This article is written by Stephen F. Cohen, who is an American scholar and professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. His academic work concentrates on modern Russian history since the Bolshevik Revolution and the country's relationship with the United States. It is well worth reading and can be collaborated by other writers who were able to review records in Russia for a short period after the fall of the Soviet Union.
We have seen feigned outrage, for political purposes or from a state of ignorance, by Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) as they called the false and fake stories of collusion between now President Trump and the Russians. This so called collusion never existed, but the fact that the Russians have tried to affect our elections has been existent for years.
The Long History of US-Russian ‘Meddling’
The two governments have repeatedly interfered in each other’s domestic politics during the past 100 year.
By Stephen F. Cohen
Even though the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found “no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” Russiagate allegations of “collusion” between candidate and then–President Donald Trump and the Kremlin have poisoned American politics for nearly three years. They are likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, due not only to the current subpoena-happy Democratic chairs of House “investigative” committees.
At the core of the Russiagate narrative is the allegation that the Kremlin “meddled” in the 2016 US presidential election. The word “meddle” is nebulous and could mean almost anything, but Russiagate zealots deploy it in the most ominous ways, as a war-like “attack on America,” a kind of “Pearl Harbor.” They also imply that such meddling is unprecedented when in fact both the United States and Russia have interfered repeatedly in the other’s internal politics, in one way or another, certainly since the 1917 Russian Revolution.
For context, recall that such meddling is an integral part of Cold War and that there have been three Cold Wars between America and Russia during the past one hundred years. The first was from 1917 to 1933, when Washington did not even formally recognize the new Soviet government in Moscow. The second is, of course, the best known, the 40-year Cold War from about 1948 to 1988, when the US and Soviet leaders, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, declared it over. And then, by my reckoning, the new, ongoing Cold War began in the late 1990s, when the Clinton administration initiated the expansion of NATO toward Russia’s borders and bombed Moscow’s longtime Slav and political ally Serbia.
That’s approximately 85 years of US–Russian Cold War in a hundred years of relations and, not surprisingly, a lot of meddling on both sides, even leaving aside espionage and spies. The meddling has taken various forms.
In the period from 1917 to 1933, such interference was extreme on both sides. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson sent approximately 8,000 US troops to Siberia to fight against the “Reds” in the Russian Civil War. For its part, Moscow founded the Communist International (Comintern) in 1919 and urged the American Communist Party to pursue revolutionary regime change in the United States, an historical analogue of the “democracy promotion” later pursued by Washington. During these years, both sides eagerly generated, and amply funded, “disinformation” and “propaganda” directed at and inside the other country.
During the second Cold War, from 1948 to 1988, the “meddling” was expanded and institutionalized. At least until the McCarthyite attempted purge of such activities, the American Communist Party, now largely under the control of Moscow, was an active force in US politics, with some appeal to intellectuals and others, as well as bookstores and “schools”—all amply supplied with English-language Soviet “propaganda” and “disinformation”—in many major cities.
US meddling during those years took various forms, but the most relevant in terms of the role of social media in Russiagate were nearly around-the-clock Russian-language short-wave radio broadcasts. When I lived in Moscow off and on from 1976 to 1982, every Russian I knew had a short-wave radio as well as a nearby place where reception was good. Many were enticed by the then-semi-forbidden rock music—Elton John was the rage, having surpassed The Beatles—but stayed tuned for the editorial content, which was, Soviet authorities complained, “disinformation.”
Suspect “contacts” with the other side was another Cold War precursor of Russiagate. Here too I can provide first-hand testimony. By 1980, my companion Katrina vanden Heuvel—now my wife and publisher and editor of The Nation—joined me on regular stays in Moscow. Most of our social life was among Moscow’s community of survivors of Stalin’s Gulag and the even larger community of active dissidents. In mid-1982, both of us were suddenly denied Soviet visas. I appealed to two sympathetic high-level Soviet officials. After a few weeks, both reported back, “I can do nothing. You have too many undesirable contacts.” (Our visas were reissued shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in March 1985.)
Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing father, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917)
"But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away…you're running down a slippery slope," Sanders added. "I believe even if they are in jail, they're paying the price to society, that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy."
Bernie Sanders, April 2019
What Bernie Sanders stated incorrectly is that the United States is a democracy. Our nation was specifically designed not to be a democracy. Madison explained why the Untied States was designed as a Republic when he stated, “We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man. What has been the source of those unjust laws complained of among ourselves? Has it not been the real or supposed interest of the major numbers? Debtors have defrauded their creditors. The landed interest has borne hard on the mercantile interest. The holders of one species of property have thrown disproportion of taxes on the holders of another species. The lesson we are to draw from the whole is that where a majority are united be a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure”
In conversation Plato explained that it is that freedom's excesses, and the refusal of many in a democracy to accept any limits on what they can get or buy or conquer eventually hit reality. And when the reality hits, the frustration and insolence at finding that money does not grow on trees or that the world cannot be hammered into the shape our ideology demands easily gives way to a new form of government. That new government promises to remove all the perils and difficulties of self-government in favor of the certainty and security of raw executive power.
In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”
Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
Marx contradicted our founders and brings to light what Bernie Sanders and the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) mean when they call for a true democracy in the United States. Marx explained that in democracy, the constitution, the law, the state itself is on the self-determination of the people and a particular content of the people.
The particular difference between a republic and a democracy is:
A republic protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A democracy is the majority imposing their absolute will. A republic is likened to a suspect being tried in a court following the constitutionally demanded right that the government must prove guilt and not that the suspect must prove innocence. A democracy is the suspect being tried by the mob without the constitutionally mandated protections but with the emotion and irrationality of the mob prevailing.
A republic is protecting the rights of the individual such as freedom of speech and religion. A democracy is demanding limitations on the freedom of speech when it is considered to be offensive, or hate speech, or contradictory to the ideas of the majority. A republic is protecting the rights of the individual to worship God as they believe is correct. A democracy is restricting that worship when that worship contradicts the ideology of the majority and thus the majority forces submission or administers severe penalties.
Anita Hill Reveals Biden Called Her, But She Didn't Exactly Accept His Apology. Anita Hill has revealed to the New York Times that former Vice President (and newly declared 2020 candidate) Joe Biden phoned her earlier this month to express his regrets about the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Hill testified against Thomas at the time, claiming he had sexually harassed her when she worked for him at the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
The person that should receive an apology from Biden, Paul Simon, Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Howard Heflin, Dennis DeConcini, and Howard Metzenbaum is Justice Clarence Thomas. The confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas was not unlike the hearing for Bret Kavanaugh. Wild accusations with no collaboration. I remember listening to the hearings and reading the outlandish reports in the media. Here was a black nominee for Supreme Court Justice who did not collaborate with the idea that the Constitution could mean whatever you wanted it to mean but that the words of the Constitution had real meaning. He also said that the law could not apply differently to different people depending on their political persuasion.
This is how then nominee Clarence Thomas described the hearings:
“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
Oh yes, Biden should apologize, but he should apologize to Justice Thomas and the American public for allowing what should have been a discussion on difficult matters to descend into the circus it did based on wild accusations with absolutely no collaboration of any kind. If you watched the Kavanaugh hearings, you saw the Thomas hearings. You witnessed the standard approach used by collectivists, “The ends always justify the means.” Truth and civility have no place in any hearings, according to the collectivist, when what they regard as the standard is being threatened.
Lenin described these antics so accurately when he said, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
Collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats-all virtually the same) believe their revolution is unquestionably moral. “From the point of view of communist morality, the struggle against everything which hinders the cause of communist construction is moral and humane and for this reason we consider the struggle against the enemies of communism to be of a moral nature,” Lenin explained.
Nominees Clarence Thompson and Brett Kavanaugh represented a hindrance to the communist cause or the cause of the Democrat party and so any attack on them was considered justified. These collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same) can not be bothered with such things as The Constitution of the United States, rule of law, decency, morality, truth, and facts.
The political world is being turned upside down. The consummate politician who has claimed that “experience” is the critical element in any political campaign is being told differently time after time. The consummate politician who has claimed that continuing to follow the status quo is the proper road to stability and is always best for the electorate is being challenged. This so called new normal is sweeping across the world. This movement Is not being reported by the news media in the United States. Consequently the American public is not aware that the movement that swept Donald Trump to victory in November of 2016 is sweeping the world.
We can and should discuss whether or not this movement is occurring because of the ineptitude of the politicians along with their narcissism, or is the reason because of an uninformed, uninvolved, and unknowledgeable electorate. I would surmise that it is a combination of both.
Recent happenings such as the Brexit vote in the UK, the election of anti-immigration and anti-European Union advocates in members of the European Union, the election of an individual who had never held public office to the presidency of the United States, and now a complete and total novice elected in Ukraine. The recent election in Ukraine is stunning and amazing especially because of the situation in which Ukraine finds itself today. Perhaps that is the reason for this stunning happening. Here is an article that describes what happened. This appears to be a continuation of the repudiation of the pollical elite who are telling us that collectivism and globalism is the way to peace and prosperity because under these perverted systems the political elite will control all happenings. Of course, just as Obama and Clinton claimed, their control will be in the best interest of the “people”, the same claim made by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, and all collectivist and globalist aspiring tyrants.
The repudiation of the collectivist and globalist elitism has proven to be beneficial to the public in the individual states of the European Union and the United States. Because the politicians have delayed Brexit, the jury is still out in the UK, but more and more we are hearing that a no deal Brexit is and should be the way the UK exits, we hope to see final results sooner rather than later. All should watch the results in the Ukraine carefully.
The World Just Witnessed the First Entirely Virtual Presidential Campaign
Ukraine’s new president-elect made no public speeches, held no rallies and gave no press conferences. And now he’s about to be in charge of a geopolitical hotspot. What could go wrong?
By ADRIAN KARATNYCKY April 24, 2019
Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who was elected president of Ukraine by a landslide on Sunday, is probably the least prepared individual to head a democracy in world history.
Until this weekend, his main experience in politics was playing a schoolteacher who becomes the president in a satirical television program. He ran with no party affiliation. Until two days before voting began, he had no clear team of expert advisers—not even on foreign policy and national security, the president’s key constitutional responsibilities. And, remarkably, Ukraine’s nearly four-month-long election campaign did little to provide answers as to who Zelenskiy is and what he truly thinks.
This is because Zelenskiy ran the world’s first successful presidential campaign that was entirely virtual. He not only traded on the image of a complete outsider, he also did no face-to-face campaigning, made no speeches, held no rallies, eschewed travel across the country, gave no press conferences, avoided in-depth interviews with independent journalists and, until the last day of campaigning, did not debate.
And now this virtual candidate is about to become the president of a country at the epicenter of a hybrid war that could easily ignite into a major European conflict.
Before he ran for office, Zelenskiy was omnipresent on Ukraine’s most popular TV network, 1+1, filling hours of weekly programming with his variety shows, comedy talent contests and his series about an outsider elected president, “Servant of the People.” When he announced his candidacy in a New Years’ 2019 video greeting, after opinion polls showed him to be among the favorites, many assumed he would run a typical celebrity campaign—full of public appearances and stump speeches.
He didn’t. Unlike President Donald Trump, who staged regular rallies and appeared in town halls and in televised debates, Zelenskiy avoided human contact with his electorate. He addressed voters through short YouTube and Instagram posts and appearances on TV. (One of his online videos, calling for a debate he postponed until the last minute, garnered 14 million views.) Instead of preparing for the presidency and holding substantive public meetings, he traveled with his comedy troupe and performed in variety shows. He also spent much of the first month of the campaign producing the next three episodes of his TV series.
After winning a first-round election that required a runoff—Zelenskiy played table tennis at his campaign headquarters with a reporter, made a vague one-minute statement laced with platitudes and followed by just three minutes of Q and A. As the election continued, a 15-minute interview on his home TV station, and a softball interview of his wife and him at home, were the most detailed press scrutiny he faced.
Zelenskiy’s virtual-first strategy allowed him to run his campaign on general themes and vague promises and to avoid issuing detailed positions on policy issues. His political messaging focused on discontent with the way things are—and lambasting Ukraine’s business and political elites for making them that way. Some voters even appear to have conflated him with his TV persona, a high school teacher whose viral Youtube rant against corruption and government incompetence gets him elected Ukraine’s president.
Those searching for detailed policy positions searched in vain. While he solicited advice from voters on a campaign website, his platform published online contains only a few anodyne sentences each on key issues of security, the economy, health care, education and the fight against corruption. Throughout the campaign, short video blogs showed Zelenskiy interacting with a range of informal advisers, usually well-regarded reformers or nongovernmental organization leaders who over the course of three months explained to the public what they thought the candidate might believe. But many had no official status in his campaign until three days before voters went to the polls. His inner circle seems to be mainly made up of longtime colleagues from show business, partners in his comedy troupe, and a handful of lawyers linked to his main backer, the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskiy, who is accused by the Ukrainian government with defrauding Ukraine’s banking system of $5.6 billion.
When outsider celebrities, sports heroes and entertainers typically run for office, they usually try to allay fear about their inexperience by showing a command of the issues. Zelenskiy did the exact opposite. While trading on his celebrity, he also embraced his inexperience, suggesting this meant he was open to fundamentally new approaches. He called on the public to help him devise his platform virtually and, scarily, preached plebiscitary direct democracy.
Zelenskiy won. In the end, the Ukrainian public proved so tired of the status quo, characterized by slow growth, widespread poverty and significant corruption, that the voters of a country partly under Russian occupation and subject to regular military attacks rejected an experienced incumbent—President Petro Poroshenko, who had rebuilt Ukraine’s military and competently marshaled international aid and diplomatic support—and took a chance on a political novice.
It seems so obvious that you would want to know the count of citizens in your country when you are taking a census. At least it seems obvious if your goal is to run a nation for the good of your citizens and not for those who are intentional law breakers. A nation such as the United States can only exist because the citizens voluntarily adhere to the laws of the land. If every citizen of any country determined they would not comply with the laws of their country, a chaotic situation would occur, and the country would no longer function. Those individuals who voluntarily break the laws of the United States by willfully and knowingly violate our immigration laws are actually bringing about the chaotic situation that destroys a nation.
Perhaps the most critical and thus confrontational element of asking if you are a citizen on our census form is that the representation within the House of Representatives is based on the census count. Those who are criminally living within our borders should not be counted when representation and other such matters are considered. The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party will disagree with me, not because they have the good of the United States at heart, but because they place their insatiable appetite for power and the need to transform the United States to a Marxist totalitarian state above the American principles of freedom and independence.
This is a quick take on the arguments made before the Supreme Court concerning this question of whether or not we should know how many citizens we have.
The Supreme Court appeared willing to allow the Trump administration to add a question asking every American household to identify citizens and non citizens on the 2020 census.
The court appeared split along ideological lines during oral arguments Tuesday. The court’s more conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, noted that the census asks many questions beyond simply counting people and that it didn’t appear unreasonable to add a citizenship question. The court’s more liberal justices noted that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had failed to ever articulate a rationale for why adding the citizenship question was the best way to go about getting the data the Trump administration wanted.
The Census Bureau’s own experts estimate that an additional 5.8% of households with a non citizen are unlikely to respond on their own to the census, which goes out to every American household just once each decade. That translates to approximately 6.5 million people.
Directly from “The Communist Manifesto” Marx and Engels state that it is necessary for the “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
Under Comrade Obama’s regime we saw the centralization of credit for all students as the state declared a monopoly on all loans to students. This has had predictable consequences as it has made these students slaves to the state, it has raised the cost of college tuition enabling the institutions to greatly increase their bureaucracies just as we saw when the government entered the health industry with Medicare, and it enabled a bureaucracy to extend credit without the use of any necessary underwriting rules which has created over a trillion dollars of noncollectable or classified debt.
Collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) Elizabeth Warren has the solution for the problem the Marxist monopoly on student loans created.
“Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s opening shot on a higher education plan raises the bar for 2020 candidates, moving far beyond free college and calling for sweeping loan forgiveness for millions of Americans likely to vote in the Democratic primaries.
Warren’s proposal to cancel a large swath of the $1.5 trillion in outstanding student debt catapults an idea percolating on the edges of progressive politics since at least the Occupy Wall Street movement squarely into the mainstream of a Democratic presidential primary. The $640 billion student debt cancellation plan is the most ambitious higher education proposal yet from a 2020 presidential candidate.”
This is Sharing the Wealth 101. We make loans to all who apply, even knowing that payback is only a dream, and then we forgive the loans by confiscating the private property of others. This is one of the main criteria Marx outlined in his road map to his classless society that would be totally conforming and totally equal.
This is the road map to a society that will end in social decay and financial collapse as did all those nations who adopted these Marxist policies that were instituted under FDR, LBJ, Comrade Obama, and now being touted by the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) candidates. The tactics of these collectives (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same) are clearly outlined in my books; My Grandchildren’s America, Goodbye Constitution, Freedom, America and The Road to Tyranny.
We Freedom Loving Americans must understand the tactics of the collectivists and we must understand the safeguards for our freedom and liberty our founders wrote into our founding documents. After I had spoken the other evening a lady made the comment, “I studied the Constitution in college, but I have never heard the safeguards of our documents laid out so clearly as I did tonight. Thank you, Don.”
Every freedom loving American must understand the evil and tyrannical aims of the Marxist as well as the necessary safeguards for freedom and liberty instituted by our founders. When you do you must begin to “set brush fires of freedom in the minds of men” as directed by the Father of the Revolution, Sam Adams.
From 'the ultimate bureaucrat' Barack Obama to 'it is what it is' Donald Trump, the departing French ambassador, Gérard Araud, reflects on navigating D.C. His advice to the people he leaves behind; calm down, take a deep breath.
“Washington is a bit hysterical,” Araud said in an interview a few days before he was set to retire. “People are so appalled by the behavior of the president that they listen a bit too much to their guts instead of really listening to the brain.” So, what should their brains tell them? That Trump, for all his flaws, is asking legitimate questions, Araud said. That the Republican president saw the world “shifting, in a sense, to a new era” and that his “genius” was understanding the “malaise” in the United States.
It’s a malaise, Araud is quick to add, that is leading people to embrace populism and nationalism in France and other countries, too. “We have to address the concerns of these people,” he said. “It’s a serious crisis of our democracy.”
Barack Obama, Araud said, was the “ultimate bureaucrat.” He was famed for his attention to detail and reliance on meetings, briefings and other processes to help him make decisions. Trump is “totally, totally different,” Araud said. He came to the White House from the world of real estate, pays little attention to bureaucracy or process, Araud said.
Araud applauded Trump for tackling head on tough topics like China’s questionable moves on the global stage and North Korea’s nuclear program. He also argued that although some of the questions Trump asks might seem odd at first glance, they are nonetheless fair game. For instance, Trump has wondered why the United States should go to war to protect the tiny nation of Montenegro if it were attacked. To foreign policy types, the answer is obvious: Montenegro is a NATO member and the military alliance is built on the idea of collective defense. Araud, though, pointed out that many ordinary Americans would pose the same question if the scenario ever arose. By raising the point, Trump is exposing the fact that not everyone is automatically on board with the views of foreign policy elites in places like Washington.
And this is why the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats), media, and self-proclaimed elites hate Donald Trump. He is not one of them. He refuses to obey their demands for political correctness. He asks the hard questions such as why do we think that way; is it just because we always have.
The American public agreed with President Trump as proven that evening in November of 2016 when it became obvious Hillary had no road to victory and the wine and tissues came out in abundance.
This rethinking of the collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) movement is also taking place in Europe with a movement that is questioning the demands and dictates of the Globalist European Union. Again, be sure to watch the elections the end of May.
People throughout the world who have lived in the era where people determined their own lives and their own thoughts are rejecting the self-proclaimed elitists proclamation that all aspiring tyrants make; we know what is best for you so you must follow our demands on how you are to live your lives and what your thoughts are to be. THE INDEPENDENT THINKERS OF THE WORLD ARE RISING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ELITEST MOVEMENT AND SAYING THAT WE THE PEOPLE WILL DETERMINE OUR OWN LIVES AND OUR OWN THOUGHTS.
The ride to freedom and independence will not be a smooth ride. Their will be bumps in the road. Collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same) and Globalists do not understand that we independent people refuse to conform to their evil and tyrannical dictates. They will continue to try to enslave people so they can control. It is their way to power. Freedom lovers, do not give in, do not give up, we have a President who fights for us and does not understand the word quit. Our President is not only leading a freedom movement in the United States, but people throughout the world have reason to hope for a reversal of the evil and tyrannical movement of the collectivist and globalist and a movement toward freedom and independence once again.
This was the headline:
Investigations Are Coming: Trump, Pence and 2020 Campaign Want to Know How Mueller Happened
Every American who loves freedom should be obsessed with this thought and not just Trump, Pence, and the 2020 campaign. This charade was a direct attack on the very essence of our Republic; free and fair elections and an acceptance and peaceful transfer of power once the decision has been made.
What we know now without any question is that the claim of Trump and Russian collusion to rig the 2016 vote outcome was clearly predicated on a known lie. We know that the FBI knowingly and falsely sought FISA permission to entrap anyone that might bear false witness to support their false scenario. This was a misuse of the FBI and our judicial branch of government whose function is to protect against such misuse.
Once the results of the election were known, these rouge elements did not accept that they had failed in their attempt to control the outcome of the election, but they doubled down on their knowingly false accusations and investigations and again used a special prosecutor to try to overrule the will of the American people and set aside a unique gift the United States had given to the world; peaceful transfer of power.
If the United States is to remain a nation that champions freedom and liberty, it is critical that a thorough, fair, and non-political investigation be made as to how this travesty of justice came about. We have clues that agencies in our government had been politicized. We have clues that people, Seth Rich, were murdered to protect those perpetrating this scheme. We have clues that people, Hillary and Bill Clinton, became wealthy in their collusion with the Russians. We have clues that this scheme went to the highest levels of our government.
We as Freedom Loving Americans must maintain that fundamental element of our Republic; it is the duty of the government to prove guilt and not the duty of the accused to prove innocence, in the course of this investigation. Despite the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) reversal of this fundamental principle of freedom, we must remain true to those principals that are essential to our freedom.
Absolutely, it is mandatory that a fair investigation be made, starting immediately, and that it be completely transparent. It is imperative that the investigation be allowed to proceed based on facts and not conjecture and that it be allowed to reach to whatever level of government played a part in this destructive ruse.
It is critical that once again this be emphasized: THIS SHOULD NOT BE A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION BUT AN INVESTIGATION WHOSE ONLY GOAL IS TO EXPOSE THOSE WHO DECEIVED AND SOUGHT TO UNDERMINE THE VERY ESSENCE OF OUR REPUBLIC.
PELOSI YOUR PARTY IS DOMINATED BY SELF-PROCLAIMED SOCIALISTS – YOU ARE THE MARXIST/PROGRESSIVE PARTYRead Now
Pelosi said she is a Progressive. That makes her a collectivist and in the same family as her self-proclaimed socialists. A Collectivist is a family with siblings named Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive, and Democrat. They were raised by the same parents and all have the same beliefs and principles. One might run faster the other, one might be stronger than the other, or taller or shorter, but they are all Collectivists.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, miraculously transformed over the past few months into a relatively moderate Democrat elder stateswoman, has understandably been pushing back against the notion that she leads a socialist party defined by a few radicals in the House. On 60 Minutes, she said: “I do reject socialism as a economic system. If people have that view, that’s their view. That is not the view of the Democratic Party.” She dismissed the left-wing members in her caucus as, “like, five people.”
The problem Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have is that the most compelling stars of the party are self-described socialists with a knack for generating controversy and media attention, and with committed mass followings. Pelosi might wish it weren’t true, but poll numbers, fundraising and follower-counts don’t lie.
Sanders is reliably second—sometimes first—in national and state presidential polling of Democratic candidates. He’s out-raised everyone in the field, and with his massive small-donor base, probably can continue to do so for the duration. More than anyone else, he has defined the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party’s current agenda. He can clap back at establishment critics, as he did the other day at the Center for American Progress and make their lives very uncomfortable.
It’ll be much harder to maintain that the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party isn’t a party of socialists if it nominates one as its presidential candidate, which everyone paying attention realizes is a real possibility. If that happens, it won’t be the work of conservatives hoping to negatively brand them, but of the party faithful. The same goes for the prominence of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It is often said that conservatives are “obsessed” with her; maybe so, but the same is true—and probably more so—of everyone else.
AOC was among the top 10 House Democrats in fundraising the first quarter of the year and had the highest percentage of small donors. Her ally, Rep. Ilhan Omar also excelled. As Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote in a piece about AOC for her in Time’s most influential list, not exaggerating, “millions are taking cues from her.”
It’s obviously vexing to Pelosi to see a House majority built by the careful avoidance of ideological extravagance and won in marginal districts hijacked, at least in terms of public attention, by a few freshmen and a 77-year-old Vermont socialist.
They might not define the center of the party at the moment, and the radical freshmen have lost most of their tussles with Pelosi, but there is a reason that they are so famous, with such fundraising prowess. The crusading purity of Sanders has an inherent appeal. The outrageousness of the freshmen (or their boldness, depending on your point of view), and willingness to respond to any criticism, attracts attention. And, as President Donald Trump will tell you, attention begets attention.
There is an important election taking place toward the end of May and most Americans are not even aware that it is happening. Although the United States is the most influential country in the world, other areas of the world still have an effect on what happens in the world including the United States. The state of affairs in the European Union have had a tremendous impact on the rest of the world especially when it comes to the Globalists calls for open borders. The open border policy has allowed mostly Western Europe to be overrun with Islamists. Facts have shown that the Islamists refuse to become a part of the culture of the different nations. The Islamists refuse to assimilate and instead set up no go zones that repudiate the laws and customs of the host nation and instead establish their own Sharia area.
We are finding in these nations that crime is rampant. The Islamists believe that they maintain their right to kill, rob, rape, and torture even though the law in the land in which they reside prohibits their perverted practices. As you might expect there has been strong backlash to these practices and lawless activities despite the Globalists referring to those who object as Islamophobic. Many countries have elected governments that support all efforts to oppose the European Union mandated immigration policies and acceptance of the lawless and inhumane practices of the Islamists.
This anti-European Union sentiment that has occurred in many individual nations and that is gaining momentum in these countries, is spreading through out the European Union and it is anticipated that this movement will play a major role in the upcoming election.
Here is a summary of the election and its possible aftermath. The writer of this article is pro-European Union or pro-Globalist. Keep in mind when reading this information that when they refer to pro-European they are referring to pro-Globalist policies with the forcing of all members to adhere to the Globalist immigration policy of open borders and the Globalist policy of the individual nations surrendering their sovereign rights to the dictates of the European Union. It was for these reasons the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union.
“The real challenge will be to find compromises among more than two big mainstream groups,” Florian Hense, a euro zone economist at Berenberg stated.
However, he highlighted that despite the upcoming split in voting intentions, pro-European parties are likely to still have the biggest share in Parliament.
“Opinion polls still suggest a two-thirds majority for the mainstream parties,” he said. ” (And) even if the radicals have big plans for the EU, they lack both democratic support and a common position to deliver them.”
However, not everyone shares this opinion.
A report from the European Council on Foreign Affairs said Tuesday that anti-European parties are on course to win a third of the seats and would “frustrate activity, undermine the security and defense of Europe, and ultimately sow discord that could destroy the EU over time.”
The same think tank said that anti-European parties are likely to work together to undermine European cooperation, such as pushing for an end to sanctions on Russia.
“Overall there will be more political volatility, and this will inevitably affect the quasi-automatic adoption of European Commission proposals,” it was said.
The radicals are those who wish to enforce immigration laws and wish to have their individual countries maintain their individual sovereignty. What happens in this election is important in the United States. We in the United States are fighting the same fight as those in Europe are fighting. We “radicals” are those who oppose the destruction of our societies through such policies as open borders, surrender to a collectivist or globalist state that dictates how we are to live our lives and what our thoughts are to be, and the acceptance of those who openly state they wish to destroy us; the Islamist's and the collectivists.
You will hear very little about this election in our mainstream media and what you do hear will be very slanted to favor the collectivist and globalist movements. Do search and learn the truth. It appears that we “radicals” will gain tremendous ground in the May elections which should give momentum to our 2020 elections.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.