Congressional Progressive Caucus-

Congressional Progressive Caucus–47jh

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest membership organization within the Democratic congressional caucus in the United States Congress with 71 members.[4] The CPC is a left-leaning organization that works to advance progressive and liberal issues and positions.

Background

The CPC is committed to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Their policy agenda is rooted in four core principles: (1) fighting for economic justice and security in the U.S. and global economies; (2) protecting and preserving civil rights and civil liberties; (3) promoting global peace and security; and (4) strengthening environmental protection and energy independence. Their fundamental fairness plan reflects national priorities that are consistent with the values, needs, and hopes of all Americans, not just the powerful and the privileged. Accordingly, the CPC also advocates “universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare”, fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining, the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, US participation in international treaties such as the climate change related Kyoto Accords, strict campaign finance reform laws, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on upper-middle and upper class households, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.[8]

Job Creation and Invest in America Act

The first in a legislative package of more than a dozen separate bills that were offered was the Job Creation and Invest in America Act of 1995 to stimulate economic growth in the American economy. It would have provided $63.6 billion/year and created at least one million new jobs/year in each of the first two years that the bill would have been in effect. Roughly 2/3 of that total would have gone for new federal outlays and the remaining 1/3 would have provided tax relief to middle and low-income working families. The prescribed $41.6 billion in federal outlays would have been spent for a combination of new investments in physical infrastructure and to help targeted Americans in need as follows:

  • $10 billion for repairing highways and bridges;
  • $1.6 billion for improving/expanding mass transit systems;
  • $1 billion for airport improvements;
  • $1 billion to upgrade rail travel/freight shipping;
  • $4 billion for construction of new water and sewage treatment facilities;
  • $4 billion for environmental clean-up at military and U.S. Energy Department facilities;
  • $4 billion for economic development projects in major cities, towns and neighborhoods;
  • $3 billion for improving existing schools/libraries and building new ones;
  • $1 billion for energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings;
  • $1 billion for community developments banks in low-income communities to stimulate targeted lending and local economic development projects;
  • $2 billion to train low-income Americans for careers in disseminating basic health care and disease prevention information;
  • $1 billion for youth apprenticeship training programs serving 14- to 21-year-olds;
  • $2.5 billion for hiring new teachers, tutors, and specially-trained instructors to improve school standards;
  • $4 billion for Head Start to cover all eligible 3- to 5-year-olds;
  • $900 million for community-based efforts to prevent AIDS, breast and cervical cancer, tuberculosis, and lead exposure;
  • $400 million to expand migrant and homeless health centers;
  • $100 million for states and communities to train local residents to provide health and disease prevention materials; and
  • $100 million for scholarships and loan programs for doctors and nurse practitioners in under-served communities.

The prescribed tax relief for working families would have included:

  • $16 billion in tax credits equal to 20% of a worker’s FICA contribution, capped at $200/individual; and
  • $6 billion in tax credits up to $6,000/year for first-time homebuyers with an annual income of $62,000 or less.

These revenue raisers of $85.3 – $95.3 billion/year would have kicked in the third year after enactment and would have remained in effect thereafter. They broke down as follows:

  • $16.5 billion by changing the foreign tax credit to a deduction;
  • $1.6 billion by eliminating deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations;
  • $28.7 billion from crackdown on transfer pricing by transnational corporations;
  • $30–40 billion from .25% tax each time stock ownership is transferred;
  • $7.0 billion from terminating preferred tax treatment of capital gains relative to earned income; and
  • $1.5-$2.2 billion from capital gains tax on inherited investment (i.e. eliminate stepped up basis at death.)[9]

Additional path-breaking bills in the package included:

  • The Public Interest Legislature Act to strengthen the financial disclosure requirements on Members of Congress and professional staff, especially detailing exact sources and amounts of unearned income, securities holdings, and other assets and to require that Members of Congress place their stocks, bonds, and other securities as well as real property holdings in blind trusts upon taking office as a good conduct measure and to require that Members of Congress divest themselves of any substantial asset in relation to his/her respective committee assignments which could pose a direct financial conflict of interest with the work and actions of those committees;
  • The Fiscal Fairness Act to permit the Congress to waive the provisions of a Balanced Budget Amendment,(if adopted),in any fiscal year in which the national unemployment rate exceeds 4%. Also would restore progressivity in federal income tax code to its condition in the late 1970s, prior to enactment of the Reagan tax cuts;
  • The Equal Justice Before the Law Act—to crackdown on white collar crime (e.g. levy stiff penalties in conjunction with savings and loan bailout; ban on bidding by companies that defraud federal government on procurement contracts; impose criminal penalties for willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in serious bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace; treat child labor imports as contraband; and eliminate deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime);
  • The Corporate Responsibility Act—to eliminate wide array of special interest subsidies and tax expenditures of benefit to many of America’s largest corporations, thus ending corporate welfare and requiring companies to internalize their costs of production rather than continue to foist them on the general public;
  • The Family Support Act—to strengthen child support compliance, including going after the financial assets of well-to-do non-custodial parents; toughening domestic violence and child abuse laws and prosecution; identifying ways in which to get unwed teenage fathers as well as unwed teenage mothers to own up to their responsibilities; and exploring ways to establish some measure of media liability for gratuitous violence that is deliberately incited by movies and other forms of mass media;
  • The American Homemakers and Caregivers Act—to target savings incentives and IRAs on middle and low-income Americans. Special provisions designed to extend generous IRA contribution options to spouses who stay home to nurture children during their first six years of life, thus recognizing the importance of parental child rearing and financially rewarding young spouses who give this responsibility top priority during some of their prime earning years outside of the home. Allow middle and low-income Americans to make penalty-free IRA withdrawals for home health care, education expenses, or to start a small business;
  • The National Economic Security Act—to substantially cut the Pentagon and CIA budgets and Star Wars funding to shift resources to meet domestic social needs and long-term investments to strengthen the U.S. national economy and competitiveness;
  • The Export American Products, Not American Jobs Act—to eliminate a wide array of tax and trade incentives (e.g. foreign tax credit) and taxpayer-financed programs (e..g. EX-IM Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation insurance and loans) that encourage and reward U.S.-based transnational corporations for investing and producing overseas rather than in new plants, jobs, and equipment in the U.S.; and

The Taking Back Our Congress Act—to strengthen lobbying restrictions and to reform campaign finance laws to redress influence-peddling and special interest lobbying inside Congress. Also prohibit U.S. government officials (e..g. trade negotiators) from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments and companies. Plus authorize voluntary public financing of congressional elections and make it easier for independent candidates to run for federal office.[10]

The CPC’s founding statement of purpose states that it was “organized around the principles of social and economic justice, a non-discriminatory society, and national priorities which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and powerful”.

Supporting organizations

The non-profit organization most closely associated with the Congressional Progressive Caucus is ProgressiveCongress.org which works to connect the caucus to progressives outside the Congress.

In addition, an array of national liberal organizations work to support the efforts of the progressive caucus, including the Institute for Policy Studies, The Nation magazine, MoveOn.org, National Priorities Project, Jobs with Justice, Peace Action, Americans for Democratic Action,and Progressive Democrats of America. Also co-sponsoring the kickoff event were the NAACP, ACLU, Progressive Majority, League of United Latin American Citizens, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, National Council of La Raza, Hip Hop Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, and the National Hip Hop Political Convention.

source-wikipedia,

SHAME ON YOU, MICHELLE: Marine Tells First Lady Where to Stick It

SHAME ON YOU, MICHELLE: Marine Tells First Lady Where to Stick It–14-15g., 26

At the beginning of the summer, Mrs. Obama was asked to give the commencement speech at Tuskegee University, and to no one’s surprise, she used the platform to prepare the gathered graduates for the onslaught of racism she is certain they will endure. What an uplifting message!

And you know Michelle didn’t shy away from an opportunity to also lament the pointed comments she and her husband have endured, simply because of the color of their skin (as opposed to, say, their far left ideology).

How do you respond to a woman who is so bent on preserving racial tension rather than combatting it?

As conservative pundit Michelle Malkin put it, “She’s trying to identify with the struggle. It’s very calculated, the statements that the First Lady makes…. She’s a master of this kind of social agitation.”

I couldn’t have said it any better myself. However, one bold Marine certainly did when he sent Mrs. Obama a letter she never expected to receive.

She probably fumed upon reading it, but you’re going to burst with pride when you see just how straightforward this brave soldier was in rebuking the First Lady.

Read the letter for yourself and share this if you’re tired of liberal figureheads stoking the fires of racial tension:

Mrs. Obama

It sickens me that I have to take time to write you this letter. I am a Marine who doesn’t recognize color because every color has lived and died for you. You live in a free country to blame your life on the color of another man’s skin. All colors have given their lives for an educated woman to have the freedom to be so ignorant. I don’t blame black people for the ignorance that comes from your mouth. I love all colors because I love all that God creates. I don’t have to like you to love you because we can’t always like the ones we love. Just because I don’t like you today doesn’t mean I can’t like you tomorrow. I don’t like you or your husband today because of what you’re doing to this country. Isn’t it funny how the truth always reveals itself in time. You and your husband never showed this side of yourselves in 2008 before he was elected.

You both live better than 99% of the people in this world because of this country. You said that you are for the first time proud to be an American. Well, I will tell you that most of us are ashamed of you. You and your husband have become millionaires off the people of this country, but demonstrate very little appreciation for all that we give. White, black, brown or indifferent millions have fought and died for you to have the freedom to say the ignorant things you say. You are educated, but clearly have very little common sense. You blame past generations of Americans for the troubles of a few. Stop blaming white people for your misery and take a look at yourself in the mirror. We are responsible for our own happiness and misery. The KKK is ignorance wrapped in a sheet while the Black panthers are raised on ignorance and hate. No different from the teaching of Islam thinking their race is better than all other men. God is love and creates every color to include everyone’s skin. To truly love God is to love all that He loves. For that I love each of you and pray that we all start taking responsibility for our own damned sins.

Martin Luther King had a dream that we would all live in the promise land. He is not remembered for being black. He is remembered for the love, and character he had within his heart. If you don’t like this country get on that plane and never come back. I will stay here and love all Americans, regardless of skin. I will love the beauty of what God created and stand tall with my American friends. Not because of their color but for the character and love they carry within. This country doesn’t owe you anymore than it owes me. So many have thanked me for my service and I will always be grateful. I pray that one day you and your husband might cause me to be grateful for yours.

You will never be remembered as the First Lady of Color but soon forgotten after you leave the White House. You nor your husband shall ever divide us. I wish you no harm, but pray you will take your troubles to a land you no longer hate. Hate shall come and go but His love shall last forever.

If you wish to find me I am now a writer for the DC Gazette. Also on Twitter @mshep08_mike …God bless you and Semper Fi

source-– Mike Shepard

Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Marxists – All the Same

Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Marxists – All the Same–47jh.

I’ve been saying this about the Democrat establishment for years; the Democrat establishment only allows those they want to get elected to do so, only those they think have a chance of furthering their Socialist/Marxist/Communist agenda.

Actually it becomes a very simple task when anyone without a journalism background can find this truth just by doing a little digging into the Internet. In today’s world we can become journalist by just doing some very basic research. Now if we can come up with what we are about to show, why is it that none of those so-called reporters out in the mostly lame stream media cannot find even more damaging documents and words? The answer to that is very simple; most of the media today is bought and paid for by the Socialist/Communist/Marxist groups out there! By the way, if any news media had been associated with, let’s say the Ku Klux Klan, just how long would it be before the entire nation and the entire world had learned of it? You see, even though the Socialist/Communist/Marxist are far worse than any other group in the world, they will not state that because if the lame stream media does, then they lose all their money and their high “Elite” lifestyle.

Let’s pull the curtain back on the Democratic Party, or the Socialist Party, and show that they are now working together towards the same end and that end does not go towards freedom, but instead it goes towards Socialism/Communism/Marxism. Take your pick, they are just about all the same! Let us begin by showing some words that are defined by the Progressive Caucus which, by the way, was once called the Democratic Party. Let us begin by showing that this group calling themselves the Progressive Caucus is also a very entrenched group of Democrats who also hold positions in the Democratic Socialist Party of America. This group has stated that they have what is known to them as the Progressive Challenge. Now let us just use their very words, no one else has written these words, but the very groups mentioned just before. Now what is the Progressive Challenge?

“The Progressive Challenge is a joint project of over 100 citizen groups in conjunction with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Institute for Policy Studies is one of the member groups.

Let us just show you what the Institute for Policy Studies is and maybe that will show what the ideology behind all of these 100 groups is all about. Here’s what Discover The Networks has on them:

“The Institute for Policy Studies is the largest and most influential of the far left think tanks in Washington. Since its founding in 1964 it has steadily followed a pro-Marxist line on foreign policy, defense and the economy and has spawned a large number of spin-offs, other think tanks and public affairs organizations following the same radical agenda.[2]

 

The Fairness Agenda (the full text is also available) is based on seven principles:

  1. Dignified Work
  2. Environmental Justice
  3. Economic Redistribution
  4. Democratic Participation
  5. Community Empowerment
  6. Global Non-Violence
  7. Social Justice
  8. Dignified Work – That which is meant here is work that fits the Progressive agenda, not what the individual desires.
  9. Environmental Justice – This means that we have to cave into the environmentalists no matter if they are wrong or not, also it shows the justice as being used in a Socialistic ideology rather than being just a word associated with true Justice!
  10. Economic Redistribution – This is just what Obama has been stating all along, where the rich have to share their wealth with those whom just do not wish to work, now the real Socialistic Ideology becomes as clear as a pane of glass!
  11. Democratic Participation – Now just what does this mean? It means that the Democratic Party will guide their people through the process to obtain this ideology!
  12. Community Empowerment – Does this sound like what Obama is wishing to do? It has to be stated here that the only community empowerment that will be done by these Socialist/Communist/Marxist thinking people will surely lead to the downfall of the United States as the older people of this nation knew it!
  13. Global Non-Violence – Here we should note that Obama has and will continue to promote this ideology as much as he can. It should be noted that since Obama has been in office he has backtracked more than he has moved forward!
  14. Social Justice – This is seen on a daily basis and Obama has used this very phrase himself many times over. Social Justice is nothing more than a code word for achieving a state where the people are kept in the dark, given food and shelter, and told when to vote, how to vote and where to vote! In other words, this leads to a state of Socialism/Communism/Marxism. Take your choice. They are not what the United States is about!

Some 70 Congressional members are proud participants in the Socialist Democratic Party. One Senator that did display his name to the Socialist Democratic Party was Senator Bernie Sanders, who had a huge input into the Socialist Democratic Party.

source–brian crozier, national review,

Justice’s reputation hangs in balance of Clinton probe

Justice’s reputation hangs in balance of Clinton probe–51jh.,b60—

No matter what decision federal prosecutors and FBI investigators make in the Hillary Clinton email probe, there issure to be a public backlash from the left or the right.

If Clinton doesn’t face charges, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department will certainly come

under criticism from conservatives who will suspect President Obama’s administration of covering up for a former

Cabinet member.

Yet if charges are brought, Democrats are just as sure to question the motives of FBI Director James Comey, a

Republican who worked for the Bush administration.

The stakes are huge given Clinton’s status as the likely Democratic presidential nominee, underscoring the pressure

on the Justice Department. Charges against her or her aides could wound her presidential bid, while silence would

ease her path to the White House.

The federal investigation connected to Clinton’s use of a private email server throughout her tenure as secretary of

State has loomed over her presidential campaign. Central to the investigation is whether she sent classified

information over her server, though more than 2,000 of the emails now considered classified were not marked as

such at the time they were sent.

The investigation has gone on longer than some anticipated, though it may now be nearing a conclusion.

FBI investigators and federal prosecutors have reportedly interviewed multiple Clinton aides in recent weeks, and a

session with Clinton herself is expected in the coming days.

Multiple former prosecutors are seeing those interviews as a sign that the investigation is in its final stages.

Some former officials with the Justice Department are watching the unfolding case with concern and warn a

decision in the Clinton case could affect Justice’s image for years to come.

“I’m greatly concerned about the reputation of the Justice Department, which is why I have stated that I think the

proper and best course would have been to have this go to an independent prosecutor a good year ago,” said Ronald

Sievert, a former Justice Department official who teaches law at Texas A&M University and the University of Texas

Law School.

“It was pretty obvious that to put these decisions in the hands of … high-ranking

political appointees creates a perception — valid or not — of, at the very least, unconscious political influence,” he

added.

 

In the absence of a special counsel, others have pushed for the Obama administration to release as much information

as possible about the case if it decides not to press forward with an indictment.

“All I can go by is what the president has said and what the attorney general has said: that there’s not going to be

any politics played,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Tuesday.

“If it doesn’t work out that way and they don’t prosecute, then they’ll have to be very transparent and tell us what

there is in the FBI report that will tell us why it shouldn’t be prosecuted.”

That’s easier said than done.

Prosecutors are largely prohibited from releasing details about investigations that don’t lead to criminal charges. And

while there are some instances of prosecutors releasing information about a case they declined to pursue, such as in

cases of police shootings, the Clinton case lacks many of the quirks that made those disclosures possible.

“It’s very, very rare for that to be done, and it wouldn’t happen in this case because they can’t go into the details of

Hillary

Clinton’s email in a public report,” Amy Jeffress, a former Justice Department official who is now a partner at

Arnold and Porter, told The Hill. “It would be too politically sensitive, as well as potentially damaging to national

security and foreign relations, to release anything more than the decision.”

According to reports, federal prosecutors and FBI investigators have yet to dig up evidence that could lead to a

criminal indictment, though the process is not yet completed. There has been no evidence that a grand jury has been

convened in the case, which would be necessary before criminal charges could be filed.

If the Justice Department does decide to press charges, either against Clinton or one of her allies, the evidence will

become public, making the decision easier to justify.

Still, Comey is a Republican who gave money to Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, in his race

against Obama. He has a reputation more as a maverick than a political lackey, but Clinton’s allies might try to

change that if the Justice Department proceeds with an indictment.

The department has repeatedly refused to discuss details of the investigation.

“That investigation is, as you know, an ongoing matter,” Lynch said this week. “It’s being handled by the career

lawyers and agents of the department, and they will review all the facts and evidence and make a recommendation at

the appropriate time.”

Comey is fond of saying the FBI doesn’t “give a rip about politics,” and multiple former officials insisted that

political considerations would not enter into their minds.

“There’s no bigger quote-unquote ‘target’ when you talk about a presidential nominee, especially Secretary Clinton,”

said Glen Kopp, a former prosecutor now in the white-collar section at Bracewell, a law firm.

But there are plenty of other “heads on the wall” of politicians from both parties who have faced federal charges, he

said. Despite the unique nature of the Clinton case, the mechanics aren’t too different from other high-profile

investigations.

“People are wary of those political influences and, from my experience, do their best to block out the noise,” he said.

“In this context, yes, there will be perhaps some … louder screams of dissatisfaction with the process. But I think

it’s the integrity of the process that is paramount.”

source–the hill, julian hattem, justin shur, ronald sievert, amy jeffress, justice dept, glen kopp,

Hillary Clinton’s Big Worry-

Hillary Clinton’s Big Worry–47jh.,b43

Trump has also deeply divided the Republican Party, with many of the most prominent leaders refusing to endorse him. Usually when parties divide this badly they lose.

Clinton campaign seems focused on attacking Trump, not Sanders 02:37

Unlike almost any other Republican in the current age of polarization, Trump has the potential to generate a backlash of Republican voters against their own party, causing them to either stay home on Election Day or, even worse for the party, consider voting for the Democratic nominee.

Yet with all of these advantages, Democrats should be extremely careful about becoming overconfident. There are many reasons that Democrats should fear Trump and anticipate a campaign that is much closer and much tougher than they are expecting.

Poll: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump run tight races in key swing states

The Electoral College can be much more fluid than most commentators have argued. Yes, Democrats have an advantage, but that advantage can be broken. Nate Silver and Jonathan Bernstein have both written about how these predictions overstate how inevitable the outlook looks for the fall.

While swing states have gone to Democrats in most recent elections, if the Republicans have a good year those swing states could easily shift in a different direction. Bernstein also points out that individual states like West Virginia have undergone very big shifts. (A poll released Tuesday showed close match-ups between Clinton and Trump in three swing states.)

What we don’t know– How Trump will do in a general election campaign is also unknown. Predictions about his candidacy are almost impossible to make. We should remember that just a few months ago, most of the major experts were predicting that a Trump nomination was virtually impossible.

Now that he will be nominated, they are shifting to predictions that a Trump general election victory will be impossible. Next, they might find themselves predicting that his reelection will never happen.

The point is that we don’t really know what his candidacy will look like or how it will play out. He has already demonstrated that his campaign is different. His unorthodox blend of policies, his mastery of the modern media, and his ability to tap into the anger and frustration of the electorate have moved voters in a different direction.

Tapping into unrest

With his attacks on free trade he has tapped into clear unrest in key states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, that could attract Democratic voters. Trump will also do more than any other candidate would have done to drive up underlying animosity that exists about voting for a female candidate.

If he can cut into independent votes and even some Democratic constituencies in blue states like Pennsylvania, he might be more threatening than expected. We also don’t know how honest voters have been to pollsters about whether they would vote for him. It is possible some people are not comfortable admitting that they would give him their support.

And while it is true that there have been a number of high-profile defections among Republican leaders in recent days, it is far too early to conclude that the party will be split. After all there will be equally strong political pressure for Republicans to fall in line behind their candidate, with the potential for a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress being much more frightening to them than a maverick from within their own party.

Nor is it yet clear that the defections among leaders will be followed by defections in the electorate. This certainly could happen, and a electoral backlash against the GOP is a very real possibility in 2016, just as it was when Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964.

This could leave Democrats with control of the White House, Senate and House — and with a huge window for legislating. But it also could play out differently. Given the anti-establishment mentality that exists right now, political leaders saying that they are against Trump might just lead more voters to support him.

Clinton’s stumbles

There are also many reasons for Democrats to worry about Hillary Clinton. She has proven herself again and again to be vulnerable. With all of her campaign experience and with all of her immense political skill, we have seen time and time again how she and her team can stumble badly, like when she said in June that she and her husband were “dead broke” when leaving the White House, a comment that didn’t sit well with many Americans who struggle every day to survive.

Nobody expected a 74-year-old socialist from Vermont to mount a serious challenge to her candidacy. But Bernie Sanders did. Whether it’s the Goldman Sachs speeches or the e-mail server issue, we have also seen how Clinton often has trouble responding to the kind of scandal warfare that is an inevitable part of the political system, frequently allowing small issues to get blown up into much bigger controversies. Her disapproval ratings are very high — though not as high as Trump’s — and one never knows what kind of trouble Bill Clinton might bring her campaign. There should be some more sober perspectives on predictions for the fall. The truth is we don’t know what we are in for, and Democrats should not be overly confident about this race being a slam dunk.

Hillary Clinton is unraveling quickly— A liberal friend is very concerned about the Republican Party. He tells me that Donald Trump will make it impossible for anybody anywhere running under the “R” column to win election. Even a dogcatcher in Podunk is doomed!

The New York Times shows a similar concern. Surely written with furrowed brow, its front page worries because “Sparring in GOP Rises” and because “Rift Grows Wide as Republicans Abandon Trump.” It joins two other concerned lefties, the Huffington Post and CNBC, in declaring that the GOP is “unraveling.”

All stand ready to help sponsor a dignified funeral, but that won’t be necessary. Their reports of the Republican Party’s death are premature. Very premature.

A new Quinnipiac poll tells the inconvenient truth. Trump and Hillary Clinton are tied in each of the three key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Big Media’s fixation on the defections of Big-Name Republicans is the latest proof that both groups remain stubbornly disconnected from real Americans. If Trump had been dependent on the support of Mitt Romney or Sen. Lindsey Graham or assorted pundits and donors, he never would have gotten 10 million primary votes.

Modal Trigger

He launched a rocket-fueled revolution, defeated 16 rivals and became the presumptive nominee by running against the entire national establishment, not to mention conventional wisdom and both political parties.

Now he’s doomed if Romney doesn’t back him? Nonsense.

Yet each day, the drum beats louder about a new and greater threat to GOP harmony. The current one is the insistence from everybody on the left, and a few on the right, that Trump is toast if he can’t get House Speaker Paul Ryan to endorse him.

By all means, endorsements are generally a good thing for candidates, and party unity is usually regarded as an essential starting point. But the claim that Trump must finally conform to all the traditional norms repeats the false assumptions that led the media and most Republicans to miss Trump’s astonishing appeal in the first place.

He is a phenomenon, much as Barack Obama was in 2008, and he could do to Clinton what Obama did to her then. Obama was fresh, and she was tired. Now Trump is fresh, and Clinton is even more tired.

One result is that the campaign will be fought on his turf. The issues most associated with him — immigration, terrorism, trade, jobs — dominated the GOP primaries.

Indeed, try to imagine the last year without Trump. Who would have set the GOP agenda, what issues would have led the way, and how would voters have responded? Would turnout have hit record levels when so many Republican voters feel betrayed by their own party leaders?

Trump stirred the drink from day one and the ability to set the terms of the contest is usually the hallmark of a winning campaign. That’s what he’s done so far, and that’s what he’ll try to do in the fall.

Clinton can’t let him succeed, and instead must put him on defense with nonstop attacks on his character and lack of government experience. She’s already doing that, but is paying a price with his fierce counter-punching.

Her big advantage is the Electoral College, and she will try to shut him down by relentlessly playing the women’s and racial cards. And it’s certain Trump will hand her gaffe gifts and display an embarrassing lack of detailed knowledge.

Check out Hillary’s history of changing stances:

The continuing blizzard of subpoenas demonstrates that New York’s twin corruption scandals are no mere spring fling. Investigations are expanding in the offices of both Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo and could make for a very hot summer.

Coming after numerous lawmakers were convicted in separate cases, the probes paint the era as one of the most corrupt in history. How’s this for a slogan: More crooked than Tammany!

Things are so bad that de Blasio is using Al Sharpton as a character witness. The mayor made a visit to Sharpton’s headquarters and again painted himself a do-gooder caught up in a witch hunt. “The voices of the status quo find many, many ways to undermine progress,” he claimed.

Sharpton echoed the “woe is us” tone, calling de Blasio a man of “integrity.” He should have found a word with less baggage.

Recall that the mayor had called Sheldon Silver a “man of integrity” when Silver was charged in the federal case that saw the former Assembly speaker sentenced to 12 years in prison and hit with nearly $7 million in fines and restitution. And this Thursday, another alleged man of integrity, former GOP state Senate leader Dean Skelos, gets sentenced for his thievery.

Silver and Skelos are Cuomo’s former amigos from three-men-in-a-room infamy, and now the governor himself could be under the feds’ microscope again. Prosecutors want records showing whether six current and former members of his inner circle did anything to “benefit” 20 different companies that got state business.

A Khan-do mayor

Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, wrote an op-ed promising that: “As mayor, I will be the British Muslim who finally roots out extremism and radicalisation from British society. I will support mainstream Muslims to challenge extremists and work with the internet providers to ban extremist websites.”

Wait, if he’s saying there is an actual link between Islam and Islamic terrorists, he must be wrong. President Obama says there is no connection, and he always knows best.

Trans-fer fight to lockers

A reader offers a suggestion on the transgender tempest in a pisspot.

“Bathrooms are very private places,” he writes. “Locker rooms and shower rooms are not. How many women would be happy to share a locker room or shower with a transgender woman who has male sexual organs?

“My guess is that the polling numbers would be dramatically different if pollsters asked about locker rooms instead of bathrooms.”

Hillary’s IT tech who apparently never used email— Brian Pagliano’s emails have gone missing, the State Department confirmed this week. Is anyone really surprised that the guy Hillary Clinton hired to keep her communications secret also seems to have scrubbed his own?

Back in 2009, Clinton hired Pagliano to set up and maintain that now-infamous home-brew email server. She also had him hired at State — whose bureaucrats were more than a bit befuddled at having the first-ever political appointee in the IT department.

State’s admission was prompted by a Republican National Committee lawsuit seeking Pagliano’s emails. RNC spokesman Raj Shah made the obvious point: “It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer … never sent or received a single work-related email” in four years on the job.

Pagliano started invoking his right against self-incrimination the instant he was asked to testify on Clinton’s email mess. Before leaving State, did he purge his own trail from the department’s servers, to eliminate any possible incriminating evidence?

He may be explaining it all to the FBI: Pagliano has been given immunity in exchange for cooperating fully with the feds’ investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

The Clinton campaign has yet to comment on the news. Hey, it takes time to make up even a bad lie for a mess this bad.

source-julian zelizwe, realclear politics, nate siver, jonathan bernstein,sh post, ej dionne, michael goodwin, huffingtonpost, cnbc, sheldon silver, dean skelos, sadiq khan, ny post, raj shah,

Exposing Terrorism:

Exposing Terrorism:—1gh.,b5

By Arthur R. Thompson —YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER YOU THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM OR NOT?????

Our military and law enforcement, in the name of fighting terror, are being asked more and more to engage in activities which violate their oath of office to the Constitution, specifically our which violate their oath of office to the Constitution, specificity our Bill of Rights.

The terrorist carrying out the act may not even be aware of what is really behind his deed and he may perform his mad act thinking one thing while only his handlers are aware of the real purpose behind it. Terrorism accomplishes one of two primary goals: 1) changing the body of people actually in power: the government; or 2) facilitating a change in the policy and/or the system of the existing government. The latter almost always is the opposite of the stated intent of “liberating the people.” Rather, it is to make the government more totalitarian. It is the process of using terror to condition the people to allow more government for safety’s sake. Having the German people accept total government in response to the contrived national emergency.

There was plan already in place to use once the act was carried out. ‘Once the Bolsheviks had total control, any pretext based on terrorism was dropped and the gulag system of concentration camps replaced it. Other lesser examples include real or contrived crises that media and government invent to create demand for solutions that do not involve terror but do invoke fear. The solutions offered are more government intrusion into the marketplace or into the lives of the people, or both. Recent examples in the U. S. include the banking crisis and debate over health care.

The goal must have been to alter the policies of our government and have the people accept them.  ”Often, there are two aspects of the goal when the object is to change government policy: a) to provide the excuse for a government clampdown, as in the examples of Germany and Russia; and b) to set the stage for a complete change in the form of government from what exists to what is desired. They are usually interrelated, as they were in the case of what occurred in Germany.

Osama bin Laden, ostensibly the leader of al-Qaeda, made a revealing statement shortly after 9/11 that gives a clue to the basic reasoning behind the attack. He boasted: The battle has moved to inside America.. .I tell you. freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. Government will lead the American people and the West in general into an unbearable hell choking life. ‘

It is to frighten the American people into standing still while our own government becomes more onerous and, in the name of security, clamps down on the basic freedoms we have always enjoyed. These are the freedoms our government was originally founded to protect.  The revelations of KGB defector Col. Alexander Litvinenko. He stated that Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the second in command of al-Qaeda under Osama bin Laden, was a trained Russian asset of the KGB/FSB. So widely coordinated was it that many in the intelligence community believe that the size and scope were too big for it to have been handled independently by al-Oaeda and that state-sponsored intelligence operations had to have been involved.

The link between al-Qaeda and Russia is real. And in most cases of terrorism, as with al-Qaeda, it is masked behind Islam.” No one deals with the manufacture, sales, and shipment of arms that is not regulated by a state. Arms dealers aside, when we see terrorists with Russian or Chinese arms, at some point the Russian or Chinese government is involved.  Russian and Chinese weapons all weaponry in these other countries is manufactured in government¬ owned and government-operated facilities. Their products are not sold or given to anyone without government knowledge.      The fact that almost all terrorist groups are armed with Russian and/or Chinese weapons is not a coincidence.

The Bolsheviks inherited much of this covert organization and honed their skills in subversion and espionage, using these abilities ultimately to communize much of Europe and Asia. After World War, Russia’s communists built a world-wide terrorist organization. Its many branches were run by Moscow but made to appear at the street level as disorganized, independent operations.

The technique employed had the KGB use a surrogate state, the Bulgarian secret police for instance, to operate a terrorist group inside a third country such as Turkey. This newer group would then carry out acts of terror in a fourth country. Such a procedure created layers of deniability and Moscow could play the game of cooperation internationally while actually running the terrorist show.  “it has long been the objective of Moscow to use any and all means to fool people and pull them into their orbit, regardless of the label placed on the political system. Such is the current situation regarding Moscow’s use of Islam. In 1981 address to the 26th Congress of the Communist Party the Communist Party of The Soviet Union, he said: a liberation struggle can be waged under the banner of Islam,  A “liberation struggle” has always been a euphemism in their lexicon for communist revolution.

The Russian KGB/FSB has added another layer of deniability that increases the possibility of creating conflict among people leading to more opportunities for Russia to negate the influence of America among the nations of the world. This new layer of deniability has been to make terrorism appear to be entirely Muslim in origin.

Examples abound of the communist terrorists of the 1960s and 1970s becoming clerics in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religions. Selling Marxism disguised in religious clothing became common. Most of the terrorists donning clerical clothing became Muslims. The most famous communist terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal became a leading promoter of radical Islam. In addition, great pains were taken to hide the communist or Russian sponsorship of key terrorist leaders. Always, the goal sought was to promote the idea that the aim of the terrorists was to install a Muslim government.

Individuals and organizations, such as Yasser Arafat and Hamas, have always had deep ties to the Russian KGB. The facade erected around each has been a Palestinian homeland, not a communist enclave. To be successful, terrorists or their handlers must also have allies within the government they seek to change. This has to be true in America or we must have the dumbest people in the world leading, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Muslims, foreign-born Russians, and others, are inside American aircraft as cleaners, baggage and food handlers, even aircraft flight personnel. Not to mention illegal aliens. We are talking about American airports and companies. We have also been told by security personnel that these people are not screened as much as the passengers. Is this stupidity or something worse?

If the purpose of terrorism is to alter America so it becomes a less-free country, then the Patriot Act and how it was passed takes on a greater significance. For the 342-paged Patriot Act had already been written beforehand and then submitted to Congress within hours of 9/11. It was then passed without a single congressman reading it in its entirety. Most congressmen did not even see it prior to the vote. Amendment I states that no law can be made “abridging the freedom of speech.” Yet one may not express his opinion about being searched and anyone who does can be detained for “attitude.’  Every time a TSA agent scans or physically searches your person or your possessions, he violates your rights protected by this portion of the Constitution. In addition, you are not allowed to carry money over a certain amount when you travel or you will be detained and the money might be confiscated.

The question must be asked, if we are witnessing the above mentioned actions now, what new measures will be initiated in the name of another terrorist attack? And, another? Until our Bill of Rights is so eroded that we have lost it? One can argue the necessity for measures to protect the people or to catch a terrorist or criminal, but only on a very temporary basis, and usually only localized. The violations of the Bill of Rights across the entire country in the name of the war on terror have been ongoing for almost a decade, three more years than the number the United States was involved in World war 1 and world  War II combined.

The manner in which the Patriot Act was brought before the Congress, when DHS was created, and the pressure placed on our representatives to pass it without enough time to read it, makes obvious the existence of a plan already in place to implement once a major terrorist attack had taken place. Whoever was responsible for it did not want the contents debated.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stated, “We will always live in a terrorist environment. Terrorism “is something that we just have to be prepared to live with…. We need to do all we can to mitigate the risk. But that means individuals undergo certain amount of inconvenience at times.’

Benjamin Franklin once admonished the American people as follows: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. “He has combined with others to subject us to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution….” The latter grievance will become real if the plan to bring our nation under the jurisdiction of the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC) is completed. Also, members of the Supreme Court are boldly and openly basing their decisions on foreign Iaw rather than U.S. law. Sandra Day O’Connor, no longer serving within the Court, continues to be a significant proponent of this trend. She Stated as far back on October 28,2003: “I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly … on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.

On both the national and the international levels there is a push to merge our country into something called the New World Order (NWO) — their words, not ours. So we come to the interrelated aspect of altering the policies of government: actual change in the form of government.

Such luminaries as diverse as Henry Kissinger, George Bush the Elder, Vice President Biden, Fidel Castro, Gorbachev, and the Chinese Communist publication China Daily have called for the NWO in the name of establishing peace and in response to the spread terrorism.

The NWO is actually a plan to merge the United States into a one world government under the United Nations. In the process, we would lose our independence and become only one vote in a world parliament. Only having one vote, we would find ourselves taxed to death since we are the richest country in the world. Also, we would lose our Bill of Rights and other constitutionally protected freedoms.

Interestingly, Kissinger has been named to a Vladimir Putin established committee to fight terrorism, a supposedly joint Russian and American citizens’ group. Kissinger is co-chairman and heads the American section. Yevgeny Primakov, former head of the KGB who at one time personally oversaw the use of communist Islamic terrorists. is the Russian co-chair.

In addition to the Putin-Kissinger-Primakov committee, we know that former heads of the CIA and KGB are working together to solve the “problem of terrorism.” How much did they cooperate before they left their official positions? We do not know, but we do know, for instance, that the FBI computers in Washington, D.C. were networked with computers in FBI offices in Moscow and Kiev prior to 9/11. Establishing these offices of the FBI in Russia and the Ukraine was done at the time using the excuse of cooperating in the fight against international crime and the war on drugs — much of which is managed by the KGB/FSB-controlled Russian “mafia.”

Contrary to public pronouncements, terrorism is coordinated by Moscow. Our intelligence bureaus are saying terrorism is Muslim and its personnel then sit at the same table with Moscow. They have even established working relationships with Moscow.

We are achieving a new strategic relationship. The era in which the United States and Russia saw each other as an enemy or strategic threat has ended. We are partners and we will cooperate to advance stability, security and economic integration, and to jointly, counter global challenges and to help resolve regional conflicts.

Partners? Economic integration? How can one be partners with Putin? As to economic integration, this means the banking system first, gradually involving the daily business that we all engage in. It reminds one of the words of the government researcher for the Reese Committee in the House of Representatives, Norman Dodd, when he quoted the head of the Ford Foundation, H. Rowan Gaither, as stating that the goal was to “alter our life in the United States [so] that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” As stated earlier, in order for terrorism to be successful, the terrorists must have allies within the targeted governments.

Are there problems concerning the religion of Islam and the American system of government? The answer is obvious if the proper American relationship between church and state is considered. In a radical Islamic state, the “church” is the state, as in Iran.

Let us leave you with a final thought: If the terrorism we see is Islamic, why therefore are the vast bulk of terrorist acts against Muslims? The bomber may be Muslim, being used by his handlers. but the higher you go in the terrorist organization, the less it is Islamic and the more it is, again, a grab for power. This was the case a thousand years ago with the so-called Muslim organization called the Assassins and it remains the same today.

“Islamic terror is aimed at the average Muslim, who in the end will suffer in the name of radicalizing Islam to eliminate the “infidel.” In the end, it will be raw power whether it is run from Moscow, Mecca, or some other one world center. The solution to modem terrorism is to understand what is behind it and then pressure Congress to make the right decisions, both in fighting terror and standing by the Constitution no matter what the temptation may be to do otherwise.

Cease giving our tax dollars through foreign aid, and our diplomatic recognition, to organizations and regimes that support terrorism. The same approach applies to our supposed “allies” in the War on Terror who are in reality state sponsors of terror. Their activities must be widely exposed.

American troops must be brought home from any and all unconstitutional wars or “peacekeeping” missions under the UN. The U.S. must target specific terrorist leaders, groups, and terror-sponsoring states with specific operations, not full military invasion.

Ayman al-Zawahiri played a key role in directing the radical Islamist/communist forces in the Balkans during the 1990s. He operated out of Sofia, Bulgaria, a major KGB intel/terror-training center for decades that is still a KGB/FSB stronghold.

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi (who was also former head of the European Commission) was a top KGB asset in Europe; as an investigator/consultant for Italy’s Mitrokhin Commission, KGB asset Prodi was probing and exposing alleged KGB-FSB agent Alexander Talik’s dealings with Russian Mafia kingpin Semyon Mogilevich and the sale of Soviet weapons, including nuclear material, to al Qaeda (was the investigation complete if Prodi was involved? not only al Qaeda’s second-in-command, al-Zawahiri, but also its top field commander in Afghanistan, Juma Namangani, was a KGB agent. Namangani, was an elite Soviet Uzbek paratrooper, was trained at the KGB’s Saboteur Training Center, now run by the FSB.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri, number two under Osama bin Laden in al-Qaeda. Exposed as a Russian-trained asset of the KGB/FSB by the KGB/FSB defector Lt. Col. Alexander Litvinenko. Other evidence confirms this.

Hezbollah.. Its original overseer was Dr. Mahdi Chamran Savehi, who had established a violent Marxist front known as the Muslim Student’s Association of America while a student in California.

Iran. Has very close ties to Russia. China and other major communist states including Cuba and Venezuela.

Hosts summits of terrorist organizations which include openly communist terrorist groups. One such summit resulted in the formation of Hezbollah. Their form of government is called Red Shiism by some, a synthesis of communism and Shia Islam which was developed by Persian Marxist Ali Shariati and the Chamran brothers.

Iraq. Ruled by the Dawa Party which was headquartered in Teheran, Iran, while Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, hosted by the Iranian revolutionary government. The first president of Iraq under U.S. occupation traveled to Iran to lay a wreath at the grave of the Ayatollah Khomeini immediately after his election to head Iraq.

The Muslim Brotherhood. Uses the examples of the French Revolution, Marx, and Lenin as their template. Their community involvement is patterned after the program conceived by the American leftist revolutionary, Saul Alinsky.

Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islami (The Islamic Liberation Party). A global Sunni network, with supposed links to al-Qaeda. Active in the U.S., its July 2(X)9 conference in Chicago was titled, “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam.” The organization is a fusion of Marx and Mohammed, or Islamo-Leninism.

We must reiterate that the problem of such “wolves in sheep’s clothing” includes people who became Christian and Jewish clerics as well. The communist dominated Students for a Democratic Society told their radical leaders in the 1980s to adopt pin-stripped suits and infiltrate middle class organizations to better carry out their revolutionary aims.

The New World Order is a term used by those who advocate it; it is not a term invented by those who oppose it.  Boiled down to its basic elements, the NWO is a world government under socialism. This can be confirmed simply by looking at the steps they advocate or implement in any program they support.

What we see is that persons who advocate a change in our government have been elevated to positions of high responsibility, not only those named above, but many who started out as street agitators as in the case of Ben Chavis noted in Appendix II. These are only a few examples since they fit the theme and size restrictions of this booklet. There are many, many more.

After landing at Sea-Tac airport in Seattle and as I was leaving the airplane, there were four women waiting on the jet bridge to board the aircraft and clean it. They were dressed in Muslim garb. Indeed, two of the women had every part of their face and body covered in the Islamic manner showing only their eyes. You could not tell if these two were actually women.

At another airport, I witnessed a team of Russian immigrants going on board to clean an aircraft. How did I know? They were speaking Russian amongst themselves. I asked the gate attendant if this was a concern to her and she replied that it was.

In Newark, I had to present my photo ID and boarding pass to a woman TSA official who was dressed in the Muslim burqa from head to toe.

The burqa was TSA blue.One problem that I read about in the Chicago Tribune was that the immigration service raided O’Hare airport searching for and finding a number of illegal aliens working in sensitive areas whom they then arrested. In the process, they discovered that a company providing security at O’Hare had 111 out of 134 security personnel wearing badges that did not match who they were!

 

 

 

putin on immigration

No wonder he was selected by Forbes as the most powerful person in the world.   This is one time our elected leaders should pay attention to the advice of Vladimir Putin.

I would suggest that not only our leaders but every citizen of USA and Canada should pay attention to this advice. How scary is that?

It is a sad day when a Communist Leader makes more sense than our LEADERS here in the U.S.A. But here it is!

 

Vladimir Putin’s speech – SHORTEST SPEECH EVER.  Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia: “In Russia, live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim’s then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law.

 

“Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of   America , England, Holland and France   , if we are to survive as a nation. The Muslims are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of Sharia Law and Muslims.

 

“When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslims Minorities Are Not Russians.”

 

The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a five minute standing ovation.

 

If you keep this to yourself, you are part of the problem!