 Million Jobs Recovered, Unemployment Rate Drops to 8.4 Percent…


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) highlights the August jobs report today and both measures (Household Survey and Establishment survey) show a remarkable recovery underway from the COVID-19 crisis.   Overall, 1.4 million jobs were recovered and the national unemployment rate drops to 8.4%.

Most economists did not predict the unemployment rate would drop into single digits until next year.  However, the historically accurate household survey shows 3.8 million people recalled, returned or found jobs; with 2.8 million saying they were no longer unemployed.

.

Despite the ongoing challenges there is good news for the most heavily impacted sectors of the economy: leisure and hospitality. Well over half of those jobs lost have been recovered. In the past four months 3.6 million jobs have been gained in this sector. Employment in food services and drinking places is still down by down by 2.5 million since the peak in February but the gain is significant and reflects a “V-shaped” recovery ongoing.

All sectors of the economy are gaining jobs back at a remarkable rate; and the key demographics are benefiting in proportion to the initial COVID-19 impact. [BLS Report HERE]  With the expiration of the “extra” federal unemployment benefits at the end of July, the negative incentive has been removed; more people are stepping back into the workforce.

“This was a strong report that shows the recovery remains on track,” said Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors. “The labor market has come back faster than expected and we are seeing improvement in all segments of the economy and the workforce.”  (MSM Link)

 

 

 

President Trump MAGA Rally in Latrobe Pennsylvania – 7:00pm ET Livestream…


Back in rally mode, tonight President Donald J. Trump will be holding a campaign rally at Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. President Trump is expected to speak at 7:00pm ET with pre-rally speakers beforehand.

Donald Trump Campaign Livestream – RSBN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream

 

.

.

The Trump Bull Market


Anyone who has seen my cartoons knows I support Trump and his re-election. Biden and Kamala would be a disaster for our country. However, I don’t always agree with the president and before we at GrrrGraphics begin producing a Republican Convention cartoon extravaganza, I thought I would temper it with a bit of criticism.

When Trump brags about the stock market going up and making new highs, I cringe. This is not a healthy stock market based on logic, earnings, or a healthy economy. The market has disconnected itself from capitalism and a true value discovery.

What’s really going is a Federal Reserve takeover of our economy. What we’re seeing is a monumental transfer of wealth from the have nots to the haves. It widens the gap between a few money lords and the vast majority of We, The Serfs. Before you say I sound like Bernie Sanders, this isn’t about class warfare, but it is about destroying what’s left of the middle class. It makes it easier for the illuminati and their point man, George Soros, to usher in their tyrannical socialism.

Leaving no good crisis unused, they’re leveraging the ‘plannedemic’ to help globalist corporations get fabulously wealthier and more powerful while the smaller businesses—the Mom and Pop middle class–are crushed. The Fed has poured in nearly $7 trillion into the stock market this year alone–and while it does help out those with 401ks as Trump says, it mostly helps those at the very top of the pyramid the most. Amazon’s Bezos has raked in countless billions of dollars has his company makes new highs. Apple has a two trillion dollar market cap. Tesla has the largest market cap of any auto company, even if their sales don’t justify it. Elon Musk is favored by the “Green New Deal” illuminati, so he gets propped up while competition gets stamped out.

The Federal Reserve, in a fascistic manner, gets to funnel money toward favored companies while revenue for small businesses is down 30 percent. The Fed creates money from thin air and keep ‘their’ stock market bull moving up, thus making the fabulously wealthy central bankers and the handful of powerful families at the top who own the Fed gets fabulously wealthier and more powerful. The top 1 percent already owns nearly 40 percent of the stock market. The rest of us get to pay for the bubble through inflation. Have you noticed how expensive food has become? Yet we don’t get to share in the money-glutted stock market. Has the Fed sent you a share of Amazon or Apple? Of course not. Yet we pay for their robbery through the massive creation of debt. It’s always the same—the powerful screw over the powerless. We’ve already passed the point of no return with the national debt (now nearing $27 trillion) and every few seconds another $100,000 is added to it.

https://www.usdebtclock.org

Many Americans can’t afford to participate in the stock market bubble. They’re too busy worrying about how to pay their rent while the rich are getting incredibly richer by ill-gotten means. This is something Trump should consider before he brags about new stock market highs.

—Ben Garrison

De Oppresso Liber

The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

America-Wake-Up

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

TOTT News

Australia's Front Line

CherriesWriter - Vietnam War website

See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors

Nwo Report

Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News

Scott Adams' Blog

De Oppresso Liber

Robert David Steele

Intelligence with Integrity

Stella's Place

Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com

livingbyathread

Exposition and Encouragement

Disrupted Physician

The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction

Easy Money

Featuring Socio-Economic-Financial News Topics Followed by Martin Hladyniuk

all thoughts connected

"Feel free to associate..."

keithgarrettpoetry

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Saints in the Spirit

Empowered with Insperational Qoutes,Spiritual Qoutes, Prayers and laughter.

Bob's Opinion

Conservative Christian and Political Opinion Site. exposing corruption in the church and politics.

Laura Bon

Inspiring the world

%d bloggers like this: