Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Democrat Party’ Category

OBAMA ACCUSES GOP OF FAVORING AMERICANS OVER ILLEGAL ALIENS!

a-obama-employment-1024x576

na·tiv·ism
noun \ˈnā-ti-ˌvi-zəm\
1
: a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants
2
: the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation

Seriously Mr. Obama?

And how is this a bad thing? Remember who won big in 2014?

Oh, yes indeed, the foreigners and immigrants are far more concerned about America than Americans[sic]…Next, Obama will be accusing individuals of having more self-interest in themselves, than other people….

Does this guy actually believe, at this point, anything that comes out of his own mouth?
Next Obama will be accusing GOP members of being more concerned over their families than strangers….

In an pre-recorded interview with National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast on December 29, President Obama posed the rhetorical question: “By me having taken these [executive] actions, does that spur those voices in the Republican Party who I think genuinely believe immigration is good for our country? Does it spur them to work once again with Democrats and my administration to get a reasonable piece of legislation done?”

“Or does it simply solidify what I do think is a nativist trend in parts of the Republican Party?”

Obama was responding to a question asked by Steve Inskeep, one of the hosts of NPR’s Morning Edition program. After the president stated that he thought Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were responding to those who looked to them “to get things done” and that “the fact that we disagree on one thing shouldn’t prohibit us from getting progress on the areas where there’s some overlap,” Inskeep asked:

Well, let me figure out if there’s overlap on immigration. In an interview in August, you described the Republican Party as being “captive to nativist elements of the party.”

What did you mean by that, and can you work with people who you think of in that way?

Obama replied, in part:

Well, on immigration, I probably can’t; Steve King [R-Iowa] and I fundamentally disagree on immigration….

I think the Republican Party contains a lot of legislators who recognize that; and we know that because those folks voted for a comprehensive bill in the Senate that in many ways was more generous than I was able to offer through executive action.

So, the question then becomes, by me having taken these actions, does that spur those voices in the Republican Party who I think genuinely believe immigration is good for our country? Does it spur them to work once again with Democrats and my administration to get a reasonable piece of legislation done?

Or does it simply solidify what I do think is a nativist trend in parts of the Republican Party? And if it’s the latter, then probably we’re not going to get much more progress done, and it’ll be a major debate in the next presidential election.

I think that if a Republican lawmaker was sitting here, he might say, “Wait a minute. I’m not captive to nativist elements. I have actual concerns, and you’re not addressing them.”

Well, the problem is what are those concerns and how is it that I’m not addressing them?… They’d have to identify for me specifically what those concerns are other than some sense that, you know, these folks just shouldn’t be here.

The original interview to which Inskeep referred was with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of The Economist, and Edward Carr, the newspaper’s foreign editor, and was published in The Economist for August 2.

When the interviewers asked the president to expand on his criticism of the business community for believing that “the only responsibility that a corporate CEO has is to his shareholders,”(to which the interviewers countered, “Every CEO nowadays is involved in nine different social responsibility things”) Obama replied:

There’s a huge gap between the professed values and visions of corporate CEOs and how their lobbyists operate in Washington…. My challenge to them consistently is, is your lobbyist working as hard on those issues as he or she is on preserving that tax break that you’ve got? And if the answer is no, then you don’t care about it as much as you say.

Obama then shifted gears and focused his criticism away from corporate CEOs and toward Republicans:

Now, to their credit, I think on an issue like immigration reform, for example, companies did step up. And what they’re discovering is the problem is not the regulatory zealotry of the Obama administration; what they’re discovering is the dysfunction of a Republican Party that knows we need immigration reform, knows that it would actually be good for its long-term prospects, but is captive to the nativist elements in its party.

Since Obama seems to enjoy throwing the “nativist” term around when criticizing those in the Republican Party who oppose his plans for “immigration reform” (which, far from reforming our “broken” immigration system, always includes granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants), it might be worthwhile to consider the origins of the term in its historical context.

The anti-immigrant philosophy often called nativism was most visible in the United States during the 19th century, the peak years for immigration into the United States. Unlike today, almost all of the immigration during that period was legal. And since the nation was relatively underpopulated during those years in comparison to its rapid growth in territory, opposition to immigrants was motivated by factors other than economics and competition for jobs.

Nativists were active in New York as early as 1843, operating in the American Republican Party, which became the Native American Party in 1845. This party shared leadership with the more widely known Know-Nothing Party. The anti-immigrant stance of the Know-Nothings was based not on the fact that the immigrants threatened America’s economy, but because most Irish and many German immigrants were Catholic. Among the most famous activists in the Know-Nothing movement was the inventor Samuel Morse, a rabid anti-Catholic who wanted to forbid Catholics from holding public office, and worked to change immigration laws to limit immigration from Catholic countries.

As immigration patterns shifted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and more immigrants came from southern and Eastern Europe, anti-Catholicism gave way to anti-Italian, anti-Polish, and anti-Jewish sentiments. These prejudices eventually became institutionalized in immigration legislation, culminating in the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to two percent of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890. The act effectively reduced the flow of immigrants from Italy, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe — most of whom were Catholics, Orthodox, or Jews — to a trickle.

The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose

pla-reasons-globalists-destined-lose
Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.

On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets. They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.

On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists. It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”

There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However, everyone can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race. Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that probably does not have their best interests at heart.

As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.

There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood.”

Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.

I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil. While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when facing rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.

While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective. It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.

They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control. Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.

Globalism vs. “populism”

The globalists have used the method of false dichotomies for centuries to divide nations and peoples against each other in order to derive opportunity from chaos. That said, the above dichotomy is about as close to real as they have ever promoted. As I explained in my article, “Globalists Are Now Openly Demanding New World Order Centralization,” the recent passage of the Brexit referendum in the U.K. has triggered a surge of new propaganda from establishment media outlets. The thrust of this propaganda is the notion that “populists” are behind the fight against globalization and these populists are going to foster the ruin of nations and the global economy. That is to say — globalism good, populism bad.

There is a real fight between globalists and those who desire a free, decentralized and voluntary society. They have just changed some of the labels and the language. We have yet to see how effective this strategy will be for the elites, but it is very useful for them in certain respects.

The wielding of the term “populist” is about as sterilized and distant from “freedom and liberty” as you can get. It denotes not just “nationalism,” but selfish nationalism. And the association people are supposed to make in their minds is that selfish nationalism leads to destructive fascism (i.e. Nazis). Therefore, when you hear the term “populist,” the globalists hope you will think “Nazi.”

Also, keep in mind that the narrative of the rise of populism coincides with grave warnings from the elites that such movements will cause global economic collapse if they continue to grow. Of course, the elites have been fermenting an economic collapse for years. We have been experiencing many of the effects of it for some time. In a brilliant maneuver, the elites have attempted to re-label the liberty movement as “populist” (Nazis), and use liberty activists as a scapegoat for the fiscal time bomb they created.

Will the masses buy it? I don’t know. I think that depends on how effectively we expose the strategy before the breakdown becomes too entrenched. The economic collapse itself has been handled masterfully by the elites, though. There is simply no solution that can prevent it from continuing. Even if every criminal globalist was hanging from a lamp post tomorrow and honest leadership was restored to government, the math cannot be changed and decades of struggle will be required before national economies can be made prosperous again.

Communism vs. fascism

This is a classic ploy by the globalists to divide a culture against itself and initiate a calamity that can be used as leverage for greater centralization down the road. If you have any doubts about fascism and communism being engineered, I highly suggest you look into the very well documented analysis of Antony Sutton. I do not have the space here to do his investigations justice.

Today, we see elites like George Soros funding and aiding the latest incarnation of the communist hordes — namely social justice groups like Black Lives Matter. The collectivist psychosis and Orwellian behavior exhibited by race junkies like BLM and third-wave feminists is thoroughly pissing off conservatives who are tired of being told what to think and how to act every second of every day. And this is the point…

If you want to get a picture of America in 2016, look back at Europe during the 1930’s. Communist provocateurs, some real and some fabricated by the establishment itself, ran rampant in Europe creating labor disintegration and fiscal turmoil. The elites then funded and elevated fascism as the “solution” to communism. Normally even-handed conservatives were so enraged by the communist spitting and ankle biting that they became something just as evil in response.

The U.S. may be on the same path if we are not careful. The latest shootings in Texas will make hay for the globalists. Think about this for a moment — on one side you have Obama telling the liberals that the answer to police brutality is to federalize law enforcement even more that it already is. On the other side, you have some Republicans arguing that a more militarized police presence will help prevent groups like BLM from causing more trouble. Notice that the only solution we are being offered here is more federal presence on our streets?

I do see, though, a rather large weakness in the plan to ignite a communist vs. fascist meltdown in the U.S., and that weakness is the existence of the Liberty Movement itself. The movement has grown rather sophisticated in its media presence and prevalent in influence. It does have enough sway now to diffuse some aspects of a rise to fascism in the political Right. The only option the elites have is to find a way to co-opt us. If they can manipulate the liberty movement into supporting a fascist system, then they would be very close to winning the entire fight. This would be highly unlikely given the stubbornness of liberty proponents when adhering to their principles.

The elites might be able to get a large part of the public to take sides in their false paradigm, but if they can’t con the millions that make up the liberty movement into the fold, then their job becomes much harder.

Moral compass vs. moral relativism

Moral relativism is perhaps the pinnacle goal of the globalists. Why? Because if you can convince an entire society that their inherent conscience should be ignored and that their inborn feelings of morality are “open to interpretation,” then eventually any evil action can be rationalized. When evil becomes “good,” and good becomes evil, evil men will reign supreme.

The problem is, conscience is an inborn psychological product, a result of inherent archetypal dualities universal to almost all people. It is ingrained in our DNA, or our very souls if you believe in such a thing. It cannot be erased easily.

Moral relativism requires a person to treat every scenario as a “gray area.” This is not practical. Conscience dictates that we treat every situation as potentially unique and act according to what we feel in our hearts is right given the circumstances. This does not mean, though, that there is no black and white; or that there are no concrete rules. There is almost always a black and white side to a situation dealing with right and wrong. Moral “dilemmas” are exceedingly rare. In fact, I don’t think I have ever encountered a real moral dilemma in history or in personal experience. The only time I ever see moral dilemmas is in movies and television.

Only in television fantasy is moral relativism ever the “only way” to solve a problem. And despite the preponderance of moral relativism in our popular culture, the ideology is still having trouble taking hold. If it was so easy to undermine conscience, then the NWO would have already achieved complete pacification. We are still far from total pacification. Whoever hard wired our conscience should be applauded.

Total control vs. reality

This is where the globalists philosophy really begins to break down. The elitist pursuit of total information awareness and total social control is truly perverse and insane, and insanity breeds delusion and weakness. The fact is, they will never complete the goal of complete micro-control. It is mathematically and psychologically impossible.

First, in any system, and in complex systems most of all, there are always elements that cannot be quantified or predicted. To understand this issue, I recommend studying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. To summarize, the uncertainty principle dictates that anyone observing a system in action, even from a distance, can still affect the behavior of that system indirectly or unconsciously in ways they could never predict. Unknown quantities result, predictability goes out the window and total control of that system becomes unattainable.

This principle also applies to human psychology, as numerous psychoanalysts have discovered when treating patients. The doctor, or the observer, is never able to observe their patient without indirectly affecting the behavior of their patient in unpredictable ways. Therefore, a completely objective analysis of that patient can never be obtained.

What the elites seek is a system by which they can observe and influence all of us in minute detail without triggering a reaction that they wouldn’t expect. The laws of physics and psychology derail this level of control. There will always be unknown quantities, free radicals, wild cards, etc. Even a seemingly perfect utopia can be brought down by a single unknown.

To break this down even further to the level of pure mathematics, I recommend research into Kurt Godel and his Incompleteness Proof. This, I believe is the ultimate example of the elites struggling against the fact of unknown quantities and failing.

Godel’s work revolved around either proving or disproving the idea that mathematicians could define “infinity” in mathematical terms. For, if infinity can be defined, then it can be understood in base mathematical axioms, and if infinity can be understood, then the universe in its entirety can be understood. Godel discovered the opposite — his incompleteness proof established once and for all that infinity is a self inclusive paradox that cannot be defined through mathematics. Keep in mind that a proof is a set of mathematical laws that can never be broken. Two plus two will always equal four; it will never equal anything else.

Well known globalist Bertrand Russell worked tirelessly to show that the entirety of the universe could be broken down into numbers, writing a three volume monstrosity called the Principia Mathematica. Russell’s efforts were fruitless and Godel’s proof later crushed his theory. Russell railed against Godel’s proof, but to no avail.

Now, why was an elitist like Russell who openly championed scientific dictatorship so concerned by Godel? Well, because Godel, in mathematical terms, destroyed the very core of the globalist ideology. He proved that the globalist aspirations of godhood would never be realized. There are limits to the knowledge of man, and limits to what he can control. This is not something globalists can ever accept, for if they did, every effort they have made for decades would be pointless.

As mentioned earlier, the issue is one of unknown quantities. Can human society ever be fully dominated? Or, is the act of rebellion against stagnating and oppressive systems a part of nature? Is it possible that the more the elites wrap the world in a cage, the more they inspire unpredictable reactions that could undermine their authority?

This might explain the establishment’s constant attention to the idea of the “lone wolf” and the damage one person acting outside the dictates of the system can do. This is what the elites fear most: the possibility that despite all their efforts of surveillance and manipulation, individuals and groups may one day be struck by an unpredictable urge to pick up a rifle and put the the globalists out of everyone’s misery. No chatter, no electronic trail, no warning.

This is why they are destined to lose. They can never know all the unknowns. They can never control all the free radicals. There will always be rebellion. There will always be a liberty movement. The entirety of their utopian schematic revolves around the need to remove unknowns. They refuse to accept that control at these levels is so frail it becomes useless and mortally dangerous. In their arrogance, they have ignored the warnings of the very sciences they worship and have set their eventual end in stone. While they may leave a considerable path of destruction in their wake, it is already written; they will not win.

— Brandon Smith

HILLARY MUST COME CLEAN ABOUT HUMA ABEDIN

8_4_2015_clinton28201
Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Department website contained a passage extolling jihad: “The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world…” (As published by The Middle East Media Research Institute) The Saudi government and some of its influential radical Islamic citizens and groups are pursuing the export of jihad in two ways. The first is through what has been referred to as “civilization jihad.” Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars in funding Sunni mosques, madrasas, and Sunni cultural centers all over the world, which spread the Saudis’ radical Islamic Wahhabi ideology. However, Saudi Arabia’s jihad also includes the support of terrorism. A cable released by WikiLeaks under then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s name stated: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

The Muslim World League is an organization with ties to jihadist terrorist groups, including Hamas and al Qaeda. The Muslim World League was founded by members of the Saudi government. Abdullah Omar Naseef exemplifies the connection between the Saudi government and this terrorist-supporting organization. He served as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League from 1983 to 1993. He also served as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council. In addition, he founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which, according to former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy, seeks to “grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West,” and to “infiltrate Sharia principles in our law, our institutions, and our public policy.”

The Muslim World League escaped being placed on the list of terror groups sanctioned by the United States shortly after the 9/11 attack, reportedly due to concern by President George W. Bush’s administration about embarrassing the Saudi government. Nearly thirteen years later, the Saudi government is still getting a free pass. The American people have still been denied access to the portion of the 9/11 Commission report relating to any Saudi Arabian government ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

Into this morass steps Huma Abedin, the co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and a person likely to have significant influence in a Hillary Clinton White House. Huma Abedin has had murky associations in the past with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which not only is a radical Islamist group in its own right but, as Breitbart has reported, was “located in the offices of Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League.”

Huma grew up in Saudi Arabia, where she was exposed to the Wahhabi ideology during her formative years. The Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, has been an Abedin family affair. Huma herself served as the assistant editor of the institute’s journal for a dozen years until she joined Hillary’s State Department. Abdul lah Omar Naseef was on the board of advisers of the journal while Huma was its assistant editor.

Hillary Clinton owes the American people an explanation of the role that she would foresee for her close confidante, Huma Abedin, in a Hillary Clinton administration. And Huma Abedin owes the American people a full accounting of the associations which she and her family have had with any radical Saudi-backed Islamic groups, such as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and its co-located Muslim World League, or radical Islamic Saudi individuals such as Abdullah Omar Naseef.

It’s not as if Hillary is unaware of Saudi Arabia’s connection to terrorism. As mentioned earlier, a cable sent under Hillary’s name while she was Secretary of State warned that Saudi Arabian donors “constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Following the Orlando shooting, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president said: “It is long past time for the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.”

It’s also obvious that Saudi Arabia and ISIS share the same basic underlying Islamic supremacist and jihadist ideologies, despite the Saudi government’s protestations that it is committed to fight terrorism.

For example, ISIS beheads apostates. Saudi Arabia treats apostasy as a capital offense. They are both following literally the path of Prophet Muhammad’s sayings, collected in what is known as the Hadith: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57)

ISIS kills and persecutes Christians. It destroys Christian holy sites. Saudi Arabia does not allow public worship of any religion other than Islam. It has even arrested Christians praying in a private home. Its religious leader, the Grand Mufti, has called for destruction of all Christian religious sites in the Arabian Peninsula. Smuggling Bibles into the country is a capital offense. Persecution of Christians, Jews and other “non-believers” by ISIS and Saudi Arabia is also based on core Islamic teaching, rooted in the Koran itself. Infidels are regarded as Muslims’ “inveterate enemies.” (Sura 4:101) Muslims are directed to “seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly.” (Sura 4:90)

ISIS beheads suspected homosexuals or throws them off rooftops to die. The Saudi judiciary is calling for capital punishment against homosexuals who display their sexuality in public or on social media. Again, ISIS and Saudi Arabia are both following traditional Islamic teachings. Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying, “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.” (Hadith: al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152)

Finally, Saudi Arabia, like ISIS, believes in exporting its Islamic ideology as widely as possible. ISIS has declared its goal to expand until its flag “covers all eastern and western extents of the Earth, filling the world with the truth and justice of Islam.” Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Department website contained a passage, quoted at the beginning of this article, which talks about raising “the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world…”

Huma Abedin was brought up in Saudi Arabia and was subject to the influence of the very kind of Saudi individuals and groups supporting terrorism that Hillary Clinton has warned about. If Hillary is as concerned as she says about Saudi-funded terrorism and its export of radical Islamist ideology, she must fully address the real concern of many Americans that she may bring an individual susceptible to such ideology into the inner circle of the White House.

Guess Which Political Party Runs the Top 5 Financially Solvent States in America?

A recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University divided all fifty U.S. states – plus Puerto Rico – according to their financial solvency. The top five financially solvent states happen to be run by Republicans. And four of the bottom five are run by Democrats.
The study considered five different categories to rank each state: cash solvency, budget solvency, long-run solvency, service-level solvency, and trust fund solvency.

The study defined cash solvency as whether a state has “enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills.”

Budget solvency deals with whether a state can “cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues” or whether it will have a “budget shortfall.”

Long-run solvency refers to whether a state can “meet its long-term spending commitments” and whether there will be “enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-tem fiscal risks.”

Service-level solvency refers to how much “fiscal slack” a state has to “increase spending if citizens demand more services.”

Trust fund solvency is simply how much debt a state has and how large its “unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities” are.

Considering these five factors, the study found that these were the top five financially solvent states, ranking from first to fifth: Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Financially-Solvent-900x582
Considering the same factors, the study found that these were the bottom five states: Kentucky, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

All of the top five financially solvent states are GOP-run. Of the bottom five, only Kentucky is led by Republicans. The rest are Democrat-controlled. Puerto Rico ranked number fifty-one.

Guess Who Is Behind Bogus Trump University Law Suits…Court Docs REVEAL – Examine the Facts

Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a Democrat Corrupt Judge

HE BELONGS TO LA RAZA LAWYERS ASSOCIATION , HISPANIC NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION, LATINO JUDGES ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL HISPANIC PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION,

ADD IT UP HIS LAW FIRM GAVE HILLARY AND BILL $675,000

READ ON DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS FAIR/

The Founding Fathers weren’t professional politicians.

They admired the ancient Greek hero Cincinnatus, who was also George Washington’s role model: Once their time in elected office came to an end, men were expected to quietly return to humble civilian life.

What would they make of the Clinton Foundation, which has made former president Bill Clinton and his wife multi-millionaires, giving high prices “speeches” that can’t possibly be the only thing clients are getting for their money.

Of course, the mainstream media doesn’t care to investigate the Foundation. Instead, they’re focusing on one of Donald Trump’s enterprises, a business school called Trump University that’s being sued by some dissatisfied students.

Will they continue to do so, however, now that the American Spectator has brought this to light?

[T]he law firm Robbins Geller appointed by Judge Gonzalo Curiel to represent a plaintiff in the Trump University class action suits has another connection to Hillary Clinton beyond a $2700 campaign contribution from firm chairman Darren Robbins. LawNewz did not mention the firm’s connection to the Trump University case. The information was apparently retrieved from a Washington Post data base with the Clinton financial filings on file. (The Post itself has not reported on this connection.)

It seems that Robbins Geller “paid the Clintons nearly half a million dollars in less than a year.” Why? Speeches of course.

That’s right. One of the law firms picked by the Judge in the Trump University case — the very Judge Donald Trump accuses by name of anti-Trump bias — awarded this firm the case after — say again after — Hillary and Bill Clinton had been paid a cool $450,000 for two speeches by the firm.

The Spectator goes on to point out that many of the key players in the Trump University case have close ties to the Democratic Party.

As well, Judge Gonzalo Curiel has reportedly given his “leadership and support” to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” being Spanish for “The Race,” of course.

Kudos to the Spectator for turning over all these rocks. Now let’s see how much longer Trump University stays in the headlines.

Get the facts Paul Ryan

YOU’RE HIRED: GETTING PAID TO PROTEST TRUMP

By Deneen Borelli

We finally have proof that progressive front groups are giving actors money to protest presumptive GOP candidate Donald Trump.

After eight years of failed Obama policies, Democratic strategists are desperate to get voters agitated enough to gamble on another four years of big-government experimentation. And if they can’t generate real passion among the electorate, make-believe anger will do just fine.

ABC News reports:

Today a man from Trump’s rally last week in Fountain Hills, Arizona has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event. “I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad a little over a week ago about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”

Trump supporters have been claiming for weeks that the protesters are being paid for by Bernie Sanders ’ campaign, but Horner disagrees.

“As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.”

Upon investigation Women Are The Future PAC is financed by George Soros.

MORE DIRTY DEMOCRAT CORRUPTION -Founder of firm suing Trump U IS a felon

HE IS Convicted of massive kickback scheme in class-action lawsuits
lerach-clinton

NEW YORK – The law firm suing Trump University was founded by a wealthy San Diego lawyer with close ties to the Clintons who served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.

William Lerach, best known for winning more than $7 billion in legal settlements of a class action suit he brought against Enron, was found guilty in 2007 of a kickback scheme in which he his firm used intermediaries to pay clients with large stock portfolios a percentage of the law firm’s $11.3 million profits for agreeing to be plaintiffs in 225 class action and shareholder lawsuits, spanning the period 1979 to 2005.

Lerach’s former law firm, the once prestigious New York-based Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, made an estimated $250 million in the criminal class-action scheme.

WND reported documents released Wednesday in the lawsuit accusing Trump University of fraud confirmed the law firm behind the suit paid Bill and Hillary Clinton a total of $675,000 for speeches.

Get a first-hand account of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s character in “Hillary The Other Woman.” Then take action with the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project and let others know, with a bumper sticker calling for “Hillary for prosecution, not president.”

In addition to prison, Lerach was ordered to pay a $250,000 fine and to complete 1,000 hours of community service for agreeing to plead guilty as charged.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the California Bar declared Lerach “not eligible to practice law,” and he later was disbarred and prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.

The participants in the Milberg Weiss scheme agreed to allege as lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits that they suffered losses because executives misled them about a company’s financial condition.

Targeted in Lerach’s scheme were some of the nation’s largest corporations of that era, including AT&T, Lucent, WorldCom, Microsoft and Prudential Insurance.

The Associated Press reported that also pleading guilty in the case was Seymour Lazar, then 80 years old, a client of Milberg Weiss who was paid an estimated $2.6 million by the law firm between 1976 and 2004 for agreeing to be a repeat plaintiff in stock fraud cases brought by the firm against targeted corporations.

“Lerach’s huge class-action wins – against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., AT&T Corp., Honeywell International Inc. and Apple Computer Inc., among others – made him unpopular with corporate executives, who slammed his cases as meritless shakedowns,” the Los Angeles Times reported in 2007. “Success also made him a millionaire many times over (his fees in suits against Enron Corp. alone could ultimately total more than $1 billion) and a generous Democratic campaign contributor.”

The Washington Examiner reported in 2008 that Lerach attempted in a letter inadvertently made public by his own attorneys to excuse his criminal behavior by claiming that “everybody was paying plaintiffs” kickbacks when he was practicing.

The Washington Post reported that year the Milberg Weiss firm agreed to pay the federal government $75 million to avoid criminal prosecution by settling a Department of Justice criminal investigation against the law firm in the kickback case.

In total, seven Milberg Weiss lawyers, including three former partners, pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the case.

Big-dollar contributions to Democrats

The New York Post reported in 2008 that Lerach, characterized as “a heavyweight donor,” had contributed up to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The newspaper noted that Lerach was “a former San Diego trial lawyer serving a two-year sentence for his roll in a kickback scheme” in which he pleaded guilty the previous February “to paying clients of his firm to file stock-fraud cases.”

Lerach’s relationship with Bill Clinton traces back to the 1990s, when Lerach leveraged large contributions to Clinton and other Democratic Party candidates to win President Clinton’s agreement to veto legislation that threatened to impinge upon Lerach’s profitable class-action lawsuit racket.

“Lerach and his fellow buccaneers have ample reason to want to thwart the will of Congress,” Forbes wrote on Aug. 26, 1996.

“Between 1989 and 1994, Lerach and his ilk have launched class actions against 53 of California’s top 100 high-tech companies,” Forbes continued. “The cases rarely go to trial: To save time, money and productivity-draining aggravation, the targeted companies usually settle.

“Total take from the companies: well over $600 million, of which the lawyers probably got about $200 million,” Forbes summarized. ”Bill Lerach himself makes between $7 million and $10 million a year. In the California high-tech community there’s even a new verb: to ‘lerach’ (leh-RACK), meaning to extort money from a company legally. Think of ‘leraching’ as a kind of tax on American high tech and other industries.”

The Washington Post reported that President Clinton attended a $400,000 fundraising event hosted by Lerach, a man the newspaper characterized as “much-hated in this land of computer nerds and high-tech wizards.”

“Lerach, a major Democratic contributor is regarded as the king of securities-action lawsuits, litigation that has won him few friends among the corporate elite who dined here Friday night with Clinton and his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton,” the Washington Post said. “When a stock falls in price, many executives here say they fear a Lerach lawsuit is not far behind.

“Today, it was Lerach at Clinton’s side for a Democratic Business Council lunch raising $ 400,000 in Rancho Santa Fe near San Diego,” the Post continued. “‘Look,’ Lerach told the group, “It’s time for Democrats, fund-raisers, officeholders to roll up their sleeves and go to work and stand up to an ugly witch hunt to drive from office one of the best and most popular presidents in history.’”

On Sept. 20, 2007, the Associated Press reported When then-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards learned Lerach had pleaded guilty in the Milberg Weiss case, he donated to charity the $4,600 Lerach had contributed to his campaign. But Edwards refused to return the rest of the $81,000 Lerach collected from members of Milberg Weiss to contribute to his campaign.

Ironically, Edwards made his fortune as a personal injury lawyer specializing in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The Lerach legacy

In 2004, Lerach left Milberg Weiss to become a partner in a split-off San Diego firm initially formed as Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP. It dropped Lerach’s name and morphed into Coughlin Stoia Rudman & Robbins after Lerach was indicted. Coughlin Stoia was the predecessor firm to today’s Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, the firm suing Trump University.

In 2014, the Colorado Springs Gazette observed that Lerach’s legacy remains with the firm. The paper commented in an editorial about a case in which “the notorious securities litigation firm Robbins Geller brought a shareholder suit against Boeing, accusing its management of illegal misrepresentations based on the word of a confidential witness inside the company.”

In a sanctions order deciding the Boeing case, U.S. District Judge Rueben Castillo wrote that Robbins Geller had committed “repeated misconduct throughout this litigation,” sanctioning the law firm for what the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 9, 2014, characterized as “the use of a false witness.”

The Gazette editorial concluded the Boeing case demonstrated “how class-action investor litigation is often used as a form of legal extortion: ‘Settle now and we’ll go away.’”

Writing about the Boeing case, Legal Monitor Worldwide characterized Robbins Geller as “the plaintiffs firm created by discredited tort kingpin Bill Lerach out of the ruins of Milberg Weiss, which fell apart in 2006 after its partners were indicted.”

Legal Monitor described Robbins Geller’s witness misconduct in the Boeing case as follows:

In 2009 they [Robbins Geller] filed a securities fraud suit charging that Boeing withheld information about delays in producing the 787 Dreamliner that caused the company’s stock to fall. Robbins Geller based the suit in large part on a confidential witness who it said had inside dope on Boeing’s conduct. One problem: The witness’s details were either incorrect or concocted by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who filed the complaint before speaking to the witness. After the claim was dismissed for lack of specificity, the firm dug up the confidential witness and used him to buttress its revised filing with details to suggest the source’s personal knowledge and access within the company. When the confidential witness was ultimately interviewed by the defense, they found he was not even a Boeing employee but a contractor who worked on a different aircraft than the Dreamliner. He disavowed nearly every statement the plaintiffs had attributed to him.

Legal Monitor Worldwide noted it was the fourth time Robbins Geller had been called out by federal courts for misconduct.

“It’s a shame [Robbins Geller’s] lawyers are still allowed to practice,” the Legal Monitor Worldwide concluded.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/founder-of-firm-suing-trump-u-a-felon/#tc05AqUs0sUT5v0m.99

DEMOCRATS

12036493_10208669275986070_4060651200619742295_n

Trump Trumps Never-Trump

The Perpetually Re-elected Progressive Elite, the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream media, and their pet poodle pundits make fun of Trump by calling him a “Reality TV Star.”  They just don’t get it. Half the country wishes they were reality TV Stars.  They say he is brash, uncouth, and disrespectful to the army of political hacks he has been and will confront. They just don’t get it. People want someone who will stand up for the Country Party in the face of the Government Party that has controlled both major parties for so long.

The list of disconnects between the imperial rulers in Chicago-on-the-Potomac and the great unwashed out here in fly-over country is massive.  It is easily more than enough to define a complete breakdown in the social contract of a limited government.  A social contract forged in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution which defines the legitimacy of the current regime.

The Progressive megaphones tell us this is the strongest economy in American History and that President Obama is the greatest chief executive of modern times.  They even fantasize about the “Obama Boom.”  Working people laugh when you try to sell them this obvious propaganda. The government tells us that we have reached full employment.  Anyone who reads should know that over ninety-three million able bodied Americans no longer work and only a little over 150 million are working.  Yet the government tells us there is 5% unemployment when the numbers say it is closer to 40%.  Our leaders tell us there is no inflation no matter how many trillions of fiat dollars they print, and all of us who shop for our own food, buy our own clothes, or pay utility bills know otherwise.

They tell us we won the war in Iraq.  We may have won it by the time King George II left but since Prince Obama got his hands on it ISIS tells us we haven’t.  Our leaders say we have won in Afghanistan.  Everyone in the world knows that the minute we leave the Taliban roll right back into Kabul and the sock puppets we have been supporting all these years as the leaders of a democratic Afghanistan will be flying to Switzerland in 747s filled with American taxpayer’s cash.  We are told Obamacare is a great success. Anyone who had insurance before it started knows that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor has to be tempered by increased fees, increased deductibles, increased co-payments, and decreased covered services.

They tell us and they tell us and they tell us, we just don’t believe them anymore.

If these belchers of beltway bromides think every day working Americans swallow any of this they have seriously underestimated our intelligence, our interest, and our attention spans.

I have the opportunity to travel the country throughout the year.  I take what some call back roads, the secondary roads that parallel America’s vast Interstate system and that still goes through small towns instead of bypassing them and homogenizing everywhere in to anywhere.  I try to stop at Mom-and-Pop restaurants and take every opportunity possible to talk with people about the issues of the day.  Here’s what I find, Trump, Trump, Trump.

I believe the polls are skewed.  Perhaps people don’t want to say they are for Trump because they know the pollsters will look down on them as simple country bumpkins, racists, or reactionary supporters of old dead white guys.  Perhaps they are talking to those who are at home when the workers are busy working.  Whatever the reason I believe, and I predict that Trump is going to beat Hillary like a drum.  He is going to win in a landslide, and he is going to drag the Republican Party that tried to reject him along for the ride.  I am predicting that due to his wave election coattails the Republicans will increase their majorities in the House and the Senate.

What is the cause of this phenomenon?  Generations of politicians who run as outsiders and who become insiders as soon as they enter the moral and patriotic black hole and before they start swirling in the DC drain to their life-time pensions.  Generations of politicians who sold us out in so-called free trade deals that gave others a free pass into our markets while keeping their own locked to us.  Generations of politicians who have spent us into oblivion, printed more money that there is paper, and borrowed so much money from other nations that we are now the world’s greatest debtor.

So who is to blame for the coming over throw of the twin headed bird of prey that is the Government Party of Power: the politicians themselves. Living in their bubble asking why those who have no bread don’t eat cake they have no idea of what is coming.  Their pollsters are polling themselves and providing the information their paymasters want to see.  And all the while out here in the Heartland a tsunami is brewing that will wash them all away.

To paraphrase what Phil Ochs said so long ago,

In tattered tuxedos they faced the new heroes
And crawled about in confusion
All the hands raised, they stood there amazed
In the shattering of their illusions

Many of the nattering nabobs of negativism who dominate the 24 hour news cycle have been waiting expectantly for Trump to make one mega-gaff that will destroy his campaign.  To hear them crow you would believe he made it when he resurrected the phrase, “America First.”

First used as the name of a widely based organization that sought to keep us out of World War Two.  Then it was used in the nineties by Pat Buchanan in his prescient campaign to save America from the one-worlders.  The left has done their best to make this a catch phrase for defeat because they hate not only what it says but what it implies.  The Elite political class has sought to make it an unutterable phrase condemned by political correctness and exiled because in their minds to even say America First is to defile their one world religion.  They may believe they have tarnished the concept with 75 years of negative propaganda and indoctrination but still 57% of American citizens believe in America First, they want an America First foreign policy, an America First trade policy, and an America First immigration policy.  They want an America First president.

My prediction: After all is said and done, after all the dust settles, after Crooked Hillary goes home to lick her wounds, after the neo-con talking heads and their K-Street financiers realize the prize has slipped from their hands it will end up that Trump Trumps Never-Trump.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

Bart Simpson For President

That ultimate symbol of mischievous scamp Bart Simpson in Season One of the longest running show in TV history when caught red-handed offered up one of his signature phrases, “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything.”

This came to mind when I was thinking about Hillary “They’ll Never Indict Me” Clinton and her morally challenged obviously corrupt character.   Donald Trump has said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”  Hillary could say, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t get indicted.”

Everyone in the country knows that if any of us common people did one hundredth of what she has done in the email scandal alone we would have already been indicted along with the ten year Navy Vet indicted for taking a selfie on a submarine.  The Obama Justice Department is not going to indict Mrs. Clinton no matter what the FBI recommends.  She is above the law and she knows it or as she infamously said in the Benghazi hearing with regard to our four dead heroes, “What does it matter now?”

As a person who has been involved with and has closely followed the American political scene for more than fifty years this is the first time in my personal memory or Historical knowledge that a potential candidate for one party has promised to prosecute a potential candidate of the other party if elected.

As Secretary of State, Hillary’s accomplishments include the failed reset with Russia and of course her debacle in Libya.  As a United State Senator what did she accomplish?  In eight years she only sponsored three inconsequential laws:

S.3145, which designated a portion of U.S. Route 20A, located in Orchard Park, N.Y., as the “Timothy J. Russert Highway,” after the former “Meet the Press” host.

  1. 3613, which renamed the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the “Major George Quamo Post Office Building.”
  2. 1241 which made the brick house of 19th century female union leader Kate Mullany a national historic site.

Her major accomplishment is that she married a man who became the most ethically challenged president in American History.  As the wife of Bill Clnton she was deeply involved in smothering the serial bimbo eruptions which grew out of his long history of having affairs, sexually harassing women who worked for him, and assaulting others.   This is the person who portrays herself as an advocate of women’s rights.

To highlight just one of her hypocritical faux stances for women’s rights look at her advocacy for equal pay.  The Clinton Foundation pays women executives 38% less than their male counterparts.  During her time in the Senate she paid women 72 cents for every dollar she paid men.  According to public records her current campaign pays women staffers less than she pays men. So much for putting your money where your mouth is!

Looking back once more to the email scandal that Hillary so nonchalantly dismisses if as she maintains she never received nor sent any classified material during her entire term as our Secretary of State my question is, what was she doing besides traveling the world at our expense?  Was she out of the loop and merely Secretary of State in name only?   It is inconceivable that anyone could be the Secretary of State and not send or receive any classified material.  That is beyond belief and a lie so transparent it shows total contempt for those it is meant to fool.

In the current election the Great Impresario likes to label people.  In many ways it is an effective form of political shorthand.  It sums up the thoughts, accusations, and beliefs about a person and brings them crashing in whenever they hear the catcall.  Lyin Ted and Little Marco have taken their toll picked up and repeated by the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media and their pet FOX.  Now we have Crooked Hillary.  The others were just effective.  This one seems appropriate.

If Hillary wins the presidency it will be a watershed just as the election and then re-election of her husband was.  As his marked the end of public morality hers will mean the end of the rule of law.  It will become evident to anyone observant enough to note the sunrise that enforcement of the bewildering lattice of laws and regulations are only aimed at the common folk not at our masters.

If such a legally challenged individual can fool enough of the people all the time to sit in the oval office it reminds me of what Bart said to Homer after it was revealed he had cheated on an important test, “I cheated on the intelligence test. I’m sorry. But I just want to say that the past few weeks have been great. Me and you have done stuff together. You’ve helped me out with things and we’re closer than we’ve ever been. I love you, Dad. And I think if something can bring us that close it can’t possibly be bad.”

Doing bad things for good purposes is the operational rational of Progressive Liberalism.  The ends justify the means was the operational rational of all the megalomaniac dictators of world History.  Please explain the difference.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

 

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN