Will the President disappoint? Equities advanced on the premise of tax reform, the details that may be released today. As noted many times, the averages have been buoyed by great expectations of a Trump presidency that lowers regulations, simplifies the tax code, increases infrastructure spending and reduces the size of government.
Commenting on the above, increased infrastructure spending has bipartisan support. What about reducing the size of government?
Yesterday, the President announced his dictum that government agencies reduce their budget, but not in the Washington sense. For most organizations a 10% reduction in spending is a 10% reduction in spending. In Washington a 10% spending cut is historically a 10% reduction in the rate of growth. In other words, it is largely ceremonial.
The President’s spending cut is radical for Washington. He has proposed an actual reduction in spending, not a reduction in the the rate of a spending increase.
How will the bureaucracy respond? Probably disdainfully.
As stated above, many are expecting Trump today to announce his tax reform plans.
I have commented many times that globalism is on death’s bed. Yesterday it received another direct hit as Scotland stated it will vote to leave the United Kingdom. A similar referendum failed in September 2014. I will argue if this plebiscite is passed and if Le Penn is victorious in France, both of which is a distinct possibility, globalism has died a traumatic and swift death. Wow! Talk about the unexpected occurring.
If this does occur, the investing landscape has radically changed where yesterday’s rules no longer apply. Economic nationalism will dictate sovereign’s policies.
This implosion of an economic order coupled with perhaps the ending of a 30-year bull market for sovereign debt has and will continue to create uncertainty. How will such uncertainty be manifested in the markets?
Historically negatively, but again expect the unexpected where growth may exceed forecasts.
There is little to write about on yesterday’s market activity. Equities were flat, treasuries fell, the dollar erased losses as the odds of an interest rate next month rose past 50% and oil advanced to the highest level since July 2015.
Last night the foreign markets were mixed. London was up 0.03%, Paris down 0.05% and Frankfurt down 0.19%. China was up 0.40%, Japan was up 0.06% and Hang Sang was down 0.77%.
The Dow should open quietly lower. The 10-year is unchanged at a 2.36% yield.
Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card. You can:
Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs. Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.
Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.
The first illustrates how our Constitution is written: The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution. To see the list, go HERE.
The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works: It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.
Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers
Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want. If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.
Because everyone has ignored these existing limitations for so long, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. 1
Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.
Obviously, that is not true. The constitutional answer is todownsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority. 2
Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.
Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People. They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it.3
Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People
Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.
Spending is to be limited by the enumerated powers. Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures. Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.
Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?
Oh, Americans! False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take. Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.
Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment
A BBA changes the standard for spending from whether the object is an enumerated power to whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. 4
So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!
A BBA Doesn’t Reduce Federal Spending
A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:
All versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and
Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment”delegatesmassive new taxing authority to Congress: it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.
Typical Misconceptions
Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”
They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States. Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).
Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one. They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions: 5
The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.
But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything. So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.
Conclusion
A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told. Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.
Twenty-eight States have already passed applications for a BBA. Go HERE to check the status of your State. Warn your friends and State Legislators. For a model your State can use to rescind its previous applications, go HERE and look under “Take Action” column, or contact me. Do not let the malignant elite complete their revolution by replacing our Constitution.
Endnotes:
1 State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds. THIS shows what percentage of your State’s revenue is from federal funds. Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.
2George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members: Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.
3 Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand. The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says. Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).
4 Amendments change all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution. Eg., the 13th Amendment changed Art. I, §2, clause 3 & Art. IV, §2, clause 3 because they were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Today I give thanks for my family, my friends, my colleagues and our great country, especially those who serve in our military, intelligence, law enforcement and first responder communities to protect us. I give thanks that I was fortunate enough to be born in this wonderful nation, the most magnificent society on the face of the Earth.
Today I also give thanks to the Republican Party, its leaders, and its media. I give thanks to the party’s agenda — in the wake of the Mississippi Senate primary and numerous derogatory remarks — as it made clear it sought to wage war against us. It is a fact that the Republican establishment seeks to expel conservatives from the party.
Did you drop your Republican registration to express your disgust? Awesome — you did exactly what the establishment wanted, so you couldn’t vote for an insurgent candidate like Donald Trump in your state primary.
Are you a ‘Cruz Birther’? Super, you’re burning calories on an issue that no legal expert — on the left or the right — believes has any validity.
Do you think a President Rubio would lift a finger to seal the border? Pretty cool; but may I suggest that you lay off the psychedelic mushrooms?
Do you believe a President Fiorina, Christie, Kasich or Paul would be any different than Jeb!when it comes to illegal immigration or reducing the size of government? Excellent: I have some land in Whitewater, Arkansas I’d like to sell you — it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!
My friends, there are only three candidates left in the race who operate outside of the GOP establishment: they are Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.
It’s important to understand one, simple fact: should one of these three outsiders become President, they will also become the de facto head of the Republican Party.
That’s right: in one fell swoop, an anti-establishment candidate could take over and control the GOP leadership structure, by dint of the bully pulpit and a massive fundraising capability.
As the leader of the party, an outsider President could eviscerate the leadership structure and reorganize the entire, defective mess that is the GOP establishment.
That is what they fear most — losing their cushy jobs and consultancies and actually having to work for a living. Oh, the humanity!
That’s why I’m staying a registered Republican and supporting Cruz, Trump or Carson — who ever I deem most likely to win at the time.
It’s not just to save the Republic from the fiscal and national security timebombs that Obama has bequeathed to us. It’s also to shred the entire GOP establishment and lay the foundation for a new Republican Party. A conservative Republican Party that can restore the rule of law, honor the Constitution, and begin flaying the lard off the federal leviathan.
I give thanks to the Republican establishment for declaring war on us. It makes our mission all the more clear; they must be removed from the halls of power.
President Carson, President Cruz, or President Trump could make that appealing vision a reality.
Make sure your Republican registration is up-to-date, so you can support an insurgent candidate. It’s the only way to stop these corrupt and feckless boobs who today falsely claim the mantle of “Republicans”.
All the best to you and yours on this wonderful holiday. Thank you for patronizing my humble journal and may this season be a blessed one for all of us.
To Check or Not to Check, that is the question… when criminals fill out applications seeking employment with the Federal Government. Before I go any further, my apologies to William Shakespeare (I have a copy of his voice mail granting permission and can prove it as soon as the State Department retrieves it from Hillary’s email server). To Check or Not to Check, that is the question when criminals fill out applications for employment with the Federal Government. Do we really need to know who it is reading sensitive files, conducting Federal business or spending tax dollars?
On Monday, according to a Fox News article, Obama reportedly signed yet another Executive Order, skirting the constitutional process of enacting legislation; this one, “prevents federal agencies from making job-applicants reveal they have a criminal record as part of his overall criminal justice reform effort”.
“The so-called “drop the box” initiative would allow prospective employees not to check a box on some federal applications that acknowledges a criminal record.”
Prospective employees who have been tried, convicted and spent time in prison wouldn’t have that ugly check mark in their file indicating prior misdeeds. Professional criminals would be working for the Federal Government along side amateurs just learning the ropes making it more difficult for the good citizens of this nation to identify them.
Doesn’t this fly in the face of common sense? I mean…. (in my best Arlo Guthri voice impression), I mean…. (Arlo always asked a second time with even more emphasis), isn’t the purpose of these forms to ascertain basic information that would be helpful in determining the character of individuals upon whom We The People are asked to place our trust?
Someone in the Obama administration just flagged me as a right-wing conservative nut-job and potential domestic terrorist for doubting the sanity of our all knowing and all powerful Divider in Chief.
Okay, I’ve mentioned Obama’s latest Executive Order; but that’s not what I wanted to highlight. No, Obama wants us to blindly follow, to let known criminals get past the door that normally would be permanently shut so they can obtain employment.
What about folks who want a brand new Assault Rifle or Semi-Automatic Pistol but don’t want to ‘Check the Box’, the Box indicating they’ve been convicted of a felony and spent time in prison when filling out a Federal background form?
Double Standard Alert!
By Obama’s thinking, ANY citizen seeking to obtain a weapon is considered a suspected domestic terrorist and requires a complete and thorough background check. Returning military veterans are subjected to psychological testing intended to deny thousands of them 2ndAmendment rights as part of their reward for having served. It’s only a matter of time before psychological tests are mandated for all citizens under Obamacare for the same end result; end private ownership of weapons and destroy the 2nd Amendment.
If you voice an opinion which runs contrary to Obama the full weight of government can and will be brought to bear. You will be crushed! The IRS, EPA, DOE or any number of Federal agencies which you thought were there to serve the public; but which are now used as tools and/or weapons at the disposal of Obama, will be used against you until you are crushed into silence.
John Nolte wrote an article some time back explaining how Obama used agencies of the Federal government during the ‘shut down’ following a vote by Congress that didn’t go the way Obama mandated Congress to vote. 47 times Obama used these agencies to ‘remind’ Congress, and by extension, We The People, that Obama runs this nation and only Obama’s opinion is important.
Maybe Shakespeare had Obama’s latest Executive Order in mind when he penned Hamlet’s ramblings regarding death, “To be or not to be…” if, by placing a check mark on a Federal employment form indicating former convictions…wait for it….
“… Be all my sins remembered”.
In the slang of today, my ‘bard’.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
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.
Felix Dzerzhinsky
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.
(Credit: WikiPedia)
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.”
Stephen Colbert, Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, were among those appearing at the Global Citizen Festival on September 26, broadcast by cable channel MSNBC.
Incredibly, despite the left-wing slant of the event, Republican Senators Thad Cochran (MS) and Bob Corker (TN) lent their names to the Honorary Congressional Host Committee for the gathering, while Republican Rep. Charlie Dent (PA) was listed as a participant.
Labeled as an effort to eradicate poverty by 2030, the movement to create “global citizens” is actually designed to make the U.N. into a world government to manage a transition to a new worldwide economic system. It’s being called “sustainable development” but amounts to a system of global socialism—redistributing wealth from the United States to the rest of the world.
By the standards of this group, ordinary American citizens are considered greedy consumers, who, according to socialist presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), have too many choices of deodorant and sneakers. He believes a central government should decide on what should be produced and for whom.
The Global Citizen Festival takes this theory of centralized planning to the international level.
In an Orwellian version of “Uncle Sam Wants You,” MSNBC had announced that “MSNBC wants YOU to become a Global Citizen.” Their live coverage of the event, which was held in New York City’s Central Park, was hosted by Alex Wagner, Willie Geist and Janet Mock, and included performances by Pearl Jam and Beyoncé.
Officially, the Global Citizen Festival was supposed to promote 17 Global Goals, also known as Sustainable Development Goals, including that of taking “climate action” to address “climate change.” This was not defined in specific terms, but in December the U.N. holds a climate conference intended to produce a new treaty, which Obama supporters say he plans to implement through executive action, bypassing Congress.
When Pope Francis spoke to the United Nations on Friday, member countries officially “adopted” these Global Goals, which are supposed to be implemented by 2030.
However, the U.S. Congress has not been consulted or asked for a vote on the global agenda, and Republican leaders have been silent about the United Nations attempting to implement on a global basis what Congress has not passed in the form of legislation.
Republican Congressional leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, gave Pope Francis a chance to promote aspects of the global agenda when he spoke to the Congress on Thursday. In his address, the pope referred to his encyclical on climate change, “Laudato Si’,” and urged action “to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.” He added, “I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States—and this Congress—have an important role to play.”
Yet Congress has not been called upon to accept, or reject, the “global goals” adopted by the Obama administration at the U.N.
Despite congressional silence, or acquiescence in the cases of Republican Senators Cochran and Corker and Rep. Dent, the U.N.’s goal of global socialism is out in the open, although few in the media even mention it. However, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has said publicly that the plan is to begin “the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, [changing] the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” The period 2015 to 2030 is when this transition from oil and gas is supposed to occur. The plan is nothing less than the overthrow of the global capitalist system that is powered by the use of energy and resources for the benefit of humankind.
Veering off into another cause dear to the hearts of the far-left, among the individuals providing on-stage video messages and commitments, was Juan Manuel Santos, the President of Colombia who just signed a “peace deal” in Havana with the Colombian narco-terrorists known as the FARC, who have been waging war on his country for 40 years.
Santos was actually photographed making the deal while holding hands with Cuban President Raúl Castro and a top FARC commander.
Former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe called the deal a surrender to terrorism and says it gives Marxist guerrillas an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and infiltrate the political system.
With “peace” breaking out all over without a peep from Republicans in Congress, those using Google Chrome as a search engine on September 25 found a notice on the bottom of the Internet page urging people to click on a link to learn more about the U.N.’s global goals to “end poverty, climate change, and injustice.” That link led to the U.N.’s “sustainable development goals.”
As the channel leading the effort, MSNBC declared that through its partnership with the Global Citizen Festival it was “committed to connecting our audience with the stories and values that bring purpose and action to our global community.” This clearly means more media manipulation and liberal bias, in order to make the U.N., a body always plagued by corruption, appear to be worthwhile.
In addition to MSNBC, other media properties sponsoring or broadcasting the event included NBC News and CNBC.
Additional corporate partners include The Huffington Post, Yahoo!, YouTube, and Wikipedia, which together have the ability to influence and propagandize the American people with pro-U.N. messages.
Not to be outdone, movie theaters around the country and the world promoted the so-called “Global Goals Campaign” through a 60-second ad narrated by Liam Neeson (as the voice of God), and featuring animated creatures (as U.N. officials) calling on the nations of the world to “defeat climate change.”
But that’s not all. “We’re working to get the Global Goals onto every website and billboard, broadcast on every TV station and radio station, in every cinema and classroom, pinned to every community noticeboard and sent to every mobile phone,” the movement announced.
So look for America’s young people to get indoctrinated about the “global goals,” perhaps through Common Core.
We are truly witnessing a massive international campaign, using most major organs of the media, to “fundamentally transform” the world.
But there’s more. While socialist Bernie Sanders has been quick to attack the “billionaire class” on the campaign trail, those behind this new global citizen movement being put at the service of the U.N. proudly insisted that a grand total of 137 billionaires had “pledged to use their money for good” in the future, undoubtedly by giving more money to far-left and pro-U.N. causes.
It was announced that something called the “Giving Pledge,” defined as “a campaign that encourages the wealthiest people in the world to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes,” had “been signed by 137 billionaire or former billionaire individuals or couples.” It was originally announced in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was among the “notable younger pledgers.”
Zuckerberg was also among the attendees at Friday night’s White House state dinner for Xi Jingping, the President of Communist China.
This crowd has apparently decided to ignore the lack of human freedom in China, and regards the communist regime as a trustworthy player to bring about a new global state.
Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is ecstatic over the pope’s address to Congress. In a message to his supporters, titled, “Why we must listen to Pope Francis,” he was particularly pleased with the fact that in his address to Congress, “Pope Francis spoke of Dorothy Day, who was a tireless advocate for the impoverished and working people in America. I think it was extraordinary that he cited her as one of the most important people in recent American history.” Day was a Marxist apologist for socialism and communist regimes. We covered this territory in my column, “With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress on Global Socialism.”
With Republican congressional leaders under fire from conservatives for cowering in the face of a Democratic Party onslaught, all that they needed was to roll out the welcome mat for a Marxist pope who would put them further on the defensive. But that’s exactly what happened.
Phyllis Bennis of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies was right: “Pope Francis’ address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.” Speaking for many on the left, including the pro-abortion lobby,she said, “His clear call to end the death penalty was the only example he gave of protecting the sanctity of life: Even amid a raging congressional debate over Planned Parenthood, he never mentioned abortion.”
The list of left-wing causes in the pope’s address was extensive. Bennis noted “his calls to protect the rights of immigrants and refugees, end the death penalty, preserve the planet from the ravages of climate change, and defend the poor and dispossessed.” And then there was the attack on the policies of peace through strength, which keep us free. “Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world,” the pope said. He then asked, “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?”
He should ask that of Vladimir Putin.
Most Americans understand the rationale for legal immigrants. But illegal aliens who commit crimes are something else. The pope seems not to recognize a difference.
The death penalty is a punishment reserved for heinous killers. But he doesn’t mention abortion, which has taken tens of millions of innocent lives. This seemed strange to conservative Catholics, who are starting to come to grips with the fact that this is a “progressive” pope, who is not hostile toward what anti-communist Pope John Paul II called the “culture of death” through population control and reduction.
Francis’s answer on the arms control issue was to challenge the United States alone and blame its spending on national defense on monetary motives. “Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood,” said the pope. “In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”
That’s a slander of our brave fighting men and women, many of whom have given their lives or sacrificed their limbs to bring freedom to people around the word, especially Muslims in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Against the global Jihad, what does the pope expect the U.S. to do? Disarm?
Praising “his uniquely progressive papal perspective,” far-left radio host Amy Goodman noted that “The pope has been frank in his criticism of much of the core of U.S. society: capitalism, consumerism, war and the failure to confront climate change.” This is a fraud, of course. They used to warn us against global cooling. It then became global warming and now climate change. The cause always changes until they find something to lure people into schemes for bigger government and higher taxes.
Recognizing the socialism of the pope, Al Jazeera posted an article, “Bernie Sanders, the pope and the moral imperative of systemic change,” by Gar Alperovitz, the co-chair with James Gustave Speth of The Next System Project. Speth, former administrator of the United Nations Development Program, put his name on its 1994 “Human Development Report,” which openly promoted global taxes for world government.
The “Next System” is another name for the replacement of global capitalism by global socialism.
Those endorsing this project, in addition to Alperovitz and Speth, include:
Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University
Gerald Hudson, Service Employees International Union
Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA
Robert B. Reich, University of California at Berkeley
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Barbara Ehrenreich, Author
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University
Gerald Torres, Cornell University Law School
Larry Cohen, Communications Workers of America
Julie Matthaei, Cornerstone Cohousing
Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers
John James Conyers, Jr., 13th District, Michigan
Bill McKibben, 350.org
Saskia Sassen, Columbia University
Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California
Phillip Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning Filmmaker
Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK
Timothy E. Wirth, United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund
Sarita Gupta, Jobs With Justice
Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Van Jones, The Dream Corps & Rebuild The Dream
Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, California State University
Daniel Ellsberg, Author
Herman E. Daly, University of Maryland
Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, Author, Former Presidential Candidate
Ai-jen Poo, National Domestic Workers Alliance
Anna Galland, MoveOn.org Civic Action
Danny Glover, Actor, Social Activist
Tom Morello, Musician, Activist
Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party Presidential Nominee
Nancy Fraser, New School for Social Research
“We have fundamental problems because of fundamental flaws in our economic and political system,” the New Project proclaims. “The crisis now unfolding in so many ways across our country amounts to a systemic crisis. Today’s political economic system is not programmed to secure the wellbeing of people, place and planet. Instead, its priorities are corporate profits, the growth of GDP, and the projection of national power.”
The group goes on, “Large-scale system change is needed but has until recently been constrained by a continuing lack of imagination concerning social, economic and political alternatives. There are alternatives that can lead to the systemic change we need.”
Yes there are. They are called socialism and communism. But they would rather call it “sustainable development,” in order to confuse people about how the American way of life is being targeted for extinction.
America, I have a plan. My name is Trevor Loudon. I’m in the final stages of completing a game-changing movie, based on my book, “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.” I reveal the names, connect the dots, expose the treason and show you what the Mainstream Media won’t allow you to see. My movie hits hard against those who want to steal our country and its freedoms — indeed, the freedom and prosperity of the free world. Will you pitch in to help?
“The Enemies Within,” exposes the infiltration of prominent members of the Communist Party and other anti-American organizations, who are often working with their radical Islamic allies in the highest levels of our government. We need to stop this now to spread the truth across the country, in groups, in clubs, with fellow patriots and your families, before more are elected in 2016. Together, we can do this.
DONATE NOW to expose our enemies ahead of the 2016 Election. DONATE NOW to inform and inspire Americans to demand justice and adherence to our Constitution. DONATE NOW to expose the powerful anti-Americans who have tried to bankrupt this country and steal our freedoms. DONATE NOW to break the silence of the Mainstream Media and leftist Hollywood.
I love her because she is a little over a hundred pounds, 5’2” gutsy fired ball. However, every time we fly, I pray she makes it through TSA without losing her cool. My wife Mary despises the gross infringement upon her rights and being “molested by TSA.” Mark Steyn hosting Rush’s radio show succinctly articulated the source of my wife’s outrage.
“Your grandmother in the wheelchair has to lift up her skirt and show her colostomy bag to the TSA until the end of time. Your grandfather, who got blown up serving his country in a war and has a leg brace, has to be degraded and show that to officialdom at the airport until the end of time. But millions and millions of people can just walk into the selfsame country across the southern border, and we’re supposed to just accept it.” – Mark Steyn
Meanwhile, the GOP, the MSM and political experts continue to scratch their heads, puzzled why Trump’s poll numbers rise every time he verbally slaps a reporter (operative) pushing the Left’s PC agenda. Mary’s outrage is shared by millions.
We all know the mainstream media is bias. But they appear to have totally come out-of-the-closet exposing their true identity as Leftist operatives. It was infuriating watching a CNN interviewer hammering Republican presidential contender Dr Ben Carson. This despicable jerk kept trying to twist Dr Carson’s words to mean Dr Carson wants to bomb refugees with drones. http://bit.ly/1fFSbuT
Dr Carson is an extraordinarily kind, gentle and wise man; humanity flowing from his very being. I wanted to slap the interviewer on Dr Carson’s behalf. (Just kidding.) Clearly, the Leftist operative interviewer was trying to infer that you never know what those crazy mean-spirited Republicans will do.
Also, infuriating and evil is the MSM hiding the sick scandal happening at Planned Parenthood.
In the latest video released exposing Planned Parenthood black marketing baby body parts, one of PP’s clients joked about shipping whole heads of aborted babies to research labs. http://bit.ly/1Kegvkl I was stunned by the lack of media coverage and national outrage. Have we grown numb?
My wife Mary said, “No, we have not. Outraged Americans held 200 huge rallies nationwide clamoring for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.”http://bit.ly/1hBAOgT And yet, the MSM is mute regarding the national outcry against PP. Once again, the mainstream media are proving themselves to be operatives of evil; protecting PP by shielding the American people from the truth.
Mary and I are longtime friends with a liberal couple. Getting their news solely from far left media outlets, they oppose defunding PP. We plan to share the horrific PP videos with them. If our liberal friends still rally behind PP, I no longer want them in my life.
Their loyalty to PP means they are disciples of the religion of Liberalism. Its sacrament is abortion. The murder and abuse of babies is fair-game in their war on conservatives and behavior standards. That is off-the-chain evil folks.
A trait I have noticed in this couple and Leftist media is their resentment of behavioral standards. They are thrilled when anyone striving to be morally upright fails. They celebrate depravity. As crazy as it sounds, the liberal couple likes Mary and I because we are among the few people in their lives they can trust. And yet, they resent our goody-two-shoes Christianity.
At the core of the Left’s relentless assault on traditional American values is their hatred of behavioral standards.
Black Superbowl quarterback Russell Wilson said he was following God’s plan, waiting to have sex after marriage. This made Wilson a MSM laughing stock. With 70% black out-of-wedlock births which leads to gangs, jail and poverty, the MSM attacking the black superstar did black youths a huge disservice. http://bit.ly/1PT7yNA
For years the Left despised the Duggar family’s wholesome hit TV show. It was an oasis in a desert wasteland were the Left/MSM seeks to make depravity normal. When son, Josh Duggar’s moral failures lead to the cancellation of his parent’s TV show, the MSM rejoiced. Why? The Duggars promoted behavioral standards.
Behavior has consequences. Josh Duggar did the deed and is paying the price. He has asked for forgiveness. I pray this young man will turn his life around. Throughout the Bible men of God had moral failures. Moses murdered a man. King David stole a man’s wife and had him killed. Moses and King David repented and became great men of God.
The Left presents the absurd argument that unless one is morally perfect, they have no right to suggest behavioral standards. The Bibles says, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Are we suppose to throw out all behavioral standards because humans are incapable of keeping them perfectly? Apparently, the Left says yes.
Angry, fearful and hopeless, Americans see the rapid moral decline of our culture, deathly afraid to say anything. Trump is taking the heat for saying what millions are thinking.
Here is another example of the Left’s war on behavioral standards. Self-proclaimed former lesbian Dr Rosario Butterfield said because God condemns homosexual behavior, the Left demands man’s approval. http://bit.ly/1Ef0J7Z Masterfully portraying themselves as victims, in reality, homosexuals are the aggressors. Appeasing the Left/MSM, SCOTUS repealed American’s right to freely practice their religion. http://bit.ly/1NPhbLW Christians are government mandated to embrace anti-biblical behavioral or suffer economic death and/or jail time. http://bit.ly/1U2ieQ1
Still, I get the sense that the Left has overplayed its hand and there’s a new sheriff in town. Americans are beginning to speak-out and push back against PC sacred cows such as Black Lives Matter, illegal immigration and the radical homosexual agenda.
In Memoriam
Available at Amazon.com 
