Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are demanding that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee abandon its support of the five remaining pro-life Democrats in Congress and allow abortion advocates to compete for their seats.
Newsweek reports that the CPC’s co-chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) has now said, in no uncertain terms, that Democrats who do not support the practice of ending unborn life in the womb are no longer welcome inthe party, and that they should be primaried out of office by more reliable Democrats.
“I think we should allow for strong primary challenges, so that people can really put their Democratic chops on the line, if you will, and let the Democratic voters decide who they want,” Jayapal told a press conference. “You can’t say you’re a Democrat if you’re against immigrants, if you’re against abortion, if you’re against gay marriage and LGBTQ rights. I’m not sure what it means to be a Democrat if all of those things are true.”
She then issued her challenge.
“I understand that the DCCC is funded by—we are a membership organization—it’s funded by our members. And I understand that the DCCC is often going to try to protect the incumbent,” Jayapal concluded. “But I do think we have to look at all of these issues and think about what it means to be a Democrat.”
Justice Democrats, the group that championed far-left progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Coretz (D-NY) in the last election cycle and is now challenging the DCCC and DNC for cutting openly progressive campaign workers out of official directories, agreed that pro-lifers now have no place in the Democratic party, and that they intend to fight for their exclusion.
“It’s hypocritical for the Democratic Party leadership to continue to protect [pro-life Dems] while claiming to fight against the attacks on reproductive rights in states like Georgia and Alabama.” Waleed Shahid, Justice Dems communications director told the Daily Beast.
There are technically only five “pro-life Democrats” left:Rep. Dan Lipinkski (D-IL), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) in the House, and Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Bob Casey (D-PA) in the Senate.
Democrats have long toyed with making abortion the central sacrament of their platform, and movement away from diversity of thought on the issue, for a party that now seems to support abortion through all three trimesters of pregnancy and up until the baby is descending through a woman’s birth canal, “pro-life Democrats,” as consistent as the ethic might be, are an anachronism.
There are a couple of problems with leading a ‘purge” against pro-life Democrats, though. For starters, dropping pro-life people from the Democratic Party belies the insincerity of one of abortion advocates’ favorite arguments: that a pro-life position might be more “acceptable” if it were pared with support for government programs like universal health care, welfare expansion, and free college. Clearly, you can support the full Democratic platform — even to the point of being elected with a “D” after your name — and departing from the party on a single issue will cost you your membership.
It’s also ignorant of the political landscape. Progressives have been trying to oust Rep. Dan Lipinski from his berth representing the west side of Chicago and some of the city’s southern and western suburbs for nearly a decade, to no avail. In 2018, one progressive came close, but failed to recognize that Lipinski’s beliefs are in line with those of his constituents, and that he represents them, even on the issue of abortion.
This time around, challenging Lipinksi won’t be so easy. The DCCC, headed by a longtime friend of Lipinksi, has pledged to support incumbents, particularly against primary challenges from the left, and Lipinski’s seat is no exception. Its also unlikely that either Manchin or Casey are touchable, given that they, like Lipinski, represent moderate Democrat constituencies that lean pro-life.
Electoral events have a way of keeping mainstream political observers humble, especially when the larger message is the strength of conservative nationalism.
A case in point is the recent Australian election, in which the Liberal Party (in American terms, a conservative party) won a victory over the left-leaning Labor Party.Some of the MSM outlets that couldn’t hide their surprise included the New York Times: “Prime Minister Scott Morrison Seizes a Stunning Win”; the BBC: “Morrison celebrates ‘Miracle’ win”; and CNN: “Labor loses ‘unlosable’ election.”
In the run-up to the May 18 balloting, the conventional wisdom held that Aussie voters were weary of the constant infighting in the incumbent party—Morrison is the third right-of-center prime minister in the last six years—even as minor parties, yet further to the right, have proliferated.All that confusion was a formula, the pundits said, for a left-wing comeback.
To be sure, some sharp observers, such as Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, veered from the herd.As Olsen wrote in the Washington Post on May 17, the day before the balloting, “While the betting markets think Labor will win, some savvy observers aren’t so sure”—and he quoted one expert as suggesting that Morrison, as the incumbent, had the edge.
Moreover, Olsen continued, Morrison had the global wind of conservative nationalism at his back.Donald Trump may be a unique figure, he wrote, but the ideas of Trumpism are not unique to the U.S.: “The same patterns of populism, cultural conflict and the movement of well-off and educated center-right voters away from their traditional party are happening around the globe.”
President Donald Trump and Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison shake hands during the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Buenos Aires on November 30, 2018. (SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
And as is the case with many countries, the hottest issue in Australia is immigration. Indeed, it’s worth pausing over Australia’s situation—and if we do so pause, then the conservative win Down Under starts to make sense.
Australia is an island almost the size of the continental U.S., and yet it has a population of just 25 million.To put it another way, Australia is 95 percent the size of the lower 48 states, geographically, and yet has less than eight percent of the American population.
In the meantime, in Australia’s corner of the Asia Pacific region, other countries, teeming with huge, and mostly poor, populations, loom nearby.For instance, Indonesia, a nation of 264 million just a few hundred miles away, is 87 percent Muslim, and increasingly under the sway of Sharia law.Then there’s Brunei, where homosexuality is punishable by death.And even closer is the nation of Papua-New Guinea, whose eight million people have a standard of living less than one-twentieth that of Australia.And of course, the whole of Asia numbers in the billions, including the economic and military juggernaut of China.
So it’s not surprising that immigration is the issue in Oz.In fact, Australia has long had a notoriously tough policy on migrants and refugees, starting with the principle: No refugees by boat.Or, as Australians sometimes put it, “If You Come the Wrong Way, You Will Never Get to Stay.”
Sri Lankan asylum seekers stay on their boat moored on Indonesia’s Java island, on October 22, 2009, after they were stopped on their way to Australia. (ADEK BERRY/AFP/Getty Images)
Not surprisingly, Australia’s tough policy is loathed by the international left.The magazine Foreign Policy, for example, refers to “Australia’s refugee gulag.”And international NGOs have jumped in with the same critique; a staffer for Amnesty International wrote for Al-Jazeera (that hub of human-rights champions) that Australia’s immigration policies are “inhumane, unlawful, unsustainable, costly, and damaging to a country’s reputation.”
Of course, no international liberal cause would be complete without the hypocritical assistance of the United Nations, which regularly criticizes Australia.
Indeed, in 2018, the UN’s laughably-named Human Rights Council blasted Australia for its purported “escalating cycle of repression” that has caused “massive abuse” of would-be immigrants.Yes, that’s the same Human Rights Council whose members include such oppressive states as China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Yet despite such international lecturing, Australians have stuck to their guns.
In point of fact, Australia does allow in a fair number of immigrants, and yet for the most part, newcomers are admitted with an eye toward skills and employability—and no doubt that’s one reason why Australia has enjoyed 27 years without a recession.
Indeed, Australia’s immigration policy is so successful that it has come to the attention of the Trump administration, which seeks to shift U.S. policy in the same productive direction.
According to data released last week by the Trump White House as part of its new immigration initiative, some 68 percent of legal immigrants to Australia (and there are no illegal immigrants to speak of) are allowed in on the basis of the nation’s need for employees and skills.By contrast, the same percentage for the U.S. is just 12 percent, as policy here has long been heavily tilted toward non-economic factors, such as family reunification, humanitarian entry, and the dictates of the diversity lottery.Now, the Trump proposal aims to raise the immigration percentage for employment and skill all the way up to 57 percent.
President Donald Trump speaks about modernizing the immigration system in the Rose Garden of the White House, Thursday, May 16, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Yet in the meantime, it shouldn’t be so surprising that Australia wants to stick with what works—or, more precisely, who works.
So now we’re beginning to see why Morrison’s right-wing party won the recent election.During the campaign, Morrison’s allies ripped their left-wing opponents as “soft on turning back boats.”Such tough rhetoric was disturbing, of course, to the MSM.Just last month the New York Timesquoted one Yvonne Maringa, described as an English immigrant of Zimbabwean descent, as saying, “I think there’s a limited understanding still of migrant communities and their needs.”Well, yes.Morrison did run on an Australia First platform.And as the election results show, it resonated with Australians.
One last data point clinches the argument about the popularity of immigration restriction.Last year, the Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank, released a national poll on top issues, including, of course, immigration.It found that in just four years, the percentage of Aussies saying immigration is “too high” has jumped by nearly half, from 37 percent in 2014 to 54 percent in 2018.
So we can see: Morrison and his fellow conservatives just had to stay with their familiar restrictionist playbook.To put it another way, they had to ignore liberal international opinion and focus, instead, on conservative Australian opinion.
They did, and they won.
In fact, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the restrictionist wave is still surging.This prospect, of course, is disturbing to the left; here’s a recent headline from The Nation: “Australia’s Brutal Refugee Policy Is Inspiring the Far Right in the EU and Beyond: In an age of refugee demonization, Australia was well ahead of the curve.”
We needn’t agree with the “d” word, demonization, to agree, nonetheless, thatthere’s a nationalist curve worldwide.And if Australia is ahead of the curve, well, there’s plenty of room for others to ride it, too—including here in the U.S.
Should have stuck with the ugg-ly shoes instead of the ugly ideology. Via NY Post: A former Uggs salesman with a rocky marriage has been found guilty of working as a “sleeper” agent for an arm of Hezbollah while living in the Bronx — helping the terror group prepare for attacks on New York City. […]
Native born Americans have continued lagging behind foreign born workers in the United States’ workforce over the last decade, federal data finds.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data obtained by the Wall Street Journal reveals that while the foreign born workforce in the U.S. economy hits the highest level since 1996 because of the country’s mass legal immigration policy, foreign born workers also are far exceeding native born Americans in terms of labor market growth.
Over the last 10 years, the number of foreign born workers who entered the labor market increased 17.2 percent. At the same time, the number of native born Americans who entered the labor market increased by less than three percent. This indicates that in the last decade, the foreign born workforce in the U.S. economy grew more than six times the rate of the native born workforce.
As Breitbart News reported, legal immigration levels, where 1.2 million mostly low-skilled legal immigrants and hundreds of thousands of foreign visa workers are admitted to the country annually, have driven the number of foreign born workers in the U.S. to its highest level in more than two decades.
Today, foreign born workers make up 17.5 percent of the U.S. workforce and remain undercutting the wages of America’s native born working and middle class.
In 2018, foreign-born workers were cheaper to hire for employers, earning a median weekly salary of less than $760. At the same time, native born American workers’ median weekly salary was $910. The data, though, found that while native-born Americans’ wages have been largely stagnant, foreign-born workers have seen their wages rise.
Though there continue to be nearly 12 million Americans who want a full-time job but are unemployed, underemployed, or out of the labor force entirely, the U.S. has continued admitting more than a million legal immigrants a year to compete for working and middle class jobs against these sidelined Americans.
Extensive research by economists like George Borjas and analyst Steven Camarota reveals that the country’s current mass legal immigration system burdens U.S. taxpayers and America’s working and middle class while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth every year to major employers and newly arrived immigrants. Similarly, research has revealed how Americans’ wages are crushed by the country’s high immigration levels.
For every one-percent increase in the immigrant portion of American workers’ occupations, their weekly wages are cut by about 0.5 percent, Camarota finds. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.75 percent since 17.5 percent of the workforce is foreign born.
In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by about 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.
Likewise, every one-percent increase in the immigrant portion of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent. Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent.
At current legal immigration rates, about one-in-six U.S. residents will have been born outside of the country by 2060, the Census Bureau has found. The foreign-born population in the U.S. is expected to reach 69 million in the next four decades — a boon to Wall Street investors, real estate developers, and big business executives who increasingly profit from more consumers and cheaper workers.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Dr. Alveda King, director of Priests for Life’s Civil Rights for the Unborn project and the niece of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., told Breitbart News that the recently passed pro-life laws in states like Georgia and Alabama seek to grant “civil rights” to babies in the womb and protect women, not punish them.
King offered her remarks on Friday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour.
LISTEN:
Mansour opened the interview by reflecting on how Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail could be read today in response to pro-life conservatives who are concerned that Alabama’s recently passed Human Life Protection Act could harm Republicans in the 2020 election.
“I hope it isn’t presumptuous of me for saying this, but when I was hearing people saying, ‘This is untimely and this is unwise,’ the first thing that came to my mind was your uncle’s famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Mansour said. “He makes a brilliant argument in that letter that the time to fight against injustice is always right now.”
King agreed and pointed to another famous quote from her uncle: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
“America is right to be concerned,” King said of the abortion debate around the nation, but she argued that the pro-life laws in states like Alabama and George “won’t hurt” Republicans in 2020.
“Now, people are saying, ‘They’re going to put women in jail.’ Absolutely not.,” King said. “But doctors who insist on continuing to abort little people in the womb will have to answer, because the doctors themselves medically know that that is a person. That is a human being. Ultrasound shows that to all of us, now, and science has caught up with us.”
King said, “In most instances, mothers have been either coerced — sometimes even [in the case of] rape or incest — and are forced into abortions, or at least confused and under stress and pressure. So we know we want to protect the baby and the mother.”
Alabama’s new abortion law “is not to punish women,” stated King, “but it is to stop and give the baby civil rights. So women won’t be hauled off to jail.”
King reflected on her own experiences with abortion in describing the pro-life movement’s commitment to protecting children and not punishing mothers.
“I had abortions years ago,” said King, “and I said, ‘If you really start jumping on the women, you’ll probably want to come after me, but he Lord has forgiven me.’ We’re not going on a headhunt for women with the law in Alabama.”
King affirmed that these pro-life laws are aimed at “making sure women and babies are protected.” But they are also about justice, she said.
“It’s a push for justice, not a rush for justice, because it’s been a long path from 1973 until now,” she said, referring to the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision on abortion.
“It’s a push for justice [and] a call for justice, not just for babies in the womb, but the mothers have been deceived, as well. I know I was deceived,” said King. “Now it’s causing the courts to have to reexamine some very bad laws.”
“Is the only objective overturn Roe v. Wade?” asked King. “No. The objective is to give the babies civil rights, to protect and to help the mothers, and then to strengthen the family. That is the goal. It’s not too harsh. It’s not too much. It’s not too extreme.”
King went on, “People say, ‘Well, what about rape?’ Well, two wrongs don’t make a right. You kill an innocent person and do further harm the woman, but you don’t deal with the person that did it. All of that has to be examined.”
“You need a compassionate community while all of this is going on. You need to be able to serve these mothers [and] serve these babies. If they actually cannot be ready to raise that child, then put that child into adoptive situations that are not going to abuse the children in these horrendous foster home kind of scenarios,” King said. “All of that has to be regulated, but you have to have a compassionate community that is ready to answer and to help.”
King explained how her own experiences with abortion left an indelible mark on her life.
“I had abortions in the 1970s,” recalled King. “One was coerced and done by my doctor — a D&C in the office — when abortion was still illegal. I had had a live birth in 1970. I became pregnant a little later and went back to ask for a pregnancy test, and he said, ‘You don’t need it, let’s see.’ Instead of doing the pregnancy test, he did a D&C in his office. He was playing God. We found out later he was affiliated with Planned Parenthood.”
King warned of the physical harm abortion procedures can cause women and described her own post-abortion medical complications.
“In 1973, that doctor sent me to Planned Parenthood,” King said. “They had changed their name from Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood, and [he said,] ‘They’ll be your friends. Don’t talk to the people in your church or your family. Just talk to them. They’ll tell you what to do.’ I tried a birth control method that left me vulnerable to problems with my breasts and my cervix.”
“I got pregnant again in ’73 and was kind of pressured to have an abortion, and so that was my second abortion, right after Roe v. Wade became legal,” King said. “Then I had a miscarriage later because of the damage done to my body.”
King shared, “Blessedly, in mid-70s, my grandfather who had told my mother when I was in my mother’s womb in 1950, she wanted to do a procedure for an exploration, which would have been a D&C to end my life. He said, ‘No, I saw her in a dream three years ago, and she has bright skin and bright red hair. She’s going to bless many people.’ So when I was about to get another abortion in the mid-1970s, I mentioned it to my granddaddy and he said, ‘You can’t abort that baby. That’s my great-grandchild.’ So these are the things I went through personally.”
“How can I think that abortion is wrong when I have actually had them?” asked King. “Because the abortions hurt me, and I don’t want to see other women hurt, and I don’t want to see other babies die.”
King touched on the pushback against the Georgia and Alabama laws coming from the Hollywood left.
“Many people in Hollywood are not shouting out the abortions they’re glad they had. For the ones who are, I would even dare to suggest that they have suppressed that pain so deeply that they don’t know it’s there.”
Mansour said, “Many in Planned Parenthood will say, ‘[It’s] because of the pro-life movement that people feel grief. If the pro-lifers weren’t there, they wouldn’t feel any grief.’”
“That’s not true. They hide it,” King replied, explaining that she spent years avoiding thinking about her own abortions. “When I did [think about them], unfortunately I would go have a drink of bourbon. I don’t drink anything like that now, except maybe the holidays, a nice kosher glass of wine or something like that. But before ’83, I couldn’t sleep without the alcohol.”
Elements of the “pro-choice” movement are “anti-life,” King said.
“They say pro-choice, but they’re anti-life and they’re anti-birth — they have been very clever for far too long, but thankfully there are those of us — we are not mean-spirited, we are not judgmental, we’re not accusing anybody — we just want to see people heal. That’s what ‘anti-abortion’ [and] ‘pro-life’ means.”
Opponents of abortion must be compassionate in engaging their detractors, King advised. She described the national consensus on abortion as changing.
“As we continue to assure and make opportunities for those who are vulnerable to talk without guilt or condemnation, [we must] have help available,” advised King. “So we are having these conversations. Many people who said they were totally pro-choice — which meant they were supporting abortion in every state of the life of baby in the womb and maybe even when it came out — are beginning to reverse that and change a little bit.”
King went on, “A lot of these post-abortive mothers are feeling a little safer discussing their experiences. So our fathers regret lost fatherhood. There are grandparents who are harmed. Society is harmed. Even down to the economy. Social security — the reason it’s at risk is because there are not enough people because many of them have been either aborted or put into jail and not working.”
“Too much damage has been done to our people here in America, and that’s from the womb to the tomb,” she said.
King implored pregnant women considering abortions to choose life: “We can love both of you. Neither you nor your baby has to lose your lives.”
King also responded to a hypothetical situation in which a 12-year-old girl might find herself pregnant from a rape or incest.
“I have to remind the person that you’ve got two innocent people here,” King said. “That 12-year-old is innocent. The baby in her womb is innocent. Two wrongs cannot make a right. If the baby is aborted, that will not heal the rape of the mother of that child. Also, in most cases, the perpetrator gets way when the abortion is done, because there’s no evidence of who the perpetrator was, either. So you’ve got two innocent people who’ve been terribly harmed, that’s the the 12-year-old girl and the child in her womb.”
King added, “If she’s unable to be that [child’s] mother — and she should not be forced nor required to — that child should have a safe adoption and that young mother should be allowed to heal, because we know there’s genuine scientific evidence that abortion harms the body of the mother. If an abortion is forced, it can deal with her mammary system, her reproductive health, her mental health and all of that.”
King concluded, “Two wrongs do not make a right. The death of the baby will not heal the wounds of the mother. We want to say there are two patients, here. There are two victims, here: the mother and the baby. The baby is a person, as well, an innocent person. … It’s two human beings.”
Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) relationship with the former Soviet Union is not a revelation, especially including the fact that he and his wife Jane honeymooned there. But hours of video footage Politico viewed and reported on shows the presidential candidate’s connection to Russia has continued for more than 30 years.
Sanders’ recorded journey begins in 1988 when he and Jane traveled to the city of Yaroslavl.
Politico reported:
The mood is festive as the two bestow the items: A Beatles album, a red “Bernie for Burlington” button, “delicious Vermont candy” and a tape of tunes Sanders recorded himself with fellow artists from Vermont, among other goodies.
“I have met many fine mayors in the United States,” Sanders says, “but I want to say that one of the nicest mayors I’ve ever met is the mayor of Yaroslavl.”
At another point,a member of Sanders’ delegationhands a Russian woman a small American flag. “If you’re wondering what’s wrong with capitalism, it’s made in Hong Kong,” he jokes. “Sorry about that.”
Some of the footage has already gone viral after someone who works at Vermont’s Chittenden County Channel 17 posted a few minutes of video online.
“The clip featured a shirtless Sanders and other Americans singing ‘This Land Is Your Land’ to their hosts after relaxing in a sauna. A few minutes later, Sanders doled out the gifts to his Russian friends with a towel wrapped around his waist,” Politico reported.
The video footage also shows Bernie sitting with his U.S. delegation at a table beneath a portrait of Vladimir Lenin, a ruthless dictator responsible for the deaths of millions of his people.
Politico reported Sanders’ goal was to develop a “sister city” relationship between Burlington, Vermont, where he was mayor, and Yarolavl, a city on the edge of the Volga River.
“By encouraging citizen-to-citizen exchanges — of young people, artists and musicians, business people, public officials, and just plain ordinary citizens,” Sanders said in a speech, “we can break down the barriers and stereotypes which exist between the Soviet Union and the United States.”
“The video also paints a fuller picture of why Sanders ventured to the land of America’s No. 1 enemy in the midst of the Cold War, the anti-war idealism that fueled his journey, and what he found when he got there,” Politico reported, which said Sanders was worried about the nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
The news outlet reported the video includes images of “shrines to Lenin” and shows scenes of the poverty in Russia, including people waiting in food lines and shabby housing.
Over the years, the exchange program has included “mayors, business people, firefighters, jazz musicians, youth orchestras, mural painters, high school students, medical students, nurses, librarians, and the Yaroslavl Torpedoes ice hockey team,” according to Burlington’s city government.”
“A delegation traveled there as recently as 2016,” according to Politico.
You can view videos of Sanders’ local television programs here.
On Sunday, Chick-fil-A was the victim of another left-stream media smear over its Christian convictions. Outsports, a propaganda blog for all things LGBTQ, demeaned Chick-fil-A as "the nation’s favorite purveyors of fast food chicken and faith-based discrimination" for donating money to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
In April President Donald Trump tweeted out a stunning report by former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on OANN. Johnson accused the United Kingdom of helping the Obama administration spy on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.
Trump tweeted this out:
“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
This is exactly what The Gateway Pundit reported back in May 2018………
As Joe Hoft at The Gateway Pundit reported —- There is solid evidence that proves a foreign government meddled in the 2016 US Election. But that government was the UK, not Russia!
After more than two years of the Mueller investigation, millions of dollars and the mainstream media’s relentless attack on President Trump, what do we have? Nothing really.
President Trump tweeted in February 2018 that if the goal of Russia was to create discord in the US then they have succeeded. “They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart America!”
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart America!
Since this tweet, the Russia fairy tale has fallen apart! Corrupt Mueller and his team of conflicted, biased and corrupt and angry Democrat investigators and attorneys have found nothing related to their target, President Trump, and now their indictments are unraveling.
As the Russia meddling into the 2016 US election unwinds, the meddling by the UK, is becoming more and more apparent.
Christopher Steel
We’ve known for over a year that the Clinton campaign and the FBI worked with former UK MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who authored a dossier of salacious statements about President Trump. Steele was reportedly paid by Fusion GPS for the document.
Steele was paid $168,000 by Glenn Simpson’s company Fusion GPS for the series of memos containing information that was selectively briefed to journalists approved by Simpson and used by the FBI.
The Steele dossier was never verified and is suspected of being a total fiction. This act alone by a spy from the UK is troubling enough, but that is not it.
Joseph Mifsud
George Papadopoulos, the lower level campaign worker for the Trump campaign, appears to have been targeted by three individuals with ties to British and/or U.S. Intelligence: Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer and Stefan Halper.
Mifsud and Papadopoulos obtained positions at an organization named the Centre for International Energy and Natural Resources Law & Security. Papadopoulos was a ‘nobody’ and the Centre sketchy at best. Mifsud vanished in early November 2017, shortly after Papadopoulos was in the news and indicted. His whereabouts are still unknown.
Although the common story is that Mifsud is a Russian Agent, many ties seem to lead [him] back to UK Intelligence. Julian Assange put out a Twitter Thread noting the connection between Mifsud and UK Intelligence.
Alexander Downer
Although, not a Brit, Alexander Downer is the Australian individual who apparently overheard Papadopoulos talk about Trump and Russia in a bar which alerted the FBI to the story and their eventual spy program on Trump. This story has been refuted for months.
The Papadopoulos/Downer meeting has been portrayed as a chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case….Downer has direct ties to UK Intelligence firm Hakluyt where he served on the Advisory Board from 2008-2014.
Shortly after the Papadopoulos and Downer chance encounter, Peter Strzok was in London per texts released by the FBI. “Strzok texts suggest he was in London on August 3, 2016.” The corrupt FBI’s investigation into Trump officially started a few days earlier.
Stefan Halper
One individual all over the Internet and social media by the name of Stefan Halper has been identified as a potential FBI spy into the Trump campaign. (Note that some believe that Obama may have had more than one spy on the Trump campaign). The most intriguing individual related to Papadopoulos is Halper.
My guess is Papadopoulos never knew what hit him. A young man, suddenly thrust into a position beyond his experience, Papadopoulos made for an easy intelligence target.
Carter Page almost certainly discussed the just completed Moscow trip with his host, Stefan Halper, during the London symposium.
It’s now being reported that Devin Nunes has learned the identity of a “top secret intelligence source” that was part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Investigation.
I think there’s a decent chance that source is Stefan Halper.
Halper had contact with both Papadopulos and Carter Page. Halper has connections to UK Intelligence and US Intelligence. Halper met with Carter Page just days after Page’s Moscow trip.
Other Internet sleuths tied Halper to the Obama team of crooks. Halper was paid more than $400,000 in 2016 for his efforts to set Papadopulos up and get him to sing to the Australia diplomat about Hillary’s emails being held by Russia. Halper and others planted this information on Papadopulos before he shared this with the Aussie in a drunken London pub discussion.
Additional research shows that Halper was a classmate of impeached President Bill Clinton. Halper apparently knew Bill Clinton well in their days at Oxford. He later worked as an Advisor to the Clinton Administration.
His sudden resignation – he informed staff just hours before making this decision public – prompted speculation that it might be related to British concerns over shared intelligence with the US in the wake of Donald Trump becoming president.
But the GCHQ press release stressed his decision was exclusively for family reasons. As well as his ill wife, Hannigan has two elderly parents to look after. He will remain in post until a successor is appointed.
It’s still not known, what, if any connection to the Trump – Russia collusion fantasy, Hannigan may have had.
In May 2018 reporter Paul Sperry posted more evidence of the UK was meddling in the 2016 election.
The British Deep State feared Donald Trump like they feared Brexit.
#SpyGate was a transatlantic plot to stop Trump. The British Deep State feared Trump like they feared Brexit. They were part of the same movement, and both posed a threat to the political ruling class on both sides of the pond.https://t.co/y0ctgsrmts
And all of the Deep State hacks took turns traveling to the UK during the election “for business.”
Priestap, Strzok, Page, McCabe & Michael Gaeta (FBI agent from Rome) all traveled to London during the campaign…Brennan also made trips…Congressional oversight demands a full accounting of who they met with, and whether British intelligence also spied on Page,other US citizens
Based on information to date, the UK had more to do with interfering with the US 2016 Presidential election than Russia. The Obama team and the Clinton campaign spied on the Trump Administration and used the entire government apparatus, including the CIA, FBI, the DOJ and others, to do so. It appears, they also had help from the UK.
These crooks were willing to risk World War III with Russia rather than face a Trump Presidency. This all leads to the question – What is so damn damning that these many individuals would go to such brazen lengths to remove President Trump from office?
On Friday Al-Jazeera’s AJ+ Arabic channel posted a shocking anti-Semitic video which called into question the “truth of the Holocaust.”
The actress in the video Muna Hawwa argues that Israel was the biggest winner from the Holocaust. Hawwa also claims that the number of Jewish Holocaust victims remains “one of the most prominent historical debates to this day.”
Wonder what happened in those years… Islamic extremist attacks in Europe increased 725% between 2007 and 2017. Read the @CSIS_Threats report on European terrorism: https://t.co/BaIUW98rFd pic.twitter.com/1afnxxAA4w — CSIS (@CSIS) May 19, 2019
