Politically Speaking...... Archives

The Dismantling of the U.S.: Pending

August 14, 2019

I never thought we in America would ever be discussing the dismantling of our country. Some of us have feared it as being something that might happen — “eventually” — but not in our lifetimes! I think the “eventually” may be upon us.

As quickly as a shooting star, the oppressiveness of totalitarianism that for a century has been secluded to “those countries far away” is creeping today into our political system. There have been warning signs for a good while, but almost all Americans while seeing them, brush them off as being impossible. Impossible is what they should be — but they’re not. Let’s take a look.

A group of U.S. Senators sent a warning to the Supreme Court telling the Court that it better change the way it operates — or else. The following was reported about the alert to SCOTUS today: “The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied. ‘The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it is ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

As shocking as this notice was, it’s not unexpected. Think about it: we have been living in an atmosphere for some time in which politicians have been giving us signs that inexorably point to not just their desires, but to their intentions to push the U.S., not just further to the left, but to the far left.

This control spirit existed in the shadows for several decades. Fortunately, champions of freedom like Ronald Reagan kicked the consuming monster of mass control out of sight long enough for a generation of Americans to bask in the light of real freedoms across the board, for a decade or more. But since, steadily and stealthily it has slipped back into everyday U.S. life.

And then Barack Obama promised in 2008 that he would famously lead “the fundamental change of the United States.” And he made good on his promise.

His first term was somewhat limited without control of the entire Congress for a couple of years. But when Democrats gained control, the “transformation” that he promised took off. It was obvious what his fundamental change was planned to look like:

To fundamentally transform America from a society where the majority of people live by the sweat of their brows to one where the majority live off the labors of a shrinking productive class.
To fundamentally transform America from one where the American dream is a job, home, and family to one where the dream is food stamps, welfare, Obama-phones, and government dependency.
To fundamentally transform America from a society that strives, however imperfectly, for color-blind equality to one where race matters in everything from enforcement of voter protection laws to college admissions, to hiring, to school grades and discipline.
To fundamentally transform America from a nation that is a beacon for freedom and democracy to one that leads from behind in the world.
To fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in entrepreneurial efforts and free markets to a controlled economy where central planners make economic decisions for you.
To fundamentally transform America from a country that rewards success and hard work to one where those who disagree still believe they are entitled to a “fair share” of what those who do have earned.
To fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in rugged individualism to a caricature of a European socialist dependency, where citizens all belong to interest groups ever demanding more largess from the government.
To fundamentally transform America from a country where our grandkids have a brighter future to one where they will live in poverty and destitution under the yoke of unpayable debts to fund ever-larger vote-buying schemes from leftist interest groups.
To fundamentally transform America from a land of plenty to one where the poor cannot drive, heat their homes, or feed their families as they are crushed by energy costs to please environmental interest groups and green crony contributors — like the “Green New Deal” hopers.
To fundamentally transform America from a society that strives to eliminate class to one of four classes: wealthy elite liberals, government union bureaucrats, the growing dependent poor, and the shrinking pool of working, productive folk employed in the private sector who are expected to support the other three classes.
To fundamentally transform America from a society that believes in and defends our culture and values to one where multiculturalism declares equal respect and value for cultures that hang gay people, mutilate the genitals of young girls, stone women for adultery, execute “witches,” murder apostates, prohibit education of girls, riot violently against free speech if someone offends them, and murder female relatives over trivial affronts to the family’s “honor.”
To fundamentally transform America from one where there exists a balance of power between the states and the federal government, and between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, to one in which an all-powerful elitist class rules everything with virtually unlimited power.
Let’s don’t forget this one: To fundamentally transform America from one that believed in a life to one where babies are routinely aborted because of their gender or disabilities or just for inconvenience.

Summary

We’ve seen it happen for years. The insistence and embedded practice of ignoring laws at the federal level. Folks, drug possession and recreational use have been illegal — criminal law violations — for years. Yet during the Obama Administration Attorney General Eric Holder instructed federal law enforcement to ignore “minor” drug offenses and its offenders. Illegals continue their journeys to our southern border and their numbers are now in the millions. Yet, it is a federal crime for one — anyone — to cross into the United States without having expressed permission. Yet for decades, federal authorities have — at least in part — turned blind eyes on many of these illegals who do so. And the list of allowed lawlessness goes on and on.

What is the reasoning of federal authorities for doing this? After all, the United States is a “nation of laws.” I could play you videos of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, numerous Senate and House leaders through all of these administrations make speeches confirming the importance and the necessity of the “rule of law.” Yet it’s almost as if they think Americans don’t look-in on how our government acts. Certainly, many Americans don’t pay attention and many don’t care. Maybe it’s because they’re out there working, trying to make good livings for their families. And in doing so, they pay taxes — billions in taxes — that our leaders in Washington who supposedly represent all those Americans find ways to spend not just the taxes we pay, but borrow more and more to spend on additional “necessary” programs. All this while trillions are flushed at the hands of purveyors of special interests that have nothing to do with the support of the American people.

For me, these Democrat Senators have drawn a line in the sand. In effect by doing so they have for political purposes told the U.S. Supreme Court, “You either get your stuff together, start ruling on these controversial cases that come before you in ways that WE think you should, or we’re going to take you to the woodshed.”

That’s Dangerous!

The atmosphere to set up a top-down, bureaucratic, control authority in D.C. to run the nation without the people having any say-so is on the edge of town. And they want it. And they want it desperately.

They’ve been hard at work while good Americans slept doing their busy work as Americans have always done. But these Swamp Rats really don’t care. They smell it, they hunger for it, and their objective is to get power: no matter what it takes.

This is our wakeup call. We need to be vigilant and make ourselves heard. None of us want to be the frog on the stove in a pot of cool water that has the burner turned up very slowly. That frog gets lulled to sleep never thinking he’s in any danger — until it’s too late.

When the water comes to a boil, it’s all over. And in America, these folks have started turning the burner up a little higher every day.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Google: Gone Rogue

August 8, 2019

There’s something up with social media giants Google, Facebook, and Twitter. You’ve heard about it continuously during the last two years: conservative posts are being blocked or taken down, “demeaning” or supposed “hate” speech posts are quarantined. Users’ accounts are even being blocked and sometimes deleted.

The conclusion: the Big Three are no longer just social media, news and information platforms — they are “Political Machines.” And they’re political leanings are obviously tilted to the left. And they’re using political bias to regulate what Americans see and read. In fact, in their doing so, “they” are choosing which political narratives and opinions are acceptable to the general public and which are not.

Yesterday we gave you examples of concrete proof that Democrats now have a choke-hold on their Media lapdogs. The Big Three network news divisions along with CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and others are releasing news stories that are not just biased but are in-the-tank for Democrats already in office and for those who want to be. (If you haven’t already, take about twelve minutes and take a look/listen to yesterday’s story at https://truthnewsnet.org/fact-democrats-control-mainstream-media-content/)

Of the three — Google, Facebook, and Twitter — the media giant Google seems to be the one which is further Left politically and more intense in their editing of its users. But who is Google?

Google

Google was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University in California. Together they own about 14 percent of its shares and control 56 percent of the stockholder voting power through supervoting stock. They incorporated Google as a privately held company on September 4, 1998. An initial public offering (IPO) took place on August 19, 2004, and Google moved to its headquarters in Mountain View, California, nicknamed the Googleplex. In August 2015, Google announced plans to reorganize its various interests as a conglomerate called Alphabet Inc. Google is Alphabet’s leading subsidiary and will continue to be the umbrella company for Alphabet’s Internet interests. Sundar Pichai was appointed CEO of Google, replacing Larry Page who became the CEO of Alphabet.

The company’s rapid growth since incorporation has triggered a chain of products, acquisitions, and partnerships beyond Google’s core search engine (Google Search). It offers services designed for work and productivity (Google Docs, Google Sheets, and Google Slides), email (Gmail/Inbox), scheduling and time management (Google Calendar), cloud storage (Google Drive), instant messaging and video chat (Google Allo, Duo, Hangouts), language translation (Google Translate), mapping and navigation (Google Maps, Waze, Google Earth, Street View), video sharing (YouTube), note-taking (Google Keep), and photo organizing and editing (Google Photos). The company leads the development of the Android mobile operating system, the Google Chrome web browser, and Chrome OS, a lightweight operating system based on the Chrome browser. Google has moved increasingly into hardware; from 2010 to 2015, it partnered with major electronics manufacturers in the production of its Nexus devices, and it released multiple hardware products in October 2016, including the Google Pixel smartphone, Google Home smart speaker, Google Wifi mesh wireless router, and Google Daydream virtual reality headset. Google has also experimented with becoming an Internet carrier (Google Fiber, Google Fi, and Google Station).

Here’s the most interesting and most important segment of today’s article: Google.com is the most visited website in the world. Why is that so important? Because Google has access to almost every electronic device on Earth that is connected to the internet.

Google In Politics

The driving force between any of these social giants is revenue. How do they each create $$? There are only two ways to do it: the sale of goods and products, and the sale of advertising. Google has a lock on the ability to rake in the dough because of their bevy of products, devices, (even their own cellphone line) and advertising. Google, as do all of these companies, do the best they can to parlay their goods and products into expansion and growth opportunities. In the media industry the statement that “he who is first is best” holds true as it does in all sectors of business. Google started the internet browser industry.

Founders Page and Brin were technology innovators who pounced on the importance to find ways to use the internet. In their quest to conceptualize, then create and build a product that could easily be used by a world market just awakening to the world of the Internet and its potentials, they needed to capture other technology gurus to join-in this project. Where else in the U.S. is there a larger and more qualified such group than in Silicon Valley? Answer: Nowhere. Google has captured the largest group of electronic techno-geeks not just in the U.S. but on Earth. And they’re good — really good at what they do.

But here lies the problem: almost all of those at Google 20-years later are born from the prevailing west-coast liberal philosophies that have overtaken America’s political system. This group of Americans — and not just from Silicon Valley — are the products of a generation of educators who promoted liberal political ideas to these young people. As a result, this generation of computer hackers are almost all far-left. And here’s where the social media problems at Facebook, Google, Twitter, and even Amazon and Apple originate. What are they? Left-wing activists using their technology outlets to surreptitiously impact American politics. And they’re changing millions of Americans’ fundamental political ideals and sometimes even their votes!

Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress just gave us a small peek at how prevalent this is. Add Apple, Google, Twitter, Amazon and other techno giants into the mix and we could POSSIBLY be at the verge of a new generation of young Americans driven by a technology-created political ideology unto itself!

Do you know what’s scarier? It’s already been done!

What Has Happened?

Take Facebook and Google for example. Here’s a few minutes of a real expert — Dr. Robert Epstein, a Hard Left Professional — testifying before Congress about Facebook and Google’s significant and already in place operations to impact elections:

What better way than to use something already in your hands to secretly play with and directly impact the results of American elections! According to Dr. Epstein, it’s already been done! More astonishing and egregious is that no one (but probably Facebook and Google) knows how much of this was done, how many people were included in such attempts, and exactly how many people’s votes were impacted. But as Dr. Epstein testified to, MILLIONS of votes were changed.

Social Media Gone Amuck

(The following segment published by FOX News August 5, 2019)

“When President Trump won in 2016, Google executives went on stage right away and cried — literal tears streaming down their faces. They vowed that it would never happen again and they want to use all the power and resources they have to control the flow of information to the public and make sure that Trump loses in 2020,” Kevin Cernekee said on “Fox & Friends” Monday.

Cernekee said Google will “ramp up the censorship” as a method to ensure Trump loses the election — including the censoring of political advertisements, and the filtering of search results to promote its political agenda.
“They are very biased. There is bias at every level of the organization…and if you disagree with them even one iota, they will come after you, they’ll target you, they’ll make you an example.”— Kevin Cernekee, former Google engineer

“Google has a huge amount of information on every voter in the U.S.,” Cernekee explained. He claimed the company will use it to “build psychological profiles” in an attempt to change the minds of voters across the country.
The former Google worker said he noticed early on that the tech giant was mistreating its conservative employees, and he raised his concerns with human resources. In response, he received an official warning, which he took to the labor board. Cernekee was eventually fired in 2018.

Summary

Every American should be horrified. Think about this: the U.S. just came through 2.5 years and $30 million of the exhaustive Robert Mueller investigation into the alleged 2016 campaign violations of members of the Trump Campaign who purportedly worked with Russia to impact 2016 election results. These companies on the west coast are NOT comprised of Russians and are — on the most part — comprised of Americans. Yet Americans employed by American companies have been shown to have aggressively impacted the final vote results of the 2016 election — and not for the benefit of President Trump, but his opponent.

Oh, in case you forgot, here’s the former President’s response on election hacking claims by Candidate Trump during the 2016 election campaign:

“Because democracy, by definition, works by consent, not by force. I have never seen, in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.

It’s unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found, that — keep in mind, elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like Florida, for example, where you’ve got a Republican governor, whose Republican appointees are going to running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites.

The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it’s because of those people that you have to watch out for, that is both irresponsible and, by the way, doesn’t really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you want out of a president.

If you start whining before the game’s even over, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job because there are a lot of times when things don’t go our way or my way.

That’s OK, you fight through it, you work through it, you try to accomplish your goals. But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even — you could even rig America’s elections, in part, because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.

There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”

Every American should be horrified. Election tampering DID happen in 2016. It certainly happened again in 2018. Yet no one in Washington is shouting about the violation of the most basic institution of the United States, not by foreign governments, but by U.S. companies!

Did President Obama know this was going on? It’s likely. We are still waiting for investigation results into the U.S. elements of government intervention in the 2016 election. But more and more testimony and simple addition are showing that the Obama White House at least “knew” about the shenanigans going on if not initiated them. We may never know for certain.

But what we DO know for certain is that 2020 and the federal elections in November of that year are rapidly approaching. All this knowledge and information screams for transparency of the existing investigations and what DOJ processes have been implemented to clean up the certain social media voter-changing attempts that will occur unless stopped.

It’s shameful that Americans are just now discovering how deep is this intrusion into our election process. It’s MORE shameful to discover that heretofore revered American companies seem to be joining forces with political entities to purposefully impact election results to favor certain candidates!

No wonder millions of Americans stay away from the polls and when asked why, they respond “My vote doesn’t mean anything.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Fact: Democrats Control Mainstream Media Content

August 7, 2019

If you questioned our claims that the Mainstream Media are the communications arm of the Democrat Party and nothing more, STOP! It was made abundantly clear that Democrats DO control on the most part Mainstream Media. How so?

Here is the Tuesday, August 5, New York Times front page first edition: “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM:”

Please note: this was the ORIGINAL headline that The Times published early Tuesday, August 5th. But it did NOT last long: a number of Democrats — several of which are 2020 presidential candidates — did not like the headline and lashed out at the paper on Twitter:

Democrat presidential candidate and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, “Hey, @nytimes — what happened to “The Truth Is Worth It?” Not the truth. Not worth it.”
Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) wrote, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
Democrat presidential candidate and former El Paso Congressman Robert “Beto” O’Rourke commented, “Unbelievable.”
New York City Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), leader of The Squad, commented, “Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions.”

And, of course, The Times complied. After the above Twitter assault, the NEW headline in the second edition said: “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS.”

“Where’s the Beef?” That’s a great question. The “beef” is the “meat of the matter,” which is that Democrats control the Mainstream Media. TruthNewsNet began making that point at least two years ago. Many laughed at what was then just our “allegation.” But this snafu and immediate correction by The Times proves that the premiere Leftist media outlet in the U.S. — The New York Times — is afraid of the Democrat Party. That could only happen if there was some type of at least benign control or coordination of the New York paper by someone at the DNC.

This confirms the suspicions of many. But, more importantly, it reveals why so much of what Americans have seen and read in The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other print and internet sources for so long have seemed to not be news, but in many cases actual contrived and prepared talking points. Suspicions of Conservatives grew as they daily watched the Democrat Party mantra play out verbatim beginning on the East Coast in New York across the nation each day through newspapers in large and small cities throughout the U.S.

It has been orchestrated! And it certainly has been at least guided by someone or some group that has power — power over Mainstream Media print news outlets.

Not Just Newspapers

Ever wonder why the big three network news divisions plus CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC seem to parrot the New York Times and Washington Post assault on conservative politicians, conservative causes, and even everyday conservative voters? Their doing so actually confirms the tie between the Democrat Party and Mainstream Media.

We could play video clip after video clip, audio soundbyte after soundbyte, that prove this is NOT a conspiracy theory. For once, this one IS true. We won’t play a bunch, but how about the “parrot” (or coordinated) use of the words “Concerned” and “Propaganda” by “in your face” Democrat news hacks?

Still don’t believe someone coordinates these anti-conservative news stories? Let’s throw Rep. Adam Schiff’s analysis of the Mueller Memo into the picture to start an alliteration of the seldom-used term “Cherry Picked:”

Summary

It is clear that someone with at least the nation’s largest newspapers and cable television networks that lean left or that are simply in the tank for the Democrat Party are taking story content and even stories themselves from the Democrat National Committee and shoving them down the throats of their “intellectual” readers, watchers, and listeners. Need we say that NONE of these stories are slanted toward the right. They are very obviously all hard-left, anti-Conservative and anti-Trump. And these “stories” therefore cannot even be considered “news” at all. Guess what they are: FAKE NEWS!

Uh-Oh: now you’ll say we’ve gone off the deep end here. No. What we do is follow the stories and dig until we find facts. Honestly, these were pretty easy to ferret out and give to you. That in itself is pretty scary. The ease of identifying what these major news sources are doing shows just how callous, caustic, and so political ideology-driven these people are.

Think about it: for decades in America, newspapers were the friends of the common man. They were charged with informing the working people of the United States with the facts of all things important to citizens that were not readily available for consumption. There was no television as we know it today, radio and certainly no internet. Americans relied on impartial, unbiased newspaper reporters to find out what things that were happening were important to the people. Then daily or weekly put that information in some format and deliver it to Americans.

True journalism was once a well-respected vocation. And many true journalists were revered by millions. But what we have today are people who are nothing more than political pundits who each have a political perspective and ideology that is the foundation of their news reports. And, sadly, “truth in reporting” is no longer an intrinsic element of what we see and hear. Those political perspectives are all that matters.

I’ll close with this: often we encourage you to read, watch, and listen to today’s news outlets of your choice, but to never accept what you see and hear as “fact.” Make it your responsibility to fact-check them all! And “fact-check” does NOT mean go to Snopes.com or Politifact.com to get your proof. These both and most other fact-checking sources are themselves operated by political hacks and organizations that disseminate “facts” that are actually propaganda and nothing more.

I know: it’s really sad that we cannot do as our parents and grandparents did to get the news. They just went to the street in the morning, grabbed the paper and read the truth while drinking a cup of coffee. That was a long time ago — way before Al Gore invented the internet!

Let’s cloud this picture a little more. Tomorrow, TruthNewsNetwork will present sworn testimony and actual proof that the current cries for a government investigation of social media giants Facebook, Twitter, and Google are absolutely necessary. Why? Tomorrow the evidence we show will prove that in the 2016 presidential election, vote tallies were actually fiddled with. Doing so actually resulted in vote changes in the millions! And you won’t believe who those vote changes were in favor of!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rhetoric Weaponization: By Democrats

August 2, 2019

“Rhetoric Weaponization: By Democrats” is only click-bait today! I wanted to make certain you joined us for this conversation.

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. It can also be in a visual form. However, “Rhetoric” certainly IS being weaponized.

Weaponization: How is it Done?

To create a successful weaponization of something, one must first determine what will be used. Example: a kitchen knife can be just a kitchen knife. Or a crazed and angry person can take that kitchen knife and weaponize it to use to cut someone’s throat. A gun is simply a gun when manufactured. But a crazed and angry person can take that gun and weaponize it to use to slaughter a bunch of people at a country concert in Las Vegas. Knives or guns alone are NOT weapons — until “someone” turns them into weapons. The same holds true for “words.” And that’s the meat of this story today.

Rhetoric is not necessarily evil. In fact, most sales presentations are a type of rhetoric because they are used “to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.” A completed sale is the goal. But sales presentations are rarely weaponized. Why? Because the objective of sales rhetoric is always positive: the close of a sale.

The most common backdrop today for weaponized rhetoric is politics. And politicians have taken that art-form to an entirely new level. It’s important to know here that Democrats do not hold an exclusive on doing so. There are plenty of openings at the “School of Rhetoric” for enrollees from every different political perspective. But Democrats are on the debate stage now — Republicans I’m certain will join the fray as quickly as they can.

Let’s look at what was the first political term weaponized during the early days of the Donald Trump presidency: “Nationalism.”

Charlottesville

Who can forget the travesty that played out in Charlottesville, Virginia? A group of American history buffs applied for and received a permit from the City of Charlottesville to protest the decision of Charlottesville City Council to order the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from public spaces. Unfortunately, a large group of White Supremacists showed up along with neo-Nazi sympathizers who did NOT apply for permits to legally protest. What ensued was an all-out riot that resulted in several injuries and even one death.

In its aftermath, the use of the term “Nationalism” popped up in numerous political situations. To understand what resulted and remains on the public political stage regarding that word, we must first define “Nationalism:” Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty.” But, unfortunately, the word has been “re-defined” to be a synonym of the term “White Nationalism,” or “White Supremacy.”

There WERE White Supremacists there who initiated the violence — even the Ku Klux Klan. But the term “Nationalism” was NOT the driving force behind those people. They were NOT there to support the fundamentals of the United States of America, rather support and attempt to force their White Supremacist ideology on others.”

Subsequent to that day, “Nationalism” was weaponized by many Democrats who adopted its use to attack non-Black Americans — especially President Trump. In a post-Charlottesville rally, the president famously stated this:

“The term Nationalist is a word that some people do not like. But I AM A NATIONALIST.”

“Nationalism” has been compared to “Patriotism” most often this way: Patriotism is extreme loyalty and allegiance to one’s country. “Nationalism” takes “Patriotism” one step further — allegiance to one’s country OVER all other countries.”

In the wake of Charlottesville and that statement by Mr. Trump, the weaponizers took off! The demonization of the president that was already at a fever-pitch escalated from there. The Mainstream Media relished receiving a new tool with which to attack President Trump — even promoting (without stating it) that Nationalism means the same thing as “White Supremacy.”

As an example of how rhetoric weaponization is stealthily crafted in the marketplace, here’s how Wikipedia weaponized the entire Charlottesville situation with their explanation of Charlottesville:

“The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017. Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and various right-wing militias.”

Wikileak’s description explicitly shows the weaponization of language and events for political purposes that had NO correlation to what truly happened. Don’t dare conflate “Patriotism” and “Nationalism” either. To “help” everyone understand how evil “Nationalism” is compared to “Patriotism,” Leftist Media pundits use illustrations like this:

Notice the smooth segue from Patriotism to re-defining Nationalism as White Supremacy. Know this for a certainty: the Left Media doing so is NOT accidental. They weaponize with their own rhetoric anything they can to denigrate every part of Conservatism and to attack Conservatives — especially Donald Trump.

Rhetoric Weaponization Continues After Charlottesville

In the runup to the 2020 presidential race, we are not only inundated with rhetoric from Democrats who want the White House job, but they have also discovered that rhetoric can be weaponized. With that as their objective, they certainly have done a fine job! And what better term is there with which to inundate their rhetoric and weaponize than “Racism” and its derivative “Racist.”

Who better to demonstrate for us the art of Rhetoric Weaponization than 2020 Democrat presidential candidates themselves? Here they are demonstrating to the World how to maximize one’s use of rhetoric in the alliteration of the term “Racism:”

Summary

Do you know what is pivotal in this conversation? It’s not so much the actual terms that are used. It’s the context in which they are used.

Too often — especially in the media who are almost always driven by an agenda — they do NOT include an entire conversation and certainly do not give an explanation of the context in which words are used by politicians who they want to paint into a political perspective to enhance the STORY.

Donald Trump in the context of his 50+ years of which almost all were very public shows NO propensity for White Supremacy. In fact, his life illustrates the exact opposite of that. But showing that fact does not play into the narrative the Left portray of Mr. Trump. They must weaponize the term “Nationalist” to be a negative connotation and not what Mr. Trump’s use actually was for.

“Racism” is far too often used in the same way. Senator Warren in her alliteration in the previous video segment used HER weaponization of the term to demean Mr. Trump in every way she could.

Adopting this practice is unspeakably dangerous. Why? Because the constant bashing of people by the Left actually crushes Americans’ understanding and belief in the seriousness of true racism and also Nationalism. Both terms represent critically important ideas. And taking them and weaponizing them to be used to attack someone for political purposes destroys in peoples’ minds the importance of what the words really represent. Literally, calling everyone with which one disagrees a racist or White Supremacist is the political weaponization that waters down the travesties of both.

If our leaders, many of whom have already been on presidential debate stages, are so callous to the certain results of their doing so, how can Americans trust that their intentions are honest? It’s much like the child’s story of the little boy that cried, “Wolf!” When a real wolf came along and was about to attack and eat him, his cries were ignored by those around him.

God forbid that Americans would ever become numb to Racism and White Supremacy!

But that could certainly happen — and may have already. Politicians need to learn this lesson: Hold allegations against anyone and everyone unless and until all the facts are known and that those facts are real and applicable to the situation in which they are referencing.

They too need to remember: that practice cuts both ways. I would be horrified if in this election cycle the weaponization of rhetoric would occur on both sides of the political aisle. If that happens, you can be sure Americans will quickly tune out. And we know ALL Americans engaged in seeing, hearing, and processing all the facts about political candidates running for office. That cannot happen if Americans tire of back-and-forth rhetoric and simply turn a deaf ear.

Honestly, I’m pretty sure that many Americans already have. But maybe some politicians are glad that has happened!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Nadler and Schiff Busted! Nadler Exposed

July 28, 2019

Today, as promised, we will look closely at the past and present of the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who has released a non-stop barrage of accusations against President Trump on many levels. His attacks have lasted for more than a year. In those attacks, he has accused President Trump of collusion, obstruction of justice, criminal violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, racism, sexism, misogyny, and for being just an all-around horrible person.

Nadler has been joined by many in the Democrat Party, none more vocal than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who has — in addition to his echoes of Nadler’s allegations of the President — claimed non-stop for more than a year that he has uncontroverted proof already of Trump’s multiple acts of obstruction of justice.

We will complete today’s story with the promised information hiding in plain sight about Rep. Nadler. But let’s begin by looking at all these allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia in 2016.

Collusion

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many alleged potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.

Adam Schiff KNOWS Trump is guilty — PERIOD!

“The Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton in writing and sent it to [Donald Trump Jr.],” Schiff stated. “And Don Jr.’s response was in writing and said, ‘As for your offer of foreign illegal help, I would love it.’ He accepted the offer.”

Noting that Team Trump later lied about the meeting and that represented the “personification of collusion,” Schiff added that Mueller had a different question—whether he could prove the crime of conspiracy.

“And as you know, well before the Mueller report, I was pointing out to the public, there is a difference between what we understand is collusion and whether you can prove all the elements of crime,” he said.

Schiff didn’t stop there. Even after the Mueller Report was released and Special Counsel Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and even in answering continual committee questions from Democrats on the alleged Trump crimes and Mueller’s testimony that did NOT formally or informally indict Trump, Schiff doubled down on his “knowledge” of Trump wrongdoing.

Before we summarize and give you the information we uncovered on Nadler, it’s important to emphasize to you the following:

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort have been given.

Remember that while listening to this short interview that Schiff believed was with Russian officials but were on-air radio announcers in the U.S. tricking Schiff. But participating in this interview, Schiff actually committed the exact same acts that he has continually accused Donald Trump Jr. committing, calling them Obstruction of Justice! (THIS AUDIO OF THE SCHIFF RADIO INTERVIEW CAN BE HEARD ONLY ON THE PODCAST)

First, by even taking this phone call from someone Schiff THOUGHT were Russians, he has committed exactly what he accused Don Jr. of doing talking with an accepting a meeting in that famous Trump Tower meeting. Secondly, he accepted their offer of sending to Schiff the “fake” proof of Trump collusion.

According to Schiff’s own words, he was guilty of the same crime he has alleged of Trump!

Jerrold Nadler

Nadler has never seen a camera he didn’t like, a microphone that he did not “know” was specifically for him, and never shunned participating in an interview to bash the President. But Nadler forgets about the documentation of EVERYTHING official committed by members of the federal government — including the Congressional Record.

The same man who once showed clear favoritism for President Clinton, an admitted perjurer, is now hellbent on continuing the witch hunt against President Trump despite the fact that Trump has been cleared by the special counsel. Will the hypocrisy never end with this man?

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Nadler made veiled threats, innuendos, and salacious accusations against President Trump that have since been disproven. “When the full scope of the president’s misconduct has been revealed, when his lies are debunked and his abuses have been laid bare, I believe that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will draft legislation to curb the worst of his offenses,” he wrote. “Put another way: If President Trump’s behavior wasn’t criminal, then perhaps it should have been.”

When the shoe was on the other foot, and Clinton had actually committed a crime, Nadler did his best to cover for him. Now that the fake collusion allegations against President Clinton have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the special counsel, he’s looking for crimes that “should have been.”

Nadler was a young Congressmen during the Clinton White House years. He was there during the impeachment proceedings against President Trump. He voraciously stood with the President defending him against impeachment proceedings and blasting Republicans for taking any actions. What justification did the junior New York Congressman give for his insistence to NOT impeach Mr. Clinton? The exact same things he himself is using in his current demands to impeach Donald Trump!

Don’t take our word for it. Let’s go to the official record: Rep. Nadler’s actual speech before Congress. His speech is lengthy, so we will not put the entire speech in this story. Below in bullet points, we share the salient points of his contentions that will shock all, especially in light of his current rants against the President.

Nadler’s Speech before the House of Representatives regarding Bill Conton’s Impeachement: December 18, 1998

“The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
Some members of the House may think the people have chosen badly, but it is the people’s choice and we must respect it absent a threat to our democracy that would justify overturning the repeated expression of their will at the ballot box. Members of Congress have no right to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent that compelling case.
This House is not a grand jury. To impeach the President would subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign concerns festered without proper attention. We cannot simply punt the duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere ‘‘probable cause’’ that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of an ‘‘independent’’ counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include exculpatory evidence, and consistently misstated the law.
Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law — to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen, whether or not he is impeached. And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third President in U.S. history, and the first since 1848, to be censured by the Congress. But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as a punishment for a President.
The case is not there — there is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the Senate. To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this House to the condemnation of history for generations to come.
The American people are watching, and they won’t forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but you lack the legitimacy of a national consensus and the Constitution. This partisan coup d’etat will go down in the history of this nation in infamy.”

Summary

What is most amazing to me and many other conservatives is that these Democrats who control the House believe they can lie, again and again, misrepresent acts committed by others they label as “illegal” while doing the same things themselves with impunity, and misrepresent the laws of the United States. What else? They categorically are doing their very best to remove a President that was duly and legally elected by the People of the United States!

This is an egregious moment in American history. If allowed to fulfill this travesty, it will destroy our election system, our trust in government, and send the nation back to the political environment in which it was first birthed — 250 years behind where we are today.

Do you know what’s saddest? They’re doing this with the deference if not full support of millions of Democrats who refuse to ferret out the truth for themselves. And these members of Congress are lying to their followers with no consideration for the Rule of Law, the Constitution, the will of the American voters, all the while trampling on the Truth.

Jerrold Nadler MUST be removed from the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. Adam Schiff MUST be removed fro the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. And Americans who voted constitutionally and elected Donald Trump President of the United States MUST have their will rule over a group of tyrants who have been for 2.5 years attempting what is literally a coup to overthrow the presidency put in place not by members of Congress, but by millions of voters who those in Congress work for.

Wake up America. Or get ready for REAL Mob Rule.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Federal Government Breaking the Law

July 24, 2019

It happens every day: someone in federal government arbitrarily assumes the responsibility and authority to ignore lawbreaking of every kind. Whether that lawbreaking is the selling or using marijuana, (which doing so is a federal offense) crossing American borders without legal authority, passing along classified government information and/or documents to a media organization, or using open source or unsecured computer or other electronic devices for the dissemination of classified information, each is a violation of a federal law. Apparently, these acts and others are committed daily across the U.S. Yet more often than not, these criminal acts are ignored by authorities.

What has happened to the enforcement of Law in the United States? Aren’t we a nation established on the premise that the United States Constitution was and is a template on which government was established and to function — especially regarding the enforcement of ALL laws passed according to the Constitutional process for doing so? Isn’t that process called “The Rule of Law?”

Rule of Law

In its simplest form, the “Rule of Law” means that “no one is above the law.” It is the foundation for the development of peaceful, equitable and prosperous societies. For the rule of law to be effective, there must be equality under the law, transparency of law, an independent judiciary and access to legal remedy. Yet, about 57% of the world’s population lives outside the shelter of the law. That’s five billion people struggling for basic, human rights on a daily basis.

American citizens and all those who come into our country have access to that “Rule of Law,” even those who cross into the United States illegally. That’s something of a paradox, but it’s true: once here every person Constitutionally is granted certain rights and must adhere to U.S. law.

The rule of law is a critical key to a just society and democracy. It dictates that laws of the land be transparent, known to everyone and applicable to all. No one, regardless of title, position or wealth can be held above the law and government decisions must be predictable because they follow known legal principles and encoded rules known as “laws.”

For most of the 19th century, America was far ahead of the rest of the world in its consistent and thorough efforts to adhere to the rule of law and strive toward equal opportunity for its citizens regardless of class, wealth or title. While politicians and individuals acting in self-interest have frequently violated this key principle (seems to be human nature for some), historically the courts were able to correct back to founding principles. If applying the law of the land results in an amazingly unfair or unjust outcome in a particular set of facts, courts are able to restore balance and respect for the rule of law through the principles of equity.

The “Rub” for Most Americans

What’s the complaint from average Americans about the Law? It’s not enforced equally or it’s not enforced at all!

How many specific instances can you name where lawbreakers — primarily at the federal level — are caught “in the act” but pay NO penalty for their crimes? Can you name a few?

James Comey: fired FBI Director. He transferred classified documents to a member of the media for the express purpose of releasing that information to the public — a felony violation of a federal statute. Comey also lied under oath to Congress which is also a criminal violation.
Hillary Clinton: Ms. Clinton broke multiple laws surrounding her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. First, that server was never tested nor certified by State Department IT personnel to operate for the purpose of sending and receiving emails containing classified information. Subsequent to the FBI’s investigation, Clinton sent numerous emails from that server that the FBI concluded were intercepted and forwarded to a foreign server belonging to an unknown person or persons — all illegal. Her illegal acts did not end there. She or others with her directions destroyed cell phones and other electronic devices that had been used for government business instead of turning those over to authorities.
President Obama: while President, Obama communicated via emails with then-Secretary of State Clinton while knowing he was doing so via her illegal and unauthorized server. The President used a made-up Gmail email account he opened with no one knowing about. All communications of any kind by or with a U.S. President are by law considered “classified.” His doing so violated several federal statutes.
Former NSA Adviser Susan Rice: Ms. Rice using her position in the White House authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to release the names of Trump Associates who were caughtup in communications with foreigners. The NSA legally keeps the names of Americans classified in such circumstances. Rice was discovered giving those names to others. She is the one who (through surveilled telephone conversations) released information regarding General Michael Flynn.

When Americans see and hear the obvious illegal acts committed by those in the highest echelons of U.S. government, it is at least disheartening to know (as an example) ALL four of the above politicians that includes a U.S. president are apparently above the Rule of Law!

A member of the U.S. Navy, Kristian Saucier, 28, of Arlington, Vermont, was convicted of taking photos of classified spaces, instruments and equipment inside the U.S.S. Alexandria, where he was stationed. He sent the photos to show friends where he worked. Those photos were classified. Based on THAT prosecution and his one criminal act, Comey, Clinton, Obama, and Susan Rice should ALL certainly be in prison after being tried and then certain conviction of breaking multiple very serious federal charge and all in federal prison! They would then be receiving (along with Saucier) “Equal Justice Under the Law.”

So why doesn’t this happen? Why are powerful political elites in America give preferential treatment?

How does a former U.S. Senator, then Secretary of State and a candidate for President skate by with thumbing her nose at the Rule of Law and accountability for her illegal acts?
How does an FBI Director release classified information to the Media and not even be charged for federal law violations?
How does a National Security Adviser unilaterally and illegally unmask the name of an American general for the express purpose of digging up dirt on a political candidate?
How does a sitting President of the United States over a period of years transfer and receive classified information to his Secretary of State on a non-classified and non-secured email server that transferred every one of his emails to some unknown entity in an unknown foreign country?

How did each do it? In each case there has been NO ACCOUNTABILITY for their acts.

In this short video, notice the fake outrage and demonization by James Comey of Donald Trump, all the while knowing Comey himself had and was breaking numerous laws:

The Rule of Law, Not a Rule of Lawyers

The rule of written law is one of the six pillars of the American republic.

One is democracy: We involve the greatest number of people in making government decisions, rather than trust in an elite of “experts.”
The second is free markets: We involve the greatest number of people in making economic decisions, rather than trust in central planners.
The third is federalism: We put government decisions closer to the people in order to involve a more diverse set of decision-makers who can experiment with different paths for different communities’ needs.
The fourth is tradition: We invoke the wisdom of the larger sample of multiple generations by trial and error on matters of common human experience rather than rely on the more limited number of people alive at a particular time.
The fifth, which ties together democracy, federalism, and tradition, is deliberation: We have a republic, not a pure democracy, so that government decisions are not the process of hasty panics but are openly debated and resolved with support that is deep, geographically wide, and enduring over a series of elections, so that continuing to enforce today’s laws tomorrow has legitimacy.
And sixth, without which the other five are powerless, we have the stable rule of written law so that the democratically enacted decisions reduced to written law by the representatives of the people with due deliberation are honored until overturned by the same process and not easily discarded by a narrow professional elite.

This is not the system designed by Washington, or Jefferson, or Adams, or Hamilton, or Madison, or Franklin, or any of the other Founding Fathers; it’s the system designed by deliberate compromises among all of them, ratified by the people of their day, and changed repeatedly since by the people of the U.S. when the need for changes became apparent. Taken all together, the American system is designed to follow a path down the middle between the self-absorbed elites in Washington and the self-interests of a sometimes dis-enfranchised group of middle-Americans who occasionally act as a populist mob. It is also designed to steer a middle path between the “ancient” rule of the past and the fickle moods of today. The people remain sovereign and can change any law they like — if they act in large enough numbers over a broad enough area across a sustained period of time.

The PEOPLE as represented by the 535 representatives sent to represent each community, district and state have the Constitutional right to change the law in the manner dictated by the U.S. Constitution. But NO ONE has the right to ignore or unilaterally change enforcement of any duly passed law — PERIOD. Least of all are the members of Government.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Pelosi Family: BIG Money Corruption! Part 2

July 23, 2019

We’re unearthing Pelosi family “questionable” financial dealings that have to do with Speaker Pelosi’s favoritism on the part of those of special interest to her. They often have included her husband, brother-in-law, and very connected political donors. Nancy learned the political process of corruption and watched it work as a girl.

You may not have known this, but when she was younger she was “the mayor’s daughter.” Nancy Pelosi’s father Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. allegedly was a “constant companion” of notorious mobster Benjamin “Benny Trotta” Magliano and other underworld figures during his political years in Baltimore, MD. D’Alesandro was a Congressman for five terms from 1938 to 1947, and Baltimore mayor for three terms from 1947 to 1959. Magliano was identified by the FBI as one of Baltimore’s “top hoodlums,” and he widely was acknowledged as the representative for New York’s Frankie Carbo who made his bones with Murder, Inc. and later became a made guy in the Lucchese family. The allegations are included in D’Alesandro’s recently-released FBI files.

Nancy’s Dad was not the only member of her immediate family who had legal issues. During the summer of 1953, Nancy’s brother, Franklin D’Alesandro, aged twenty, was one of fourteen youths charged with having committed rape of two girls, aged eleven and thirteen, during July of that year. It was reported that Franklin D’Alesandro was the only one of twelve of those tried at that time who was successful in obtaining an acquittal.

A February 27, 1961, FBI memo states that “the consensus of opinion among persons connected with law enforcement that D’Alesandro (Nancy’s brother) was acquitted of rape because of the brilliant fashion the way his case was handled by his defense attorney.” D’Alesandro was represented by Joseph Sherbow who managed to sever his client from the other defendants and ensured his trial went first so any convictions against the others would not prejudice him. Apparently, D’Alesandro (the “elder”) believed that his son was guilty of the charge, and prior to trial urged him to plead guilty and “take his medicine.”

Nancy grew up quickly in politics learning from one of the all-time best movers and shakers in politics: her father. And she’s developed it into an art. And she uses it prolifically — especially ingratiating family members and close political allies with “business opportunities.”

Yesterday we talked extensively about her husband Paul and his real estate dealings that have netted the pair tens of millions of dollars since the early part of this century. And those real estate ventures are still paying dividends as well as garnering Nancy huge campaign contributions. Let’s look at other financial dealings that have been purposely kept below the Media radar screen.

Green Energy

“Green Energy” has for more than a decade been the buzz in industry that has attracted constant attention and taxpayer dollars from Washington. One of the reasons for its luster is the ability to easily justify taxpayer grants and loan guarantees to startup Green Energy companies to “assist” the U.S. to — through the private sector — quickly head down the path toward energy independence, but, more importantly, “renewable” green energy independence. The Obama Administration saw that opportunity with an open cash register in mind. And the 44th president certainly opened that cash register that started full of taxpayer dollars and loan guarantees that were doled out emptying the taxpayer cash register indiscriminately to Silicon Valley companies in obscene amounts.

I was in San Jose on business several years ago and drove by a very large building right on the side of the freeway. On it was emblazoned a sign with “Solyndra” proudly displayed for all to see. After all, Solyndra was an Obama federal government and American taxpayer subsidized miracle company. Solyndra WAS subsidized, but Solyndra was far from a miracle.

Deep in the mire of the nearly $1 billion obligations to American taxpayers for Solyndra was another Pelosi family member. Let’s look.

Solyndra

Solyndra, which manufactured unique solar panels based on cylindrical cells that didn’t require silicon, was once a burgeoning clean energy superstar, attracting more than $1 billion from private investors. In 2009, the Obama administration approved a $535 million loan guarantee that helped the company build a new factory in Fremont, Calif. It became a poster child for the president’s stimulus efforts. But in August 2011, the factory suddenly closed, and by September the company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Nancy Pelosi had no direct involvement in the Solyndra loan guarantee, although she side-stepped the normal House budget examination process for all entities seeking federal loan guarantees.

It went downhill in the green energy federal loan business after the Solyndra horror.

Next?

Under Obama, the Department of Energy approved $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies — including a $737 million loan guarantee to a company known as SolarReserve:

Despite the knowledge that Solyndra was tanking, then-Minority Leader Pelosi’s brother-in-law, second in command at the energy investment firm backing the project, somehow secured government funding for the SolarReserve project. PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC, listed as one of the investors in the project was given the staggering loan, which even dwarfs that given to failed company Solyndra. The project was expected to generate enough electricity to power 43,000 homes. That’s it. Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the loan just two days after the doomed $535 million Solyndra disaster was scheduled for completion.

On SolarReserve’s website is a list of “investment partners,” including the “PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC.” As blogger American Glob quickly discovered, PCG’s number two is none other than “Ronald Pelosi, a San Francisco political insider and financial industry polymath who happens to be the brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, then was Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives.”

But wait… there’s more! One of SolarReserve’s other investment partners is Argonaut Private Equity:

“Steve Mitchell and Argonaut Private Equity might have a chance to recoup some of their losses in the Solyndra debacle now that the Department of Energy has given a $737 million dollar loan guarantee to a company backed by Argonaut that also lists Mitchell among its board of directors. Mitchell served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors. He also serves as Managing Director for Argonaut Private Equity, a company that invested in Solyndra through the LLCs parent company. After Solyndra declared bankruptcy, two Democratic members of the U.S. House asked that Mitchell testify about Solyndra. Though he has not appeared before Congress, he has “been asked to provide documents to Congress” pertaining to Solyndra.

At the time, Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns, then-chairman of the investigations subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce warned:

“The administration’s flagship project Solyndra is bankrupt and being investigated by the FBI, the promised jobs never materialized, and now the Department of Energy is preparing to rush out nearly $5 billion in loans in the final 48 hours before stimulus funds expire — that’s nearly $105 million every hour that must be finalized until the deadline.”

Despite the warnings, Energy Secretary Chu said the projects would create 900 construction jobs and, get ready for this, trumpets, please… 52 permanent jobs. Whoopie!

All told, Obama era expenditures, first put in place by Speaker Pelosi, who did away with the usual budgetary process, exceeded revenues by more than $1 Trillion each year. This became the baseline for unquestioned omnibus spending packages that subsequent Republican Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan refused to reign in. This allowed politicians on both sides of the aisle to grow rich, while our children were saddled with a debt burden from which they are not likely to escape.

There’s a reason Nancy Pelosi has a net worth ranging from $120-185 million. She more than likely earned her money the old fashioned way: by stealing it from taxpayers. It’s the same reason Democrats are lining up behind the Green New Deal that reads like a Republican parody of a Democrat program. Now put the “Green New Deal” in perspective. If the Beltway elites grew rich by spending $4 trillion dollars each year, imagine how much can they believe they can skim from doubling or tripling those expenditures.
Asking for a friend.

Pelosi Help From Obama

As the Obama White House rejected charges that the Obama administration was motivated by politics in its decisions on green energy loans, scrutiny increased over the preference given to Democratic donors seeking federal loans. 2011 emails suggested that politics did play a role in administration decisions regarding its energy loan guarantee programs. But beyond the timing of political announcements, the Solyndra investigation churned up questions about the White House’s overall strategy of doling out taxpayer money. The rolls of green energy subsidies show that beyond a few headline-grabbing cases, several well-connected Democrats obtained taxpayer assistance for environmentally friendly projects.

Among the recipients are:

— Solyndra, which received $535 million in loan guarantees and whose chief investor was the George Kaiser Family Foundation. George Kaiser was an Obama campaign bundler.

— Brightsource Energy, which received $1.6 billion and whose senior adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr., an early Obama backer;

— Solar Reserve, which got a $737 million loan, and whose major investor is a company run by Michael Froman, who was a deputy assistant to the president. Froman bundled up to $500,000 for the president’s 2008 campaign;

— Granite Reliable Wind Generation, which received a $168.9 million loan. The company’s majority owner is a firm formerly led by Nancy Ann DeParle, who became an Obama White House deputy chief of staff and former head of the president’s health care communications team during the reform debate; and

— Abound Solar, which received a loan guarantee worth $400 million. A key investor is billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, who gave $87,000 to Obama’s inauguration committee, and hundreds of thousands more to Democratic causes.

Peter Schweizer, author of the book, “Throw Them All Out,” wrote that at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers took money from administration loan programs.

Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to an audit that suggested the controversial projects would not pay for themselves, as officials had promised.

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration approved and were implemented, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in an audit.

It’s increasingly hard to tell the government’s green jobs subsidies apart from the Democrats’ friends and family rewards program. Funny that Democrats scream that Saudi’s renting out an entire floor of a Trump hotel is an untenable emolument.

What Is Nancy’s Net Worth?

Nancy Pelosi dodged a question from a woman at a town hall event last year regarding the lawmaker’s net worth as Pelosi criticized the GOP tax reform law and the federal budget.

“God never intended one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth while others live in abject deadening poverty,” Pelosi said at the Phoenix, Ariz. event, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., according to a video shared by the Republican National Committee.

Shortly thereafter, a woman from the crowd raised her voice and asked, “How much are you worth, Nancy? Are you in abject poverty?” the woman added.

“We’re not talking about that,” Pelosi said, noting that she has five grown children and can speak “louder than anybody.” Pelosi is considered one of the wealthiest members of Congress and her net worth is estimated to be approximately $143 million.

As House Speaker, Pelosi makes $193,000 a year. We have yesterday and today listed several examples of how the longtime Congresswoman from California has parlayed her personal and business relationships and those of her husband into an amazing net worth — not just for her and her immediate family, but for relatives and even close friends.

What worries many is not that the Speaker (or any other member of Congress, for that matter) is wealthy, it’s that almost to a person they enter Congress with a pile of campaign debt, they make $170,000 or so a year, and live in one of the nation’s most costly cities while maintaining a residence back home in their district for their families. They do all this and somehow become millionaires.

Americans see that and wonder how that happens.

You now know how it happens.

There are unwritten rules for those who enter Congress. They go like this:

Take a seat, listen and learn;
Don’t question power. Don’t question how party leaders function. Don’t question the rules of Congress;
When you’ve proven you are a true part of our party and that you’ll do as told, you’ll begin to get good committee appointments. When that happens you’ll have financial doors open that you never knew existed. And you’ll be able to take advantage of those;
Keep your mouth shut about those opportunities. We do not discuss family business outside the family;
Democrats and Republicans alike have the same opportunities. We only push so hard against members of the “other side.” Why? They’ll win power and be in control. We do not want to upset these opportunities for them so that when they regain control, they’ll treat us the same;
Make certain you always take care of those who put you in the places for you to take advantage of these opportunities. “What goes around comes around;”
Never go outside the Congressional family to discuss any of the things you see and hear within our party;
If you make a habit of breaking these rules we’ll see to it you are kicked to the curb and sent home. A Representative only has two years, a Senator six. But each of those can be shortened if the Party chooses.

Financial rewards are for sale. What’s the price? Total Compliance.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Pelosi Family BIG Money: Corruption!

July 22, 2019

It’s curious that members of Congress who live and work in one of the most expensive U.S. cities and make $170,000 a year in pay seem to fight for that job. We’re told by their frequent motions for personal pay increases they cannot afford to work and live in D.C. And they expect us to bow and thank them for their working for government sacrifice for Americans. Yeah, Right!

They all start at the same salary, and they almost all end their Congressional careers as multi-millionaires.

Their secret? Job “fringe benefits.”

Let’s look at how just one member of the House of Representatives “brings home the bacon:” Nancy Pelosi.

The “Family”

Nancy Pelosi married into bucks. She came from bucks herself. But none of those “bucks” amounted to near what the Pelosi family is worth today. And Nancy opened the door to those big dollars — maybe ALL legally. After all, it seems that Congress is the place to go if one wants to become powerful and enjoy all the perks that go with that job in Congress.

Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of wonderful and honest people who are serving the nation and their constituents honestly in Congress. Then there are plenty of others who maybe don’t cross the line when it comes to the Law, but they certainly get as close to the line as they can without stepping over.

I’ll put Speaker Pelosi in the latter. How so?

Before becoming Speaker, Nancy steered more than a billion dollars in subsidies to a light rail project that benefitted a company run by a high-dollar Democratic donor and in which her husband is a major investor. When cloud computing giant Salesforce sold a large plot of land to the Golden State Warriors, it had House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to thank for helping to swell real estate prices in the area.

Pelosi worked for more than a decade to steer taxpayer funds to a light rail project in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood, where Salesforce had planned a new campus. Experts say the project boosted the value of Mission Bay real estate. The company’s CEO, Marc Benioff, is a high-dollar Democratic donor. Pelosi and her leadership PAC are among the recipients of his generous campaign contributions. Pelosi’s husband is also a major Salesforce investor. Pelosi’s tireless advocacy for federal support for San Francisco’s light rail system has come under scrutiny for potentially enriching another liberal billionaire, hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. (Does that name sound familiar? Like, in the impeachment of Donald Trump)

In Salesforce’s case, Pelosi’s work appears to have financially benefitted not just a Democratic mega-donor, but also a company in which Pelosi’s direct family owns a large stake as well as valuable real estate holdings in her husband’s portfolio. Salesforce paid $278 million for 14 acres in Mission Bay in 2010. It bought the land from a group called Alexandria Real Estate Equities, which had purchased it from FOCIL-MB, a division of Democratic financier Tom Steyer’s hedge fund. The exact dollar figure of its sale to the Warriors was not released. “We paid a very pretty penny,” the team’s co-owner said.

Real estate values in Mission Bay have skyrocketed over the past decade as the city works to transform the former industrial neighborhood. “From a decrepit and seemingly abandoned old rail yard 15 years ago, Mission Bay has sprouted into San Francisco’s fastest-growing neighborhood,” the San Francisco Business Times reported. San Francisco real estate is some of the most expensive in the nation, and Mission Bay has seen some of the fastest-growing property values in the city in recent years.

Contributing to that rise has been the expansion of the city’s Third Street Light Rail line. Studies on the financial effects of public transit projects, including one that looked specifically at the Third Street expansion, have found that they increase property values in surrounding areas. Pelosi has been the expansion’s champion at the federal level. Starting in 2003 and since, she has secured well over a billion dollars for the project in the form of earmarks, federal funding agreements, and stimulus disbursements. That work has come under scrutiny since it was revealed that Farallon was a major landholder in Mission Bay as Pelosi, a recipient of Steyer campaign contributions and an ally of the billionaire environmentalist, steered taxpayer money to the light rail extension.

A 2004 real estate deal gave Farallon ownership of roughly two million square feet of commercial space in Mission Bay. Salesforce’s planned campus in the area was a bit smaller but still significant: according to documents submitted to the San Francisco Planning Department, its four buildings would have comprised nearly 1.5 million square feet. An increase in the value of Salesforce’s real estate from 2010 to its sale would mean a financial gain for the company and its investors, one of whom is Pelosi’s husband. According to her most recent personal financial disclosures, filed in May of this year, Paul Pelosi owns a stake in Salesforce worth between $500,000 and $1 million. Pelosi first invested in the company in 2000, when he purchased between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock. According to financial news service Motley Fool, “Pelosi seems to have acquired shares in a private offering” prior to the company’s 2004 initial public offering. Its stock has soared since then. It debuted at $3.75 a share on June 23, 2004. As of last Thursday, July 18, 2019, it was trading near $153!

Does that sound at all to you like a bit of a conflict of interest? The Democratic leader’s investments in companies with business before the House came under intense scrutiny in 2011 and 2012 when Congress debated measures governing “insider trading” by members of Congress. An eventual law imposing stricter regulations on members’ financial activities even included language informally dubbed the “Pelosi provision” due to her and her husband’s participation in IPOs of companies actively lobbying for or against federal legislation.

Much of the information and Pelosi’s and other members’ “insider trading” came to light in Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer’s book Throw Them All Out, which investigated cronyism and self-serving financial deals by members of Congress. In addition to his reporting on Pelosi’s IPO participation, Schweizer revealed that her husband owns property in San Francisco that will likely benefit from the Third Street light rail extension. Two stops on the extended light rail line are about three blocks from a four-story office building owned by Paul Pelosi. According to disclosure forms, the property, at 45 Belden Place, is worth between $1 million and $5 million. He made between $100,000 and $1 million in rent from the property last year.

“The National Association of Realtors says that high-quality mass transit (like [the Third Street light rail]) can increase property values by ‘over 150 percent,’” Schweizer noted. “There’s a sweet spot for obtaining the maximum transit premium: two to four blocks away is ideal.”

That was roughly the distance from Salesforce’s planned campus to a Mission Bay stop on the light rail line as well.

In addition to the potential financial benefits of that “transit premium” for investors such as Pelosi, the light rail extension worked to the advantage of Salesforce itself. The company, which would not say whether it realized a gain on its sale to the Warriors, is aided financially by several high-dollar Democratic donors.

CEO Marc Benioff bundled half-a-million dollars for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. He donated an additional $300,000 to Democratic candidates according to data compiled by CQ Moneyline. Benioff is more bipartisan in his contributions than many prominent Obama supporters, but his Democratic donations dwarf the $62,000 he’s given to Republicans. One of Benioff contributions before the 2012 election was Pelosi, to whom the Salesforce CEO maxed out with two $2,500 payments. He gave another $5,000 to Pelosi’s leadership PAC and $15,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee the same day.

Those contributions came just four months after Pelosi secured $967 million in federal funding for the Third Street light rail project.

Summary

This all sounds amazingly secretive and certainly disingenuous. Think about it: those who work for us and have the exclusive right to craft and implement every federal law in existence are very obviously stretching the parameters of their own regulations — like “conflict of interest” — to personally enrich themselves using that power. All the while they are preaching to Americans the government needs more and more tax revenue to “take care of the business and personal needs of ALL Americans.”

Don’t think this story is complete. There are several more instances of Pelosi led financial wrongdoing that we have uncovered. We’re going to come back to you with one you’ve heard of on a broader scale, but I bet you didn’t know Pelosi and her family were right in the middle of it. Do you remember that $792 Billion Obama stimulus? It was actually called the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” It should have been called instead the “American 2009 Porkulous Investment Act for Political Elites.” (Yes, I invented the word Porkulous)

By the way, it probably comes as no surprise to you that we reached out to the House Speaker’s office for comment on this story — four phone calls over two weeks and no response. Are you shocked!?

The meat of the exposed Pelosi conflicts is far too extensive to restrict to this one story. We’ll have a second part tomorrow. If you think today’s story was a really deep narrative about things that most Americans have expected for decades but had never been revealed, wait until you see Part II of this! It’s worse. Don’t miss it!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Stock Market “Only Rich People:” Want the Truth?

July 21, 2019

We hear it every day from President Trump: the stock market is at its highest value ever. The stock market continues to climb to record levels with stock prices soaring and those who own those stocks are making millions in the market. But then we see headlines like these:

“The Top 10% Own 80% of the Stock Market,” “The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks,” and “Dow Hits 21,000, Trump Touts StockMarket Success.” I’m certain it comes as no surprise to you that the experts stood in line in the Fall of 2016 making horrific predictions of what the election of Donald Trump would turn United States economics into if he were to be elected.

It might come as a surprise to you that these numbers are NOT factual. (Who would think Mainstream Media would report to Americans fake news?) Let’s look at some “Dire predictions” and actual stock market results. Then will tell you who really invest in markets — and it ain’t just the Rich!

Predictions: Experts Aren’t Always Right

Remember the dire predictions from stock market experts during the 2016 campaign warning us all that the Stock Market would tank if Donald Trump won the White House? Actual REAL experts jumped into the fray with everything they had, foretelling the Trump gloom and doom:

Mark Cuban. “I can say with 100 percent certainty that there is a really good chance we could see a huge, huge correction,” Cuban told CNN. “That uncertainty potentially as the president of the United States — that’s the last thing Wall Street wants to hear.”
Erik Jones. “You would see incredible pressure on stock prices if Trump wins and everyone flooding into rare metals like gold and into bonds” in the U.S., Germany and the United Kingdom, Erik Jones, professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, told Politico’s Ben White.
Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz. “Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%,” University of Michigan professor Wolfers and Dartmouth professor Zitzewitz wrote in a report that supposedly scientifically forecast the market’s reaction to Trump’s victory
Andrew Ross Sorkin. The New York Times columnist and CNBC anchor wrote: “In all likelihood, a Trump victory would lead to a swift, knee-jerk sell-off. Many investors will choose to sell stocks and ask questions later.” In fairness to Sorkin he hedged his belief in the sell-off by writing: In truth, it’s impossible to predict how the markets would settle into a Trump presidency, despite the speculation on all sides. In all likelihood, it will take time for investors to truly make sense and “math out” how his policies would affect the economy.
Lawrence G. McDonald of ACG Analytics hedged also, predicting a massive sell-off followed by a relief rally. “Trump will create a colossal panic, but the relief rally will be outstanding,” he told Sorkin. Well, he got the rally right, anyway.
Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-founder of a leading economics blog, The Baseline Scenario had perhaps the most panicked reaction, in keeping with his status as America’s most authoritative economists. “With the United States’ presidential election on November 8, and a series of elections and other political decisions fast approaching in Europe, now is a good time to ask whether the global economy is in good enough shape to withstand another major negative shock. The answer, unfortunately, is that growth and employment around the world look fragile. A big adverse surprise – like the election of Donald Trump in the US – would likely cause the stock market to crash and plunge the world into recession,” Johnson wrote on October 29, 2016.
Ian Winer, Bridgewater Associates, Tobia Levkovich, Macroeconomics Advisors are all proven stock market experts who each projected dire economic happenings in U.S. and World financial markets if Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Would you like the “Rest of the Story?” Here are the results that ALL of the experts failed miserably to predict that certainly cost many Americans opportunities to pocket huge stock market profits:

Dow Close 11/7/2016: 17,888.28
Dow Close 7/18/2019: 27,222.97

In the midst of all the pessimistic projections by the above experts and many others, let’s compare the Dow numbers close the day before the 2016 election with today’s numbers. I’ll warn you: They’re not quite what the experts told Americans the results of a Trump victory would look like. Trump’s election instigated a Dow Jones increase of 9334.69 points or 52.2%.

How does that interpret into real dollars? a $50,000 investment in the market the day before the election — 11/7/2016 — would be worth $76,000 on 7/18/2019.

With all of this success the U.S. stock market has had, why is it only the rich and super-rich in the United States that can invest in stock markets? After all, 2020 presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Joe Biden, and others have made demeaning all those rich white millionaires and billionaires a fundamental in their campaigns. It’s just not fair! They have presented to Americans multiple promises to make multiple important parts of Americans’ lives free: free college, free healthcare, government payoff of all college tuition loans. Free, Free, Free!

How can the government pay for all of these programs? Simple: just tax those super-rich Americans who get richer and richer simply by having investments in the stock market.

Guess what: that will not work. The super-rich collectively don’t make enough money that if all was confiscated by the federal government would pay for these programs. Besides that, the money pot to which those billionaires owe their financial success to — the stock market — is NOT a party-place of the super-wealthy. What 2020 Democrat candidates are preaching to America about the stock market and the evil rich is not the truth! The wealthy don’t fly solo when it comes to stock market investing. There are others who benefit from market investments if not to the same level as the wealthy stockholders, almost the same.

So If Not Just Millionaires Who Invests in Stocks?

In 2018, 55 percent of adults in the United States invested in the stock market. While that is a slight increase from the last two years, it remains below the levels before the Financial Crisis, having peaked at 65 percent in 2007.

It’s easy to think that the stock market is the playground of hedge funds and day traders, but in reality, most of the stock market is owned by the average joe. In fact, the largest chunk is doing one thing: helping people retire. In a white paper, Steven Rosenthal and Lydia Austin of the Tax Policy Center have broken out exactly which kind of investors own the stock market. They found that a majority of corporate stock is owned by different types of retirement plans, the largest being IRAs and defined-benefit plans. Of the $22.8 trillion in stock outstanding (not including US ownership of foreign stock and stock owned by “pass-through entities” such as exchange-traded funds), retirement accounts owned roughly 37%, the most of any type of holder.

Labor Unions

If the stock market is so risky, then why does virtually every union pension fund in America invest the bulk of their assets in the “risky” stock market? Gone are the days when America’s major union pension funds invested most of their money in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. They are doing the smart thing by investing workers’ pension funds in real assets that will grow in value over time and be there when its time to pay workers’ retirement benefits.

According to the Federal Reserve, state and local government employee pension funds alone have nearly $3 trillion in assets, 66 percent of which is invested in corporate equities (i.e.: stocks). Indeed, 30 of the nation’s 50 largest pension funds are public employee pension funds. According to Pensions and Investment Magazine Online, these 30 funds have $1.5 trillion in assets, 60 percent of which is invested in the stock market. Remarkably, 13 percent of their assets are invested in foreign stocks. So much for “buy American.”

Most of the trade unions have made similar investment decisions:

The Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust has 40 percent of its $22 billion in assets invested in domestic stocks.
The United Mine Workers Retirement Fund has more than 44 percent of its $7.5 billion in assets invested in domestic stock and 8 percent invested in foreign stocks.
The Bakery and Confectionery Union Pension Fund has 57 percent of its $5.2 billion in assets invested in domestic stocks and 7 percent invested in foreign stocks.

How about federal employees, who can choose where to invest their money through the Federal Thrift Savings Plan – the government workers’ version of a 401(k)? The TSP now has more than $85 billion in assets, 59 percent of which is invested in the stock market. Although federal employees can also choose to invest in government bonds, they’ve chosen to invest only 5 percent of their TSP funds in government bonds. Meaning, when given the choice between the stock market and government bonds, federal employees overwhelmingly choose the market.

The value of U.S. pension funds at the end of 2015 was $21.7 trillion. The funds’ managers prudently manage assets in a method meant to ensure that retirees receive promised benefits. For many years this meant that funds were limited to investing primarily in government securities, investment-grade bonds, and a small amount placed in blue-chip stocks. Changing market conditions and the need to maintain a high rate of return have resulted in pension plan rules that allow investments in most asset classes.

Summary

Facts matter, don’t they? All of these facts take us to the point we surely are asking collectively, “Why are Democrats telling the nation over and over that the super-rich ‘OWN’ the stock market and that average Americans have no part of the investment products those billionaires are using to get rich?” The answer is simple: Democrats for all the freebies they have previously, are now, and will in the future promise to those who vote Democrat require massive amounts of new money not from just Democrat voters, but ALL Americans to fund. How does that funding occur? Through tax revenue to the federal government. How does the government get that revenue? Confiscation from Americans and American companies. So they target the most wealthy, painting wealthy Americans as “evil” Americans who are greedy, selfish, and oblivious to the lives of average Americans.

The truth? Democrats in Congress are oblivious to the needs of average Americans!

Democrats during every election cycle concentrate on two things: the demonization of conservativism and conservatives, and the best way to find voters who will give them power so as to maintain control of as much of government as possible.

Democrats all know how important the stock market is to Americans in every financial classification. They know most Americans have stock market investments through their employers on which they rely for retirement. They spin the lie to denigrate wealthy Americans so as to justify increasing taxes.

How good and fair is the stock market? How evil are Democrats for screaming that Americans who make money through stock market investments? I close today with a tidbit of factual information that illustrates Democrat Party lies. Read this and decide for yourself:

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) invested as much as $100,000 in the stock market the day after billionaire Republican Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election.
Warren, a progressive standard bearer who recently held a town hall on income inequality in America, purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard 500 Index Admiral (VFIAX) fund on November 9, 2016, according to financial disclosures filed with the Senate Clerk. At the time of Warren’s investment, VFIAX shares were trading around $200 a share; at publication time of this story, those shares were trading for more than $250 a share. Warren’s capital gain on the investment could have been as much as $25,000.

During the campaign, Warren sharply criticized Trump’s economic plans as unfair to the poor and overly favorable to the wealthy.

Hypocrisy in the Worst Way!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Ideology of Racism

July 18, 2019

There certainly is real Racism in the World. Everywhere we look we see and hear someone using the term “Racism.” It’s used so often that most Americans have actually become numb to it. But we shouldn’t: the word represents the worst kinds of hatred formed in the hearts and minds of people — “some” people. Most of those who so loosely sling the word about do so to demean whoever is their target. Sometimes it fits, but most often it is nothing more than name-calling. It’s similar to that schoolyard bully most knew in elementary school who tried to bully everyone by calling them names.

Sadly, it seems that some Americans in our politics have created a new ideological political system — and a new theoretical political party. They do so by bullying those with whom they disagree putting those people in that party. It’s called “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

What Is It?

Let’s start with a foundational understanding. Members of this ideology or party are forced there by others based not on facts but on assumptions. For the most part, they are NOT Racists acting out Racism. The racist tag is assigned to them solely for political purposes. And, sadly, that label often sticks. It’s important to remember this: Just because someone thinks someone IS a racist does not mean that person really IS a racist.

Racism comes directly from a person’s heart. Few if any know what’s in another’s heart. But that doesn’t stop those from assuming things about others to put people in a group: something like Hillary did with her basket of “deplorables.”

Let’s start with the real definition of racism:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race;
a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles;
a political or social system founded on racism.

Keeping these three definitions of racism in mind, watch and listen closely to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) speaking at a recent press conference. Notice her calling the President “racist” and that he practices “racism,” putting her use of those words in the context of what racism by definition actually is:

At the core of Rep. Omar’s retaliatory attack on President Trump is her allegation that President Trump is racist and promotes racism. Specifically, she does so as a response to three tweets from the President published last week in which he spoke of Rep. Omar (D-MN), Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rep. Tlaib (D-MI) regarding their disdain and perceived hatred for the United States and our country’s values. The three Representatives along with Rep. Pressley (D-MA) set the world on fire with outrage over his tweets. Thus, their unanimous cries of his racism.

Let’s look at his tweets. Here are the three rolled into one paragraph:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

Since those Congresswomen have taken this matter to the world wrapped in the certainty that Donald Trump is a racist and practices continuous racism while serving as U.S. President, let’s identify the racism in these tweets for which the U.S. Congress under the guidance of Speaker Nancy Pelosi passed a reprimand for racism against President Trump. Let’s look specifically at his racist remarks contained in those tweets. Here they are:

There aren’t any!

Of the three definitions from Websters for racism (all listed above) NONE of the President’s tweets contain any measure or even a hint of racism and are certainly not racist in their verbiage or certainly not even in their tone.

This is an example of just how Leftists have commandeered and taken ownership of the use of the two words “racism” and “racist.” The expectation of the Left, led by the communications arm of the Democrat Party — the American media — is that whoever any of their members determines and labels as a racist is automatically assumed by all as a member of the “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

Who decides? The Rules of Racism are controlled solely by the Left as is the determination of exactly who is a member of “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

So who are the members of the Ideological Racism Party? Whoever the Left names no matter who they label. And there’s no rhyme or understandable meaning they use to determine membership.

Example: Former Congressman Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the 1940s recruited 150 of his close friends to start with him a Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia. He never formally renounced his affiliation with the KKK or his membership in the Klan. Yet even at his death, he was the darling of Democrats in the House, the Senate, and even President Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton in her eulogy of Byrd at his funeral declared “He was my mentor.” Yet, Robert Byrd was NOT a member of the “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).” Why not? Because Democrat Party leaders did not choose for him to be enrolled! According to THEIR rule at the time, he was not qualified as being racist.

How It’s Happening

There IS a purpose for the frivolous use by the media of the term “racism.” I’m not certain who in the media developed the idea of its continual use in labeling any conservative in politics. But whoever did so had a specific purpose in mind. And that purpose certainly has been fulfilled.

Its use in the news is specifically to denigrate the person or group it targets in the minds of the reader, listener, or viewer of that story. THEY created that ideological party. THEY with their magical power to do so can cast anyone with whom they disagree into it.

You have certainly heard left-leaning politicians use of the term “dog whistle” accusing conservatives for using it. Actually, when used by the media, the words “racism” and “racist” are THE dog whistles of the Left to formally announce attacks on conservatives who they have thrown into “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

Proof of Their Ownership

It seems today than anyone who is bold enough to stand on a national stage or has a large audience of followers and calls-out someone Democrats despise as a racist is automatically qualified to do so, just because they did! Take for example the fourth member of that group from Congress that has been named “The Squad,” Ayanna Pressley. Watch and listen to her do exactly that:

“We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”

Are her statements in which SHE labels those with brown or black faces, Muslims and queers (her word, not mine) OK? She qualifies her allegations by saying “IF” they do not agree with the Leftist propaganda policies of the day, they are less worthy than those in HER group who think like HER, who believe like HER less than she and those who feel the same as she feels.

What a paradox. These Leftists are destroying the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution with their cries against fellow Americans. They are smarter than others, better than others, more in tune with what things are important than are others, and therefore are more honorable and more worthy to lead the nation than others.

Summary

Do you know the real reason for the use of the allegation of Racism 99% of the time it is used? It is simply a deferral — a deferral of a conversation in which people honestly and objectively could discuss and explain their differences about specific policies which impact different groups in different ways. Calling someone a racist is a copout. It’s too much work to consider other’s ideas, so they’ll just stick to their own!

Here’s the thought process:

“I don’t want to take the time to try to convince him or her that their opinions of me, my capabilities, and my intentions are accurate. I don’t want to take the time to explain what my capabilities and intentions are. They are not worthy of the effort for me to do so. Also, I’m afraid that if I DO explain to them and they counter with an opinion that rings true and mine is not true. I will not allow that to happen. So I’ll just shut them up by telling everyone they are a racist. They can say NOTHING then!”

For conservatives who see and hear this anger and vitriol flooding the news, don’t worry or fret. I’ll say this again: Americans are NOT stupid. Americans in the districts of these four Congresswomen are seeing and hearing what they are saying. And voters also see and know personally the personal results of President Trump’s actions in governing the first 2.5 years of his presidency. The 2020 election will show the determination in the minds of voters who IS racist and practices Racism and who is NOT racist and who does NOT practice racism. Those Americans will vote based on their knowledge. Political rancor and the creation of the “Racism Ideological Party (RIP)” in which to throw those with whom some disagree will NOT distract knowledgable voters.

Here’s the bottom line: even with all the distractions, anger, and vitriol thrown the President’s way and watched by Americans all over the nation, voters in 2020 will return Donald Trump to the White House.

And at least a couple of the members of The Squad will be sent packing by their constituents.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download