I created the Musings Category so that I can include shorter articles in my postings. When I have enough topics for a posting I combine them together in the form of a Randy’s Musings Article. For the most part the postings are just random articles.

Table of Contents

-Does our Government want our Life Expectancy to decrease?

-Is Antifa the Brownshirts of the Democratic Party?

-What will electric cars and the Green New Deal do to the middle class family?

-How corrupt is the FBI?

-How corrupt is the CIA?

-How corrupt is the Justice Department?

-Are Americans fighting Back?

-Are the Democrats trying to destroy the American work ethic?

-How long have we been at War with the Forces of Jihad?

Does our Government want our Life Expectancy to decrease?

Until 1998, the birth and death rates of the world’s populations were about the same, keeping the size of population stable. However, advances in health and safety in many areas, along with other generational growth factors, have led to drastic increases in the lifespan of humans and the number of people living (and at older ages) than in the past.

Why Are More People Living Longer Today?

During the Industrial Revolution, the following advances in science and technology, led to a significant reduction in the amount of deaths:

• Increases in food production and distribution
• Improvement in public health (water and sanitation)
• Medical technology (vaccines and antibiotics)

Fast forward to post World War II when “the cry of the baby was heard across the land.” More babies were born from 1946 until 1964 than ever before, which is why those born during that period are known as “baby boomers” This year, the youngest of baby boomers will be turning 69 and the United States will experience rapid growth in both the number of citizens aged 69 and older and their share of the total population. Back in 1950, life expectancy was 68.2 years old. These days, that number has risen to 79.12 years old and is expected to increase up to 83.9 years old by the year 2050. The oldest of the elderly population (aged 85 or older) constitute 8% of the world’s 65-and-over population: 12% in more developed countries and 6% in less developed countries. In many countries, these individuals make up the fastest growing faction of the total population (National Institute on Aging).

What is the Impact of a Growing Elderly Population?

There are great upsides to an aging population, like having more children that will know their grandparents and even great-grandparents. Healthy elderly citizens can share their wealth of knowledge with younger generations and can continue to make valuable contributions to society. However, with people living longer, associated medical problems will place a heavy burden on health systems. Here are some potential impacts:

• A rise in age-related chronic illness: Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic diseases will cause more death and illness worldwide than infectious or parasitic diseases over the next few years. In developed nations, this shift has already happened. Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are expected to almost double every 20 years, as life expectancy increases (CNN).
• Increasing need for specialized health care workers: As the amount of older Americans increases, so does the need for health care. Specialized doctors, like geriatricians, will be necessary to help seniors worldwide. By 2030, it is estimated that 36,000 geriatricians will be needed in the United States alone. As of 2008, there were only about 7,000 practicing geriatricians.
• Increasing need for long-term care: The number of sick and frail elderly needing affordable nursing homes or assisted living centers will likely increase.
• Health care costs increase: As older people stop working and their health care needs increase, governments could be overwhelmed by unprecedented costs. Medicare coverage, which seniors can tap into at age 65, could be pushed to its breaking point.
• Special challenges for less developed nations. Poorer countries will carry the double burden of caring for older people with chronic diseases, as well as dealing with continued high rates of infectious diseases.
• Increasing need for specialized health care workers. With millions more older people needing health care, specialized doctors, like geriatricians, will be necessary to help seniors worldwide. By 2030, it is estimated that 36,000 geriatricians will be needed in the United States alone. As of 2008, there were only about 7,000 practicing geriatricians.
• Increasing need for long-term care. The number of sick and frail elderly needing affordable nursing homes or assisted living centers will likely increase.
• Health care costs increase. As older people stop working and their health care needs increase, governments could be overwhelmed by unprecedented costs. In the United States, another baby boomer turns 60 every eight seconds. Medicare coverage, which seniors can tap at age 65, could be pushed to its breaking point. How to pay for the upcoming elder boom is a subject being debated in capitals around the world today.

 Over the next few decades, the aging population will face many changes and challenges. The vast majority of elderly Americans live at home, often with the assistance of family, friends, and/or professional home-care services to assist them as their functional abilities decline. Over the past decade, assisted living facilities have been developed and have proven to provide a desirable living environment for those who require some assistance. In addition, nursing homes remain an option for those individuals who require more intensive assistance, especially with basic activities of daily living (ADLs). As elders age and face functional declines, they may choose, or be forced, to relocate. Thus, elders may select living environments that optimize their health, safety, and functioning. As we near 2050, the expectation is that the oldest age categories will only continue grow in number and proportion.

How to Add Quality to Longevity

Living longer is terrific, but living pain-free and independently is what most people really want. To this end, states and communities will need to spend more resources on senior services. Health and wellness initiatives are needed to teach people how to better manage disease and avoid debilitating injuries from falls. Senior fitness programs can increase an individual’s strength and balance, while safe-driving programs can help seniors live independently as long as possible.

Medical advances in the future will likely increase longevity even more, but ultimately, your health is up to you. Avoiding or delaying the onset of chronic disease by eating healthy, exercising, and not smoking is a great way to start.

Will the World Be Overcrowded?

Some areas of the world likely will become more overcrowded, while others will stay about the same.

Over the next 40 years, the world’s population is expected to grow by two and a half billion people, to reach just over nine billion, according to the United Nations. Most of the population increase will take place in less developed countries and will be concentrated among the poorest people living in cities. This will likely produce more overcrowded and polluted urban slums, creating an urgent need for clean water and improvements in sanitation.

In rich and developing nations, people are living longer, but fewer babies are being born. So in these areas, the population is expected to show little change by 2050.

What risks does COVID-19 pose to society in the long-term?

The long-term societal impacts, such as an exacerbation of inequality and changes in consumer behaviours, the nature of work and the role of technology – both at work and at home – will change our way of life forever, for us as individuals, as a workforce, and as a society. These social dimensions of the crisis, including generational frictions and continued stress on people’s wellbeing, will be felt by people worldwide and will create substantial societal consequences for the long term.

Fear and optimism

In the business community, we have made sure our employees are supported and our customers too. In some sectors and around the world, a combination of furloughing and fiscal policies have also helped put economies on hold. As countries emerge from the immediate health crisis and re-start their economies, changed working practices, attitudes towards travelling, commuting and consumption will change employment prospects. Already, the International Labour Organisation has identified that the SME and informal sectors will have particular difficulty in sustaining and recovering business.

Consumer behaviours are already changing, even during the stabilization phase that most economies are in right now. In March, global consumer spending decreased every week. In the last two weeks of April and early May, however, consumer spending recovered a little each week in anticipation of a move into a ‘normalisation’ phase – where economies reduce lockdown measures and show signs of economic recovery. At first, the expenditure was on basics, such as groceries, but now spending is more focused on home improvements and clothing. There is not yet any significant expenditure on entertainment.

Human resources departments have rarely had such an important role. Working remotely increases the risk of isolation, as well as alcohol dependency, smoking too much, and bad backs through poor ergonomic posture. What’s fascinating is that the state was previously seen as the ultimate safety net; now, employers have had to accept that they too have to protect their workers in order to survive and thrive. This should be a long-term change in attitude in the historic public vs private debate.

Getting back to a pre-COVID-19 growth phase is likely to be a long and difficult task, at least until there is an effective health crisis exit strategy that involves a combination of a widely available vaccine and therapeutic drugs. In the intervening period, there are likely to be continued cutbacks in travel and in the hardest-hit industries, such as tourism and hospitality. Not all those who have been laid off will return to work, and businesses will likely use fewer employees in the future. The challenge to return to the ‘new normal’ is, therefore, as much a psychological as economic choice.

We have to reconcile the natural fears we feel, which have been reinforced by government messages to help enforce the lockdowns, with acceptance of the uncertainties. The effectiveness of government messaging, combined with data on infection rates and the sad reality of the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, has made the challenge of changing those simple messages to “stay at home” confusing. The perceived lack of transparency may lead to an erosion of trust and greater complications in the long run.

Inequalities – here to stay?

The timing and speed of the economic recovery, dependent as it is on solving the health crisis, is likely to exacerbate inequality, mental health problems, and lack of societal cohesion. It is also likely to widen the wealth gap between young and old, as well as pose significant educational and employment challenges that risk a second lost generation.

The COVID-19 economic crisis has already hit poorer people and those in more socially disadvantaged groups disproportionately harder. In many places, people are having to face the moral dilemma of choosing between going to work to generate income for bare necessities or staying at home to protect their health – and that of their family. Continued exposure to health risks faced by essential workers, who are often among the lowest paid, raises the concern of heightened death rates amongst this group. This highlights societal, income and health inequalities. We need to focus on addressing this inequality during the COVID-19 recovery and normalization process.

The economic and societal disruptions of the lockdowns are taking a toll on young people’s mental health and wellbeing. As one teenager puts it: “The life you thought was boring, is the life you’re hoping to get back to right now.”

Even more concerning are the long-lasting effects to their prospects. Youth employment in developed economies has only just recently returned to pre-2008 financial crisis levels. In developing economies, youth unemployment has risen steadily, creating a real risk of social unrest.

For young people in education, the pandemic is likely to cause new inequalities. Currently 80% of the world’s students – more than 1.6 billion young people – are not attending school. Many students in poorer communities lack the necessary tools to access online courses or face difficulties working at home. The consequences of these educational inequalities, especially for girls and young women, will disadvantage them in labour markets and further exacerbate inequality.

Building back better

From a business perspective, companies generally cannot be successful in societies that are not functioning well. This is where stakeholder capitalism has a role to play.

Businesses need to bring their skills and assets to help invest in a better society. We see this very clearly in financial inclusion, where we have to bring the best of all sectors – both public and private – to bear on these problems.

We do have cause for optimism, but how we get out of this crisis is deeply concerning. We need to focus not only on a healthcare solution, but a recovery that is focused on the climate, sustainability, and on societal risks, such as inequality, mental health, the lack of societal cohesion and inclusion. If we do not do this, then the gaps in inequality – especially financial – are likely to remain and increase.

There is no denying that the population of the United States is aging and is also becoming less healthy. The vast majority of patients in the hospital today are the result of the elderly, poor health maintenance and chronic medical problems. Our population is becoming obese and all the resulting problems associated with this trend as well. All you hear is that Social Security will be bankrupt, Medicare will be bankrupt and so it goes. When out of nowhere comes the Coronavirus which specifically hits the elderly, and attacks certain comorbidities. It attacks obese people, people with HTN, diabetes and respiratory issues. How could this happen you say? I don’t believe we will every truly know. Though one thing that I do know for certain is that the average life expectancy for Americans actually fell in 2020 for the first time since WWII.

A new study estimates that life expectancy in the U.S. decreased by nearly two years between 2018 and 2020, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. And the declines were most pronounced among minority groups, including Black and Hispanic people.

In 2018, average life expectancy in the U.S. was about 79 years (78.7). It declined to about 77 years (76.9) by the end of 2020, according to a new study published in the British Medical Journal.

“We have not seen a decrease like this since World War II. It’s a horrific decrease in life expectancy,” said Steven Woolf of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and an author of the study released on Wednesday. (The study is based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics and includes simulated estimates for 2020.)

One thing I also know is that several things have changed since 2020, our rights no longer seem to matter and the value of human life has greatly decreased. How can you explain that governors can take actions that result in the deaths of thousands of elderly people and suffer no repercussions? The governors of New York, New Hampshire, and Michigan are some of few that come to mind. The actions of these governors resulted in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of elderly people. While Governor Cuomo lost his job it was not related to these actions. No criminal charges have been placed against them. Murders have skyrocketed in our northern cities, and nobody seems to care. Certainly no actions have been taken to ameliorate this trend. So if in fact our government was involved in bioengineering this virus with the goal to decrease our problem populations, who cares, right? What is another thousand or so deaths , we after all have billions of people in this world. Life is cheap. I have discussed the inception of Communism in Both Russia and China. Over 50 million people died in each of these countries during the rise of communism. How can say life has any meaning, when the thirst for power caused this much death and it was accepted without a whimper from the international community. When I decided to write this article, I really did not expect to find any supporting data. The subject matter is simply too unthinkable. I was not in the least disappointed. So I write this article mainly from my own thoughts and observations. I was able to find information on the effects of our aging population.

So, while there is no data that states or shows that our government is happier that our life expectancy has dropped some, that would of course be inhumane. We all know that big brother only has our best interests at heart. Sarcasm is heavy in the air. They certainly have benefited from the decrease in Social Security checks that they have had to mail out and fewer medical claims incurred by repeat chronic admissions. I have a feeling that I am going to have problems finding supporting data for several of my following articles as well.

Is Antifa the Brownshirts of the Democratic Party?

“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it” is a phrase that has come to define the news cycle more and more as of late.

For example, if you’re wondering where “Antifa” (an ironically named group of people) got the inspiration for their coat of arms, one need search no further back than 1930s Germany.

The logo to the left of this article’s headline is the 1932 flag of the German Communist Party’s paramilitary wing. Look familiar?

To the right is that of “Antifa”, a terrorist organization that claims to take a stand, both verbally and physically, against those they perceive as “Nazis”; the main rival to the Communists in Germany at that time.

However, as there are conveniently no jackbooted Nazis to fight in America today, Communist sympathetic Antifa members happily settle for harassing and assaulting anyone who thinks differently than they do.

Despite calling themselves enemies of fascists, the way Antifa conducts itself is eerily reminiscent of the demons they claim to be combatting.

While the comparison of one’s political rivals to Hitler inspires unoriginal boredom, this is a comparison worth analyzing.

One only need to briefly study the violent history of Hitler’s “Brownshirts” and the role they played in the Nazi Party’s rise to power to connect the disturbing parallels between the “SA” and Antifa today.

The “Sturmabteilung” (Storm Detachment) also referred to as the SA or “Brownshirts” due to the color of their uniform, became the first paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party in the 1920s.

Their initial function was to disrupt meetings and rallies of rival political parties, provide protection detail for Nazi rallies, intimidate racial minority groups and eventually organize violent and destructive riots or “demonstrations” as CNN would likely refer to them.

If one were to view the footage of the 2019 Trump Rally in Minneapolis, you would see Antifa members taking to the streets to openly assault Trump supporters walking to their cars following the rally.

The City Police present were specifically told not wear their uniforms and not arrest trouble makers by Mayor Jacob Frey, effectively castrating police protection and giving Trump supporters over to an angry mob.

These tactics would have been openly celebrated by Adolph Hitler had he been a witness.  In a letter that Hitler wrote to one of his top SA leaders, Franz von Salomon, who controlled the SA from 1926 to 1930, he explains how he wanted his Brownshirts to conduct themselves.

In the letter, the future Fuhrer writes, “The work should be carried out not in secret but in mighty mass processions…through the conquest of the streets. We have to teach that the future master of the streets is National Socialism, just as one day it will be the master of the State.”

It appears Antifa leaders are taking a line directly from Hitler himself in how they have been organizing as of late.

Hiding behind the veil of racial inequality by partnering with black hate groups like BLM, these Neo-Marxists are restocking the fires of class struggle and using violent mass protests in a literal “conquest of the streets” to neutralize police presence.

Once the Brownshirts had effectively recruited enough members (boasting over three million at their height) they effectively ended local and state police. Initially, they offered to “supplement” local police forces but very quickly usurped their authority altogether, effectively disbanding any kind of politically neutral constabulary through overwhelming numbers and mob violence.

Today, through very similar methods, we are seeing major US city officials being bullied by Democratically funded Antifa and BLM groups. Through violent street “demonstrations”, they are demanding the defunding of police forces, openly burn down police precincts, and are now even going as far as to declare “autonomous zones” such as what we are seeing in Seattle.

We are also seeing in these “autonomous zones” a complete dissolution of police presence which has been replaced with roving gangs of their own violent constituents, some even going as far as to demand “protection” money from the few businesses that still exist within the zone.  

Hitler also sought to “unify” the press by using his Brownshirts to intimidate and smash the publishing houses of editors that dared print any sort of “dissent.” He also allowed journalists to be openly targeted by his SA.

While mainstream media has been all but complicit in the Left’s narratives, we have even seen some CNN anchors targeted at a recent riot in Atlanta over another officer involved shooting.

Independent journalists and news outlets are ruthlessly targeted, by comparison, and often find what few police present are actively avoiding intervention on their behalf for fear of the mob or to obey orders from complicit shills like Mayor Frey and Governor Walz.

Even our cousins to the north are seeing the fallout from Antifa terrorist tactics. An independent Canadian journalist and filmmaker, Dan Dicks, was openly assaulted by Black Lives Matter “demonstrators” in Vancouver just last week. He was called a “white-supremacist” simply by passively filming the protest as a white man.

He was then continually shoved and pelted with projectiles. The numerous assaults occurred on camera, in front of police, with dozens of onlookers and not a single arrest was made… other than his own for “disturbing the peace.”

And the more unchecked violence these groups are allowed to commit, the more obscene it will become.

Similar to the mindless rioting and looting we’ve witnessed in Minneapolis, Seattle, and other Democrat controlled cities, the Brownshirts in 1938 conducted a violent riot of their own to further display a show of strength and foment racial tensions.

German Diplomat, Ernst vom Rath, was allegedly murdered by Polish Jew, Herschel Grynszpan. In response the Brownshirts were used for “demonstrations” protesting the outrage of the murder and to sew further fear into the Jewish business community in what is to this day still referred to as the “Crystal Night” due to the sheer amount of crystal and glass that was shattered in that one night.

In the riots that followed, members of the SA vandalized the storefronts of over 7,000 Jewish businesses and stores, Jewish homes were looted and ransacked throughout the country, and some 200 synagogues were burnt. Many Jews were beaten to death and more than 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and taken to concentration camps.

Even the composition of Antifa today is similar to that of the Brownshirts. Rudolph Diels, one of Hitler’s first Gestapo Chiefs, estimated that at least 70 percent of new SA recruits were former communists, a number that would not be hard to believe of Antifa membership given their strong affection for openly socialist and pro-marxist candidates like Bernie Sanders.

A very large percentage of those Communists were also among the poor and the unemployed. The years following WWI saw great hardship and unemployment for many German citizens which drove them into the arms of Communism.

Similarly today, the U.S. has more than 40 million unemployed Americans due to Covid lockdown measures. Many of them are also college graduates who now have a crushing amount of student loan debt, no job or means of obtaining one, and likely an obscure degree. These are ideal conditions for a violent Marxist group like Antifa to swell their ranks with young, angry recruits.

The endgame for Antifa remains to be seen by the Democratic Party. Hitler eventually turned on his Brownshirts once they had fulfilled their usefulness. By 1933, the Nazis evolved from an extremist political party to the unquestioned body of government.

The Brownshirts were no longer needed for their original purposes: the acquisition of political power, mob like suppression of the enemies of the Party and the neutralization of state and local police forces.

They had now become a liability and cause of hatred for the German people towards the new Nazi Party. Political rivals had also risen up in the SA among leaders who expected Hitler to appoint them to a position of power within the new Nazi regime.

To both eliminate potential threats as well as appease the German people, Hitler executed what would be known as the 1934 “Night of Longknives.” The coup ended in the murder and imprisonment of hundreds of top SA leaders, effectively ending their reign of terror and allowing Hitler’s SS to absorb the role of the police in Germany, something far more organized and terrifying.

Nazi ideology quickly became central core values of police activity. The new, enlightened and better equipped SS police forces became powerful figures not just in maintaining strict public order, but in combating “racial enemies” designated by the Nazi state.

It was in this context that “preventive police action” became a tactic that saw so many men, women and children secreted off to camps in the middle of the night.

One must wonder then, what top Democrats have in store for Antifa leadership should they somehow defeat incumbent Donald Trump and come to power in 2020 and who they will designate as the new “racial enemies” of the state…likely conservative whites who refuse to “take a knee.”

Regardless, any reasonable person can see through the lens of history that Antifa is no different than the “Nazis” and’ fascists they claim to stand against.

Both of these groups hate people based on the basis of class and skin color, hate freedom of speech, assault journalists, want their own unchecked police state, commit violence against those who disagree with them, and want to cleanse the world of diversity in thought through that same violence.

Talk radio icon Michael Savage described Antifa and Occupy groups as the Democrat Party’s “brownshirts,” offering his remarks in a Tuesday interview with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily.

Savage reflected on recent violent events committed by left-wing activists in Portland, OR.

“What happened over the weekend in Portland with the Antifa violence — a domestic terrorist organization — so exemplifies the mass hysteria of our times, where people think they’re justified in taking over streets and beating people up. But where is it coming from, this hysteria to think that it’s okay to beat up the opposition? You don’t have to look any further than Hillary Clinton, who says we don’t need a civil society until we have power again [or] the deranged Maxine Waters, who should be impeached for what she’s doing.”

The solution to leftist-driven criminal violence is “law and order,” said Savage.

“The other side has made up their mind that anyone who opposes their revolution is a fascist,” stated Savage. “This is how it works in dictatorships, and the only answer to this is law and order. Unless this government comes to understand what a threat this group — and the others, Occupy groups — this is not First Amendment, that’s crap. The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to beat people up or chase them out of restaurants. That’s not First Amendment. That’s thuggery. It’s called battery.”

Savage added, “We’re living in very dangerous times. It’s beyond mass hysteria. It’s mass hypnosis into thinking that you can just beat people up with impunity and nothing’s going to happen to you.”

Savage was physically attacked by a leftist in March of 2017 while dining at a restaurant in San Fancisco, CA.

Savage warned of possible reciprocation of violence against leftists.

“It’s a warning for liberals, as well, because as the 70s used to teach us, what goes around comes around,” remarked Savage. “They don’t want to ignite the right to do to them what they’re doing to others. They do not want to be chased out of their little coffee shops by gangs of right-wingers. Do they want the hooligans to come after them? Do they want to be confronted in a gas station if they have a bumper sticker that says, ‘RESIST,’ and someone comes up to them and says, ‘Who are you resisting?’ and they get into a fight? I don’t think they want that. In order for us to live in a civil society, the left better stop their insanity before it turns on them.”

Savage described Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-DT) as a “Marxist” who deliberately incites “his base” to use violence and intimidation in pursuit of political ends.

“Bernie Sanders is the most dangerous man in current American political life,” opined Savage. “He is a classic Marxist. Everything he says could be said by Karl Marx prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. Bernie is the smartest man in politics. He is the most evil, because he knows what he’s doing by whipping up the frenzy of the ignoramuses in the streets who put on bandannas and beat people up. Bernie is responsible. He’s the one who can stop it and he didn’t. … That’s his base. Just as Hitler had his brownshirts, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and the whole Democrat Party have their Antifa and Occupy movement. They are the brownshirts of today and everybody knows that.”

Sanders refused to condemn violent and harassing behavior from Antifa and other left-wing groups during a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Savage called for the arrest of Antifa’s leadership, noting George Soros’s funding of left-wing activist groups engaged in street campaigns.

“Where are they getting their money from?” asked Savagee. “Who’s funding them? The answer, of course, is to defund the organizations that are putting them in the streets, and to arrest the leadership as domestic terrorists because they are clearly so…. They’re paid [by George Soros’s organization] to riot in the streets and attack people. If that’s not sedition, I’d like to know what is.”

Savage described left-wing antipathy to whites, men, heterosexuals, and Christians as a contemporary refacing of Soviet hostility to kulaks and those deemed “class enemies.”

“Right now the scare that’s being whipped up is that somehow anyone who is white or middle class is the enemy of the people,” said Savage. “[This is] right out of the communist revolutionary playbook. Who are they trying to unite? Look at all the rallies. Look what they did to Kavanaugh. What was Kavanaugh’s crime? Let’s see. He was white. Check that. He was male. Check that. He was heterosexual. Check that. He was Christian. Check that. So you’ve got four counts against him. Why? Because to the left, anyone who is white, male, heterosexual, and Christian is the enemy.”

“Communist mayors of demented cities” are enabling Antifa’s violent street campaigns, concluded Savage.

The Antifa terrorism entered a new phase when a 69-year-old man attacked an immigration detention facility in Tacoma, Wash. His weapons consisted of incendiary devices and a rifle. After setting a car afire, he was shot dead by police. He had a history of Antifa sympathizing and sent several “farewell” letters to friends anticipating being killed in his planned attack.

Let’s put this into context.

After the Civil War, the Democratic Party developed a military wing. It was and still is called the Ku Klux Klan. As most terror organizations, it was formed to achieve a political outcome. At that time, its mission was to ensure that then-freed black slaves could not vote or exercise all the rights of citizenship.

Today, the military wing of the left is Antifa, short for “antifascist.” The name itself is in keeping with the radical left ploys by seizing control of the language and naming things incorrectly so as to mask the true mission.

If one compares the tactics used by Antifa at its various riots, vandalism, beatings and intimidations, there is no significant difference between them and the havoc wreaked by the Brown Shirts that hastened the rise of the Nazi Party in post-World War I Germany.

I know that there will be those who say that an argument is lost when the words “Nazi” or “Hitler” are used. This is true when they are used as name-calling epithets; however, the purpose of this column is to point out the tactics being used by Antifa leftists and that the comparison made to Brown Shirts is valid.

Also keep in mind that “Nazi” is the acronym for the German name for National Socialist Party, which Adolph Hitler came to control.

So, the irony is now that the Socialist rioters are claiming to be against what they actually are: Fascists.

It has been pointed out by many of my friends that the Antifa actions have not been taking place here in Texas. There is a clear reason for that.

In every case of a major Antifa riot, the police were ordered to stand down and allow the rioters to run rampant. Millions of dollars of property damage were incurred as well and very serious injuries. Also, these earlier riots occurred in states with draconian gun control that gave the advantage to the criminals. When common self-defense is outlawed the politicians can control who does what to whom. The likelihood of this sort of lawlessness happening in Texas is far less than the liberal pits of California, Oregon, Washington and Chicago.

We don’t stand for having our businesses looted and destroyed, our private property burned, and law-abiding citizens terrorized.

Some months ago, we observed interstate highways being blocked by hooded Antifa thugs. What few people noticed is that the blocked traffic had actually created a kill zone, a classic military ambush. So far, there were no gunmen to mow down stranded motorists. But trained military personnel recognized it for what it was: practice.

The danger we face as Americans is complacency. All threats made by Antifa, or any other terrorist organization, must be analyzed, treated seriously, and have countermeasures taken. This is difficult with Democrat control of so many “sanctuary” cities and states. These are the kitchens in which domestic socialist terrorism is prepared.

The mainstream news media appears to play down the riots and the motivations of those involved. Imagine, hooded hoodlums actually being held up and praised for their actions and intimidations.

This failure to uphold the law by politicrats is inexcusable. The liberals and socialists who control ruined pockets of America are pushing the envelop in an effort to explore where Antifa will be most successful in producing their desired political outcome.

It could very well be that a superior and opposite force mounted by peace-loving Americans – possibly federal forces — may be required to restore the rule of law and eradicate this cancerous socialist movement and its bullies.

Despite the well-documented violence of the radical left Antifa group — the Department of Homeland Security classifies it as “domestic terrorist violence” – not one of the 23 Democrats running for president would condemn Antifa when repeatedly asked by CNSNews.com over the course of 12 business days.

The Trump administration did respond, within a day, condemning Antifa.

In emails and telephone calls to the press offices and campaigns of the 23 Democrats running and to the Trump campaign, CNSNews.com asked the candidates to answer two questions about Antifa…. (snip)

CNSNews.com … asked the candidates, 1) Do you condemn Antifa? And 2) Do you believe federal law enforcement agencies should take all lawful steps necessary to prevent Antifa from engaging in ‘domestic terrorist violence’ during the 2020 U.S. election campaign?

CNSNews.com repeatedly sent these questions to the 24 candidates by email and telephone between July 23 and Aug. 7. Not one Democratic candidate responded. (The Trump campaign answered on July 24.)

Many of the Democratic candidates’ press offices confirmed they had received the question and thanked CNSNews.com for “reaching out.”

Instead, they pretend that “white nationalists” represent some sort of organized threat to civil order, even though the biggest gathering they have been able to launch was a pathetically small number of torch-bearing marchers at Charlottesville, explicitly condemned by President Trump. A lone, deranged driver managed to kill someone, was promptly arrested, prosecuted and convicted, but that’s the basis for ems claiming “white nationalists” present a lethal threat. The few explicitly racist marchers at Charlottesville were far outnumbered by sincere demonstrators whom wanted to preserve the historic works of art that leftists want to obliterate, just as the Taliban blew up statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. And they have no ability to generate violent mobs capable of shutting down their opponents, the way that Antifa does repeatedly.   Antifa is apparently well-organized, and explicitly announces its intention to violently disrupt political events they disapprove of.  The group has violently disrupted a public speech by Milo Yiannopoulos in Berkeley, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage, and has attacked and seriously injured Andy Ngo, a journalist who covers them in Portland.

Antifa activists constitute a dedicated, organized national violent organization openly suppressing political opponents, something that ought to be condemned by everyone, not just those whom they seek to silence.

Antifa now is arming itself.

History teaches us that armed thugs pave the way for monstrous political oppression. Yet the leaders of the Democratic Party are now becoming complicit with armed thugs, the way the party failed to condemn the KKK in its two phases of political terrorism, the post-Civil War phase where African Americans were terrorized and killed, and the 1920s, when KKK racists marched by the tens of thousands and elected racist Democrats to office, with the occasional lynching and other terror operations suppressing dissent – just as Antifa does today.

It evident that there are quite a few similarities between Antifa and the Brownshirts. Neither of them could be controlled entirely by the governments. That is why Hitler replaced them with the SS which was much more committed to the same agenda. I am sure that the democrats will find out the Antifa will have to be replaced by something more subtle and easily controlled.

What will electric cars and the Green New Deal do to the middle class family?

Our green loving government is trying to push for the American people to get rid of their gas powered cars. How many families of four out their that have two teenagers driving cheap 2nd hand cars are there in our country? Just drive through our middle class neighborhoods in the evening hours if you want to find out. I am sure you will be surprised on how many households have 4four cars. There will be two newer cars that the parents drive and two beaters that the teenagers drive. These cars cost is quite low, because they are older, high mileage that are perfect starter cars for children. Their value is low, so the insurance rates are also lower.

Do you know what the average price of an electric car is today, well good news it dropped from $64,300 to $55,600. You tell me how can a family afford four of these cars, and the resulting increase in car insurance premiums? If the government forces us to get rid of our gas cars, are they going to compensate us? I still am making payments on my van. My van also doubles as our recreational camping vehicle. What about motorhomes, are they going to force people to retire them as well? Do we really want to live in a country where our leaders think that they have the power to confiscate our property at will?

Has anyone tried doing a road trip in an electric car? What about transporting goods by 18-wheelers across the country? Are they going to be electric? How many gas powered vehicles are there in this country? We have literally 100s of millions of gas powered devices in this country. From generators, chainsaws, lawn movers, log splitters and the list just goes on. Families have boats, ATVs, recreational vehicles and their personal cars. Our country is powered by fossil fuels. The cost to convert to renewable energy would be astronomical if even possible. Besides how do we generate the power needed to charge all these electric devices? Windmills and solar power are just not reliable, all weather power sources. Just look at what happened in Texas last winter. Of all states, Texas should have been the least effected by weather, but they are being forced to rely more heavily on green energy, so they paid the price.

We all agree that we need to protect our environment, but that includes more than just CO2 emissions. We are polluting our oceans and water ways as well. People treat this planet like their personal garbage dump. In the last week I saw two cases of lack of regard for our environment. I was waiting for my wife in my van as she finished up shopping at the 99cent store. I witnessed this older lady find an empty shopping cart in the parking lot to use in the store. Only it wasn’t empty there were some packaging materials and flyers in it. So instead of just emptying the trash in the garbage can right near the entrance of the store, she just throws all of the cart trash on the ground along with the cup of soda she had just finished drinking. What the hell was wrong with her? The second case, a home less person was eating fast food as he was waling down the street. After he finished his wholesome meal, he just threw the wrappers and the soda cup on the ground. He had walked by several waste receptacles along the way as he was eating. I remember back in the 70s and 80s when there was a push to clean up our country. There was signs posted everywhere that stated you would be fined so much money if you littered. We need to go back to those times. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on the big things, lets spend small on the small things first.

We also need to recycle more. Our country is very wasteful. We can also help the environment by planting trees. Plant life absorbs CO2 and produces O2 as a byproduct . So we have a win win situation. Besides, what are we going to do with all of these gas powered cars and vehicles?

How corrupt is the FBI?

Is the FBI corrupt? That’s a question that every American should be asking in the aftermath of the ill-fated coup against President Trump, yet few are.

Perhaps that’s because many of us are unwilling to confront the truth and don’t want to make waves. Or maybe it’s because of our belief in objective and just law-enforcement. We’re not some failed state full of dirty cops like Mexico, so surely the FBI, our most prestigious law enforcement agency, isn’t corrupt, right? Wrong.

In an outstanding recent National Review piece entitled “The FBI’s Dirty Cops,” Kevin D. Williamson breaks down how the FBI acted corruptly by spying on the Trump Campaign and falsifying evidence and why that behavior is problematic. He shows why the FBI’s corrupt behavior is dangerous for America and is eroding the faith of Americans in their government and its institutions.

First, before answering “is the FBI corrupt,” Williamson begins with a provocative statement about Horowitz’s conclusions into the FBI’s abuse of Trump and his campaign staffers. It provides excellent background about the FBI’s corrupt behavior and attacks on America’s basic liberties:

“Michael Horowitz has testified that he found no evidence of political bias on the part of the decision-makers who, under the Obama administration, relied on hilariously implausible “evidence” and falsified evidence of their own in order to launch a federal investigation of the Trump campaign. Rather than political bias, Horowitz says, the investigation uncovered a series of “basic and fundamental” errors.”

Then, Williamson breaks down that not only is that conclusion patently absurd, it also flies in the face of all available evidence about improper conduct from agencies during the disastrous Obama Administration. That administration acted illegally and used its G-men goons at the FBI to attack and silence its political enemies, especially once it realized that President Trump was likely to beat Hillary Clinton. The Obama Administration used every tool at its disposal, every possible agency, to attack and shut down its political opponent.

After discussing what other Obama-era agencies did, Williamson finally gets into the weeds of why the FBI was acting corruptly and improperly by spying on the Trump campaign. He describes how the FBI acted not just incompetently and egregiously, but also corruptly to help out a specific political party. Based on this, if Republicans think that the government and its institutions are out to get them and silence them, they are right. Even the FBI is corrupt and is willing to do whatever it takes to try to keep Republicans out of power.

Finally, Williamson breaks down why the FBI’s corrupt behavior is so dangerous for America; it shows that our institutions are biased in support of the Democratic Party and are using their power in a corrupt and biased manner to attack Republicans.

So, after reading all that, what do you think? Is the FBI corrupt? I certainly think so and wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole.

Reading about the investigation into the Trump campaign and the resulting hysterics surrounding Comey, Mueller, and Horowitz is absolutely sickening. The left is so focused on its ridiculous effort to unseat Trump that they’re willing to try anything.

Peter Strozk and his lover, Lisa Page, lied and interfered to place Trump on the FBI’s hit list. James Comey misled Congress and in the process showed that he and the Justice Department were a corrupt group of political hacks. And, because of their shameless lying and assault on Trump, Mueller launched a years-long investigation into Trump that found absolutely no incriminating evidence! Then, to top it all off Horowitz, who was supposed to expose the mess and at least start the process of fixing it, declined to draw the obvious conclusion so that he wouldn’t offend the crooked cops at the FBI. The whole situation is unreal yet horrifying.

Now, of course, the Democrats that usually hate law enforcement are going on and on about the supposed “honor of the FBI” and how there’s no way anyone there could be corrupt or politically motivated. Again, that’s absurd. They just want a shred of justification for their impeachment of Trump, which they are using to hide that he has been an outstanding president so far and is basically unremarked upon in normal America.

Most importantly, as Williamson noted, an answer of yes to “is the FBI corrupt” is really, really bad for America. Those corrupt LEOs are bringing the whole edifice of political trust and stability crumbling down with them. That will prove to have awful consequences for America.

The Roman Republic collapsed and turned into an Empire led by tyrants once Roman citizens saw that their representatives and the agents of those representatives were acting corruptly. Do we have any reason to believe that America will not fall victim to that also? We are a republic. Our government is corrupt, as shown by the fact that most Republicans, at least, would answer “is the FBI corrupt?” with an emphatic “Yes!”

I am not trying to be an alarmist. I know that, despite the fact that the FBI is corrupt, America is still the greatest nation on Earth and is, generally, a bastion of freedom. Furthermore, as Mark Twain said, “history does not repeat itself.”

But, the second half of that quote is that “but it often rhymes.” America is a great nation. But we should be wary about what destroyed the past republics that America was modeled after. And corruption, no matter what society it takes place in, is certainly a problem and must be combated at every opportunity.

Republicans in Congress need to shake off the cobwebs of judicial action and wake up to that fact. Then, they need to start going after the corrupt apparatchiks at the FBI and other agencies that persecute conservatives. America will struggle to survive, much less thrive, if it is continually under attack and falls apart because of corruption.

We have handed immense powers to the government over the year, pretending like we don’t know that government is like a wolf. Now, with individual liberty dead and its right to spy unconstrained, it has come back to bite us. We all know that groups like the media and leftist professors are biased, that’s obvious from reading books like Politics is a Joke and Righteous Indignation. But, it’s unprecedented that a group like the FBI is so corrupt.

So, should we really be surprised that the answer to “is the FBI corrupt?” is “yes?” I think that should be obvious at this point, but it still is horrifying. America is not a corrupt third world nation. Up until the Obama Administration, it never appeared to be one. But, once he left and Trump entered office, all that corruption of the Deep State was exposed. Now, Americans can see that their government and its institutions are corrupt. If that is not fixed soon, then it will present major problems for America; good citizens will not long suffer idly under the yoke of corruption and oppression.

When people think of possible wrongdoing by the FBI these days, it often involves serious allegations of misbehavior concerning the investigation of the Trump Campaign or the pre-election reopening of the Clinton email investigation. But it seems to me that there is a more basic problem of corruption that overlaps a bit with politics but also extends well beyond it. The FBI’s procedures are designed to be less accurate than possible to allow them to more easily prosecute people. That is unfair and may be unconstitutional.

The FBI often conducts interviews of persons. Rather than videotape these interviews, the FBI assigns an agent to take notes of the interview. Then, if the FBI believes that an interviewee has lied during the interview, he or she can be prosecuted for false statements to the government. The penalty for this is quite serious. Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, making a false statement to the federal government in any matter within its jurisdiction is subject to a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. That is a long time.

How does the FBI prove the false statement? One might think that they would make a videotape of the interview, which would provide the best evidence of whether the interviewee made a false statement. But if one thought this, one would be wrong, very wrong.

The FBI does not make videotapes of interviews. Apparently, there are FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Instead, the FBI has a second agent listen to the interview and take notes on it. Then, the agent files a form—a 302 form—with his or her notes from the interview.

What is going on here? Why would the FBI prohibit videotaping the interviews and instead rely on summaries? The most obvious explanations do not cast a favorable light on the Bureau. If they don’t tape the interview, then the FBI agents can provide their own interpretation of what was said to argue that the interviewee made a false statement. Since the FBI agent is likely to be believed more than the defendant (assuming he even testifies), this provides an advantage to the FBI. By contrast, if there is a videotape, the judge and jury can decide for themselves.

If this is what is going on, it is outrageous. The FBI uses procedures that allow them to offer a less than a fully accurate version of the interview so that they can convict interviewees. After all, the videotape is the best evidence of what occurred at the interview. So the FBI is not allowing the best evidence, presumably so they can secure convictions.

One might even argue this is unconstitutional under existing law. Under the Mathews v. Eldridge interpretation of the Due Process Clause, a procedure is unconstitutional if another procedure would yield more accurate decisions and is worth the added costs. Given the low costs of videotaping, it seems obvious that the benefits of such videotaping for accuracy outweigh the costs.

There is no persuasive justification for this practice. Harvey Silvergate considers the FBI’s reasoning in this extremely helpful article, but none of their arguments are persuasive. Silvergate’s piece is excellent. He explains why the FBI continues this practice of no recordings:

So what happens when the sole arbiter of what a witness says in an FBI interview is the 302 Report written by an FBI agent? If that witness should later be compelled to testify at a grand jury proceeding (leading to an indictment of the target of the investigation) or at the trial itself, he is under tremendous pressure to testify consistently with what the 302 report claims he told the agents when interviewed. Should a witness give testimony that is in conflict with the 302 report, he opens himself up to a felony conviction—either he had lied to the FBI in his initial interview, or he is lying to the grand jury or the court (or the congressional committee) in his testimony. Either way, he remains stuck between the Scylla of perjury and the Charybdis of a false-statements charge. Few question the veracity of the 302 report; after all, who will a jury more likely believe, a single witness or two upstanding FBI agents swearing that what they wrote in their 302 report accurately represents what the witness said when interviewed? When the feds suspect that a witness might tell a tale at the grand jury or at trial that is inconsistent with the prosecution’s favored factual scenario, the prosecutors will usually show him or his lawyer the 302 report. It becomes clear to the witness that he either must stick to the 302 version, or else risk a false statement or perjury charge when he testifies differently under oath.

That is outrageous. This aspect of the FBI—which does not mainly involve politics—needs to be reformed. It is corrupt and pernicious.

I’m not holding my breath. In the meantime, don’t expect me to respect an organization that behaves in this way.

Update: I am happy to report that my post was too pessimistic.  It turns out that in 2014, the Department of Justice under Eric Holder changed the policy on recording confessions.  The new policy created a presumption in favor of recording custodial interrogations.  Thus, it now seems that a greater percentage of FBI interviews are being recorded.

But we shouldn’t be too optimistic about this new policy.  First, the policy does not apply to all interviews.  It only applies to custodial interrogations and therefore interviews, where the interviewee was not in custody, are excluded.  Thus, it is no surprise that the Michael Flynn interview was not recorded.  In addition, there are four exceptions to the policy, even for custodial interviews.  At least one of those exceptions is open-ended – when the relevant federal officials believe there is a “significant and articulable law enforcement purpose” to do so – which might allow the FBI to not record in cases when they do not want to have a recording.

Interestingly, it may be that the FBI changed the policy not to promote fairness and accuracy, but to promote convictions.  One of the justifications for changing the policy was that jurors were not being supplied a strong piece of evidence against the defendants – a videotaped confession from the defendant.  This was particularly a problem in certain cases, such as sexual abuse and violent crime cases.  If the justification for the policy change was to promote convictions, then one might wonder how often interrogations are actually being recorded and whether it is only in cases when the FBI believes it will help with conviction.

Still, all things considered, this appears to be a step in the right direction.  So I am happy to stand corrected.

10 Most Crooked and Corrupt Things the FBI Has Ever Done

The futility of trusting the FBI to defend the greater good is demonstrated by 10 of the most crooked and corrupt things it has done since its inception as the “Bureau of Investigation” in 1908. Some misdeeds are well-known while others are obscure, but all provide cause to distrust the federal agency.

10) Last year, a letter surfaced from the FBI to Martin Luther King Jr., disparaging him, urging him to commit suicide, and attempting to exploit his sexual behavior. In 1999, years before that letter surfaced, a federal jury decided that government agencies were involved in King’s assassination. Though the FBI was not directly implicated, its obsession with King is cause enough for skepticism.

9) During and following the same years that MLK was active, the FBI actively sought to infiltrate “radical,” “subversive” groups. They launched the notorious COINTELPRO program, sending undercover agents to pose as members of movements. They seeped into anti-war groups, the Black Panthers, and communist, socialist, and Puerto Rican groups (among others). They attempted not only to gather information, but to sow discord among the ranks of activists in order to sabotage their efforts. The FBI allegedly discontinued COINTELPRO in 1971, but many believe it still employs the same tactics today.

8) For example, the FBI has been caught multiple times planning terrorist plots for targets to foil. This was the case here, here, here and here. When the FBI has trouble getting an informant to cooperate, it simply frames them.

7) In going out of its way to “find” terrorists, the FBI uses grotesque tactics. One former informant recently revealed that he was urged to sleep with women at a mosque he was infiltrating (the mosque eventually called the FBI on the informant when he advocated violence). This parallels the strategy of London police officers, who infiltrated environmental groups in the 1980s and ’90s, as well as the tactics used on protesters in the United States.

6) The FBI is creepy beyond its use of informants. While the NSA is largely blamed for spying en masse on the data of American citizens, it was the FBI that actually built the Data Intercept Technology Unit. This is the framework that underlies the NSA’s capabilities. FBI leaders have actively attempted to thwart encryption features on smart phones that were implemented due to concern over government spying.

5) Though such surveillance is disturbing, the FBI has been snooping since its inception. During the Prohibition era, agents tapped phones and spied on Americans in the name of catching alcohol bootleggers. It was only through Supreme Court cases and Congress that the FBI was barred from doing so—only to later develop the Data Intercept Technology Unit.

4) Such spying proves a troubling catch phrase of American popular culture: “Celebrities are just like us!”: the FBI has conducted surveillance on a wide variety of stars. They watched Marilyn Monroe for her ties to the Kennedys, John Lennon for his anti-war activism, and Charlie Chaplin, who was an outspoken anarchist. Even the world’s most famous figures cannot escape FBI scrutiny if they are promoting a change to the status quo. If they cannot escape the government’s snooping, there is little chance for the rest of us.

3) The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII is now viewed as one of the most reprehensible actions not only of FDR but the federal government in general. However, when condemning the horrific discrimination and destruction of due process, few ask who carried out FDR’s Executive Order 9066. It was the FBI that made lists of people to “intern” and rounded them up. The bureau is rarely criticized for these racist, unconstitutional, and inhumane actions.

2) The FBI is also known for making the lives of whistleblowers a living hell. Though the Obama administration has cracked down on those who are courageous enough to expose government wrongdoing, the FBI has consistently ranked the most intolerant of such dissent. It sent a threatening letter to one of its would-be whistleblowers and makes little effort to protect them. For an agency tasked with rooting out crime and corruption, its unwillingness to look in the mirror is disgraceful.

1) The FBI has a bad habit of employing selective justice. During the 1970s and 80s when it was prosecuting gangsters, it made a point to prosecute some and not others. Why? Because those it protected were paying them off and providing information on other gangs. Further, in the 1960s, the FBI allowed four innocent men to be convicted of murder simply to protect a former gangster turned informant. They encouraged a witness to lie and withheld evidence from the court to earn the convictions, again exemplifying an egregious disregard for the justice they are tasked with delivering (the government later paid over $100 million in settlements for the false convictions).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation enjoys the reputation of a legion of good Samaritans. Countless films and television shows glorify the agency and highlight its crusade to protect justice in America. In spite of this, the FBI’s corruption runs rampant and unchecked–not all of the FBI’s offenses can be listed in 10 points (special mention goes to targeting prostitution houses and editing Wikipedia articles).

In light of this consistent history of criminality and misconduct, it is time for Americans to consider that having criminals fight crime is a futile effort which belies a foundation of corruption across the entire system.

 The most recent slap in the face to the American people came in the form of a corrupt FBI lawyer getting a fine less than seatbelt ticket for falsifying documents to violate the civil rights of American citizens. Unfortunately, this is the latest in a laundry list of issues with the FBI.

The most glaring problem with the FBI is its actions during the Russia Collusion hoax. The FBI allowed itself to become the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party. There is a slim chance the law enforcement agency did not know it was being used initially, but it had to know it was being used shortly after the 2016 election. The FBI knew in January of 2017, after interviewing the primary sub source of the Steele Dossier, that the dossier was a fraud.

Did the FBI stop the investigation and apologize to everyone it wiretapped? No, did the FBI start an investigation into Christopher Steele, the dossier author? No, the FBI doubled down, and started a coverup of its actions, that included the framing of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President Trump’s National Security Advisor.

Recent declassifications of FBI documents show that not only did the FBI know the sub source of the dossier could not vouch for the information in the document, but the FBI interviewed Christopher Steele in September of 2017 and found Steele was biased and, “had statements that conflicted with explanations from two of his sub-sources about their access to Russian officials.” It is important to note, the FBI had been unable to verify anything in the dossier up to this point, despite sending multiple warrants to the FISA Court stating the opposite. What would happen if any “normal” citizen falsified documents and lied to a court?

Here was another chance for the FBI to admit it was wrong and fell for a scam. But once again, it doubled down and continued to investigate innocent citizens hoping for a process crime. Does that sound like the actions of a law enforcement agency with integrity? The actions of the FBI during the Mueller Investigation drew further questions about the ethics of the agency.

Take the case of Roger Stone, an unofficial advisor for President Trump. Stone was also caught up in the Russia Collusion hoax. Stone spent hours in front of Congress and the FBI during the congressional hearings and investigations. When all was said and done, he was eventually charged with a process crime. Stone had been cooperating with Congress and the FBI and showed no threat. Yet when he was charged, the FBI used an ungodly amount of force to arrest the senior citizen with no criminal record for a nonviolent crime. The FBI sent over two dozen agents in tactical gear and vehicles… and a boat. All this for a man with no criminal record or history of violence. To keep this in perspective, the FBI sent more people after Roger Stone than they did for mass murderer Whitey Bulger. The FBI was also kind enough to alert media unfriendly to Stone so the entire arrest could be documented for political purposes. Here, the actions of the FBI seem more inline with politics than justice.

Yes, participating in a coup is bad enough, but perhaps the worst of recent FBI conduct was its action or lack of action during the USA Gymnastics sexual abuse scandal. Larry Nassar was a former USA Gymnastics team doctor and professor at Michigan State University. Over the course of Nassar’s almost two-decade career, he sexually abused at least 265 young girls. Nassar has since been arrested, tried, and sentenced for his heinous crimes, but dozens of young girls could have been spared had the FBI been bothered.

Between the time the FBI was first notified of Nassar’s actions in July of 2015 to his arrest in November of 2016, he continued to see dozens of young girls. What was the FBI doing for almost a year and a half, while young girls were being abused? Olympian Aly Raisman told Savannah Guthrie when she was finally contacted by the FBI, she asked them “what took so long?” She was told “we wanted to wait until the Olympics were over.” No one from the FBI has come forward to refute her claim.

Supposedly, there is a DOJ OIG is investigation into what happened, but to date it is unknown what has been done or if anyone has been held to account for the FBI’s failure. This is par for the course, as the FBI and DOJ like to discipline themselves nor do they like to let Congress know when they make mistakes.

Now the institutionalists on Capitol Hill and the media will say this is only a sampling of the FBI and not representative of the 99%. The problem with that theory is that the FBI tree is rotten from the core. Everyone involved in the Russia Collusion hoax was at the top of the FBI hierarchy. Everyone that lied to the FISA Court and knowingly signed documents that were false, were supposed to be the “best of the best” at the FBI.  One must then ask the question, how did so many unscrupulous people get into the FBI, then advance up the ranks to lead the agency? Is that what the FBI looks for in leadership?

The FBI has become what it spent the Cold War fighting. The FBI has become an agency that investigates its political opponents, covers up its crimes, believes it is unaccountable to the people, and acts with impunity. The FBI has become the KGB.

How corrupt is the CIA?

8 Cases That Prove the FBI and CIA Were Out of Control Long Before Russiagate

an examination of the history of US intelligence agencies reveals government bureaucrats were out of control long before the 2016 presidential election.

1. That Time the CIA Considered Bombing Miami and Blaming It on Castro

It’s no secret that the US government sought to assassinate Fidel Castro for years. Less well known, however, was that part of their regime-change plot included a plan to blow up Miami and sinking a boat-full of innocent Cubans.

The plan, which was revealed in 2017 when the National Archives declassified 2,800 documents from the JFK era, was a collaborative effort that included the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and other federal agencies that sought to brainstorm strategies to topple Castro and sow unrest within Cuba. One of those plans included Operation Northwoods, submitted to the CIA by General Lyman Lemnitzer on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It summarized nine “pretexts” the CIA and US government could employ to justify military intervention in Cuba. One of the official CIA documents shows officials musing about staging a terror campaign (“real or simulated”) and blaming it on Cuban refugees.

“We could develop a Cuban Communist terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” the Operation Mongoose document says.

“The terror campaign could be pointed at Cubans refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated.) We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States… Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots.”

Ultimately, the broader Mongoose effort failed to remove Castro from power or effectively establish an infiltration within Cuba, though the CIA did engage in several sabotage operations. Mongoose was suspended and ultimately discontinued amid the Cuban Missile Crisis.

2. In 2014 the CIA Was Caught Red-Handed Spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee

In the summer of 2014, the CIA’s inspector general concluded that the CIA had “improperly” spied on US Senate staffers who were researching the agency’s black history of torture. As the New York Times reported:

An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program.

And that’s not the worst part. The Times goes on to note that CIA officers didn’t just read the emails of the Senate investigators. They also sent “a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on false information.”

John Brennan, CIA director from 2013-2017, insisted during Senate hearings these were “very limited inappropriate actions” and that “the actions of the CIA were reasonable.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) disagreed.

“That’s not what the Inspector General [concluded],” Wyden said. “When you’re talking about spying on a committee responsible for overseeing your agency, in my view that undermines the very checks and balances that protect our democracy, and it’s unacceptable in a free society. And your compatriots in all your sister agencies agree with that.”

Brennan, who publicly lied about the episode, was not punished and even retained his security clearance until Aug. 15, 2018.https://www.youtube.com/embed/IjFsWWsv8M8?feature=oembed

3. The FBI’s “Suicide Letter” to MLK and His Wife

Before he had a day named in his honor and a monument on the National Mall, the government viewed Martin Luther King Jr. very much as a threat. In fact, his message of peace, love, equality, and civil disobedience had the FBI so scared that agents actually sent King and his wife a package containing a strange letter and tape recording. It contained details of the civil rights activist’s sexual indiscretions and encouraged him to kill himself.

In 1961, the FBI learned that Stanley Levison, a known “Red,” had become a close advisor to King. The following year, Bobby Kennedy approved wiretaps on Levison’s home and office, surveillance that would eventually expand. It turns out that J. Edgar Hoover stumbled on to MLK’s busy sex life while investigating King.

“Hoover found out very little about any Communist subterfuge,” wrote Yale historian Beverly Gage in the New York Times in 2014, “but he did begin to learn about King’s extramarital sex life….”

The FBI apparently had no scruples about using the information to try to bring King down. James Comey, Gage writes, used to keep a copy of the King wiretap request on his desk “as a reminder of the bureau’s capacity to do wrong.”

4. The CIA Forced Prisoners to Participate in Mind Control Experiments in the 1950s

If you’ve never heard of Project MKUltra, you might find it hard to believe. Also known as “the CIA Mind Control Program,” the effort was launched by the agency in 1953. The program used drug experiments on humans, oftentimes on prisoners who were tested against their will or in exchange for early release. The experiments were undertaken so CIA agents could better understand how to extract information from enemies during interrogations. Here is a description from the History Channel:

MK-Ultra’s “mind control” experiments generally centered around behavior modification via electro-shock therapy, hypnosis, polygraphs, radiation, and a variety of drugs, toxins, and chemicals. These experiments relied on a range of test subjects: some who freely volunteered, some who volunteered under coercion, and some who had absolutely no idea they were involved in a sweeping defense research program. From mentally-impaired boys at a state school, to American soldiers, to “sexual psychopaths” at a state hospital, MK-Ultra’s programs often preyed on the most vulnerable members of society. The CIA considered prisoners especially good subjects, as they were willing to give consent in exchange for extra recreation time or commuted sentences.

Whitey Bulger, a former organized crime boss, wrote of his experience as an inmate test subject in MK-Ultra. “Eight convicts in a panic and paranoid state,” Bulger said of the 1957 tests at the Atlanta penitentiary where he was serving time. “Total loss of appetite. Hallucinating. The room would change shape. Hours of paranoia and feeling violent. We experienced horrible periods of living nightmares and even blood coming out of the walls. Guys turning to skeletons in front of me. I saw a camera change into the head of a dog. I felt like I was going insane.”

How was any of this legal? Well, it wasn’t, which is why the CIA understood it had to be concealed from the American public at all costs.

“Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general,” wrote a CIA auditor. “The knowledge that the agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles.”

5. The FBI’s Systemic Forensic Fraud in Crime Labs

In the early 1990s, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, an attorney and chemist who worked at the FBI as a Supervisory Special Agent, noticed troubling practices in the in the bureau’s Investigation Laboratory.

There were “alterations of reports, alterations of evidence, folks testifying outside their areas of expertise in courts of law,” said Whitehurst. “[Really] what was going on was human rights violations. We have a right to fair trials in this country… And that’s not what was going on at the FBI lab.”

In 1994, he blew the whistle on the “systemic forensic fraud” he witnessed. Nothing happened. So he took his case to the Department of Justice. The FBI didn’t like that. Whitehurst was eventually chased out of the Bureau, but not before winning a $1.16 million settlement.

Unfortunately, however, the wheels of justice turn slowly at the Bureau.

“It wasn’t until ten years later that Whitehurst was finally vindicated,” notes the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund note, “when a scathing 500+ page study of the lab by the Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Bromwich, concluded major reforms were required in the lab.”

But by then, an untold number of people had been convicted with the help of tainted evidence—evidence the DOJ knew was tainted.

In 2012 the Washington Post published an extensive review of the FBI and DOJ failures to properly review the cases impacted by the FBI lab scandal, based on Whitehurst’s research.

As a result, the DOJ agreed to conduct yet another review of hair cases in collaboration with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).

• 3,000 cases were identified by the government that had used microscopic hair analysis from FBI examiners.
• 500 have been reviewed as of March 2015.
• 268 included pro-prosecution testimony from FBI examiners.
• 257 (96 percent) contained erroneous statements from “FBI experts”.

At least 35 of these cases involved convicted criminals who received the death penalty, according to the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund.

6. Operation Midnight Climax: Drugging Unsuspecting Johns and Filming their Interactions with Prostitutes

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the CIA admitted to operating a “bawdy house” in a San Francisco apartment where “unsuspecting citizens were lured… for the CIA’s drug experiments,” according to a local news story report documented by the agency.

“Private citizens were taken to the bordello by $100 prostitutes and drugged without their knowledge, usually with LSD,” the San Francisco Examiner reported in 1977 after the CIA admitted to the operation. Agents sat behind a two-way mirror and filmed the interactions between the drugged men and prostitutes.

Then-CIA director Stansfield Turner suggested the operation was intended to understand how drugs could potentially be used against the American people, though he called the experiments “abhorrent” and acknowledged it was “inexplicable” that the CIA would do this without the subjects’ consent. He insisted the agency had ceased the experiments 12 years prior. In a 1977 Senate testimony, CIA agents said the purpose of the experiments was to “learn about thought control and sexual behavior,” the Examiner noted.

7. The FBI Has Routinely Staged Acts of Terrorism

In the wake of 9/11, the FBI has, on numerous occasions, targeted unstable and mentally ill individuals, sending informants to bait them into committing terror attacks. Before these individuals can actually carry out the attack, however, the Bureau intervenes, presenting the foiled plot to the public as a successfully thwarted attack.

In 2011, journalist Glenn Greenwald summarized several examples of this deceitful tactic:

[T]he FBI subjected 19-year-old Somali-American Mohamed Osman Mohamud to months of encouragement, support and money and convinced him to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas event in Portland, Oregon, only to arrest him at the last moment and then issue a Press Release boasting of its success. In late 2009, the FBI persuaded and enabled Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year old Jordanian citizen, to place a fake bomb at a Dallas skyscraper and separately convinced Farooque Ahmed, a 34-year-old naturalized American citizen born in Pakistan, to bomb the Washington Metro.

8. The CIA’s Media Manipulation Campaigns

From the agency’s earliest days, it has attempted to control the flow of information to the public. In his book Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA, former New York Times journalist Tim Weiner documented how much influence the agency’s first civilian director, Allen Dulles, had among major media companies:

Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo.

Weiner noted, “It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information.” During his time at the agency, Dulles “built a public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most powerful press baron.”

In 1977, Carl Bernstein further exposed the CIA’s efforts to influence news organization in an article for Rolling Stone in which he revealed that “more than 400 American journalists…in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.”

The Lesson

Amid the media and political establishment’s ongoing, frenzied coverage of Russia-gate, Americans are eager to pin guilt on the president have shown a willingness to trust the CIA and FBI without question despite numerous past and present reasons to be skeptical of their conclusions. Considering the CIA’s long history of intervening in other countries’ elections and governments, it is particularly ironic that their claims of Russia’s meddling in the US’ democracy are taken at face value.

Nor is the corruption and deceit limited to the FBI and CIA. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to lawmakers and the public in 2013 when he claimed NSA did not collect any type of data on “millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” He was caught red-handed months later when whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the agency’s mass surveillance operations.

The survival of liberty depends on skepticism of government power—and make no mistake, that includes President Trump. But in light of these federal agencies’ chronic tendency to engage in behavior wholly inconsistent with American values, the same distrust must be applied to the institutions that claim to shed light on abuses by unpopular leaders.

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious “School of the Americas.” (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the “School of the Dictators” and “School of the Assassins.” Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an “American Holocaust.”

The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington’s dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation’s desire to stay out of the Cold War.

The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington’s will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator’s control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this “boomerang effect” include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.

The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed — it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.

1929

The culture we lost — Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation, saying, “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.”

1941

COI created — In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator of Information (COI). General William “Wild Bill” Donovan heads the new intelligence service.

1942

OSS created — Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation’s rich and powerful that eventually people joke that “OSS” stands for “Oh, so social!” or “Oh, such snobs!”

1943

Italy — Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America’s most enduring intelligence alliances in the Cold War.

1945

OSS is abolished — The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return to harmless information gathering and analysis.

Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates the “Gehlen Organization,” a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia. These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the “Butcher of Lyon”), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler’s). The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA. However, much of the “intelligence” the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious “missile gap.” To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen was supposed to protect.

1947

Greece — President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek leaders with deplorable human rights records.

CIA created — President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through the NSC — there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to “perform such other functions and duties… as the National Security Council may from time to time direct.” This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.

1948

Covert-action wing created — The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

Italy — The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works — the communists are defeated.

1949

Radio Free Europe — The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.

Late 40s

Operation MOCKINGBIRD — The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA’s media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA’s own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.

1953

Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

Operation MK-ULTRA — Inspired by North Korea’s brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.

1954

Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

1954-1958

North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

1956

Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an “Armee Clandestine” of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

1959

Haiti — The U.S. military helps “Papa Doc” Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the “Tonton Macoutes,” who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1961

The Bay of Pigs — The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba. But “Operation Mongoose” fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA’s first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

Ecuador — The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire) — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba’s politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963

Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964

Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America’s first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down “communists” for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these “communists” are no more than Branco’s political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965

Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being “communist.” The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

Greece — With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo (Zaire) — A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

1966

The Ramparts Affair — The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire “professors” to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students’ Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

1967

Greece — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the “reign of the colonels” — backed by the CIA — will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: “Fuck your parliament and your constitution.”

Operation PHEONIX — The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 “Viet Cong.”

1968

Operation CHAOS — The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

Bolivia — A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969

Uruguay — The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. “The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect,” is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis’. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

1970

Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

1971

Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti — “Papa Doc” Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son “Baby Doc” Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972

The Case-Zablocki Act — Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

Cambodia — Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

Wagergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973

Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations — William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

Watergate Scandal — The CIA’s main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon’s crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA’s many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, “Deep Throat,” is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired — President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

1974

CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate — The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon’s Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act — Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975

Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

“The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence” — Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

“Inside the Company” — Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing — Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation (“The Church Committee”), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA’s accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission — In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the “Rockefeller Commission” to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission’s namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission’s eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979

Iran — The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

El Salvador — An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to “normal” — the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

1980

El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter “Christian to Christian” to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981

Iran/Contra Begins — The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be “pressured” until “they say ‘uncle.’” The CIA’s Freedom Fighter’s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983

Honduras — The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious “Battalion 316” then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984

The Boland Amendment — The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to “hand off” the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA’s informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes “humanitarian aid” donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986

Eugene Hasenfus — Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan’s claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal — Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media’s attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that “Baby Doc” Duvalier will remain “President for Life” only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989

Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

1990

Haiti — Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide’s return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991

The Gulf War — The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein’s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism — in Kuwait, for example.

The Fall of the Soviet Union — The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn’t been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community’s budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992

Economic Espionage — In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA’s clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993

Haiti — The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti’s military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country’s ruling class.

EPILOGUE

In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: “By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage.”

Clinton’s is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don’t know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.

Furthermore, Clinton’s statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA. These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

The CIA’s response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern. (Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church’s fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA’s criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. (See Philip Agee’s On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton’s “Americans will never know” defense is a prime example.

Another common apologetic is that “the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all.” There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: “Which American interests?” The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country’s cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged question is: “Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples’ human rights?”

The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

Isn’t it strange how the left suddenly finds the CIA to be a worthwhile organization now that it has been turned into a weapon against Trump?

We need congressional investigations into the politicization of the CIA under John Brennan, whose claim to fame has been bringing sexual “diversity” to the agency. Perhaps he should have been doing his job, which is to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Reuters reports, “The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.” Reuters reported that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (or ODNI) “does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations,” but “it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump.”

All of this flatly contradicts the fake news story in The New York Times that the CIA judgment on Russia was built on a “swell of evidence.” It is evidence not seen by other intelligence agenies and the FBI. Even the CBS Evening News reports that the “FBI has not concluded its investigation into this, but so far it is not siding with the CIA.”

Common sense tells you that Moscow was perfectly content to let Hillary win, and probably thought she would win. After all, Hillary sold out America to Moscow’s interests with a Russian reset that failed and opened the door to more Russian aggression. Her State Department also sold American uranium assets to Moscow. She was the perfect Russian dupe.

This whole discussion in the media about the Russians backing Trump is fake news.

The obvious conclusion is that Brennan is on a mission to overturn the election through propaganda and disinformation. This is not only the last gasp of sore losers but represents corruption of the intelligence process.

If the purpose of the Russian hacking was to undermine confidence in the American democratic process, as some “experts” originally thought, Brennan’s CIA is doing a good job of that.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes has sent a letter to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, saying, “On November 17, 2016, you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC [Intelligence Community] lacked strong evidence connecting Russian govemment cyber-attacks and WikiLeaks disclosures, testifying that ‘as far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.’ According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position.”

The WikiLeaks disclosures, of course, involved hacked emails from the Clinton campaign.

The CIA position” changed” because Brennan saw an opportunity to use the controversy againt Trump. Nunes refers to the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.” Once again, we see evidence that the CIA is making things up.

There is no doubt that WikiLeaks has worked for the Russians. Julian Assange himself worked for the Russian propaganda channel RT. But that doesn’t constitute evidence that the emails were stolen by the Russians and given to WikiLeaks.

It now seems clear that the CIA is going far beyond what the evidence in its possession actually shows. This means that the original story in The Washington Post was based on misleading, if not false, information. That story was headlined, “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House.”

In short, the Post was duped by Brennan’s CIA. This constitutes a case of the intelligence community using a major media organ to mislead the American people. Since Post owner Jeff Bezos does business with the CIA, this is a matter of utmost concern.

In a statement, Nunes said, “Russia’s cyber-attacks are no surprise to the House Intelligence Committee, which has been closely monitoring Russia’s belligerence for years—as I’ve said many times, the Intelligence Community has repeatedly failed to anticipate Putin’s hostile actions. Unfortunately the Obama administration, dedicated to delusions of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia, ignored pleas by numerous Intelligence Committee members to take more forceful action against the Kremlin’s aggression. It appears, however, that after eight years the administration has suddenly awoken to the threat.”

Obama’s CIA director “woke up” because it was politically convenient for him to do so. He’s trying to exploit the Russian cyber attacks, which the CIA and other agencies failed to prevent, for political purposes.

Even more sensational than Brennan is former CIA official Michael Morell, who openly backed Hillary. He declared, “A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11.”

It seems clear at this point that the corruption in the media has spread to the CIA.

An investigation is certainly needed. It should be conducted into the various former and current CIA officials who have been using the agency and their associations with the agency to wage war against the duly-elected president of the United States.

It may turn out to be the case that the real government meddling in our elections has been from the Obama administration and its CIA.

How Opium is Keeping US in Afghanistan: CIA’s Shady History of Drug Trafficking

Even though present-day Afghanistan flies under the news radar, it remains to be the longest military quagmire in US history. Aside from troops still occupying the country, thousands of private contractors are on the ground that the Pentagon can’t even account for. Considering how Obama’s foreign policy strategy has been to replace ground troops with drone strikes, the administration’s logic behind continuing the occupation remains unclear.

War has always been about resources and control. Alongside the supposed surprise discovery of Afghanistan’s $1 trillion wealth of untapped minerals, the Taliban had successfully eradicated the opium crop in the Golden Crescent before the US invasion. Now, more than 90% of the world’s heroin comes from the war torn country.

As reported by Global Research:

“Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored…By early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000. In 2001, under the Taliban opiate production stood at 185 tons, increasing  to 3400 tons in 2002 under the US sponsored puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai.”

After more than twelve years of military occupation, Afghanistan’s opium trade isn’t just sustaining, it’s thriving more than ever before. According to a recent report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013 saw opium production surge to record highs:

“The harvest this May resulted in 5,500 metric tons of opium, 49 percent higher than last year and more than the combined output of the rest of the world.”

Wow, that’s a lot of opium – and a lot of money being made. So, who is reaping the spoils?

Many people outright dismiss the notion of the CIA overseeing the trade of illegal drugs as crazy talk. However, history shows that it’s crazy not to entertain such a notion, especially during times of war profiteering.

In 2012, a Mexican government official from Juarez told Al Jazeera that the CIA and other international security forces “don’t fight drug traffickers” and that instead, the agency tries to “manage the drug trade.”

Back in the fifties, the CIA turned a blind eye to drug trafficking through the Golden Triangle while training Taiwanese troops against Communist China. As William Blum reports in Rogue State: 

“The CIA flew the drugs all over Southeast Asia, to sites where the opium was processed into heroin, and to trans-shipment points on the route to Western customers.”

These are far from isolated incidents. During the eighties, the CIA financially and logistically backed anti-communist contras in Nicaragua who also happened to be international drug traffickers.

Former Representative Ron Paul elaborated on the CIA’s notorious corruption when speaking to a group of students about Iran-Contra:

“[Drug trafficking] is a gold mine for people who want to raise money in the underground government in order to finance projects that they can’t get legitimately. It is very clear that the CIA has been very much involved with drug dealings. We saw [Iran-Contra] on television. They were hauling down weapons and drugs back.”

Surprisingly, mainstream publications still regard the Iran-Contra CIA drug trafficking scandal as a ‘conspiracy theory.’ I explain why it’s not on Breaking the Set:

Iran-Contra and the CIA’s Cocaine Trafficking

Circumstantial evidence aside, there is no conclusive proof that the CIA is physically running opium out of Afghanistan. However, it’s hard to believe that a region under full US military occupation – with guard posts and surveillance drones monitoring the mountains of Tora Bora – aren’t able to track supply routes of opium exported from the country’s various poppy farms (you know, the ones the US military are guarding).

In today’s globalized world of rule-for-profit, one can’t discount the role that multinational corporations play in US foreign policy decisions either. Not only have oil companies and private military contractors made a killing off the occupation, big pharmaceutical companies, which collectively lobby over 250 million dollars annually to Congress, need opium latex to manufacture drugs for this pill happy nation. As far as the political elite funneling the tainted funds, the recent HSBC bank scandal exposed how trillions of dollars in black market sales are brazenly being laundered offshore.

Multinational corporations are in it for the long haul, despite how low public support is for the war. A little mentioned strategic pact has already been signed that will allow a US troop presence to remain in Afghanistan until 2024.

The US’ goal of sustained warfare to oversee the world’s opium trade has been alleged by many, including foreign military officials. In 2009, a former commander in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, General Mahmut Gareev, said to RT:

“Americans themselves admit that drugs are often transported out of Afghanistan on American planes. Drug trafficking in Afghanistan brings them about 50 billion dollars a year – which fully covers the expenses tied to keeping their troops there…[the US military doesn’t] have any planned military action to eliminate the [Taliban].” 

The unwinnable nature of the war becomes more apparent when learning that the US government was paying Taliban insurgents to protect supply routes and “switch sides” in an attempt to neutralize the insurgency. The logic of funding both sides of the war to “win” is too incomprehensible a concept to grasp. Clearly, this war is meant to be sustained.

Baseless rhetoric aside, here’s the hard, hypocritical truth: this government is fighting a multi-billion dollar ‘War on Drugs’ worldwide, resulting in thousands of deaths every year and millions of nonviolent drug users rotting away in prison. Yet, the US is at the very least protecting the largest source of the deadliest and most addictive drug on the planet. If not for the obvious, then why?

How corrupt is the Justice Department?

Obama’s Department of Justice: Corruption at its Worst

Notice the total absence of those former arguments about the “alleged” corruption in the Obama Department of Justice? I honestly believe there may be two reasons for the current lack of anger about those: people grew tired of the repetitious news coverage of pieces of evidence of corruption and just “turned off;” and/or the Media has purposely ratcheted up their already deafening attacks on President Trump in an effort to make Americans forget.

But with the daily revelations of MORE Obama DOJ corruption, it seems to be appropriate for us to simply remind everyone of just a few of instances of Obama Department of Justice corruption as it appears to have been even deeper and more widespread than first thought:

Obama Era DOJ Corruption Before Trump

• Eric Holder was the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt of Congress when he stonewalled committee probes of the Fast and Furious investigation. Fast and Furious itself was a scandal, involving the government’s reckless abuse of investigative powers for the purpose of fabricating an anti-gun narrative. Instead, its “gun walking” resulted in the killing of a federal agent, among other violent crimes.
• Attorney General Holder made misleading representations about both Fast and Furious and the investigation of Fox News journalist James Rosen.
• The IRS’s intimidation and abuse of President Obama’s political opponents, and the cover-up thereof resulted in no charges and little apparent investigation.
• There were politicized prosecutions against Dinesh D’Souza (an Obama critic whose minor campaign-finance infraction was treated as a major felony when more-serious violations are typically disposed of by administrative fine), and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (the anti-Muslim video producer scapegoated by the Obama administration for the Benghazi massacre).
• Recall the misrepresentations by Justice Department lawyers to a federal court in the litigation over Obama’s lawless immigration non-enforcement programs (DACA and DAPA) — lies the judge found to be “intentional, serious and material.”
• The Department of Justice reportedly refused to impanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury impaneled, and the reason they never had a grand jury impaneled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.” Further, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to allow the FBI to issue subpoenas to gather more evidence in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations.
• Then there were the Justice Department’s outrageous misconduct and serial lies in a prosecution of New Orleans police, which a federal judge variously described as “bizarre,” “appalling,” and “grotesque” — conclusions upheld by the Fifth Circuit appeals court.
• And, of course, the Clinton e-mails investigation, featuring: Justice Department collusion with Clinton-camp lawyers; inexplicable immunity deals; suspects who received immunity permitted to appear as lawyers for other suspects; no prosecutions despite significant evidence, several immunity grants, and patently misleading statements during FBI interviews; a furtive tarmac tête-à-tête between the attorney general and the main suspect’s husband (the former U.S. president who just happened to have launched the attorney general into public prominence, and who was positioned to influence whether the attorney general got to keep her job in an anticipated Hillary Clinton administration) just days before it was announced — surprise! — that there would be no indictment of Hillary Clinton; and startling public commentary by the FBI regarding an uncharged case that bore heavily on a presidential election.
• Subsequent to that “chat” aboard Clinton’s jet in Arizona, it was learned that Attorney General Lynch was conducting official DOJ business via an alias name and email address: “Elizabeth Carlisle, ecarlisle@jmd.usdoj.gov.” Why would an Attorney General use an alias and communicate via a secret email address other than to hide from the public certain actions taken if those actions were legal and above-board?

Obama Era DOJ Corruption Carryover to Trump Administration

How many and who in the DOJ that were Obama “carryovers” have resigned, retired, been demoted, or fired since the Obama Administration? (We formerly shared from this list, but the names have been added to)

Department of Justice (Non-FBI):

• John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division – announced resignation on September 27, 2016, after filing the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on September 26, 2016. The filing does not disclose known FISA Abuses. Carlin is aware NSA Rogers is conducting a compliance review which will uncover the FISA Abuse. Trump surveillance originated under Carlin’s tenure.
• Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General (replacing Loretta Lynch – 10 days) – fired January 30, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
• Mary McCord, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division (replacing John Carlin) – announced resignation on April 17, 2017 – Left on May 11, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
• Bruce Ohr – Associate Deputy Attorney General – demoted twice. Stripped of Associate Deputy Attorney General title on December 6, 2017. Removed as head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force January 8, 2018. Unofficial liaison between Fusion GPS and FBI/DOJ. Wife worked at Fusion. Long-standing ties to both Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.
• David Laufman, DOJ National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence – resigned on February 7, 2018. Laufman “played a leading role in the Clinton email server and Russian hacking investigations.”
• Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General – number three official behind Deputy AG Rosenstein – resigned February 9, 2018. Takes top legal position at Walmart. Brand “played a critical role in Congress’ re-authorization” of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
• Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned)
• Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
• Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
• Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. attorneys)
• Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
• Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
• Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
• Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

FBI:

• James Comey, FBI Director – fired May 9, 2017. Oversaw all FBI operations – including exoneration of Clinton and Trump-Russia Investigation. Reported to AG Lynch.
• Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of FBI’s Counterintelligence – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to FBI’s Human Resources. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Strzok involved in all facets of Clinton exoneration. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Strozk was fired August 13, 2018.
• Lisa Page, FBI/DOJ Lawyer – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to parts unknown. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Resigned May 4, 2018.
• James Baker, FBI General Counsel – demoted and reassigned on December 20, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Senior-most legal counsel at FBI. Resigned May 4, 2018.
• James Rybicki, Chief of Staff to FBI Director James Comey & successor Chris Wray – resigned/forced out January 23, 2018. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group.
• Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI Director – on December 23, 2017, announced retirement effective March 22, 2018. Forced to resign on January 29, 2018. Involved in all aspects. Reported to Comey.
• Josh Campbell – Special Assistant to James Comey – resigned on February 2, 2018. Writes an op-ed in New York Times on why he is leaving but does not disclose in the op-ed that he was Special Assistant to Comey – or that he had been offered lucrative CNN job. Takes a job with CNN on February 5, 2018.
• Michael Kortan, FBI Asst. Director of Public Affairs – resigned on February 8, 2018 – effective February 15, 2018. Kortan served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access.
• Bill Priestap, Assistant Director – Head of FBI Counterintelligence – Holds the same position. Strzok’s former boss – reported directly to McCabe.
• Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
• Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
• John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
• James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)

There are others that unofficially are being “watched” regarding the continuation of their employment with the DOJ.

Summary

We could spend the day discussing in detail all of the “known” investigations underway that include those above and others. But most of them and the details of their alleged wrongdoing are on already public knowledge. What remains unknown is just how deep and wide are the methods and the people who have been (and are) part of a concerted plan to destroy President Donald Trump and his administration, his implemented and pending policies, and to stall his appointments — including that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh who is almost surely a shoo-in as the replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

What is amazing to me is that everyone who plays any role in this coordinated effort to end the Trump White House actually felt that any and all of the illegal, unethical, and immoral acts they committed — and in some cases are still being committed — were/are justified because of the worthy goal of ridding the nation of President Trump.

What is MORE amazing to me is that everyone who played these roles honestly felt they were going to be successful in their quest to unseat a duly elected president and do it without the American public knowing about it! If any American is not incensed at the fact that appointed and hired individuals who work for the American people would participate in this “political coup,” you have no loyalty to your country.

You know what’s almost humorous? All those on the Left led by their media mouthpieces — those who have invented, implemented, and have maintained the bogus Russia collusion case — are actually guilty of the same crimes they invented and alleged perpetrated by the Trump Campaign. They were confident they would be successful getting rid of Donald Trump. There IS no Russia collusion. But there IS collusion. Let me explain:

The American public has yet to be shown the evidence that Intelligence Community individuals and several in Congress claim that verifies Russian attempted hacking of the 2016 election. Even if it does really exist, (and I have my doubts) there obviously was no involvement with the Trump Campaign. But there is verified collusion between the “other” campaign and the Russians: the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Hillary’s campaign funded the Steele Dossier knowing it was full of false information, had it promoted by James Clapper and James Comey to instigate the fake Russia collusion story and subsequent investigation of Donald Trump.

Further, more and more information leaks out daily showing just how “in the tank” members of senior FBI management were in the action to derail the Trump presidency. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page as more of their private texts and emails are revealed show there were intense actions initiated and managed by upper-level management members of both the FBI and DOJ to accomplish that objective.

What is going to happen and when? I have no idea. I have my suspicions, and they involved execution of a bunch of those 50,000+ sealed federal indictments on stand-by in federal district courts around the nation. I suspect Fall of 2018 is going to initiate the peeling of the onion of corruption that obviously dwarfs that ever witnessed in the United States government.

In the meantime: Donald Trump caused the hurricane headed for the Carolinas, Trump put those illegal immigrant children (in that picture that actually was taken during the Obama’s presidency), he single-handedly created global warming that will destroy Earth if he is not immediately kicked out of the Oval Office. To summarize it: EVERYTHING that is bad in the United States — and the World, for that matter — is the direct responsibility of President Trump.

Oh, one more thing: all of the good economic news in America is proof of the amazing accomplishments of Barack Obama. After all, nothing good could ever happen in America that wasn’t directly attributable to his knowledge, understanding, likability, and compassion!

In a Grade-A example of high-level corruption, the now Biden-run Department of Justice has turned its legal guns on … Rudy Giuliani.

Let’s recall that during the 2020 campaign, the former New York mayor and lawyer for President Trump was given access to Hunter Biden’s misplaced laptop — the laptop that was left for ages at a Delaware repair shop with no effort to retrieve it.

When the repair shop owner realized what was on the laptop, he sent the contents to Giuliani, who in turn, in the finest traditions of whistleblowers, gave them to the New York Post. Front-page headlines on the contents of Hunter’s laptop resulted — headlines like this one, replete with smiling photos of Joe and Hunter:

BIDEN SECRET E-MAILS

Revealed: Ukrainian Exec thanked Hunter Biden for ‘opportunity to meet’ veep Dad

The Post story began:

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

There were more Hunter laptop blockbuster stories to follow, revealing Hunter to be a Class A influence-peddler, using his father’s vice presidency to make a fortune. These stories and revelations infuriated Joe Biden — not with Hunter but with Giuliani for exposing the grift.

Thus it was that during the second presidential debate with then-President Trump in 2020, candidate Biden growled this about Rudy Giuliani, as headlined here at Fox News:

Biden slams Trump ally Rudy Giuliani as ‘Russian pawn’ in 2nd debate

Giuliani handed over files to the New York Post that he says came from Hunter Biden’s laptop

The story on this jewel said this:

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden dismissed questions Thursday night over his son Hunter’s business dealings in Russia and characterized President Trump’s associate Rudy Giuliani, as a “Russian pawn” engaged in a disinformation smear campaign days before the election.

Of course, the laptop was not put out there by Russians. It was real. One hundred percent real. Biden’s claim that the laptop was Russian disinformation and Rudy Giuliani a Russian pawn was in fact a baldfaced pair of lies.

Fast forward to today. Joe Biden is in the White House and, with his various minions, in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice. As if the department had not been corrupted enough during the Obama–Biden administration when it was caught targeting the Trump campaign, the Biden DOJ is picking up with its pattern of Biden corruption by literally raiding Giuliani’s New York apartment and law offices to collect all of Giuliani’s computers. And oh yes … they declined to take the hard drive Rudy had for Hunter’s laptop.

These are nothing less than the actions of a police state, literally using the FBI to target political adversaries in the style of the old Soviet Union’s KGB or Hitler’s Gestapo — secret police agencies both. If you dared to disagree with the powers that be, they were coming for you.

The very first thing that needs to happen here is an investigation of the Department of Justice itself. Who made this decision to raid the home and office of the previous president’s lawyer? What was the role of the new Attorney General, Merrick Garland? Of the new Biden Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco?

And there’s more.

The search warrant — served at, get this, 6:30 a.m. — also wanted communications between Giuliani and journalist John Solomon. And, not to be forgotten, forcibly took the legally private and protected communications that are subject to lawyer–client privilege.

Got that? The First Amendment and a free press be damned: the rights of a lawyer and a client are out the window as the Biden Department of Justice is scooping up the private communications among Giuliani, his client, and an American journalist.

Fox’s Jesse Watters got it exactly right on the network’s The Five when he said this:

I think I speak for everybody on the show when I say this, Rudy Giuliani is a national treasure. Don’t disagree, I speak for everyone on the show when I say this, the guy took on the mob, he took on crime, al Qaeda, counselor to the president, and now Democratic prosecutors want to lock up a 76-year-old icon for a lobbying technicality, Juan? Because he advised the president he should fire a rotten ambassador? You don’t have to register to lobby for that. Hunter Biden advised his dad to fire a prosecutor, did he register? Where’s the raid on Hunter’s house? 

That is attorney-client privilege and that’s sacred, everybody should respect that, so what did the prosecutors do? They just raided the guy’s house and you’re not disturbed by the pattern that two Trump lawyers has their homes raided and the campaign manager has his home raided and another confidant has his home raided? You’re not disturbed by that pattern? The fact that Democrat prosecutors are waging political warfare for the benefit of the Democratic Party? Just to show purge Trump because he challenged the system? That should scare everybody, Juan, this is a thin predicate and everybody knows it.

Bingo. Jesse nailed it.

This raid, mind you, comes with Biden only a mere 100 days into his term.

It is time for Republicans to demand an immediate investigation into the conduct of the Biden Department of Justice. Anyone and everyone who had a hand in this blatant corruption should be investigated and prosecuted.

Now.

And then there’s the old, famous Watergate question: What did the president know, and when did he know it?

It’s time to find out.

 

Let’s do a little pretending. You are living in East Germany in 1960. The Stasi, the repressive secret police, have arrested you. As you are languishing in prison, the state prosecutor asks you to cough up information that will be damaging to a certain individual that the state wishes to condemn. The prosecutor’s demand is backed up with a threat. If you don’t compose the incriminating information he seeks, you will spend the next 40 years behind bars and the state will go after your spouse, your children, and your best friend Fido. Everyone you love will be destroyed.

Ah, but you say, “This is America in 2019. That could never happen here. Aren’t we lucky to be living in the land of the free and home of the brave?” Well, guess what? This used to be the land of the free. Thanks to the politicized justice system that was set in motion more than 20 years ago and reinforced during eight fateful years of the Obama administration, the quaint notion that we benefit from due process has evaporated, along with Cinderella’s ball gown and fancy coach. A former federal prosecutor by the name of Sidney Powell has blown the whistle. If you watched the January 27^th episode of “Life, Liberty and Levin” on the Fox channel, you heard Ms. Powell dispel the illusion that our justice system is fair and impartial.

Powell, author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, described a system consisting of out-of-control prosecutors who will do anything to get a conviction. She accused the Justice Department of a broad range of offenses. Some of those include:

• False charges brought by overzealous prosecutor Andrew Weissmann (Robert Mueller’s right-hand man) in the case against leading accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Although the conviction was subsequently reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, Andersen was completely destroyed, its 85,000 employees lost their jobs, and the assets of untold investors were wiped out. Weissmann was promoted by the DoJ.

• Destruction of the lives of four Merrill Lynch executives. Before they could appeal their fake convictions, they were sent to prison with the toughest criminals in the country. “They did the worst things they could possibly do to these men,” says Powell. The defendants were eventually exonerated on appeal, but it was only after one of them served eight months in solitary confinement.

• Frequent failure by the DoJ to disclose evidence favorable to defendants as required by law.

• Using the phony Steele dossier, the DoJ and FBI unlawfully obtained FISA warrants for the surveillance of the Trump election campaign. The dossier was then used to justify creation of a special counsel to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion. After two years, that investigation is nothing more than a witch-hunt against Trump supporters.

• Leaking at the top levels of the FBI and DoJ in the midst of criminal investigations.

• Unwillingness of federal judges to discipline the DoJ for its transgressions.

As Mark Levin has suggested, the Deep State — led by Obama holdovers in the justice system — is using the Mueller investigation as a “silent coup” to unseat President Trump. “Neither Mr. Mueller nor Andrew Weissmann are interested in the truth whatsoever,” says Powell. “They’re only interested in whatever they can generate to create a criminal offense” against associates of the president. The special counsel’s attempt to invalidate a legitimate presidential election is an example of the weaponization of the DoJ in service of political objectives. Mueller coerces witnesses to “compose” evidence capable of bringing down the president. General Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Jerome Corsi, and others refused to compose and were charged with perjury. Manafort is in solitary confinement after his questionable conviction. There is a name for this: blackmail. Goodbye USA, hello Stasi. If you refuse to lie for us, we will destroy you and your family.

The latest target in Mueller’s sights is Trump associate Roger Stone. Stone’s indictment is described by former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova as a “vindictive prosecution.” “It serves no law enforcement purpose,” says diGenova, “It’s disgraceful.” What is being done to these Trump supporters could just as easily happen to you or me. It’s the sort of thing that we would expect in North Korea. If our justice system were functioning as it should, Mueller himself would be charged with blackmail and subornation of perjury — persuading a witness to make a false oath. Instead, the lives of uncooperative witnesses are being destroyed when they are charged with an arbitrary process crime by the special counsel. The FBI has been complicit in Mueller’s efforts, as demonstrated by the KGB-style nighttime raids on the homes of Manafort and Stone.

A venal gang of Obama alumni is getting away with the perversion of American justice. What a cast of crooked characters! At the FBI, we have former directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page. At the DOJ: Rod Rosenstein, Andrew Weissmann, Sally Yates, and Bruce Ohr. From the Obama administration: Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, John Brennan, and Barack Obama himself. The specifics of their illegal activities are described in detail by Greg Jarrett in The Russia Hoax.

The civil rights of innocent individuals are being violated for no reason other than their political views. Do you think William Barr, our new attorney general, will do something to stop it? Let’s hope he is more effective than his predecessor. Unless the Mueller investigation is terminated and we address the real scandal in our government — corruption at the top levels of the DoJ and FBI — we can kiss the American system of justice goodbye.

Are Americans fighting Back?

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott are both again showing their willingness to stand up for their respective states against an increasingly authoritarian and incompetent federal government.

In the Sunshine State, Ron DeSantis is moving to buy antibody treatments directly from the manufacturer following Biden’s decision to tighten the reins on distribution.  

“Just last week on September 9th, President Joe Biden said that his administration would be increasing shipments of monoclonal antibodies in September by 50%, and yet on September 13th, HHS announced that it was seizing control of the monoclonal antibody supply and that it would control distribution and then on September 14th, the announcement was more than 50% of the monoclonal antibodies that had been used in Florida were going to be reduced,” DeSantis said. Report Ad

“This is a dramatic reduction, and I’d say it’s doubly problematic because what Shane Strum and folks in Tampa General and these other hospital systems that have been doing this, they’re not getting it from the state.” 

DeSantis said that he is going to fight to ensure that Florida can “overcome the obstacles that HHS and the Biden administration are imposing on the state, per the Daily Wire.TrendingCitizen’s Group Leads Campaign to Remove Voting Machines

“To kind of pull the rug out from anyone a week after the president himself said they were going to be increasing the distributions by 50%, it’s very, very problematic,” he said. “What I am doing though, is we’re going to try to cover the bases.” 

DeSantis said he spoke to GlaxoSmithKline executives and thinks Florida will be able to order their new monoclonal antibody directly from the manufacturer so he won’t have to deal with Biden’s restrictions. 

Meanwhile, in Texas, Gov. Abbott shut down six ports of entry from Mexico to combat the influx of illegal immigrants crossing the border.

“The sheer negligence of the Biden Administration to do their job and secure the border is appalling,” Abbott said in a statement Thursday, per the Daily Wire. “I have directed the Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard to surge personnel and vehicles to shut down six points of entry along the southern border to stop these caravans from overrunning our state.” 

“The border crisis is so dire that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection is requesting our help as their agents are overwhelmed by the chaos,” he continued. ”Unlike President Biden, the State of Texas remains committed to securing our border and protecting Americans.” 

The Founding Fathers may have declared independence from Britain in 1776, but the real work of putting together the new government did not take place until the Constitutional Convention met between May and September of 1787 in the Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia. After the debate and work ended, and the delegates were leaving the hall, Elizabeth Powell, who was waiting in the crowd, is said to have asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

Sept. 17 marks Constitution Day, the anniversary of the Constitution’s ratification. It got me thinking: With all this talk of personal liberty, have we forgotten the importance of civic virtue?

The term liberty appears in the due process clauses of both the Fifth and 14th amendments. As used in the Constitution, liberty refers to freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Liberty from the government does not mean that citizens can just do whatever they want. The Founders understood this and tied liberty to the second tenet: civic virtue. Civic virtue is imperative for the success of any community. Closely linked to the concept of citizenship, civic virtue can be described as the dedication of citizens to the common welfare of their community even at the cost of their individual interests.

When the debate over masks and vaccines is viewed through the lens of liberty and civic virtue together, there really shouldn’t be any debate. We should be acting with the common welfare of our communities in mind.

There are plenty of examples of those who are not being their best selves. Many of these examples are taking place in schools and school board meetings. Here are a few more examples of “adults” putting their interpretation of personal liberty above civic duty and the welfare of our children:ADVERTISING

In California, a Sutter Creek Elementary School teacher was allegedly assaulted during an argument over a parent’s child having to wear a mask. “The teacher was bleeding,” Amador County Unified School District Superintendent Torie Gibson told a local television reporter. “He [the teacher] had some lacerations on his face, some bruising on his face, and a pretty good knot on the back of his head.” Gibson said the male parent verbally assaulted the school’s principal when his daughter walked out of a school building wearing a mask. When a male teacher stepped in, the situation escalated and a physical altercation happened, resulting in injuries.

Near Austin, Texas, Eanes Independent School District reported two events involving anti-mask parents. A parent allegedly grabbed the mask off of a teacher’s face. And in a separate incident, a teacher was repeatedly yelled at by a parent who complained about not being able to hear what a teacher was saying because the teacher was wearing a mask, which the parent wanted removed.

---

In Pennsylvania, a Central Bucks County school board member resigned over death threats he claims to have received over the battle of whether his public school district should require masks in elementary schools.

A high school student spoke at his Rutherford County, Tennessee, school board meeting. The student shared with the board the story of his grandmother, a former teacher in the district, who died of the coronavirus. The student said she died “because someone wasn’t wearing a mask.” Anti-maskers sitting in the crowd laughed and interrupted him.

The pandemic has caused Americans to lose their collective minds. Adults should be leading by example and teaching their children about the partnership between liberty and civic duty. Community leaders, elected officials, gatekeepers and parents should start calling out those whose behavior is beyond acceptable. Far too few Americans believe in — and practice — civic virtue. It is time to start telling those who don’t that this is not who we are.

Will we be able to keep this republic, as Franklin declared? Unless we can call out those who have seemingly forgotten civic virtue, I am not so sure.

President Trump is calling on Americans to push back against mandatory mask policies.

“We won’t go back. We won’t mask our children,” the former president said in a statement Tuesday night.

Earlier today the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that vaccinated Americans should resume wearing masks inside as well as in public places. The CDC also recommended children wear masks in school.

It marks a dramatic turn in the CDC’s policy regarding the China Virus. And it also raised more questions about why vaccinated people should need to wear a face covering.

“This is not a decision we at C.D.C. have made lightly. This weighs heavily on me,” Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, the agency’s director, said at a news briefing on Tuesday.

“Joe Biden and his Administration learned nothing from the last year,” Trump said. “Brave Americans learned how to safely and responsibly live and fight back.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted Americans who refuse to get vaccinated — comparing them to drunk drivers.

“It’s like drunk drivers, you don’t have the right to go out and drink and drive and put everybody else at risk including your own life,” Newsom said.

Trump urged Americans to stand firm.

“Don’t surrender to COVID. Don’t go back! Why do Democrats distrust the science? Don’t let this happen to our children or our country,” the president said.

 We’re in a cultural civil war and it’s time for conservatives—and really, anyone who’s not on board with the radical anti-American agenda of Black Lives Matter and the rest of the woke left—to fight back.

But how? I was light on specifics, and subsequently heard from a number of readers who wanted to know what they could do, personally, to push back against the leftward lurch of the culture. Many said they feel powerless and overwhelmed, and with good reason.

Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, the mainstream media, corporate America, and the entire Democratic Party (along with not a few Republicans and Independents) have all caved under pressure from the woke mob, more or less accepting the premise that America is fundamentally a racist country and an evil empire whose system of government and institutions need to be torn down.

In the face of all this, what are ordinary Americans who reject this radical view—and who represent a large majority of the country—supposed to do? Below I’ve listed a few ideas. This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list, not even close, but a starting point to begin thinking about how to re-order our lives, from our spending habits to our entertainment choices to our social activities, in a way that weakens support, even passive support, for institutions that embrace leftist radicalism.

1. Choose and Fund Alternatives to Public Schools

This is the big one. The problem of public schools of course deserves many columns and books—and has them—but you can’t leave it off any list of how to fight back. Public schools have become indoctrination centers for the woke left.

Just look at the hordes of college-educated protesters screaming Marxist nonsense at the police. What they learned in college has trickled down into our middle and high schools, even some of our elementary schools. Arguably the number one thing conservatives can do to preserve our constitutional system and save the republic is to educate their kids anywhere but in public school.

Obviously, not everyone can afford private school, and not everyone is able to home school. But now is the time to start thinking hard about educational alternatives.

Churches that don’t have a school need to explore what it would take to start one, or maybe a homeschool-private school hybrid. Parents should re-evaluate their finances and figure out whether other options might be possible, even if that means drastically cutting other spending or reducing income because one parent educates the kids.

All conservatives, whether you have kids or not, should donate to private schools that teach the virtues of the American Founding. All conservatives should make school choice a top policy item when election season comes around, and ask local and state political candidates about it. All conservatives should get involved in expanding educational alternatives of every kind. The future of the republic depends on it.

2. Shift Your Spending Away from Corporations that Hate You, Like Amazon

If you’re a conservative, understand that Amazon hates you (but loves communist China). Also understand that you don’t have to buy everything on Amazon.

That new can opener or garden hose you so desperately need? You can order pretty much whatever you need from Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, and so on. Many of these places will even deliver to your doorstep.

Will you pay a little more for it? Maybe. Will it come in three or four days instead of tomorrow? Yes. But if you can’t bear that miniscule inconvenience for the sake of your principles, then you don’t deserve America.

And if you don’t want to shop at big box stores like Walmart, there are plenty of other online retailer alternatives to Amazon like Ebay, Overstock, Rakuten, Newegg, and many others. The internet is a big place. Get out there.

Or you can go directly to a specific retailer’s website. Need a tent or a sleeping bag? Buy it directly from REI or Cabela’s. Need a book? Try Barnes & Noble—or better yet, find a local bookstore to support. If they don’t have what you want in stock, ask them to order it. You might have to wait a week like they did in the olden days, but you can use the extra time to re-read a favorite book, or take more walks, or literally do anything except buy stuff on Amazon.

3. In Fact, Just Stop Using Jeff Bezos’ Platforms Altogether

Speaking of Amazon, news broke Monday that streaming giant Twitch temporarily banned President Trump from its platform because of the president’s recent remarks at the Tulsa rally, which violated Twitch’s policy against “hateful conduct.”

Twitch is by far the world’s largest video game streaming platform. It’s practically a live-streaming monopoly. It’s also chock full of actually hateful content far worse than anything Trump said in Tulsa. Amazon acquired it in 2014 for a billion dollars.

If you’re tired of monopolistic tech firms arbitrarily banning major public figures from their platforms for speech they don’t like, and you use Twitch, then find another streaming platform like YouTube Gaming. (But maybe just stop streaming video games altogether?)

4. Google Also Hates You, So Stop Using It

If things like privacy and free speech are important to you, you might want to rethink how much you rely on Google products and companies. Gmail, for example, tracks your purchasing history from the receipts in your Gmail inbox. YouTube, which is wholly owned by Google, routinely censors conservative content under the guise that it’s “hate speech.”

Google of course has all kinds of double standards for conservatives. Earlier this month Google threatened to pull ads from The Federalist—not for anything we wrote, but for our comments section, which—you guessed it—violated their guidelines on hate speech. (The irony is that the comments section of YouTube is one of the most vile, hateful places on the internet.)

Also, you don’t have to Google everything. You can use Bing, Yahoo!, Searx, Qwant, DuckDuckGo, or any of the many other search engines out there. And you don’t have to use other Google products, like Gmail. There are a host of alternatives to Gmail, which honestly doesn’t even work that well. So get creative about not relying on Google for every little thing you do online.

5. Stop Using Facebook and Instagram

There are other ways to share photos of your cat with old high school classmates. Or maybe not, but so what? Facebook has a habit of banning people and groups who say things woke Facebook employees don’t like. Just this week the social media giant made headlines by banning hundreds of Facebook and Instagram accounts associated with the so-called boogaloo movement, which Facebook says promotes “violence against civilians, law enforcement, and government officials and institutions.”

You might think that means Facebook will also be banning accounts associated with Antifa, which also promotes and carries out violence against civilians and law enforcement, but you’d be wrong. That’s not how this works. Facebook did, however, ban a Trump campaign ad attacking Antifa on the absurd pretext that an Antifa symbol used in the ad was actually a Nazi symbol.

This kind of double standard is commonplace at Facebook. Another example: back in April, Facebook banned a bunch of users from organizing “events that defy government’s guidance on social distancing.” So no using Facebook to organize lockdown protests. You might therefore assume Facebook would also ban users from organizing Black Lives Matter protests that defy government’s guidance on social distancing, but again, you’d be wrong.

Seemingly Small Things Matter

These all might seem like small things, to stop using Amazon and Google and Facebook, or to start advocating for school choice, or to patronize local businesses over giant corporations. But we have to start somewhere. Calling your local elected officials and demanding they enforce the law and arrest rioters is all well and good, but often those local officials don’t care what you say because they’re more afraid of the mob than they are of law-abiding conservatives.

So we begin with small things, and we build. The left didn’t take over American mainstream culture overnight, and taking it back won’t happen overnight. But we have to begin, now, each of us in our own private lives, in all our small choices. No one is going to save the republic for us, so let’s get started.

Oh, and one more thing you can do—fly an American flag in your yard this Fourth of July.

Are the Democrats trying to destroy the American work ethic?

While some employers may be struggling to hire for one reason or another, economists say generous unemployment benefits are not the cause.

As the U.S. economy bounces back from the COVID-induced downturn, some employers say they’re having a hard time finding workers. GOP lawmakers like Rep. David Rouzer (N.C.) blame the safety net.

“This is what happens when you extend unemployment benefits too long and add a $1400 stimulus payment,” Rouzer said on Twitter last week, posting a photo from a Hardee’s that said it was closed for lack of staff. “Right when employers need workers to fully open back up, few can be found.”

It’s a dubious argument. Republicans said this same thing last year when Congress passed a big relief bill that added $600 per week to state unemployment benefits for four months.

Democrats “are going to make the next four months impossible for small businesses to hire,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

“This bill creates an incentive for people to be unemployed for the next four months,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said the benefits would “knock this nation still harder in the coming months by unintentionally increasing unemployment.”

At the time, millions of workers were losing their jobs every week, and nobody knew how bad things would get. But a few weeks after the initial lockdowns, businesses started recalling workers, millions returned to their jobs despite the extra benefits, and the jobless rate plunged. A spate of academic studies found the extra benefits weren’t stopping people from going back to work after all.

At $300 per week, the federal supplement is half what it was last year, but the criticism is twice as intense even though the previous doomsaying didn’t pan out.

“People get paid more not to work than to work,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told HuffPost, referring to the extra federal benefits. “Economists talk about that, but anecdotally, it’s clear.”

It’s true that the benefits amount to more than prior wages for some workers. It’s just that the extra money doesn’t seem to have held workers back.

The unemployment complaint fits a broader Republican argument that Democrats under President Joe Biden are out to destroy the American work ethic with their proposals for new parent benefits and affordable child care.

“Think about what the Democrats have done,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House Republican leader, tweeted over the weekend. “They have demonized work so Americans would become dependent on big government.”

While some employers may be struggling to hire for one reason or another right now, economists say generous unemployment benefits are not the cause.

If demand for workers were exceeding supply, then the price of labor would be shooting up. But as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said last week, overall wage growth hasn’t increased. “We don’t see wages moving up yet, and presumably we would see that in a really tight labor market,” Powell said at a press conference. “And we may well start to see that.”

For now, unemployment remains elevated, at 6%, compared to 3.5% before the pandemic, and there were 4 million more unemployed people in March 2021 than in February 2020. That data reflects people who are trying to find jobs, not those who have removed themselves from the workforce for a number of reasons, like a lack of child care. Yet some business owners still say there are no willing workers out there.

Chef Andrew Gruel, owner of the Slapfish restaurant franchise, took to Twitter last week to declare “there are no employees available in California.” Gruel said his eateries were offering $21 per hour but couldn’t find any takers. The top reason? “They are making enough on unemployment and would rather not work.”

William Spriggs isn’t buying that. The chief economist at the AFL-CIO labor federation, Spriggs said it is “self-evident” that millions of people are trying to find work. Just because an employer hasn’t found them yet ― at the wages the employer is willing to pay ― doesn’t mean the workers aren’t out there.

Spriggs said the normal hiring networks that employers rely on were blown up by the pandemic. Some employers who received forgivable government loans were able to keep their workers on the payroll, but many firms simply let them go during lockdown. A year later many of those workers have taken other jobs, moved on or even died.

“They tend to recruit using networks ― friends and relatives of people they already hire,” Spriggs said. “And the problem when we decided we would handle this by separating people from their employer is we broke up those networks.”

Workers understand that unemployment benefits do not last forever, Spriggs noted. The federal benefits will expire in the fall.

He also said employers may be reluctant to pay the “market clearing wage” ― the pay necessary to attract workers to all the available work, especially at a time when many jobs have become more difficult and stressful due to the pandemic. “Then they get shocked when they try to expand and find out, ‘I have to raise my wage,’” Spriggs said.

(HuffPost tried to ask the Hardee’s restaurant in Rouzer’s tweet how much it had raised its starting pay to attract new workers, but no one answered the phone there.)

Powell, for his part, acknowledged some employers may be struggling to find people who want to work for them. He said workers might be wary of virus exposure, or are running into other obstacles to returning to work. In other words, there’s still a plague going on.

“One big factor would be schools aren’t open yet, so there are people who are at home taking care of their children that would like to be back in the workforce, but can’t be yet,” he said.

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, many employers lamented that they couldn’t find workers, even amid high levels of unemployment, prompting some commentators to proclaim a lack of skills among American workers. (The federal government wasn’t boosting weekly jobless pay at the time.)

“But what we saw was that labor supply generally showed up,” Powell recalled. “In other words, if you were worried about running out of workers, it seemed like we never did, you know?”

The loudest complaints of a worker shortage now seem to come from restaurants, as more people resume their pre-pandemic dining-out habits thanks to widespread vaccination. 

The National Restaurant Association, an industry lobbying group, says a variety of factors, not just benefits, contribute to hiring difficulties. “With fewer people in the workforce, the stimulus supports still in place, worker safety concerns, the need for caregivers to remain at home, and much greater competition with other industries for workers, operators are returning to pre-pandemic recruitment techniques for hiring,” the association’s Hudson Riehle said in a statement.

Wages may have risen a bit faster than average this year in the hospitality industry, according to the government’s employment cost index, though state minimum wage laws may have played a role. In general, restaurant work doesn’t pay very much, with median wages around $11 for servers in 2020, compared to more than $20 across all occupations.

Many restaurant jobs are also much different than they used to be, with more outside seating, for example, plus masks and new cleaning protocols. Not to mention new risks of getting sick. Some restaurant workers recently told Eater that they are willing to work ― they just want pay that reflects the hazards.

It’s difficult to square the notion of a shortage of food service workers with the strong job growth in that industry, said Heidi Shierholz, former chief economist at the Labor Department now with the Economic Policy Institute. Dining and drinking establishments added 176,000 jobs in March, the biggest gain in any sector. 

“I’m sure that labor supply is lower than it would be if we didn’t have COVID, but that doesn’t mean there’s a labor shortage,” Shierholz said.

Cary Christiansen, of Topsfield, Massachusetts, worked as a varsity softball coach before the pandemic. She said the job hasn’t come back yet, but summer league will start in June; she’s also applied for another job as a dispatcher and is waiting to hear back.

In the meantime, Christiansen, 55, said she and her husband have been able to pay their mortgage and make car payments thanks to unemployment benefits, but that other bills, including for health insurance, have gone unpaid. She’s expanded her garden and started raising chickens, but still needs to find a job, and could wind up back in the restaurant industry, something she said she hasn’t done since 1986.

“If this other job doesn’t pan out in the local community I’m just going to go back to bartending,” she said.

Lately, Democrats have been talking a lot about “what’s at stake.” Want to know what’s at stake? A booming economy, safer communities, and a strong military.

When everyday Americans look at their bigger paychecks or the “now hiring” signs in their hometowns, they have only one party to thank for that.

Spoiler: it isn’t the Democrats. No, they fought us every step of the way as we worked to help everyone in this country have a chance at a better life.

When we rolled back regulations that were hurting families and small business owners, they voted NO.  When we overhauled an outdated tax code so that workers and families could get ahead, they voted NO. And they had plenty of chances to help us with border security, and they always voted NO.

And now that Americans are feeling confident, strong, and hopeful — they want to take that all away.

So, what’s really at stake? Here are 10 things Democrats want to take away from the American people:

1. Your bigger paycheck 

90 percent of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks thanks to the new withholding tables under the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act. The average family of four received a tax cut of $2,059.

On top of that, more than four million people received more than $4 billion in bonuses as companies invested their own tax cuts into their workers.  

Instead of celebrating with the American people, Democrats looked down on them, calling their bonuses and tax cuts “crumbs.”

While a $1,000 bonus and $2,059 tax cut may be nothing to a millionaire from San Francisco, this extra income gave many families the chance to get ahead when for so long they were barely getting by — that money went towards groceries, bills, saving for a rainy day, or taking a much-needed family vacation.

---

2. Jobs

Unemployment is at a historic low, especially for blacks and Hispanics — the lowest on record!

3.7 million jobs have been created here in the United States since President Trump’s election — 1 million of those since the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act became law.

In addition to unemployment numbers being at their lowest point in decades, job openings are at a record high — 213,000 jobs were added in June alone. And in June there were 6.7 million job openings, marking the second time since 2000 that there have been more job openings than those who are unemployed.

While everyday Americans feel that now is a great time to find a job, Democrats scoff at these numbers. They miss the good ol’ days of 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth, and bleakness like we had in 2010 under the Obama administration.

---

3. Opportunities for families and people with disabilities  

The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act wasn’t just about cutting rates. Included in the legislation was a nearly doubled standard deduction to allow families to keep more of their money. If you’re single, you won’t pay taxes on your first $12,000 in income. If you’re married, that bumps up to $24,000. For comparison, this second figure was previously only $12,700.

We expanded the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $2,000 ($1,400 of which is refundable), preserved the Adoption Tax Credit, and expanded 529 savings accounts for K-12 education. These all provide extra cushion that will help cover the costs of childcare and other expenses, including a $500 non-refundable credit for non-child dependents.

The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act also included provisions to help individuals with disabilities. With the ABLE Financial Planning Act, families who were saving for tuition in 529 plans can now roll over the amount to qualified ABLE accounts tax free.

With the ABLE to Work Act, an ABLE beneficiary who earns income for a job is able (pun intended) to save up to the Federal Poverty Level, which is currently $12,140, in addition to their annual contribution limit of $14,000. This will be really helpful for individuals with disabilities who want to work but cannot contribute to an employer retirement savings plan.

On top of this, the ABLE to Work Act makes ABLE account contributions eligible for what’s known as the “Saver’s Credit.”  This little-known tax credit allows individuals to take a credit of up to $2,000, or $4,000 if filing jointly, to save more money. If you’re low income, the more you save, the more credit you claim.

Why did Democrats vote AGAINST this? This is hardly “crumbs.”

---

4. Community investments

Those “tax breaks for corporations” that Democrats continue to harp on about? They not only allowed small businesses to expand and gave millions of everyday Americans bonuses and benefits — they meant major investments in communities across the country.

Centennial Bolt in Colorado is using tax savings to combat homelessness in Denver. The money they saved was invested in a new 150-bed women’s shelter.

In the Pacific Northwest, Premera pledges $250M of tax cut to health coverage and charity. They’re using their tax savings to expand rural access to health care and combat homelessness. That includes a $1 million grant to Hope House in Spokane, Washington to build a new women’s shelter.

Want to see what other companies did with their tax savings? Check out this list of charitable donations. Can you believe Democrats voted against making all that possible?

Additionally, Democrats voted against creating Opportunity Zones in the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act. Opportunity Zones provide tax incentives to invest in low-income communities– nearly 35 million Americans who live in these communities could see benefits.

---

5. Community banks

With all their tough talk about corporations, you’d think Democrats would want to prioritize small town banks over “Big Banks.” To be fair, they do try. But often with disastrous results. Remember Dodd-Frank? The goal was to protect Americans from bailouts, financial fraud, and abusive banking. It was going to be tough on Wall Street, and give Main Street a fighting chance against the 1%.  

To understand the damage Dodd-Frank has done, think of those goals we just listed…then do the exact opposite.

Instead of being tough on Wall Street, Dodd-Frank put many on Main Street out of business. Community banks and credit unions didn’t have the resources to navigate the regulations, so they became “too small to succeed.” It had gotten so bad that we were losing an average of one community bank or credit union every single day. And without this competition, big banks became even bigger than they were before. Oops!

So Republicans took action. While the Senate Democrats blocked our Financial CHOICE Act, we still managed to repeal portions of Dodd-Frank with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) and with a Congressional Review Act resolution, we rolled back some of the worst regulations that resulted from this terrible 2010 bill.

Democrats put Dodd-Frank in place, and after seeing the damage it did, most voted AGAINST repealing it. That’s what’s at stake.

---

6. Freedom from red tape

Speaking of Congressional Review Act resolutions, we passed 17 and 16 have been signed into law — the most in U.S. history.

What does this mean? It means Republicans voted to protect the American people from the last-minute tidal wave of regulations that the Obama administration put in place in the final days of his presidency. Everything from land management to education to buying a car — nothing was safe from the heavy hand of a Democrat-led government.

These regulations were hurting workers, small business owners, even universities, and rolling them back was one of the first actions we took when Republicans took control. We’ve cut $4.1 billion in agency costs, $34.8 billion in industry costs, and saved  more than four million hours of paperwork.

Republicans believe that everyday Americans know better than the federal government how to live their lives, run their businesses, and raise their families. They don’t need a bureaucrat in the basement of the Department of Labor telling them what to do.

The Democrats? Well, the vast majority did vote NO on all of these regulatory rollbacks….

---

7. Military readiness

After a decade of cuts under the Obama administration, our military was in shambles. With terror threats on the rise, this is the worst time for our defense capabilities to be weakened, but Democrats still allowed for too many ships to be unable to sail and too many planes to be unable to fly.

This neglect has a human toll. More service members die in training accidents than in combat. Our self-imposed readiness crisis is hurting our troops and their families, and Republicans have been leading the effort to rebuild the military.

---

8. Rule of law and border security

While Democrats introduce legislation to abolish ICE, Republicans are focused on keeping our communities safe. That starts with border security and upholding the laws.

Multiple bills, including the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization Act, are strengthening our border security, better enforcing immigration laws, and targeting dangerous gangs like MS-13.

Our work continues and as Republicans have those courageous conversations about how to best secure our borders, Democrats merely sit back and say NO, NO, NO to any ideas we have and advocate for open borders. And they want to talk about what’s at stake?

---

9. VA accountability

When a veteran contacts the VA, they should have the red carpet rolled out for them. We passed the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, which created a streamlined and efficient process to remove, demote or suspend any VA employee for poor performance or misconduct. Additionally, the VA MISSION Act consolidated the VA’s multiple community care programs and authorities and provides further funding to sustain the Choice Program so veterans can get the care they earned and deserve.

But let’s not forget why these bills were necessary in the first place.

Under the Obama administration’s ineffective leadership, veterans died waiting in line at the VA, never having the chance to see a doctor. Where was the oversight? A disgusted and horrified Republican-led Congress passed legislation to address the culture and lack of oversight within the agency, which the Obama VA later gutted and rendered effectively useless. With President Trump’s VA, and this unified Republican government, we are working to fulfill our promises to our heroes and return the VA to its sole mission: serving veterans.

---

10. Your chance at a better life

Everything Republicans have been working on since we rolled out our Better Way agenda two years ago has been with one goal in mind: help the American people have the chance at a better life.

For too long, families and workers alike have been languishing under a mountain of red tape, a stagnant economy, and feelings of fear as terrorist activity threatened our way of life.

We aren’t just rolling back regulations and unleashing the economy — we’re breaking free from the damage Democrats have done to this country. And while they continue to fight us every step of the way, Republicans won’t stop focusing on the American people’s priorities and keeping our promises. Our booming economy, safer communities, and stronger military are proof of that.

The Left Hopes to Destroy Christianity by Changing It

The United States “is a Christian nation.” These words seem shocking today, but they were part of the 1892 Supreme Court decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States.  They were penned by Justice    David J. Brewer as he wrote for the majority.

President Harry Truman once said, “We must never forget that this country was founded by men who came to these shores to worship God as they pleased.  Catholics, Jews, and Protestants, all came here for this great purpose.  They did not come here to do as they pleased — but to worship God as they pleased, and that is an important distinction.”

Historically, worshiping God has not been a partisan issue in the United States.  It was generally taught across this land that our nation was founded by those who sought freedom to worship as they chose and who built what we now call a Judeo-Christian heritage.

Mark David Hall of the Heritage Foundation wrote in 2011, “My contention is merely that orthodox Christianity had a very significant influence on America’s Founders and that this influence is often overlooked by students of the American Founding.”

Now, though, a simple search of the phrase “Judeo-Christian” will elicit multiple articles declaring that the phrase is meaningless and outdated.  As frustrating as that is, what’s more appalling is the Left’s desire to erode our country’s Judeo-Christian foundation and to minimize the influence of the Christian faith.

The Left’s assault of the Christian faith is three-pronged.  First, leftists seek to redefine what it means to be a Christian.  Next, they seek to silence Christian voices in the arena of public discussion.  Third, they want to elevate the ideas of non-Christians to change traditional thinking.  Hard to believe, but let’s look.

The Left wants to change the way culture sees Christianity.  We see it on several fronts.  The Left wants to divide the church about what is right and wrong.  The United Methodists are ready to split on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”  There’s a push among a small but loud faction of liberal voices that declare themselves “exvangelicals,” who resist the church’s stance of LGBT issues and abortion but want to retain and redefine what it means to be a Christian in 2019.

In redefining Christianity, they want to shift the emphasis from a changed life to doing what they define as societal good.  Presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) of South Bend, Ind. is attempting to put a new spin on the “old time religion.”  Kirsten Powers writes, “Does the country need an awakening of the Christian left? Presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg thinks so.”  In Buttigieg’s understanding of the Christian faith, since Jesus never specifically mentioned abortion, we shouldn’t spend so much time on it.  In his view, most of Scripture points to “defending the poor, and the immigrant, and the stranger, and the prisoner, and the outcast, and those who are left behind by the way society works.”  Buttigieg, as a gay man, is a staunch supporter of LGBT rights and thinks the church’s view on them should change.  For Mayor Pete and those who think as he does, Christianity is about not transformed lives, but rather a social gospel and agenda.

As the left redefines what Christianity is, it also wants to shame and silence those who are Christians.  Curtis Wong, in a Huffington Post column, wrote, “New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees faced a barrage of criticism this week after appearing in a video promoting an event organized by an evangelical Christian group known for its anti-LGBTQ stance.”  Wong continued, “Brees partnered with Focus on the Family to promote ‘Bring Your Bible to School Day,’ now in its sixth year and slated for Oct. 3.  The athlete encouraged students to ‘share God’s love with friends’ in a 22-second video.”

The “barrage of criticism” Wong mentions was more like a hate-storm.  Newspaper columns, tweets, and blog posts blasted the Saints quarterback for speaking out for a Focus on the Family event that encouraged students to bring their Bibles to school.  That was it.  There was no hidden agenda, nothing about any other social issue.  Just bring your Bible to school.  The Left, though, has no tolerance for Focus on the Family, whom leftists describe, as Wong did, as “anti-LGBTQ.”  So anything Focus on the Family does is inherently evil, and those who work with or for it must be shamed and silenced.

When Focus on the Family’s president, Jim Daly, defended Brees, he rightly spoke of how the Left views any disagreement as hate.  Patheos, an atheist website, responded, “Daly treats his critics as people unable to handle a different opinion.  That’s a complete lie.  That’s a Christian lie.  A difference of opinions might accurately describe which baseball team will win the World Series or whether a movie is really as good as people say.  Whether or not LGBTQ people deserve civil rights is not about a difference of opinions.  Rejecting their humanity isn’t showing respect.”  It’s hard to see how opposing the attempted redefinition of marriage is denying anyone’s humanity, but that’s not the issue.  It’s about shaming and silencing those who think differently.

As they seek to redefine the Christian faith and silence those who hold to a traditional or historic view, they seek to minimize Christianity’s voice in the public arena.

On August 24, 2019, the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution that celebrates the role of non-Christians in the Democratic Party while attacking those who adhere to what the Bible teaches.

The Democrats and those on the Left believe that the number of those who classify themselves as having no faith is growing, and they seem to like it.  They also acknowledge that this is a group that overwhelmingly agrees with the Democrats’ beliefs on same-sex “marriage” and open borders.  The Democrats seem proud that their plan for America cannot be connected with traditional Christianity.  

The resolution also asserts, without supporting evidence, that the non-Christians have been subject to bias and exclusion in American society, especially in policymaking.  The intent of this part is not to address acts of bias against people.  There aren’t any.  It’s an attempt to unwind the Judeo-Christian heritage upon which this nation was built.  The Democrats of 2019 believe that America has had too much God, Christianity, and faith in her history.  The Democrats want to unravel that by emphasizing worldviews that do not put God at the center.

Remaking Christianity seems to be part of the Left’s plan to remake America.  Kind of sheds a new light on 2020.

The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore (shown) warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive. Other experts such as Craig Rucker, the executive director of the environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also sounded the alarm about the “green” proposal in Congress, comparing it to Soviet five-year plans and calling it a “prescription for disaster.”   

The so-called Green New Deal is a massive scheme to, among other goals, restructure the U.S. economy. It is being advanced by a coalition of radical communist and socialist Democrats in Congress led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). A resolution (H. Res. 109) “recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal (GND)” already has 67 co-sponsors in the House. If the scheme outlined in the resolution expressing the “sense of the House” is implemented, it would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the use of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO2 — an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants — over the coming decade.

Moore, who was one of six international directors of Greenpeace, was flabbergasted that something so ludicrous could even be proposed, much less be advanced in the U.S. government. “It is quite amazing that someone that is in government — actually elected to the government of the United States of America — would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he said in an on-camera interview with The New American from Canada. “This would basically result, if we did it on a global level, it would result in the decimation of the human population from 7-odd billion down to who knows how few people.” It would end up killing almost everyone on the planet, he added.

Worse than mass death would be the way people reacted. “It would basically begin a process of cannibalization among the human species, because the food could not be delivered to the stores in the middle of the cities anymore,” Moore continued. “The point that bothers me the most is that if you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There is no other source for heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You could use animal dung, if there were any animals left, but the animals would all die too because they would all get eaten.”  

Moore also slammed the “social aspects” of the Green New Deal proposals such as “paying people who are unwilling to work,” according to a FAQ released by Ocasio-Cortez’ office. “I can’t believe that anyone would write that in a proposal for law in the United States of America,” he said, calling it “just unbelievable.” Indeed, that language and other half-baked ideas caused nationwide ridicule of Ocasio-Cortez and others involved in pushing the “New Deal.” The ridicule got so intense that one of its proponents eventually lied, claiming that mischievous Republicans might have put out a fake Green New Deal document to make Democrats look ridiculous. But then the truth came out, despite the FAQ being removed from Cortez’s congressional website.

But the absurdity of it all may be a boost to Republicans and President Donald Trump. “We have a situation where something completely preposterous is being backed by a large number of Democratic congressional elected representatives in the United States of America,” Moore said. “This is actually going to put Trump right over the top. I cannot see how this can possibly be negative for him. It can only be positive, because people recognize when something is preposterous. And I think that is the best word for it.”

Speaking at a conference put on by the Economic Education Association of Alberta over the weekend, Moore also explained that so much of what climate alarmists were pushing was pseudo-science and easily discredited lies. For instance, carbon dioxide is actually doing great things in terms of greening the planet — after all, it is plant food, Moore said. He also lambasted those who say coral reefs are dying due to alleged man-made global warming, something he said was not true. Noting that trucks need hydrocarbon fuels to bring produce to market in cities, Dr. Moore explained that just that one problem alone would be absolutely catastrophic if CO2 emissions were ended.

Moore has since left the Greenpeace he helped found, because it left him. When the group was founded, “we wanted to save civilization, we didn’t want to destroy it,” he told The New American. “By the time I left Greenpeace, it had drifted into a situation in which all they had left was the green. They kind of dropped the peace, which was the human side of the situation. And now they were characterizing people as the enemies of the Earth — the human species as the enemies of nature, as if we were the only evil species.”

One of the most outrageous campaigns by Greenpeace, Moore said, was when the leadership — which had no formal science education — decided to try to ban chlorine use worldwide. “Yes, chlorine can be toxic, it was used as a weapon in World War I,” he said. “But the fact that it is toxic is why it is the most important element in public health and medicine. Adding it to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health … that has saved hundreds of millions of lives through the time that we learned to use chlorine as an anti-bacterial agent.” Nature, he added, is full of toxic materials.              

In his own keynote address at the conference, CFACT’s Rucker — who famously boarded Greenpeace ships to “punk” them with propaganda banners reading “ship of lies” and “propaganda warrior” — explained that much of the environmentalist movement has it backwards. The real key to preserving the environment, he said, is free markets, private property, and prosperity. Poor nations do not have the resources to protect the environment. And socialist-ruled nations have the worst environmental track-records of all. Meanwhile, freer and wealthier nations such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe have remarkably clean environments.

In an interview with The New American, Rucker celebrated freedom. “What’s good for people is good for nature,” he said, calling for pro-growth policies that benefit people rather than government-enforced scarcity. “It’s like the old Chinese proverb: When there is food on the table, there are many problems; when there is no food on the table, there is one problem. Societies that do not take care of their people don’t have the resources to take care of the planet.”

Rucker, a top leader of the non-totalitarian environmental movement, also slammed the “Green New Deal” being advanced in Congress. “It is a horrible idea,” he said, blasting the original New Deal as well. “But I actually think it is more like the Soviet 5-year plan…. They want to be off fossil fuels within 10 years. That is insane. It is not that we are embracing fossil fuels, but this is a government-driven objective much like the old Soviet plans were government-driven objectives. It is going to fail. And the problem is, it is going to take a lot of people down with it… This is going to really hurt people. It is a prescription for disaster.”

Citing University of Maryland business Professor Julian Simon, Rucker used a hillarious example to illustrate the point. If the ideology of the sustainable-development movement were used 100 years ago, there would be great concern about where humanity was going to get enough whale oil to use as lighting. But of course, since then, electricity and light bulbs have taken the place of whale oil, thereby eliminating the alleged prospect of resources running out. The same concept applies to other resources, too, he said. When the price goes up due to scarcity, people will find substitutes and new ways of getting what they need — at least they will if markets are allowed to operate. “People are not just mouths, they are also hands and a brain,” he said.  

He also drew a distinction between the “conservation” ethic, in which man is included in how to protect the planet, and the “preservation” ethic and the “Deep Green ecology” that views man as a “virus on the planet” that needs to be removed. Obviously, efforts to conserve nature should have the well-being of man in mind, he said.

Rucker and Moore both served at keynote speakers at the annual “FreedomTalk” conference hosted by Economic Education Association of Alberta. This writer gave a speech focusing on the indoctrination of children taking place in public schools — and particularly the implications of it for freedom. Other speakers highlighted the problems with the man-made global-warming hypothesis, the looming public pension disaster, and much more.

Democrats’ Openly Alinsky Tactics Are Destroying America

Don’t look now, but the Democrats are about to self-destruct. I wouldn’t mind that so much, really, except they’ll take our entire country down with them. This is not a new phenomenon. The Plan has been decades in the making.

In the sixties, a little-known couple wrote a series of strategy papers that were intentionally designed to transform America into a socialist country. Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven (aka Cloward-Piven) have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They called the first of their papers, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”. The Plan: to overwhelm our welfare systems by flooding them with new recipients, in need or not. Its stated end goal was to create enough chaos that would necessitate a “guaranteed annual income” for all. That means that even those who don’t work would “earn” a living. Democratic Socialists have been demanding this for years. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has recently signaled her approval of a similar “Universal Basic Income” plan. Under former President Barack Obama, our welfare rolls and food stamp recipients swelled. Our country was headed for certain bankruptcy. All was part of The Plan.

In my book, Rules for Deplorables: A Primer for Fighting Radical Socialism, I noted that this wasn’t Cloward-Pivens’ only scheme to create chaos in our country and destroy our foundational systems.https://lockerdome.com/lad/11218044475400806?pubid=ld-9563-7043&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Ftherevolutionaryact.com&rid=duckduckgo.com&width=580

In 1982, they devised a similar plot for overwhelming our voter rolls. It was called “‘A Movement Strategy to Transform the Democratic Party,’… ‘They sought to do to the voting system what they had previously done to the welfare system…[f]lood the polls with millions of new voters…The result would be a catastrophic disruption of America’s electoral system, the authors predicted.’” (Rules For Deplorables, pg. 236) Not surprisingly, today’s Democratic Socialists are calling for an end to the Electoral College. That would clearly swing votes in their favor for decades to come.

That Cloward-Piven “movement led to the so-called Motor-Voter law, which President Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993 … eliminate[ing] many controls on voter fraud, making it easy for voters to register but difficult to determine the validity of new registrations.” (Rules For Deplorables, pg. 238)

Cloward-Piven “predicted that ‘the flood of new voters would provoke a backlash from Democrats and Republicans alike, who would join forces to disenfranchise the unruly hordes, using such expedients as purging invalid voters from the rolls, imposing cumbersome registration procedures, stiffening residency requirements, and so forth.’ What Cloward-Piven had not predicted was that Democrats would join the evil plan in their own self-interest. That really changed the game.” (Rules For Radicals, pg. 237) Today it’s the Republicans who are actively fighting to keep our elections fair.

While Cloward-Piven wrote the blueprint for creating the chaos needed to transform America into socialism, with help from the Democrats, it was the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, who provided the means. In his 1970s blockbuster book, Rules for Radicals, he outlined thirteen tactics to help the left realize their goal. Rules for Deplorables is the counterbalance to Alinsky’s book. Each chapter highlights one Alinsky tactic. The use of current events, as manipulated by each tactic, gives the reader perspective. 

There is no better example to explain the multiple hoaxes perpetrated against President Donald J. Trump than Alinsky Tactic #13: “pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”. Since his election in 2016, Trump has become the left’s favorite “target” simply because he loves our Constitution, understands it’s under attack, and wants to preserve it. 

Over the past three years we have witnessed the attempted coup of the 45^th President of the United States of America … a takeover of our government by a disgruntled minority unhappy with the results of a fair, democratic election. Whichever political party one subscribes to, this should be alarming to us all. Incredibly, it’s not.

The travesty of Trump’s treatment as President is a culmination of years of complicit partnering between the far left socialists and the Democratic Party. They no longer even hide self-identifying as Socialists. There is no turning back for them. They’ve spent decades tearing down our country’s moral fiber. Obama nearly succeeded in completely transforming America from its originally-intended Republic to a down-sized, socialistic version. We were well on our way to Third World status in a globalist world, until Trump came along. The left will not give up those gains without a fight. To them, this is war. Our duly-elected President is simply collateral damage. 

Alinsky taught that, when the stakes are high, one must fight by using any means necessary. Ethics be damned. The left and the Democratic Party have proven they are strong adherents to that ideology in their attacks against Trump. Republicans can no longer win by playing with the old “kinder, gentler, more compassionate” rules of politics.

Had Ted Cruz won in 2016 — or Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, or even Jeb Bush — he would have become the left’s “target”. No one would have stood up to the Democrat Left like President Trump has. We should be grateful for that.

“Freezing” Trump in the spotlight for continuous bashing would have been anyone else’s fate, too, had they gotten in the way of The Plan.

“Personalizing” Trump as a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, liar, obstructionist, sexist, etc., would have extended to the others, as well, had they been elected instead. And, if anyone believes the other candidates would not have been attacked as ferociously as Trump has been, they don’t understand the left and Alinsky tactics.

The final directive of Alinsky’s thirteenth tactic is the one that will determine the ultimate outcome of the impeachment vote. By “polarizing” Trump, the Democratic Left hopes to separate him from his own base, Independents and moderate Democrats who supported him in 2016. If successful, and a Democrat should win the 2020 election, our country will very likely not recover for generations to come. Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, take note.

What we have been subjected to every day for the past three years has nothing to do with illegal activity on the part of our President. It’s all been an Alinsky sideshow to distract from the egregiously criminal wrong-doings by Democrats.

There was no Trump-Russia collusion, as the two-year Mueller investigation reported. Just as there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the Ukrainian phone call. Certainly nothing that deserves impeachment. On the other hand, illegal spying, fake documents, unlawful leaking, blatant lies, outright treason, manufactured whistleblowers, and real Ukrainian bribery have all been perpetrated by Democrats. They must be held accountable if our country is to survive.

The Democrat Left creates complicated sideshows, like the Trump-Russia fiasco and the impeachment scam, to keep the spotlight on Trump. It’s a way to deflect from their own criminal acts that damage our country while enriching themselves. 

Alinsky Tactic Number 3 gives them the perfect cover: “whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.” In other words, the more convoluted the sideshow, the less likely Americans are to follow. They’re right about that.

As socialists begin their power grabs, their message is always one of inclusion for the “common good” or “social justice.” Once they gain power, all that changes.

When America’s Democratic Socialists achieve power in perpetuity (the ultimate prize for all socialists), the glorified version of socialism they disingenuously promoted, will end. Moderate Democrats will be phased out of the Party. The Supreme Court will be flooded with leftists, as has already been proposed. Our Constitution will be diluted. Guns will be confiscated. Conservatives will be silenced, re-educated or imprisoned. The majority will no longer have a voice. And, our country will not recover during our lifetimes.

If you don’t believe me, just ask someone from Venezuela, the once-richest country in Latin America. In just twelve years after electing their “Democratic Socialist” President Hugo Chavez in 1999, that’s exactly what happened to them. Today they are the poorest, with little sign of recovery. The once-promised Medicare for all has morphed into abandoned, empty hospitals without electricity or medical staff to run them. Private industry, confiscated by the government, no longer produces needed items for mere survival. Store shelves are bare. Clean water is rare. Toilet paper is non-existent. The once-thriving oil producers have been driven into the ground by greedy bureaucrats. If you think that can’t happen here, you are wrong. We can be silent no more.

The impeachment plot has nothing to do with Trump’s guilt or innocence. It has everything to do with the destruction of America the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be.

Think about that the next time you tell somebody you wish Trump wouldn’t act so “un-presidential”. Or, tweet so much. That is exactly how the left is trying to make you react. Don’t fall for it. Stop blaming Trump for the made-up accusations against him. Every time you do, you diminish Trump’s power and embolden the left. If we “polarize” ourselves from this President because of the left’s manipulative tactics, there will be no one left to save us.

America, today, is a country deeply divided by two opposing views. Those who understand what’s at stake, and those who don’t. We who do, stand 100% behind Trump. If you are one who believes socialism will never happen in our country, wake up. The signs are all around us and approaching fast. This is not the time to waiver. There is no reason for division. No place for blame. No room for mistakes. It’s time to take a stand and fight for America, before it’s too late. 

How long have we been at War with the Forces of Jihad?

When asked how long we have been at war with the forces of Jihad, they will since say 9/11/2001. Well they couldn’t be more wrong. To find the real answer you have to go back to the birth of our nation. When were colonies under the protection of the British Empire and navy we were safe from the Barbary Pirates of North Africa. Soon after we won our freedom from the British Empire, we were also introduced to the realities of the real world. In 1785 Mohammed, the Ottoman dey of Algiers declared war on the United States. This signaled that the Muslim-crewed corsairs patrolling the Mediterranean were now free to attack American ships. He sensed that we would be easy pickings. He was right. Our country was broke, we lacked the funds to build a long-range naval force to protect our merchant fleet. We also could not pay the exorbitant tribute to the Barbary States that would guarantee the safe passage of American ships. The pirates were subsequently able wreck havoc with our merchant fleet.

When our Secretary of State at the time John Adams sent a letter Sidi Haji Abdrahaman the following letter his reply was quite illuminating.

Adams: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who have done us no wrong, nor given us any provocation.

Abdrahaman: It was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

By 1801 we had built a fleet sufficient enough in size to engage the Barbary Pirate fleet and so began the First Barbary War which subsequently lasted until 1805. It wouldn’t be until the Second Barbary War which lasted from 1815 to 1816, that were finally free from scourge of the Barbary Nation.

If you know anything about a jihad movement, once it is declared it never goes away. So in essence the Jihadists have been waging war against us since 1785. While they may state that it was due to religious differences, we now know that it was purely an economic reason. Because if you analyze the ambassadors reply, you realize that it was totally unrealistic. There would have never been an issue if we had been able to pay the tribute.

Resources

Does our Government want our Life Expectancy to decrease?

seguetech.com, “The Impact of the Increase in Life Expectancy,” by Segue Technologies; everydayhealth.com, “How Will the Longevity Boom Impact Our World?” By Regina Boyle Wheeler; weforum.org, “What risks does COVID-19 pose to society in the long-term?” By John Scott; npr.prg, “The Pandemic Led To The Biggest Drop In U.S. Life Expectancy Since WWII, Study Finds,” By Allison Aubrey; weforum.org, “What risks does COVID-19 pose to society in the long-term?” By John Scott;

Is Antifa the Brownshirts of the Democratic Party?

americanwatchmen.org, “Antifa: The “Brownshirts” of Today,” By Jared Miller; breitbart.com, “Michael Savage: Antifa-Occupy ‘Are the Brownshirts’ of the ‘Democrat Party’,” By Robert Kraychik; gopusa.com, “Antifa Is The Militant Wing Of The Democrat Party;” americanthinker.com, “Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, their own brownshirts,” By Thomas Lifson;

What will electric cars and the Green New Deal do to the middle class family?

rnz.co.nz, “Electric cars too costly for some – Turners CEO,” By Rachel Thomas;

How corrupt is the FBI?

genzconservative.com, “Is the FBI Corrupt? In 21st Century America, Absolutely Yes;” lawliberty.org, “The Corruption of the FBI,” By Mike Rappaport; theantimedia.com, “10 Most Crooked and Corrupt Things the FBI Has Ever Done,” By Carey Wedler; dailytorch.com, “Is the FBI corrupt beyond repair? The FBI has become what it spent the Cold War fighting, the KGB.” By Thomas Swift Justice;

How corrupt is the CIA?

theantimedia.com, “8 Cases That Prove the FBI and CIA Were Out of Control Long Before Russiagate,”by Carey Wedler and Jon Miltimore; huppi.com, “A Timeline of CIA Atrocities,” By Steve Kangas; gopusa.com, “Corrupt CIA Feeds Crooked Media,” By Cliff Kincaid; mediaroots.org, “How Opium is Keeping US in Afghanistan: CIA’s Shady History of Drug Trafficking,” By Abby Martin;

How corrupt is the Justice Department?

truthnewsnet.org, “Obama’s Department of Justice: Corruption at its Worst,” By Dan Newman; realclearpolitics.com, “Biden’s Corrupt Justice Department Targets Giuliani,” By Jeffrey Lord; americanthinker.com, “The Corrupt DoJ vs. the People,” By Ed Brodow;

Are Americans fighting Back?

humanevents.com, “Random Acts of Federalism: Florida & Texas Governors Fight Back Against Fed Control-Negligence,” By Brent Hamachek; dailpress.com, “Opinion: American citizenship means fighting for the common welfare,” By Lynn Schmidt; toddstames.com, “Trump Urges Americans to Fight Back, ‘We Won’t Mask Our Children’,” By Todd Starmes; thefederalist.com, “5 Ways You Can Fight Back In The Cultural Civil War,” By John Daniel Davidson;

Are the Democrats trying to destroy the American work ethic?

huffpost.com, “Unemployment Benefits Are Not Creating A Worker Shortage,” By Arthur Delaney and Dave Jamieson; gop.gov, “10 Things Democrats Want to Take Away,” By Elise Stefanik; americanthinker.com, “The Left Hopes to Destroy Christianity by Changing It,” By Bill Thomas; thenewamerican.com, “Green New Deal Would Kill Almost Everyone, Warns Greenpeace Co-Founder,” By Alex Newman; therevolutionaryact.com, “Democrats’ Openly Alinsky Tactics Are Destroying America,” By Cathi Chamberlain;

How long have we been at War with the Forces of Jihad?

“Why We Fight: Defeating America’s Enemies –With No Apologies,” By Sebastian Gorka;

Randy’s Musings
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/04/02/randys-musings/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/04/13/randys-musings-2-0/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/10/22/randys-musing-3-0/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/10/05/randys-musing-4-0/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/11/12/randys-musings-5-0/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/11/23/randys-musings-6-0/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/12/17/randys-musings-7-0/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2022/12/30/randys-musings-8-0/