Just as I thought, it is very, very probable that millions of illegal aliens did indeed register to vote this last election and illegally cast their votes… most likely for Hillary Clinton. This was something that was driven by Obama and Clinton and they knew full well it was going on. President Trump has now mandated a task force to look into voter fraud and has put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of it. This is long overdue and a very good thing. And frankly, I don’t care which side of the political line the voter fraud falls on, it needs to be stopped. Especially from those voting illegally in this country.
As many as 2.1 million illegal aliens are thought to have possibly voted in this last election. That is a huge breach of voting security and it bolsters President Trump’s claim that it did indeed happen. The results pointing towards all this come from the National Hispanic Survey and then they were applied to US Census data. “It has to do with the registration,” Trump told Bill O’Reilly. “And when you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted, when you see people that are registered in two states, that have voted in two states, when you see other things, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens and they are on the registration rolls. Look, Bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this, it’s really a bad situation, it’s really bad.”
From the Conservative Tribune:
Evidence of voter registration among illegals has existed for years, and things may be getting worse. The staggering number of illegal immigrants who may have voted in this past year’s election is too big to dismiss.
The National Hispanic Survey, a study in 2013 conducted by McLaughlin and Associates showed that 13 percent of illegal immigrants claimed they were registered to vote, according to The Washington Times.
According to The Times, the independent data analysis group Just Facts reportedly examined the results from the National Hispanic Survey and applied them to U.S. Census data, concluding that as many as 2.1 million aliens could have been illegally registered this past fall.
“Contrary to the claims of many media outlets and so-called fact-checkers, this nationally representative scientific poll confirms that a sizable number of non-citizens in the U.S. are registered to vote,” Agresti said.
Non-citizens voting in elections in the United States is completely illegal. Add that to the recent development of possible voter fraud by citizens being bused into New Hampshire from other states to vote in the swing state, and we have two very probable instances of voter fraud.
In his interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that aired on Super Bowl Sunday, President Donald Trump said a task force studying illegal voting in the United States will focus on just the kind of illegal voter registration the National Hispanic Survey found. Vice President Mike Pence will lead the group.
Had the shoe been on the other foot and the left suspected massive voter fraud like this, they would have screamed bloody murder and demanded an investigation and probably legal action. But since it was the left doing it, they try and paint anyone even hinting at voter fraud as a crazed conspiracy nut. But that doesn’t make it any less true. Voter fraud has always been a huge problem and it is long past time we confronted it and cleaned up the system.
The popular vote isn’t popular when it’s illegal. The voter rolls should be cleaned up state by state and voter registration verified. Voter ID should be required and there should be unbiased voting monitors, redundant backups to verify results and video of everything taking place at voting locations. Pence has a big job in front of him. This is why I said long ago that illegal aliens could keep Marxists in control in America indefinitely if allowed in and were permitted to vote. It almost worked, but not quite.
The media think they’ve found their Watergate, and it only took them three weeks to get there. The truth may be something altogether different. With retired General Mike Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama, and former National Security Advisor under President Donald Trump, now gone from the administration, many questions remain. The media have seized on, “What did Trump know and when did he know it?” It has a nice Watergate ring to it. Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal doesn’t think that we’re quite to that point.
But because the media have maxed out their outrage meter on everything from Dr. Ben Carson’s qualifications to be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to the size of the inauguration day crowd, to Kellyanne Conway’s careless but lighthearted remark about plugging Ivanka Trump’s line of merchandise, the questions on the Flynn matter could potentially disappear in the same blizzard of daily outrage. Or, these questions could grow like a cancer on the Trump presidency, in the midst of congressional hearings and a media obsessed with bringing Trump down.
After all, the media spent eight years pretending the Obama administration was scandal free, that Obama never lied to them, that he always acted in a Constitutional manner. We have documented many of his scandals, and the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously overruled his Justice Department a record 44 times. Overall, Obama had the worst record by far of any president of the last half century when it comes to the number of cases lost at the Supreme Court level. Yet when the Trump administration loses one appeal at the Circuit Court level, it is treated as proof that Trump is shredding the Constitution.
The media also acted as though Hillary Clinton’s actions did not rise to the level of scandal, including her use of an unsecured server to traffic in classified material for four years as secretary of state; her pay for play financial dealings benefiting her family fortune, often, ironically enough, benefiting Russia; and of course Benghazi.
The unproven offense by the Trump administration is that Flynn may have told the Russians to hold off on reacting to Obama’s new sanctions imposed on them in his final month in office, as well as the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This appears to have been a highly politicized move to bolster the case of his political appointees in the intelligence community (IC) that that Russians hacked the U.S. presidential election with the goal of tipping the scales for Trump, although their report proved nothing of the sort. Obama even claimed that he was aware of this Russian hacking at least a month before the election, but kept his mouth shut because he didn’t want to appear to be trying to overtly help Hillary get elected.
Writing for National Review, Andrew McCarthy has done an outstanding job examining the possible scenarios involving Flynn, and urging Trump to release the tape of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador. It will eventually come out anyway. In a parting interview shortly before his resignation, Flynn insisted that he crossed no legal lines in his conversations, and urged an investigation into the leaks about him, which he called a “criminal act.”
As to the possible Logan Act violation, i.e., negotiating foreign policy with a foreign power by a private citizen not authorized by the current government, we frankly don’t know at this point. No one has ever been prosecuted under that 1798 law. But what about Obama’s overture to Iran in 2008, in which he sent Ambassador William Miller to tell the Ayatollahs not to make a deal with President George W. Bush, but to wait for his presidency, when Iran would be able to get a better deal? Where was the outrage—and the investigation—when that became known?
And what about the January 23 story in The Washington Post, pointing out that the FBI had picked up Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador? “The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn—national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump—but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.” Was the FBI lying back then, still investigating, or what?
And despite a provocative title of The New York Times’ much talked about article this week, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” the article states that the intelligence agencies “sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election,” but according to the officials they spoke with, “so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.”
Michelle Malkin reminds us of several Obama appointees who were forced to withdraw before moving into their appointed positions for a variety of improprieties.
I began writing about politics in 1968, covering the Democratic convention in Chicago and the demonstrations inside and outside the hall for a weekly Jewish newspaper in Texas. I spent the summer of 1972 in Miami Beach, covering both the Democrat and Republican conventions, as well as the demonstrations in the streets that extended throughout the summer. Is this déjà vu all over again?
Nixon, like Trump, was hated by the news media and the left in general. While the left had been actively protesting against Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey over Vietnam, it was nothing compared to how it was amped up after the ’68 election. In 1972, the Democrats nominated George McGovern, a liberal, anti-Vietnam War candidate, who nonetheless had been a distinguished World War II fighter pilot, and unlike Hillary Clinton, had been free of corruption and scandal. Nixon won 301 electoral votes in 1968 to defeat Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, a Democrat turned independent who won five Southern states. Nixon, in 1972, won the Electoral College vote by a margin of 520 to 17, with McGovern winning only Massachusetts and Washington D.C.
This is Trump’s fourth week in office. If you look at the Tweets of Michael Moore, and comments from other members of the radical left, they smell blood and think this could already be the moment to try to impeach Trump. Dan Rather, the disgraced former CBS News anchor, is comparing this moment to Watergate. The New York Times’ Tom Friedman is comparing Trump’s election to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The left may get one chance at impeaching Trump, but if they don’t succeed, he will be stronger, and most likely continue on for another 412 weeks. The Republicans have such a favorable lay of the land for 2018—there are 25 Democratic senators up for re-election and only eight Republicans—that if Trump gains his footing, and gets past all of these rookie mistakes, and isn’t dragged down by some genuine scandal, the GOP could end up with a filibuster-proof Senate, and head into 2020 with a great chance for a landslide re-election.
The left is once again overplaying their hand. They can’t help themselves. Michael Wolff seemed to agree in the pages of Newsweek: “The media believes that it speaks for Hillary Clinton’s national ballot box majority, for the millions who have now marched against Trump, for the demographically expanding left wing (although not in the right-wing states) and, as well, for obvious common sense. And the media believes that everybody believes what it believes. How could they not? It’s Donald Trump!”
Obama and his operatives are reportedly pulling the strings, attempting to overwhelm the system and shut down the Trump presidency. This is unprecedented by a former president against a sitting president, and should be another area of investigation. The same political forces that swept Trump to victory in 2016 will likely come out again—perhaps in greater numbers—in spite of the riots and protests in the streets, the outrage from most of the news media, and from the likes of Madonna, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Bruce Springsteen, Chelsea Handler and the Obamas. Not only is Trump in good position to win re-election, but next time it could be a real electoral landslide.
The game ended over two weeks ago and yet the losers are still pouting, protesting, rioting, vandalizing, suspending college classes, threatening to secede, petitioning the Presidential Electors to vote for Hillary on Dec. 19th, and planning to flood down on Washington D.C with protests on Jan. 20th, 2017.
This is not just a game lost; but a war that has been going on over a year to capture the “White House.” The battleground states became a battleground nation. Mr. Trump won the Electoral College battle, Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote battle; but who will win the war on Jan. 20th?
It won’t be the Constitution or the American Federation the Framers established.
Were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the most outstanding individuals and statesmen this nation could produce? This ludicrous and shameful behavior is what party politics and mass democracy has done to us.
Doesn’t this election cycle, if nothing else, prove that we need a better way to elect this high office?
The Framers did not want a democracy. They rejected the idea of a popular vote to elect the President. The notes from the Constitutional Convention, describe many options that were discussed at length on several occasions as to how the office of the chief Executive, the President of the Union of States should be chosen. To share a couple example of their objection to a popular election:
“ Mr. GERRY. (Elbridge Gerry, MA) A popular election in this case is radically vicious [violent]. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union & acting in Concert to delude them into any appointment.” 
Mr. Gerry also spoke of the “excesses” and “evils” of democracy expressing his opposition this way, “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want [lack] virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Mass. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute.” 
Col George Mason delegate from Virginia, also known as the father of the Bill of Rights, put it this way, “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colours to a blind man.” 
Roger Sherman of Connecticut said, “that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy.” 
If the Framers did not want a popularly elected president or democracy –what did they want?
They wanted to design a structure of government to control the national level of government, safeguard freedom, protect individual liberty, establish justice and promote prosperity. They did not go from a confederation of states to a consolidated central government.
The Framers intelligently designed the greatest political document ever created–the Constitution of the United States. It defined a modified American Federation; a “more perfect Union”–not a democracy. The Constitution added one house (but only one house) to be elected by the people. The Articles of Confederation had no assembly elected by the people.
They also added an Executive Branch with specific limited responsibilities and a detailed method for filling that office. Article II of the Constitution carefully outlines every step. It was a compound process using one group outside of government influence (independent Presidential Electors) to recommend the most outstanding presidential possibilities; and a second group inside government (the House of Representatives) to make the final election by the States, each state having one vote.
The concept of having one body nominate a group of candidates from which another body will make a final selection is consistent with Resolution # 5 of the Virginia Plan and not an uncommon practice. 
Both the nomination and the election came under the jurisdiction of the States. The States would choose the method of appointment of the Electors and the States having an equal voice—one vote each, would elect the President. (An American Federation again.)
A “short cut” was provided in case a majority of Electors recommended the same individuals; then there was no need to go to the House. For a more detailed examination of the presidential election process see: A Far Superior Process 
Some of the delegates in the Convention thought the Congress would often make the final election. George Mason for example, stated “that nineteen times in twenty the President would be chosen by the Senate, an improper body for the purpose.” However, on Sept. 4th when the final election was changed from the Senate to the House, it pleased many delegates. Mr. Madison records: “Col: Mason liked the latter mode best as lessening the aristocratic influence of the Senate.” 
However, because political party machinations sought to manipulate and control the Presidential Electors, and always force a majority, we soon lost the independence of the Electors and the Executive Branch. The first Branch to fall victim to party politics and democracy was the Executive, facilitated by the 12th Amendment. The Senate was the second casualty of party control and democracy with the 17th Amendment. The State’s lost the voice of their State Government and the American Federation crumbled to the ground.
President George Washington in his farewell address earnestly pleaded and warned the country in the most solemn manner not to resort to political parties; that sooner or later, the despotism and spirit of revenge would result in the ruins of Public Liberty. (Sept. 19, 1796)
In a development that is alarming in more ways than one, Jeh Johnson and DHS are making noises that we should federalize states’ voting systems because of hacking by the Russians and others. That should send a very cold shiver down your spine. Not only have the feds pretty much taken over the mainstream media, they now want to control our elections. Let me see… where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Every single dictator on the planet has done the very same thing, just not as slyly. If this happens, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. We become an outright banana republic run by despots.
The bulletin does not identify the states in question, but sources familiar with the document say it refers to the targeting by suspected foreign hackers of voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In the Illinois case, officials were forced to shut down the state’s voter registration system for 10 days in late July, after the hackers managed to download personal data on up to 200,000 state voters, Ken Menzel, the general counsel of the Illinois Board of Elections, said in an interview. The Arizona attack was more limited, involving malicious software that was introduced into its voter registration system but no successful exfiltration of data, a state official said.
The FBI is now warning all states that they should start securing their voting systems to avoid hacking in the next election. Let me ask you this, shouldn’t the states have been doing that all along? Why now? DHS and the FBI are now referring to the election systems as critical infrastructure, like the power grid and Wall Street. First off, they’ve never done a thing about the power grid. They want to nationalize utilities so the government controls them too… but no one has done a thing to invest in modernizing and strengthening the power grid. As far as Wall Street goes, that is a reference to banking which they have pretty much already nationalized, but I guess they want to ‘further’ control it. Don’t you see the power grab here? Venezuela anyone? The feds now have control over our power grid, media, food and financial sectors. Now they want an iron grip on voting… exactly what do you think will happen? We don’t have a two party system anymore. They are basically in cahoots with one another, so voting has already been compromised. Now this.
Frankly, I fear the Russians hacking the system to mess with our elections. But that doesn’t mean that I want to hand over our voting process to the federal government any more than I want the Internet handed over to the UN and foreign countries, which Obama is making happen as well. Nationalizing the voting process is breathtakingly unconstitutional. If it happens, you will never be able to trust the results ever again. There was a reason our Founding Fathers wanted the states to have the power over elections and it was to prevent something like this. An arrogant move towards a despotic regime and it’s happening right before our eyes.
The talk of nationalizing the voting structure started before the Russian hacking of Arizona and Illinois’ election boards. This has been talked about for a while now. It should be all over the news, but as usual… crickets.
“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.
“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at media conference earlier this month hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
DHS clarifies further on their website: “There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”
What happens when those in power control everything that defines out country and our survival? To let them control all this instead of putting it under the purview of the states and private entities is simply insane. It’s begging for a dictatorship.
A White House policy directive adds, “The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.”
Johnson also stated that the primary issue is that there isn’t a central election system since the states run elections. “There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process,” Johnson said.
“There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes,” he said. Yes and that runs so well. Not. It’s already corrupt and rigged and now they want that to apply to ALL ELECTIONS. They are using security and the fact that we are vulnerable as an excuse to seize power over voting. It doesn’t take a genius to see it.
Georgia’s top election official is flatly digging in his heels and saying no thank you to the fed’s so-called assistance. He’s correct in saying that the Obama Administration is ginning up a cybersecurity threat to intrude on states’ authority. That is exactly what is happening and I totally agree with Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.
“It seems like now it’s just the D.C. media and the bureaucrats, because of the DNC getting hacked — they now think our whole system is on the verge of disaster because some Russian’s going to tap into the voting system,” Kemp, a Republican, told POLITICO in an interview. “And that’s just not — I mean, anything is possible, but it is not probable at all, the way our systems are set up.” I think the Russians are a serious threat, but the power and the responsibility should still reside with the states. Somebody needs to actually, you know, read the Constitution.
In an earlier interview with NextGov, Kemp warned: “The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.” Trust, me they will… Obama has nothing to lose and he’s setting the stage for Clinton. Kemp sees a “clear motivation from this White House” to expand federal control, citing Obama’s healthcare law, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation and the increased role of the Education Department in local schools.
Kemp is far from alone. Election officials in other states are now ringing the alarm bells as loudly as they can, but it is hard to be heard in a media vacuum that squelches your voice. Many election officials see the classification of their election systems as critical infrastructure as the first stage of a more intrusive plan. They are not wrong here.
“I think it’s kind of the nose under the tent,” said Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos, who is a Democrat. “What I think a lot of folks get concerned about [is] when the federal government says, ‘Well, look, we’re not really interested in doing that, but we just want to give you this,’ and then all of a sudden this leads to something else.” Oh, you bet it does.
“Elections have always been run and organized by the states,” said Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, another Democrat. “And I think there has always been a fear that there would be federal intervention that would not recognize differences among the states.” Yes, there has and rightly so. Things are so whacked out, I’m now agreeing with Democrats. SMH. Merrill went on to say that having this kind of rhetoric this close to a major election is not helpful. That’s an understatement.
This kind of thing makes you paranoid. First you worry that the Russians are rigging the election for one of the candidates. Then you worry that the feds are just waiting to pounce on an excuse to make our elections utterly meaningless. This gives either candidate fodder to claim if they lose, that everything was rigged.
Bruce McConnell, a former DHS deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity under Obama, outright rejected Kemp’s suggestion that states should fear greater federal involvement in elections. “I think it’s pretty clear today which is the greater risk to the republic: citizens losing complete confidence in our election system, or the states working carefully with Washington to prevent disaster while keeping the 10th Amendment well in mind,” said McConnell, now the global vice president at the EastWest Institute. He was referring to the Bill of Rights provision that declares limits on federal authority. Which is exactly what the feds are trying to nullify and subvert.
A number of lawmakers from both parties have urged the administration to improve cyber-protections for parties, political groups and election offices. So did a bipartisan group of security experts from the Aspen Institute, who said in July that “voting processes and results must receive security akin to that we expect for critical infrastructure.” Right, yes… the Aspen Institute, which is a Progressive Marxist front. Of course they would be for this.
Johnson said on Aug. 3rd that DHS “should carefully consider” the critical infrastructure question. Twelve days later, he held a conference call with state election officials in which he discussed a possible role for Washington. Kemp was not happy with this and again, I don’t blame him. He found it troubling. Agreed. He also pointed out that it all has to do with the definition of ‘critical infrastructure’. Again correct… they are controlling the language here, so it gives the feds a foot in the door.
The White House is now coming forward and claiming that Kemp and others who are concerned about the constitutional implications of this are wrong about the law. “The concern about … ‘we’ll be designated as critical infrastructure and then we’re going to be regulated’ is just based on a false premise,” said the former official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. The official instead argued the benefits of this fascist move.
Kemp was unmoved by these word games and argued that it was clear during Johnson’s conference call with state election officials that a regulatory push “was obviously something that had been in the works.” “Everybody that was on that call was in lockstep with Secretary Johnson,” he added. On that same call, state officials accepted the offer to create an election cybersecurity partnership committee. Careful folks… that looks a lot like political candy to me.
Say it with me… TOTALITARIANISM. That’s what this amounts to. To federalize voting is to strip the states and voting Americans of that power and hand it to the government.
Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror. A distinctive feature of totalitarian governments is an “elaborate ideology, a set of ideas that gives meaning and direction to the whole society.”
Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” His words are haunting us today and we had better stop the Marxists before they gain such a stranglehold that the Republic is throttled. Tyranny has returned to America… not on a horse this time, but via cybersecurity.
Way back in January 2015, Senator Ted Cruz, along with U.S. Representative Lee Zeldin, demanded an investigation into “whether or not Obama has launched a political campaign against [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu before the March elections,” as reported at the Right Scoop.
In March, they sent a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen “questioning whether [State Department grant recipient] OneVoice was acting in violation of its tax exempt status.” Their questions went unanswered.
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
From the article:
“The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.”
While the mainstream media does not appear to give a hoot, once again Senator Ted Cruz has proven himself to be on the right side of history. He should be commended for exposing this outrageous and dare this author say – treasonous – misuse of taxpayer funds!
Taxpayer dollars should not be used to further any effort to overthrow the duly-elected leader of a democratic ally https://t.co/KZh49l40f9
Sen. Cruz and Rep. Zeldin Issue Joint Statement on New PSI Report Investigating State Department Grants to OneVoice
‘OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO FURTHER ANY EFFORT TO OVERTHROW THE DULY-ELECTED LEADER OF A DEMOCRATIC ALLY’
July 14, 2016 | 202-228-7561
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) today issued the following statement on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ (PSI) bipartisan report titled “Review of U.S. State Department Grants to OneVoice,” which confirms that U.S. taxpayer dollars were provided to an organization that sought to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
“OneVoice’s previous history of being involved in past Israeli elections should have been enough of a red flag not to provide grants under any circumstances,” Cruz and Zeldin said. “Yet the State Department’s apparent lack of oversight, either deliberate or blatantly incompetent, is nonetheless completely unacceptable in either respect. Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to further any effort to overthrow the duly-elected leader of a democratic ally, even if he or she is not politically aligned with the current American administration. Instead of undermining the will of Israelis in the only true democracy in the Middle East, America should be providing our close ally Israel with our steadfast support.”
Sen. Cruz and Rep. Zeldin first sent a letter to the State Department on January 29, 2015, expressing strong concerns over media reports a taxpayer funded 501(c)3 non-profit called OneVoice was actively working with V15 to influence the outcome of the March 17, 2015 Israeli elections and calling for a State Department investigation into the matter. After further alarming news reports indicated OneVoice was engaged in overt political activity, they sent a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on March 3, 2015 questioning whether OneVoice was acting in violation of its tax exempt status. The IRS refused to answer their questions.
This new PSI report confirms much of the disturbing allegations raised in the Cruz-Zeldin letters to both the State Department and the IRS. OneVoice built a major grassroots campaign infrastructure and operation using grants provided by the State Department, which was then subsequently utilized during the Israeli election with the specific goal of defeating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israeli election. A consulting firm founded by two former Obama campaign operatives, 270 Strategies, received its own State Department grant and approval to advise OneVoice on constructing this effort. The political game plan was further devised during the State Department’s grant period and was even emailed to a top State Department official who deleted it–and then, subsequently, not only denied reading it, but also claimed to be unaware it was against government policy to delete such emails.
The corruption in the Obama administration is rampant.
With the extraordinary Cruz vs Trump battle for the GOP presidential nomination sucking up all of the political oxygen, it is easy to miss that awesome conservative retired Air Force Col Rob Maness is running for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana.
Folks, please allow me to cut to the chase. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket fueled by GOP cowardice and an entire Democrat party hijacked by anti-American zealots. The only way we stop the horrific effects of Obama’s insanity and corruption in both parties is to send rock-solid conservatives we can trust to Washington; candidates with backbones-of-steel who refuse to go-a-long to get-a-long.
Speaking of backbone, Maness’s military awards and combat decorations include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star and Air Medal. I am pretty sure Maness will not be intimidated by RINOs, metro-sexual democrats or Obama bureaucratic henchmen in DC. Maness is like an oak tree firmly and deeply rooted in the rich fertile soil of his Christian faith.
Men in orange jumpsuits purported to be Egyptian Christians held captive by the Islamic State
Author and speaker Trevor Loudon believes that non-voting American Christians have contributed to the vastly under-reported persecution of Christians worldwide.
In an article written by Faye Higbee and published at “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children,” Loudon pointed out that rampant worldwide Christian persecution could have been averted if America had not twice elected an anti-American president.
Trevor was quoted as saying:
There is a huge section of America that has the power to stop this – the Evangelical Christians.
Before WWII, the church, the moral authority of the nation of Germany, decided that if they left Adolf Hitler alone he would leave them alone. The result was the slaughter of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Christians and Allied lives. They could have stopped the Holocaust, but did nothing.
Today, ISIS and other jihadists have massacred thousands upon thousands of Christians across the Middle East. The blood of those people is on the hands of the church – those who refused to vote to stop Barack Obama from getting into office.
This week on Update Brazil, hosted by geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist and Brazilian conservative Allan L. Dos Santos, author and researcher Trevor Loudon sat down with Jeff and Allan to discuss some of the background on the communist infiltration of the U.S. government, the recent rise of the Russian “bear” on the world stage, and the rise of communism in South America.
It is not uncommon for people like Allan, Jeff, Trevor, and others (myself included), who try and warn Americans and Westerners about the rise of communism and socialism around the world—including the United States, Central America, South America, Africa, etc.—to be labeled “conspiracy theorists” and “red scare wackjobs.” From my own experience, this sort of ad hominem typically comes from people who are, for the most part, completely ignorant of the history of communism and Marxist ideology; or are themselves socialists, communists or “fellow travelers” (i.e. sympathizers).
The prevailing view since the late 80s and early 90s that communism collapsed following the fall of the Berlin Wall becomes “problematic” when one takes a long, hard look at the role Russia and China are currently playing on the world stage.
For example, Russia, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, is making some ominous moves eerily similar to the bad old days of the Soviet Union. Not only has Putin begun to flex Russia’s military muscle in Ukraine and Syria as of late, but the signs of Putin’s desire to return the former Soviet Union back to its “glory days” stretches back to the time he first grabbed hold of the reins of power. Putin has publicly stated that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” While some leftist sources will sometimes try and downplay Putin’s lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union, Putin’s actions toward trying to rehabilitate the old USSR should give one pause.
In 2000, Vladimir Putin asked the Russian Parliament to reinstate the national anthem of the Soviet Union, originally written for Josef Stalin.
In 2014, Vladimir Putin renamed an elite police unit after the notorious Felix Dzerzhinsky (see video below); considered the founder of the KGB (now the FSB), and the first head of the feared Bolshevik secret police force known as the Cheka. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin appointed Dzerzhinsky as Commissar of the Internal Affairs and head of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution (Cheka) in December 1917.
In an interview with Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918, Dzerzhinsky justified the use of terror:
We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life.
We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal’s own confession. (The Bolsheviks, Volume II: How the Soviets Seize Power, by John D. Loscher, pp. 549-550.)
If you visit the official website of the Russian Federal Security Forces (i.e. fsb.ru), there is a link to a list of former FSB “leaders.” The very first leader mentioned is Felix Dzerzhinsky. The list also contains such cringe-worthy figures as Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrentiy Beria, Yuri Andropov, among others. Also included in the list is Vladimir Putin, who was a former KGB officer and “director of FSB Russia” from July 1998 to August 1999.
The statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the former head of the Soviet secret police on “Dzerzhinsky Square.”
For many years a statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky stood prominently in front of the notorious Lubyanka building, the headquarters of the KGB. The statue was such a dominant feature that Lubyanka Square was nicknamed “Dzerzhinsky Square.” The statue was toppled with a crane by protesters, in 1991, following the collapse of the coup against the then-Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.
The toppling of Dzerzhinsky’s statue has not been without controversy in Russia. There have long been calls by some to restore the statue to its plinth. In June 2015, Radio Free Europereported the statue may be “inching back” to its old KGB headquarters:
On June 11, the Moscow City Election Commission ruled to allow a referendum on restoring the statue to the site — a concession the commission had previously declined to make.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been numerous calls from the Communist Party and powerful noncommunist politicians such as former Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov to restore the statue to its pedestal.
In an upcoming article, I will be digging deeper into what is known as the dialectical strategy. Dialectics is a very important concept to understand when it comes to radical left-wing strategy and tactics, and is something many Americans and Westerners fail to grasp. In a nutshell, the dialectical strategy could be described as two opposing forces (e.g. left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, nationalist vs. internationalist, etc.) which appear to be diametrically opposed to one another; but are, in fact, working in concert to bring about a predetermined outcome. Jeff Nyquist calls it the “scissors strategy”—controlling both the far-right and far-left simultaneously. The target is being cut from both the right and left blades, so to speak—all under the control of “one hand.” Another analogy that could used to describe the dialectical strategy is the wings of a bird. While the right and left wings can operate independently of one another, they are still connected to the same body; which, in turn, is controlled by one brain.
It is not uncommon for communists to hold diametrically opposed positions on various social, economic or cultural issues concurrently. This is dialectics in practice: two seemingly opposing positions are working toward the same predetermined end (i.e. international socialism).
For example, the radical left may support gay rights in one country, while opposing gay rights in another country. The Bolsheviks legalized homosexuality; but Stalin banned it. (Interestingly, the homosexual movement was ostensibly started in the United States by Henry “Harry” Hay, an unabashed communist.)
Trevor Loudon and Jeff Nyquist point out that Vladimir Putin is cultivating France’s Front National, Germany’s PEGIDA movement (typically referred to as a “far-right” or “extreme nationalist” organization by Western media), and anti-Islamic blocs in Italy and the Netherlands. While Putin is seen in the West as fighting radical Islam, he is simultaneously funding radical Islam. The Russians have always supported radical Islam against the West since the 1920s, Loudon explains.
Westerners, particularly on the right, see things through the prism of national or economic interests, while nations like Russia and China have long-term strategic goals heavily rooted in ideology. Russia, China and Iran do not think in terms of election cycles. Jeff Nyquist points out the Russians spent a lot of time in Afghanistan infiltrating Islamic groups to increase their hold over radical Islam. Putin clamps down on radical Islam within Russia; but outside of Russia, he will arm ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.
Trevor Loudon mentioned a Lithuanian article from the Center for East European Studies that makes a convincing case Russia may have started ISIS. Once again, this seems like insanity to those who are unfamiliar with dialectical strategy and KGB-inspired tactics. A number of right-leaning people wholeheartedly believe Vladimir Putin is a defender of Christianity, and that he is actively fighting against Islamic terrorism. While Putin certainly has cozy a relationship with the Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has been controlled by the KGB since the days of the early revolution. The Russian Church has been a state church since Lenin and Stalin took it over.
The KGB-inspired strategy of provokatsiya (provocation), which simply means “taking control of your enemies in secret and encouraging them to do things that discredit them and help you,” was employed, for example, to suppress Chechen nationalists and separatists during the Chechen conflict. By facilitating and strengthening jihadist elements in Chechnya, Russia could link Chechen independence with groups like al-Qaeda, and Islamic terror in general—all under the rubric of the “War on Terror.” These sort of tactics have long been employed by the Russians against internal and external opposition, going all the way back to Tsarist Russia.
An insurgency often times employs guerrilla warfare tactics—sabotage, sniping, long-range ambushes, hit-and-run, etc.—to harass and harangue a superior military force. The goal is to demoralize and slowly weaken the enemy’s resolve and will to fight … keep the enemy on their heels—”death by a thousand cuts.” But it is vital for any insurgency to win over the hearts and minds of the people. When a guerrilla movement engages in extreme acts of violence, or is seen as incompetent or corrupt, they risk losing the support of the citizenry.
What happened in the Sunni Triangle during the Iraq War is a prime example of an insurgency losing the support of the people. Al-Qaeda linked jihadis began engaging in horrific acts of violence against Iraqi citizens in areas they had taken over in central Iraq. While the Iraqi Sunnis were certainly no fans of American or coalition forces, they turned against the al-Qaeda linked groups because of their barbarism and extremism (see Enlightenment Councils).
The provokatsiya strategy directly and indirectly encourages and fosters extremism for its own ends.
When I met up with Trevor Loudon in Indianapolis back in 2013, he shared an incredulous story with me that he also mentions in this week’s installment of Update Brazil. According to Loudon, a friend of his received training at Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning during the 1980s when the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan. He had infiltrated the New Zealand Communist Party while working for New Zealand’s security services. Communists from around the world were complaining the Afghan quagmire was bad for their prestige. They were embarrassed that the mighty Soviet Union was getting beat up by a ragtag band of Afghan tribal fighters. Soviet officials in Moscow countered by saying, “Don’t worry, this is our strategy … we went into Afghanistan to lose.”
Trevor told me that the Soviets believed they needed their own “Vietnam.” As incredible as this may seem to many Americans and Westerners, the strategy is based largely on Sun Tzu’s maxim to appear weak; when, in fact, you are strong. The goal is to entice and lull the enemy into complacency. As Loudon puts it: “Russia lost in Afghanistan, but gained the disarmament of the West.” This should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied Russian history. The Soviets were more than willing to kill millions of their own people in order to forward a long-term geopolitical strategy or goal.
When it comes to the insidious influence of communism and socialism within the United States, one need look no farther than our very own president, Barack Hussein Obama. His close connections with known communists, socialists and fellow travelers are well-documented, and have been meticulously researched by the likes of Trevor Loudon, and others. Obama comes from a “pro-Soviet background,” as Trevor Loudon points out. Some of Obama’s close connections to left-wing radicals include Frank Marshall Davis (see more here), Alice Palmer, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and many others. Barack Obama has publicly admitted Frank Marshall Davis was a mentor; he had a huge influence on Obama’s worldview as a young man. This is particularly disturbing, considering Frank Marshall Davis was a hardcore communist with a 600-page FBI file. Had war ever broken out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Frank Marshall Davis was to be immediately arrested, due to the fact he was listed so high on the security index. Furthermore, Davis decided to embrace communism, even after learning of the monstrous crimes against humanity committed by the likes of Josef Stalin.
The American left, especially the liberal media, have cuddled up to the racist revolutionary “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement. One of the more vocal BLM activists, Deray McKesson, was just awarded a teaching position at Yale Divinity School. The Obama Administration has rolled out the red carpet (no pun intended) for the BLM activists as well. Additionally, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton recently held a meeting with BLM members. Disturbingly, people associated with “Black Lives Matter” have been working with radical elements in Moscow. BLM activists have also visited Palestine to work with Palestinian Jihad; who, in turn, are allied with the PLO—which was set up by the Soviets.
The old communist networks are still as active as they ever were. Nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the communists in Russia, and the West, no longer call themselves communists.
Hardcore Marxists and their fellow travelers long ago took over the press, media and public education in the United States, especially universities and colleges. If the unvarnished truth was ever reported regarding the insidious connections many people in government, education and the press have with the radical left, it is highly unlikely they would have ever accumulated the power and prestige they now enjoy in America. But true journalism, in the form of who, what, why, where, when and how, has now been replaced with advocacy masquerading as journalism. Trevor Loudon points to Prof Curtis D. MacDougall, who invented “advocacy journalism” in the 1940s and 1950s, as one of the main culprits in moving so many Americans toward the far-left-side of the political spectrum.
Allan L. Dos Santos, a Brazilian conservative activist and staunch anti-communist, says the Brazilian press also skews far to the left. It is interesting to note, too, that American mainstream media has imposed a virtual news blackout on the popular, non-violent uprising occurring in Brazil against their communist president, Dilma Rouseff. There have been massive protests numbering in the millions calling for the impeachment of Rouseff.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the alleged collapse of communism, the rise of left-wing regimes in South America has only increased in both strength and numbers. Brazil’s former president Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, helped set up the Sao Paulo Forum, which has been instrumental in socializing a large portion of South America. (Lula served as Brazil’s president from January 2003 to January 2011.)
The above image, sponsored by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the Labour Party (PT), celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Sao Paulo Forum, founded in 1990 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It features portraits of socialist and communist leaders like Hugo Chavez, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Dilma Rouseff, Raul Castro, Nicolás Maduro, and others. The caption reads: “Equality, equity, social justice, sustainable development and sovereignty, signs of change in our America.”
The screencap below shows the political influence member states of the Sao Paulo Forum are having in Central and South America.
Western pundits and analysts have long attempted to paint Lula as a “moderate.” In an interview with Alek Boyd several years ago, Brazilian professor and philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho, stated the following concerning how one can reconcile the notion Lula is a so-called “moderate” when, in fact, he helped set up the Sao Paulo Forum (Foro de Sao Paulo) at Fidel Castro’s personal request:
“… The legend of Lula, as a democrat and a moderate, only holds up thanks to the suppression of the most important fact of his political biography, the foundation of the São Paulo Forum. This suppression, in some cases, is fruit of genuine ignorance; but in others, it is a premeditated cover-up. Council of Foreign Relations’ expert on Brazilian issues, Kenneth Maxwell, even got to the point of openly denying the mere existence of the Forum, being confirmed in this by another expert on the subject, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, also at a conference at the CFR. I do not need to emphasize the weight that CFR’s authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States. When such an institution denies the most proven and documented facts of the Latin American history of the last decades, few journalists will have the courage of taking the side of facts against the argument of authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States….”
In regard to Russian involvement in Central and South America, Jeff R. Nyquist points out the Russians are setting up military bases and academy structures in Nicaragua, deploying bombers and ships to Venezuela, and supporting revolution in Columbia through proxies.
Allan Dos Santos claims that both Brazilian politicians and individuals involved in the drug trade (“Red Command “) have been working together for a long time in Brazil. Dos Santos has also mentioned in previous installments of Update Brazil the heavy involvement of both Russia and China in Brazil, and the region as a whole.
Trevor Loudon believes things can change—and quickly—if we elect new leadership. There is a ground-swell of opposition at the grassroots level in both Brazil and Venezuela … and in the United States as well. But if Americans elect a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, it might be time to start stocking up on food and building that “bomb shelter.”
Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case that the ruling was a threat to our democratic form of government and constitutes a “judicial Putsch,” or secret power grab. He didn’t just say the majority was wrong or misguided; he essentially said they had conspired to overthrow our form of government. His position on the Court may have made it impossible to supply specifics. But one possible explanation of what he meant is that he saw a conflict-of-interest on the part of members of the majority, which required their recusal from the case.
Rather than investigate what Scalia is hinting at, our media have opened fire on Scalia for blowing the whistle on judicial corruption.
In fact, the push for gay marriage has been tainted by lies from the beginning. As Professor Paul Kengor notes, Obama himself was caught lying by his own adviser, David Axelrod, who now admits Obama favored gay marriage when he was publicly opposing it to get elected. “According to Axelrod,” Kengor told WorldNetDaily, “Obama supported gay marriage as far back as the mid-1990s, when he was an aspiring Chicago politician. He publicly suggested otherwise, however, in order to get votes, especially from African-Americans who rejected gay marriage in higher numbers than white Americans.”
What’s more, as AIM has documented on numerous occasions, media “coverage” of the issue has been non-stop propaganda, much of it emanating from a group called the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. Most people haven’t heard of the group, which is the way they want it. The nature of gay pride parades has even been censored, prohibiting the public from understanding that the homosexual movement celebrates crude displays of nudity and vulgarity.
Politically, it would be one thing if Scalia had responded that there was an honest disagreement over the meaning of certain words in the Constitution. Instead, he said the majority subverted the Constitution by reading into it something that does not exist—the “right” to force government at all levels to recognize gay marriage. By inventing this “right,” Scalia and the other dissenters said, the Court has put our actual rights of freedom of religion and expression in grave jeopardy. This seems to be the nature of the “putsch” Scalia is talking about. He could very well be referring to behind-the-scenes pressures put on the Justices by homosexual elite forces, the financially powerful one to two percent, who seem to have so much sway over the media, academia and the corporate world. These people are now attempting to suppress a new film, “An Open Secret,” about pedophilia in Hollywood.
Whatever the reason for the putsch, our form of government has been overthrown and another put in its place—a judicial dictatorship that is devoted to elevating to protected status a sexual minority seeking the abolition of traditional values. Left unchecked in its drive for power over others, this cabal threatens not only our heritage but America’s standing in the world as a superpower. It appears the Obama administration wants to spend more money on Pentagon gay pride events and climate change than actual weapons systems to defend America.
As we get ready to celebrate Independence Day, however, we can rest assured that the American people remember enough about the founding of their country that they cannot and will not accept a judicial tyranny. That would make a complete mockery of what July 4th is all about and what millions of Americans have sacrificed for.
The critical part of the law in the gay marriage case is Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code, which is applicable to judges and courts. It says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These disqualifications include cases in which “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”
Our media didn’t treat it as a big deal, but Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, the Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Foundation for Moral Law had called for Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case.
Matthew Kidd, executive director of the Foundation for Moral Law, told Accuracy in Media that the failure by Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case leaves them open to impeachment and removal from the bench.
But will Congress act?
According to the Supreme Court website, the only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. It says the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. A majority is required for impeachment in the House but a two-thirds vote is required for conviction.
In the case of Kagan, an Obama appointee, she may have had a personal conflict-of-interest. This is a sensitive matter, but various reports indicated that Kagan was a known lesbian before she was nominated to the Court by President Obama. For example, the gay blog QueerTY had identified her as a lesbian. That would mean she was compromised on homosexual issues prior to her ascension to the bench and after she was confirmed. This is a conflict of interest that cannot be tolerated.
Whether the reports of her lesbianism are true or not, we know that Kagan had an extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003 to 2009) where she promoted homosexuality and transgenderism. Nevertheless, she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 63 to 37 vote.
Kagan “avoided the sort of scrutiny that some nominees have faced,” The Washington Post noted at the time.
We now see the evidence of what happens when the media and Congress fail to do their jobs.
Congress, however, can try to undo some of the damage by holding hearings into the possible impeachment of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg. This would be one way of getting to the bottom of Scalia’s sensational charge that America’s democratic system has been subverted and stolen from the American people.
We are bound to hear that impeachment would be difficult and conviction impossible. There’s always an excuse for not taking bold action in Washington, D.C. But a congressional failure to act, in the wake of Scalia’s extraordinary charge of a judicial Putsch, would suggest that celebrating July 4th means fireworks and nothing more.
I think enough Americans are sufficiently concerned about this matter that they want to see some real fireworks, in the form of Congress exposing the lies, corruption and conflicts of interest that went into the sick and tyrannical gay marriage ruling.
Members of Congress taking up this cause will not get sympathetic headlines in the media. But it is something that has to be done if Independence Day is going to have any meaning left at all.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...