BREAKING: Noose with Jeffrey Epstein's DNA Found in Raid of Clinton Home
State authorities executing a surprise morning raid on Bill and Hillary Clinton's home in Chappaqua, N.Y., on Monday uncovered a noose-like object containing traces of deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's DNA, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
The shocking—if you can call it that—discovery could compel the Biden administration to reopen a Justice Department probe of Epstein's death in 2019. The Democratic megadonor died while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.
Epstein's death was ruled a suicide by hanging, but his lawyers and a significant chunk of the American population have challenged that determination, suggesting the perverted Democrat may have been murdered to protect the powerful figures caught up in his international sex trafficking scheme.
Bill Clinton did not immediately return a request for comment. Reached on her cell phone, Hillary Clinton told the Free Beacon she was "too drunk for an interview," then set the phone down without hanging up. She could be heard frantically calling out for Huma Abedin, her longtime personal assistant and suspected lover.
This is a developing story...
Editor's Note: Today is April 1, 2024.
This seems illegal BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO A GAMER LAWYER?!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKMZFO-2ZeI
The main objective of “political animals” like Obama and the Clintons is to get elected; it’s not to fix a broken America, nor to protect her. There are people who govern and there are people who campaign; Obama and the Clintons are the latter. Just look at the huge Republican electoral gains under Obama and the Clintons. It’s amazing that Democrats who still care about their party still support the very people who have brought it down.
One topic that Hillary is quick to criticize President Trump on is his relationship with Saudia Arabia. It’s ironic given the Clinton Foundation’s refusal to state that they will no longer accept financial donations from The Kingdom as others have.
But the Clinton Foundation, to which donations declined dramatically after Clinton’s 2016 defeat, has taken multi-million dollar contributions from Saudi Arabia in the past and isn’t ruling out continuing to accept them.
The Clinton Foundation accepted between $10 and $25 million from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with donations coming as late as 2014. A now-defunct group named “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” which was reportedly co-founded by a Saudi Prince and often worked as a PR front for the kingdom, also donated between $1 and $5 million.
Qatar's longstanding efforts to buy influence in the United States have, quite unsurprisingly, included substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation. In 2011, for example, the foundation accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar in honor of former president Bill Clinton's 65th birthday. Hillary was serving as secretary of state at the time, but failed to disclose the massive donation to the State Department despite her pledge to keep the agency apprised of the foundation's foreign donors.
George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong? M.B. MATHEWS
Harris's verbal struggles despite her functioning cognitive abilities and mental faculties had achieved the purpose set by Biden's handlers.
She made Joe appear the brighter one, and hence, unimpeachable.
This may have been a brilliant political move, but it was also an astoundingly cynical one.
Kamala continues her brutal battle with facts
There are some people who aren't articulate despite possessing the knowledge. There are others who are adept wordsmiths but possess no knowledge.
Most overcome either of these shortcomings by burning their midnight oil.
There are a rare kind who are not only inarticulate and ignorant but are too lazy to apply themselves even minimally.
Then there is Kamala Harris.
She is not only nation's primary world salad chef but the leader of the league of ignoramuses. And that's not all, she also has no self-awareness and probably thinks of herself as abundantly talented. This rules out the possibility of any remedial measures.
Kamala has consistently achieved a rare and most undesirable kind of inconsistency.
It is usually not a question of if, but when, Kamala babbles inanities. This usually occurs the moment her vocal cords begin to exert.
When she isn't waging a bitter war against the English language she battles with facts, both current and historical.
Every syllable she utters has the tone of one doesn't have a clue of the sounds she is producing.
It also demonstates an astounding level of unpreparedness, she doesn't seem to care about the office she holds or even her reputation.
If questioned, Kamala will claim that all her detractors are racists, sexists and mysogynists.
So what's her latest catastrophe?
During a conversation with Tim Boyum from Spectrum News, Harris claimed that women’s basketball was gaining popularity because in the past, the women’s tournament didn’t have brackets.
The following transcript of her babble, for those have the patience:
Do you know? Okay, a bit of a history lesson. Do you know that women were not, the women’s teams were not allowed to have brackets until 2022? Think about that. And what? That. Talk about progress. You know better late than never, but progress and what that has done. Because, of course, when, you know, I had a bracket and it’s not broken completely, but I won’t talk about my bracket. But you know, just how we love, we love March Madness. And even just now allowing the women to have brackets and what that does to encourage people to talk more about the women’s teams, to watch them; now they’re being covered, you know, and, and this is the reality people used to say are women’s sports. Who’s interested? Well, if you can’t see it, you won’t be. But when you see it, you realize, oh:
Fox New fact-checked Kamala's claim as follows:
Prior to 2022, the now-popular March Madness exclusively belonged to the NCAA men's tournament. However, brackets have been used for the women's games since the early 1980s.
She even claimed to have filled out a women’s college basketball bracket back in 2021.
...and as recent as last month.
“Mediaite reached out to the Vice President’s office for clarification and was told that Harris did, in fact, misspeak and that she meant to say that the use of the “March Madness” copyright was only made available to the women’s tournament last year.”
Her claims, as always have no connections with facts. She clearly said brackets, not March Madness.
To celebrate this gaffe, we revisit some of her previous monumental catastrophes:
Back in January 2023, Harris struggled to construct sentences while explaining "clean energy economy."
She referred to "doing the work" to help businesses "do the work" for the green economy.
In February 2023, Kamala struggled with the idea of space travel during an event where NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken were presented the Congressional Space Medal of Honor to them.
The gaffes aren't restricted to event within the U.S.
During her visit to the Korean Peninsula's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), Kamala claimed that the U.S. "shares a very important relationship, which is an alliance with the Republic of North Korea." Here she is:
During the same trip, she struggle to make elementary conversation with U.S. personnel on site:
She even didn't seem to comprehend the functioning of a pair of binoculars:
She also struggled to explain the benefits of transportation:
She babbled the following at the Johnson Space Center in Houston:
At times, her verbal disasters weren't just laughable, but deeply offensive.
Kamala's incoherence was actually an insensitive affront to the victims of the July 4 parade shooting in Highland Park, Illinois.
Back in March 2022, following Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, Harris held a presser with the Polish premier in Warsaw.
When asked about the U.S.'s commitment to Ukrainian refugees, Kamala burst into giggles.
In a post that was immediately deleted, Harris claimed:
“When I was in Poland, I met with U.S. and Polish service members, thanking them for standing with our NATO allies for freedom, peace, and security. The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people in defense of the NATO alliance.”
This claim could have esclated the crisis even further.
Another major catastrophe on a global stage occurred in August 2021.
Kamala cackled in response to a question about Biden's catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Her callousness caused a BBC correspondent to remark that she made America appear as an "incompetent, uncaring and unreliable" ally.
The question some have is why did Biden's handlers chose Harris as his running mate?
He is an octogenarian whose cognitive abilities and mental abilities have been declining from the day he launched his campaign.
Why did they not select someone, smart, able, articulate and youthful?
The answer seems obvious now.
Biden's handlers knew that an individual of moderate abilities would take advatage of Biden's dementia to overthrow him and become president.
So they needed a running mate who was not only devoid of talent but also initiative, i.e., that there is no possibility of her appearing more effective than Biden.
Kamala was the perfect fit.
In addition to being untalented, she is also the daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants and a woman "of color."
That made her a perfect 'diversity' candidate.
Kamala was celebrated with copious P.R. pieces and photoshoots both when Biden announced her as his running mate and when she became the nation's first female vice president.
Hillary Clinton must have combusted with jealous rage from within.
Perhap Kamala's team got carried away and there were rumors of her replacing Biden sometime in the near future.
To remind everyone of Kamala's lack of talent, Biden's handlers made her the border czar.
This was also a trap.
If Harris had even pretended to address the crisis, she would have been attacked by open border–advocating Democrats.
Instead she failed and struggled to explain her hesitation to visit the U.S.-Mexico border.
Her failure caused her to be derided by Republicans and even some Democrats.
Biden's handlers had successfully reminded the nation of Kamala's incompetence.
Harris's verbal struggles despite her functioning cognitive abilities and mental faculties had achieved the purpose set by Biden's handlers.
She made Joe appear the brighter one, and hence, unimpeachable.
This may have been a brilliant political move, but it was also an astoundingly cynical one.
The White House is supposed to be a place where the best and the brightest work.
The Democrats have achieved the opposite.
Kamala has become a joke for her rank ineptitude and inarticulateness, but the real joke is on the hardworking, tax-paying American citizens who are unknowingly funding this bizarre circus of insanity.
Image: Twitter screen shot
Her (KAMALA HARRIS) more radical positions, such as support for the Obama administration’s Iran deal, prosecuting a journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s collection and sale of aborted babies’ body parts (while receiving campaign donations from them), and defending Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism, may indeed sit well with a great many leftists, but her actions as Attorney General of California may not. While in that position, Harris jailed hundreds on marijuana charges and authorized anti-prostitution sting operations which, according to SF Weekly, disproportionately targeted Latino men (a crucial Democrat demographic). In addition to this -- though she later admitted it was a mistake -- she prosecuted and jailed the parents of truant teens. She even refused to release the names of Catholic priests accused of sexually molesting children, abnegating law enforcement’s most basic and humane duty -- regardless of anyone’s opinion of the Catholic Church.
Kamala Harris and the Art of Failing Up
REVIEW: ‘Amateur Hour: Kamala Harris in the White House’ by Charlie Spiering
Kamala Harris (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
March 31, 2024
Reading an account of Kamala Harris’s political career is like examining the stalled career of a can’t-miss baseball prospect struggling to hit major league pitching. In Charlie Spiering’s new biography of the vice president, Amateur Hour: Kamala Harris in the White House, the book portrays Harris as a hyped candidate who consistently makes egregious missteps to the point that being a heartbeat away from the presidency is giving Democratic operatives heartburn.
There are two things clear about Harris after reading Spiering’s account: She’s a cautious politician who reflects conventional progressive thinking. She’s also shown consistently poor judgment about the direction of American politics, particularly in her role as a national figure, tacking far to the left as a senator and during her unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign and later, serving as an emissary to the left in the White House, even when her political fortunes demanded a broader appeal.
Harris’s electoral statistics speak for themselves. In her first statewide campaign, in deep-blue California, she barely won with just 46 percent of the vote, eking out a victory for attorney general. Despite generating outsized publicity for her presidential candidacy, she dropped out of the race before the Iowa caucuses, after failing to get traction in any of the early-state contests—and being upstaged by a more moderate candidate in Pete Buttigieg.
And as vice president, after botching televised interviews and struggling to find an effective role within the administration, Harris watched her favorability ratings sink below President Joe Biden’s—the presumptive Democratic nominee currently holds historically low approval numbers for presidents seeking a second term.
Spiering’s narrative of Harris is familiar to those who regularly follow politics, relying mainly on contemporaneous news reports and little on insider information adding new material to the Harris story. But his account is a thorough one, reliving the greatest hits (and misses) of Harris’s political career, starting from her insurgent campaign to unseat San Francisco’s district attorney to her political positioning in the runup to the 2024 presidential campaign.
One area where Harris is particularly vulnerable: her record on law-and-order issues as a national figure, as she sought to distance herself from her prosecutorial background as district attorney in the Bay Area. In one section recapping her comments during the riot-filled summer of 2020 after George Floyd’s murder, Harris made several statements praising the Black Lives Matter organization (namely the "intensity" and "brilliance" of it), excusing the violence, and promoting a bail fund that sought to release criminals accused of serious crimes.
The most revealing sign of her left-wing political instincts: Spiering reminds readers that she entertained support for the "defund the police" movement that summer. "We do have to reimagine what public safety looks like," she told the New York Times. Another quote the author unearthed from the Times interview that’s likely to come back to haunt her: She argued against putting more cops on the street, calling it "status quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. That’s wrong."
It’s easy to forget, with the benefit of historic hindsight, but those comments were made after the Democratic primary was over and Harris was vying to become Biden’s running mate. The Democratic party’s lurch left, which later fueled a sizable backlash, was so fierce in that moment that even Biden felt he couldn’t consider female vice presidential nominees with tougher-on-crime records, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Spiering’s Harris narrative, throughout her political career, also offers a lesson in how the Democratic party has become a coalition of different identity groups—and where minority status confers a certain sense of political privilege in the party’s modern iteration.
Starting with the 2020 presidential primary campaign, Harris has leaned heavily on her biography. One of her few consequential moments in the campaign was in an early debate when she attacked Biden as a racist for defending his early relationships with segregationists in the Senate, and opposition to busing in the 1970s. That moment excited the progressive base and fueled a short-lived rise in her polling. But she failed to follow up on the attack, and her polling soon reverted back.
Harris’s vice presidential moment came about as a result of outside groups’ pressure for Biden to pick a woman as his running mate—which he pledged at the final primary debate—and later, during the racial unrest in the summer of 2020, when he faced significant pressure to select an African-American woman. Without a deep bench, Harris became the de facto frontrunner, despite rivals like Susan Rice (no electoral experience), Val Demings (a junior congresswoman), and Karen Bass (a veteran representative with a far-left voting record) floated as alternatives.
One telling sign of her identitarian approach to politics: After being chosen as Biden’s running mate, she released a polarizing video on her Twitter account promoting the concept of "equity"—as opposed to "equality"—using government intervention to boost nonwhite Americans. That type of rhetoric, which has grown increasingly unpopular, is now mostly confined to the left-wing precincts of the Democratic party.
As the 2024 general election gets underway, Harris is drawing more attention toward her political future—but often for the wrong reasons. Biden’s advanced age and poor political standing get cited by many pundits on why he should be replaced from the ticket, but many of those commentators struggle to explain how Harris would be a more electable alternative—or how, at a late stage, the party would replace her without generating massive political backlash.
There hasn’t been as much punditry on how Harris would govern if she found herself in the heady role of commander in chief. With Biden now 81 years old, and 86 at the end of a potential second term, the possibility that she might ascend to the presidency is not all that far-fetched. In fact, it was a running theme for former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who regularly used Harris as a political foil on the campaign trail.
Spiering’s book doesn’t tell us how she might govern in such a situation but offers some clues from her record in political life. Based on the evidence in these pages, the story might better have focused on her deference to a progressivism that remains trendy in activist circles but is rapidly growing out of favor with the broader electorate.
Amateur Hour: Kamala Harris in the White House
by Charlie Spiering
Threshold Editions, 272 pp., $28.99
Josh Kraushaar is the editor in chief of Jewish Insider and a Fox News Radio political analyst.
Kamala Harris Hosted Soros Scion and Supermodel ‘Roommate’ at Private Residence
Alex Soros and supermodel “roommate” Savannah Huitema. (Getty Images/Twitter).
September 1, 2023
Vice President Kamala Harris recently hosted a group of prominent Democratic donors, including the progressive megadonor Alex Soros and his supermodel "roommate," at a small gathering at her private residence, according to newly released visitor logs.
The Soros family scion and Savannah Huitema, an "American stunner" who has walked the runways of Europe, visited Harris’s residence on May 31, according to the logs. The visit came days before Soros was announced as the new leader of his father George’s philanthropy, the Open Society Foundations.
It marks Alex’s 21st—but by far most intimate—visit to the Biden-Harris White House, a testament perhaps to the Soros family’s support for the Democratic Party and liberal causes. George Soros has for years been the party’s biggest financial backer. And the Open Society Foundations pour hundreds of millions of dollars a year into liberal causes. The younger Soros has met in the past with White House advisers on national security and domestic policy issues and attended gatherings with hundreds of other guests.
Soros on June 6 posted a photo with the vice president on Twitter, where the progressive billionaire frequently shares pictures of himself hobnobbing with members of the Biden administration and other Democratic luminaries. While the purpose of Soros’s latest visit is unclear, he and Huitema joined seven other Democratic heavyweights at the Harris residence.
Wayne Jordan and Quinn Delaney, longtime Harris supporters, are listed as visitors. The Democratic power couple poured $1 million into a pro-Harris super PAC during her 2020 presidential campaign. They also run a foundation that supports the movement to defund police and to remove police officers from schools in Oakland. President Joe Biden appointed Delaney to the Commission on Presidential Scholars last year.
Avram Glazer, an owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers football team, also visited the Harris residence. He contributed $350,000 to the Biden Victory Fund in April and May. Glazer was invited to the White House state dinner in December for French president Emmanuel Macron.
The White House logs list the location of the visit as "1st Floor VPR." A search of past visitors to that location indicates it is Harris’s private domicile at the Naval Observatory. Television screenwriter Shonda Rhimes, who is listed as a Harris visitor on May 2, attended an event at the residence that same day, according to a news report.
It is unclear whether Soros and Huitema are an official item, though they have been spotted together in Europe. Huitema, who posted photos of her White House visit, accompanied Soros on a trip to Albania in July, where they rubbed shoulders with former president Bill Clinton and Albanian prime minister Edi Rama. Albanian news outlets described Soros and Huitema as "roommates."
Alex Soros—like his father—has reportedly dated supermodels in the past. But the younger Soros’s relationship with Huitema will hopefully fare better than his father’s. Brazilian model Adriana Ferreyr accused George Soros in 2010 of slapping and choking her while they were in bed. She later sued him for $50 million.
The White House and Open Society Foundations did not respond to requests for comment.
Published under: Alex Soros , Democratic Donors , George Soros , Kamala Harris , White House
David Daleiden: Kamala Harris Prostituted Her Law Enforcement Powers to Planned Parenthood
JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images
18 Aug 202017
5:47
David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) prostituted her powers in her former role as California’s attorney general for the benefit of Planned Parenthood in an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Sunday with host Joel Pollak.
Daleiden noted the partisan and political dimensions of California’s prosecution of him and his CMP colleague Sandra Merritt. Both he and Merritt were charged with 14 cases of illegal recording of confidential conversations and one count of conspiracy.
“Kamala Harris is the biggest threat to First Amendment civil liberties and First Amendment civil rights that our country has ever seen, in my opinion,” said Daleiden. “While she was the attorney General of the State of California, Kamala Harris, at the behest of her political patron — Planned Parenthood — targeted me for criminal punishment solely because of the content of the message that I was publishing and speaking at the time as you mentioned the undercover video series showing top-level Planned Parenthood officials callously negotiating the harvesting and sale of tiny aborted baby hearts and lungs and livers and brains.”
Daleiden continued, “In the State of California, when Kamala Harris was the attorney general, you could do undercover investigations of factory farming, corrupt chiropractors, [and] fraudulent air conditioning repairmen. Local TV news journalists in California [were] filming and publishing undercover video with conversations — sometimes even in private office spaces — and publishing these videos in on a daily weekly basis. Not a single one of those journalists ever had their home raided or were prosecuted by Kamala Harris’s attorney general’s office.”
LISTEN:
“But if you did the exact same kind of undercover filming and publishing, and your message was something that questioned Planned Parenthood or questioned the abortion industry — the sacred cows of Kamala Harris and the San Francisco political establishment in California — then in that case, I became the first and only person involved in news gathering, the first and only citizen journalist in the state of California to ever have the California video recording law enforced against me, criminally,” Daleiden added.
Daleiden went on, “It was launched under Kamala Harris. She targeted our message, specifically. She sent 11 California DOJ agents in April of 2016 to raid my one-bedroom apartment in Orange County with explicit instructions from Planned Parenthood to seize the means of publication, to seize the computers and the video equipment that I was using to publish the videos.”
“Kamala Harris’ deputy prosecutor, Johnette Jauron, who was in charge of the case, she admitted a few years later in 2018 in a filing in court that the reason that I alone have become the first citizen journalist in California to be prosecuted under the California video recording law — to have that law criminally enforced against me when it was enforced against against nobody else for news gathering in California — is because of the content of the videos themselves,” recalled Daleiden.
“It is blatant, unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and invidious targeting of Americans whose message Kamala Harris disagrees with. So, she is a huge threat to our First Amendment civil liberties in this country.”
Pollak said, “It almost looks as if [Harris] initiated her prosecution of you at the instigation of Planned Parenthood to please Planned Parenthood, to help this politically-connected organization, which is so important for donations in the Democratic Party and for the future of anyone in Democratic politics. She basically acted at their behest. Is that true?”
Daleiden replied, “Yes, absolutely. Like I said, undercover video recording and reporting has never been criminally prosecuted in California in the history of the state until now, until this case, where the entity whose ox is being gored was Planned Parenthood, the political patrons of Kamala Harris and so many others in the California political establishment.”
He further noted how Harris coordinated her prosecution of him and his CMP colleague with Planned Parenthood.
“Just two weeks before she ordered the raid on my home, Kamala Harris had a secret in-person meeting in Los Angeles with several top-level Planned Parenthood of California officials,” stated Daleiden. “We have the action items from that meeting in an email that was produced to us in discovering the case, and those action items show that the meeting was primarily to discuss Planned Parenthood’s political agenda in the state of California, but included within their political agenda were the issues involved in Kamala Harris’s investigation of me.”
Daleiden concluded, “[Harris] was blatantly mixing her political constituent services functions with her law enforcement powers and basically prostituting her law enforcement powers to the service of her political campaign donors. She was running for United States Senate at that exact same time in March and April in 2016. She had petitions urging political support for Planned Parenthood on her campaign website.
He recalled that Harris’s executive office assistant while she was attorney general of California — who was ‘liaising with Planned Parenthood” while “working on this investigation” — later became Harris’s campaign manager during her first run for the U.S. Senate.
“It is a blatant use and abuse of law enforcement power solely to serve private partisan political interests, and that is why she is such a dangerous candidate,” concluded Daleiden.
Breitbart News Sunday broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Eastern.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.
Kamala's Threat to American Democracy
Who, exactly, is a vice-president supposed to be?
Tue Aug 18, 2020
The arrival of Joe Biden’s decision on a running mate is a true turning point in the history of American politics.
There has never before been a presidential candidate who, prior to entering the White House, has shown such undeniable signs of age-related neurological decay. All political disagreements disregarded, the sight of an elderly person succumbing to the demons of those dreaded cognitive ailments -- which all too often rob us of the older people we love -- is truly excruciating to behold.
The political outcome of Biden's mental state is, if possible, even more unsettling. The role of the president is meant to be powerful. All constitutional checks and balances considered, the sheer power of the chief executive, in that one single person invested with authority to counter-balance the power of the legislative and judicial branches, is truly awesome.
In our situation today, we see a man who is clearly not in full command of his mental faculties, who is allowing himself to be considered for that office of chief executive; an office which, unlike a prime minister in a parliamentary system, is intended to be stable and not prone to regular changes in leadership.
The expectation of a normal four-year presidential tenure on Biden’s part if he is elected must, at the very least, be subjected to serious doubt. If pronouncing basic words -- let alone quoting the most famous phrase of our Declaration of Independence -- is such a confusing ordeal for him, then it is our urgent duty to question whether this individual is fit to be the man who must accept the ultimate responsibility for this country’s national security and well-being.
These facts squarely cast the Democrat side of the current election as not a presidential election at all, but a vice-presidential election.
Should Biden win, the chances are very probable that his vice president will become the 47th president to finish out his first four-year term. As the vice president automatically succeeds to the Oval Office if the president dies or is rendered permanently incapacitated, the profoundly anti-democratic repercussions of this situation is worsened by whom Biden has actually chosen.
The traditional custom for presidential hopefuls is to either choose the second-highest-polling candidate in a primary race, as Ronald Reagan did with George H. W. Bush in 1980, or to choose a highly capable politician who is well-respected by most of the party, as Donald Trump did with Governor Mike Pence in 2016. In both of those cases, the aforementioned running mates reflected the Republican Party and its voters quite respectably while promoting unity.
It is highly questionable, meanwhile, whether Kamala Harris -- aside from all of the establishment media’s expected giddy cheerleading -- really represents her party all that well. She was polling at 2% nationally by the time she ended her own presidential bid on December 3, 2019. Her more radical positions, such as support for the Obama administration’s Iran deal, prosecuting a journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s collection and sale of aborted babies’ body parts (while receiving campaign donations from them), and defending Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism, may indeed sit well with a great many leftists, but her actions as Attorney General of California may not. While in that position, Harris jailed hundreds on marijuana charges and authorized anti-prostitution sting operations which, according to SF Weekly, disproportionately targeted Latino men (a crucial Democrat demographic). In addition to this -- though she later admitted it was a mistake -- she prosecuted and jailed the parents of truant teens. She even refused to release the names of Catholic priests accused of sexually molesting children, abnegating law enforcement’s most basic and humane duty -- regardless of anyone’s opinion of the Catholic Church.
it is highly debatable if these are positions that a high number of progressives who voted for the Democrat primary runner-up, Bernie Sanders, would approve of. Especially today, being tough on minority and drug crime -- to the exclusion of “white patriarchal” clergy sex abuse -- is not en vogue among the Democratic Party’s truly energized base, which is largely college-educated millennials taught to have contempt for not only aggressive inner city policing, but inner city policing overall.
It also remains a question as to how many black American voters Kamala really represents. Without doubt, she completely failed to gain these voters' support during the primary. Many black Americans responded to Barack and Michelle Obama due to their image as people who empathized authentically with the black experience of living in inner city America. Harris’s flip-flopping on criminal justice issues has clearly deprived her of the Obama touch.
What should highly concern all Americans of whatever political persuasion is the fact that, given Joe Biden’s medical condition, a Democrat victory in 2020 could very likely result in a person for whom only 2% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents supported to become president.
The reasons for Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris as his running mate are as yet not entirely clear. What is very clear, however, is that a new president of the United States in the near future could be a person whom a weak and faltering man chose by fiat, and not someone whom the majority of the country elected by the ballot.
That's a problem.
It's a problem for America -- and it's a serious and profound problem for American democracy.
Barry Nussbaum is an exceptional American businessman and real estate mogul, whose distinguished career extends more than 38 years. He is an experienced news commentator on international affairs, who has been featured on major television networks, web-based and in print media. Visit his site: AmericanTruthProject.org.
George Soros: A New Kind of Tyrant?
The venomous careers of Hitler and Stalin provoked the study of totalitarian regimes as the very epitome of evil, depriving their citizens of freedom and of life itself. A state captured by a demagogue is considered a sure sign of danger ahead -- hence the alleged justification by the Left for their hysteria over “rabble rouser” Donald Trump’s election. Overlooked until more recently are the unelected, bloated bureaucratic fiefdoms and regulatory encroachments of both national and global government and non-governmental institutions, which have created the opportunity for a sinister, large scale violation of political power.
This new abuse was foreshadowed in the career of FBI architect and director, the corrupt J. Edgar Hoover. It has been notched up to a planetary level of hyper-coordination by George Soros as preliminary to the installation of his global Open Society. In this grandiose plan, state governments (specifically the USA) will be reduced to the level of relay stations for a supranational, Sauron-like centralization of power.
What unites the totalitarian and the new tyrant are three personality characteristics, proposed by Professor John D. Mayer in his 1993 article, “The Emotional Madness of the Dangerous Leader.” The first is indifference. The tyrant is consumed by a single-minded, fanatical purpose and has no regard for the suffering wreaked on others during its implementation. The second is intolerance of those whose opinions differ, facilitated through control of the media, secret and insider knowledge, revenge against anyone who thwarts, and a paranoid mania to shut down all opposition. The third character trait (the foundation of the previous two), is psychopathic grandiosity. The power-abuser assumes a messianic pose of unifying society under a utopian plan and persuading others to participate. The very intensity of the tyrant’s narcissism is transferred to vulnerable supporters eliciting a narcotic rush of enthusiasm.
What is easily overlooked is that the sham scheme is not a political health remedy, but a device for maintaining the megalomaniac’s sense of personal omnipotence. In Soros’ own words, “Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad. In fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid.” Soros seems disarming in his frankness. But delusions of grandeur preclude self-knowledge, as Soros’ next statements reveal. “I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I have escaped it.”
Soros has spilled bucketloads of words proclaiming he is “amoral,” “self-interested,” and that “normal rules do not apply” to him. “I am unnatural. I am a sort of deux ex machina. I’m very comfortable with my public persona, because it is the one I have created myself.” And this from the man who controls politicians and bureaucrats like a boss giving dictation to his secretary. This is the man who has perfected the subversion of governments, who has robbed failing states, and lavishly endowed every organization and movement destructive of traditional Western society, from abolishing the Electoral College to abolishing life itself if it is in utero, drug-addicted, or senile. His ambition is without borders -- “The Soviet Empire is now the Soros Empire.” “I’m the Pope’s boss now.” And so on, ad nauseum. Yet, like other tyrants, he is untouchable. Those he has made richer and more powerful protect him.
In March 1933 the Germans voted. They could have voted for the moderate Center Christian party. Instead they voted in Hitler. ‘Deplorable’ Americans however confounded Soros by not voting for “What can we do for you, George?” Hillary Clinton. Yet where are the congressional and Senate investigations into Soros? Where is the RICO indictment? Governments have been bought. The media has been bought. The Soros NGO empire operates an invasive, parasitic web currently devouring the body politic of the USA and many other nations besides.
What Trump’s election has revealed is the limitation of the Presidency in withstanding the transfer of power to unelected, publicly unaccountable bureaucrats, and venal politicians, more concerned with their benefices than their constituents. That void has allowed Soros to install himself as de facto puppet-master. We require bureaucracy, and we cannot prevent the existence of associations, but there is an urgent need for reform by abolishing permanency in government and establishing citizens’ tribunals of appeal against abuses of administrative power.
Recently in an interview on his simpering NPR, Soros confessed he was unprepared for the populist opposition to his insurrectionary agenda. Let us continue our opposition. Let us demand Soros be investigated and brought to justice as conditional for obtaining our vote. Those with connection to him must be banned from public office, and his assets frozen. Then his parasitical minions will shrivel, like leeches desiccated by a pinch of salt. If not, although we may escape the mass slaughter of the twentieth century, it will be at the cost of vassalage beneath a tyrant like George Soros.
George Soros with his Open Society money plus the Chicago Marxist contingency of Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Penny Pritzker, and Barack Obama are five people I'm inclined to group as the Biden puppet masters. Is there a pecking order among them? Does it matter? I suppose it matters to these individual megalomaniacs, but to anyone else? No. Just get that totalitarian state up and running. Maybe it will matter when all nations are under someone's thumb and one of those thumbs wants to be the one-world Big Thumb. Not to worry — I'm positive the Big Thumb will be chosen by consensus. SPRUCE FONTAINE.....NO, THE BIG THUMB WILL BE CHOSEN BY BIG WALL STREET BANKSTERS! THE VERY ONES WHO PERPETRATED THE BANKSTER REGIME OF GAMER LAWYERS BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER AND 'CREDIT CARD' JOE BIDEN!!!
George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong? M.B. MATHEWS
"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal." RICK HAYES
Biden presumably picked Harris as his running mate for three reasons: She was black-ish; she’s female; and, most importantly, she wouldn’t outshine Biden and might be an insurance policy against efforts to oust him under the 25th Amendment.
KAMALA HARRIS - I CAN CON THEM! I'M A LAWYER, IT'S WHAT I HAVE DONE MY ENTIRE BRIBES SUCKING LEGAL CAREER!
https://kamala-harris-sociopath.blogspot.com/2020/09/kamala-harrs-i-can-con-them-im-lawyer.html
All of this is, if we can be permitted to use Biden’s catchphrase, “malarkey.” Harris has already proven herself as a trusted servant of the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class. The Wall Street Journal wrote last week that Wall Street financers had breathed a “sigh of relief” at Biden’s pick of Harris. Industry publication American Banker noted that her steadiest stream of campaign funding has come from financial industry professionals and their most trusted law firms.
There is something fitting in the selection of Harris to co-lead the Democrats’ ticket. The response of the Democrats to the mass multi-racial and multi-ethnic protests against police violence that erupted earlier this year was to divert them into the politics of racial division, using the reactionary and false claim that what was involved was a conflict between “white America” and “black America,” rather than a conflict between the working class and capitalism.
US Vice President Kamala Harris 'is such a hoax'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRg6KxiOr3Q
How Kamala Harris Made Her Millions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIipQxGdjYs
The Shady Side Of Kamala Harris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flz5k8RPQGk
The United States is 'literally leaderless'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJf-XRgzcjs
Newt Gingrich calls Joe Biden a 'sickness'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVlPJcgRCj8
Democrats plan to resurrect Kamala Harris’s reputation
The Hill, which often serves as a mouthpiece for Democrat press releases, has written an article stating that “Democrats see Harris as a major player in midterms.” When it comes to Harris’s moribund reputation, Dems want us to think of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead but saving Harris is more like Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein and “Abby Normal’s brain.”
Kamala’s lack of national viability made itself known during the Democrat primaries in 2019 when Harris dropped out without even breaking the 4% barrier in the polls and with zero delegates.
Biden presumably picked Harris as his running mate for three reasons: She was black-ish; she’s female; and, most importantly, she wouldn’t outshine Biden and might be an insurance policy against efforts to oust him under the 25th Amendment.
Since she’s been in office, Kamala has been a disaster. Monica Showalter’s astute posts about Kamala Harris tell the story. Here are just a few of the highlights:
Already in December 2020, perhaps as Democrats had their “Oh, my God! What have we done?” moment about getting Biden into the White House, there was the first of several desperate efforts to build Kamala up. This wasn’t helped by the fact that Kamala was mostly window dressing, standing behind Joe, wearing her little mask, like Death waiting for a turn.
In March, as Biden’s disastrous open border policy began to take shape, he appointed Kamala his “border czar.” And again, there was a push to resurrect her reputation. Kamala showed unusual initiative by ignoring the border and focusing on renovating the Veep’s mansion.
By April, even the Democrat cheerleaders in the media were wondering “Where in the world is Kamala Harris (and why isn’t she at the border)?” Jen Psaki, who may not like Kamala, covered for her by saying that Harris, who had bopped off to a Chicago bakery, was just like other Americans in Chicago, in that “she got a snack.”
A week later, Harris announced her solution to the border problem: She was going to Latin America to hunt down “root causes.” As for the border itself...meh! Two weeks after that, Kamala explained that El Salvador needed to have an independent judiciary, an interesting statement from a politician whose party fanatically wants to pack the United States Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Kamala avoided that border over which she allegedly presided as czar.
While Kamala dodged and weaved on the border, it emerged that people don’t like working for her. Apparently, like all people over their heads, she’s mean to and tries to blame the staff that can’t compensate for her inadequacies. (Her Secret Service agents suffer too.)
Because Kamala had failed so well as border czar, Joe promoted her to voting rights czar. Her aides allegedly panicked and then panicked some more. They were on to something because her trip to Latin America was a P.R. disaster. Her staff engaged in CYA behavior, stating that they were “perplexed” about her performance.
In early June, as border czar, Kamala told illegal aliens “do not come.” Well, that should stop them...NOT. Still, at the end of June, when Trump threatened to get to the border first, Kamala finally announced a visit. She carefully avoided going to the site of illegal border crossing and, of course, she blamed Trump for everything.
Eventually, even a true believer like Ezra Klein had to admit that Kamala is incompetent. And so, in July, there was another effort to reboot Kamala’s popularity. It’s hard, though, when you have a Veep (and voting rights czar) who boasts about talking with Republicans about the Dems’ “reform” bill but can’t name anyone with whom she’s spoken.
In August, there was another effort to improve Kamala’s reputation. Again, though, she made it difficult, performing horribly in Asia, including wiping her hand after shaking the hand of the South Korean president.
And always, always, there’s that crazed, manic cackle. Plus the fact that her popularity is lousy. Very lousy.
With that history, it’s laughable when The Hill claims that “Democrats expect Vice President Harris to be a major player in revving up the party’s liberal base ahead of next year’s midterm elections.” She’s obnoxious, incompetent and, outside of rabid Third Wave feminist circles, disliked.
When a single Democrat pollster, a Harris ally, and a White House official sing her praises, no one should be impressed. Instead, there’s a strong odor of desperation when The Hill assures readers that “Democrats see Harris as uniquely positioned to drive up turnout among young people and women....”
Currently, Kamala’s only advantage is that no one is yet hollering “F*** Veep Harris” at sports events and concerts. As between a corrupt and senile president and an incompetent and unpleasant veep, it’s to be hoped that neither of them gets out the Democrat vote in the 2024 midterms.
Image: Kamala Harris. YouTube screen grab (edited).
THE LOOTING OF AMERICA
KAMALA HARRIS AND HER GOLDMAN SACHS BANKSTER STEVEN MNUCHIN
A tidy corrupt partnership
https://kamala-harris-sociopath.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-looting-
She also declined to prosecute OneWest, run by now-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin from 2009-2015, after her own prosecutors said they discovered over a thousand violations of foreclosure law committed by the bank. (OneWest donated $6,500 to Harris' attorney general campaign in 2011, and Mnuchin himself donated $2,000 to her Senate campaign in 2016.)
Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American
Dream⎜WHY POVERTY?⎜(Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6niWzomA_So&list=WL&index=19
The close collaboration between the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the multi-billion dollar asset management firm Blackrock in devising the March 2020 rescue operation for Wall Street has been revealed in an article published in the New York Times yesterday.
World’s largest asset management firm was “front and center” of Fed’s Wall Street bailout
The close collaboration between the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the multi-billion dollar asset management firm Blackrock in devising the March 2020 rescue operation for Wall Street has been revealed in an article published in the New York Times yesterday.
According to the article, Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock, the world’s biggest asset management firm, was “in frequent touch” with US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Fed chair Jerome Powell “in the days before and after many of the Fed’s emergency programs were announced in late March.”
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
The extent of the collaboration is revealed in new emails obtain by the newspaper together with information that has been previously made public.
In one newly obtained email, Fink refers to planning for the rescue measures as “the project” that he and the Fed were “working on together.”
As the article notes, “America’s top economic officials were in constant contact with a Wall Street executive whose firm stood to benefit financially from the rescue,” showing “how intertwined Blackrock has become with the federal government.”
Blackrock’s close collaboration with the Fed and Treasury came at a crucial point in the development of a crisis in financial markets which began with the onset of the pandemic in March and fears in corporate circles over the response in the working class amid walkouts by workers insisting that safety measures be out in place.
The Fed responded to the initial turbulence in the markets by cutting interest rates. But these measures proved to be insufficient and the potential for a major meltdown in the markets emerged in the week ending March 20 when the $21 trillion US Treasury bond market—the bedrock of the US and global financial system—froze.
Instead of providing a “safe haven” for investors it moved to the centre of the crisis as Treasuries were sold off and no buyers could be found as the sell-off extended to all areas of the financial system.
Faced with a disaster when the markets re-opened, Mnuchin, Powell and Fink were engaged in a series of discussions over the weekend of March 21–22 to devise a rescue package. According to the Times report, Mnuchin spoke to Fink five times over the two days, more than anyone else, other than Powell with whom he spoke nine times.
One of the most significant features of the rescue measures announced on Monday March 23 was the decision by the Fed, for the first time ever, to buy corporate bonds which, as the Times noted, “were becoming nearly impossible to sell as investors sprinted to convert their holdings to cash.”
Blackrock had already closely collaborated with the Fed developing its response to the 2008 financial crisis was thereby set to play a key role in the March intervention.
The article pointed out that, while Blackrock signed a non-disclosure agreement on March 22 restricting The closeness of the relationship between Blackrock and the financial and economic arms of the state, the US Treasury and the Fed, were highlighted in a comment by William Birdthistle, of the Chicago-Kent College of Law and the author of a book on funds, cited in the article.
He said Blackrock was “about as close to a government arm as you can be, without being the Federal Reserve.”
officials from sharing information about the upcoming measures, the way in which the rescue package was devised “mattered to Blackrock.”
The decision of the Fed to buy corporate bonds and provide an underpinning for the market was significant and involved two key areas of Blackrock’s operations. One of the ways it makes profit is by managing money for clients charging a preset fee. But assets under management were contracting as investors went for cash and its business model was under threat.
Blackrock is also a major player in the short-term debt markets which were coming “under intense stress” as investors moved their holdings to cash.
Electronic Traded Funds (ETFs), which track market indexes but which trade like a stock, were also severely impacted.
In the words of the Times article: “Corporate bonds were difficult to trade and near impossible to issue in mid-March 2020. Prices on some high-grade corporate ETFs, including one of Blackrock’s, were out of whack relative to the value of the underlying assets.”
As Gregg Gelenzis, associate director for economic policy at the Center for American Progress told the Times: “This was the first time that ETFs came under stress in a really systemic way.”
In the rescue package the Fed committed itself to buying already existing debt as well as new bonds and also decided it would purchase ETFs with the result that the “bond market and fund recovery was nearly instant.”
As the Times article notes, while practically all of Wall Street benefited from the Fed’s intervention, and other financial firms were “consulted” apart from Blackrock “no other company was as front and center.”
The closeness of the relationship between Blackrock and the financial and economic arms of the state, the US Treasury and the Fed, were highlighted in a comment by William Birdthistle, of the Chicago-Kent College of Law and the author of a book on funds, cited in the article.
He said Blackrock was “about as close to a government arm as you can be, without being the Federal Reserve.”
The Fed makes every effort to cover up that relationship in order to try to preserve the fiction that it is not beholden to Wall Street and operates as an independent public authority concerned above all with the state of the economy and the welfare of the population.
The Times article recalled a news conference in July 2020 in which Powell was asked about the discussions with Fink.
“I can’t recall exactly what those conversations were,” he said, “but they would have been about what he is seeing in the market and things like that.
He said there were not “very many” conversations and that the Blackrock chief was “typically trying to make sure that we are getting good service from the company he founded the leads.”
Powell’s claim that, in the midst of the most significant crisis since the meltdown of 2008—with a potential to go even further, as the freeze in the Treasury market showed—he could not recall those conversations simply does not pass muster.
The value of every crisis, it has been rightly said, is that it reveals the real relations that are obscured and covered over in “normal” times.
And that is the case here. The economic arms of the capitalist state are not some independent authority but function every day in the interests of the corporate and financial oligarchy, servicing its needs and interests above all else.
No comments:
Post a Comment