Pages

Sunday, March 3, 2019

Lord Rothschild WARNING 🚨 SOTU Is ON!! Deep State Will Destroy Trump In Mar 2019? FBI Returns!

JUST IN: Acting AG Whitaker Says Mueller’s Investigation “Close to Being Completed” 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_2646-1-600x319.jpg

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said in a presser on Monday that he has been fully briefed on Mueller’s investigation and that it is close to being completed.

“I’ve been fully briefed on the investigation and I look forward to Director Mueller delivering the final report,” Whitaker said.
“The investigation is, I think, close to being completed, and I hope that we can get the report from Mueller as soon as we — as possible,” Whitaker added. Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel by DAG Rod Rosenstein in May of 2017 to investigate if Donald Trump colluded with the Russians during the 2016 presidential election.
Mueller is also seeking to ‘get Trump’ on obstruction of justice charges for exercising his Presidential authority when he fired James Comey as FBI Director.
A crime was never even named and we still have not seen Rosenstein’s scope memo which gave Mueller the ability to rove around as a rogue prosecutor.
Mueller’s team of lawyers is a who’s who of angry Democrat donors seeking to destroy Trump because he stopped Queen Hillary’s coronation.

Mueller’s crime spree disguised as an investigation has churned out indictments over process crimes.
Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos and Stone have all been charged for making false statements or charged with crimes totally unrelated to Russian collusion.

Mueller’s corrupt report on Trump will be used as fodder to further destroy Trump’s presidency.

Sidney Powell is an expert of Department of Justice corruption and has followed the career of Democrat hatchetman Andrew Weissmann who has destroyed thousands of lives during his career as federal prosecutor only to see his cases overturned years later by superior court rulings.
Sidney Powell wrote LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice after seeing a core group of federal prosecutors break all the rules, make up crimes, hide evidence, and send innocent people to prison in the Enron case.
On Sunday Mark Levin and Sidney Powell discussed the upcoming release of the Mueller report.
Sidney warned that the report, which will likely be authored by Andrew Weissmann, will destroy Trump. That is the goal and that is why Democrats are looking forward to its release.

Bernie Disses Hillary Clinton When Asked If He Will Seek Her Advice For His 2020 Presidential Bid “I Think Not”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3449-1-600x328.jpg

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) appeared on the “The View” Friday morning and dissed Hillary Clinton when Meghan McCain asked him if he would be seeking Clinton’s advice for his 2020 Presidential bid.

“We’re hearing about a lot of Democratic candidates who are meeting with Hillary Clinton for advice like people like Amy Klobuchar — do you think you’ll do the same?” McCain asked Bernie.
“I suspect not…no, she has not called me,” Sanders said. “Look we have fundamental differences.”
When McCain pressed Bernie on if he will seek advice from her he responded, “I think not — Hillary and I have fundamental differences.”
Hillary Clinton completely took over the DNC in 2016 and rigged the primaries in her favor — leaked DNC emails which ended up on WikiLeaks showed how the Dems screwed over Bernie Sanders.
Although Bernie Sanders eventually buried the hatchet and campaigned for Hillary Clinton for the last few months of the 2016 presidential campaign, it appears there may still be some bad blood.

Who Comes after Trump?

Halfway through President Trump's first term in office, the jury is still out on his effectiveness in his quest to "make America great again."
Trump has had some apparent successes: the confirmation of Supreme Court justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the opening of relations and denuclearization talks with North Korea, a national tax cut, and a simplified set of tax deductions.
He has, however, failed to pull the U.S. out of NATO.  Though he has announced troop reductions in Afghanistan and Syria, he has not yet ended American involvement in either war.  And in his biggest humiliation to date, Trump brazenly promised to shut down the government for "years" if necessary to build the wall on the southern border but capitulated after only weeks.
The fact that Trump was willing to even mention these issues in public — along with his opposition to abortion and gun control — has been a victory of sorts for conservatives, given the alternative.
Until now, the fact that Trump is "not Hillary" has been enough.  But it will not be enough forever.  If the election of 2016 was the "Flight 93 Election" (as Michael Anton wrote in the Claremont Review of Books under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus), a vote for Trump was a no-brainer.  Had Hillary stormed the cockpit and seized the controls, America as we understood it would have been finished.  At this point in his presidency, it might be said that Trump wrestled control of the left seat and has succeeded in keeping the plane stable and level, but it is not clear that he knows how to land it (a possibility Anton admitted in his essay) — and the terrorists are still beating on the cockpit door, trying to break it down.  
Trump could lose his grip on the yoke in a number of ways.  He could be impeached; he could lose in 2020; he could — God forbid — be the victim of a Deep State plot worse than what the FBI and Department of Justice have already attempted to do to him.
He could be re-elected and serve a second term.  But the probability of that happening is hardly guaranteed.
Whatever happens, it is worth asking: "Who comes after Trump?"
We know what comes after Trump if the Democrats gain control.  The Trump presidency, be it a success or failure in terms of fulfilling his stated campaign promises, has had the salutary effect of unmasking the Democrats.
They have revealed themselves as the party of late-term abortion if not infanticide; the party of using the national security state apparatus to spy on political opponents and attempt to overturn elections; the party of violating attorney-client privilege to get an opponent; the party of radical gays and transgenderism; the party of radical gun control and Australian-style forcible gun confiscation; the party of anti-white racial demagoguery and "reparations" for slavery; the party of hate crime hoaxes; the party of open borders, unlimited immigration, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the party of seventy- to ninety-percent income taxes on the rich; the party of socialized medicine and making private insurance illegal; the party of outlawing all fossil fuels (and eliminating airline travel) within ten years, and the party of telling people not to have children to "save the planet."
In other words, they are the party of unlimited socialist dictatorship — the United States Constitution, the enumerated powers, and the Bill of Rights be damned.
But who comes after Trump on the right, to continue his efforts to stave off the disaster that a Democratic-controlled government will surely bring?
Here, the situation is almost equally grave.  To a large extent, Trump is a man without a party.  Republican support for Trump has been tepid at best, if not outright hostile.  Failed 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney's first public act as U.S. senator from Utah was not to call out the baby-killers and the gun-grabbers in the Democratic Party, but rather to disparage Trump.  The Republican Party lost its biggest House majority since the 1920s in last year's midterms and barely hung on to the Senate.  Speaker Paul Ryan failed to deliver border wall funding for Trump before voluntarily leaving office — the second Republican speaker in a row to simply quit rather than continue the fight.  (Contrast that with the indefatigable Nancy Pelosi, who like a vampire rose from the crypt to reclaim the title of speaker after losing it in 2010).  The Republicans have proven to be the party of go-along-to-get-along country-clubbers, not political street fighters.
It is, in fact, useful to think of Trump not so much as a Republican, but as if he were a third-party candidate who came out of nowhere and won the presidency to the surprise of both established parties.
The last actual third-party candidate to do that was Lincoln, the first president from the then-upstart Republican Party in 1860.  Lincoln's victory put the Whigs out of business forever — but it also sparked the Civil War and ultimately cost him his life.  Nonetheless, Lincoln's Republicans went on to national dominance, wining fourteen of eighteen presidential elections between 1860 and 1928.
But it is far from clear that Trump has Lincolnesque coattails.  Trump was sui generis in 2016.  He had money and name recognition, two things needed to succeed in politics.  Most candidates need the media and a party to supply those things; Trump didn't.  How many other people out there have Trump's notoriety, money, pugilistic attitude, and willingness to take on The System if Trump fails — or is taken out?  Who else is willing to sacrifice his own money and public image to the unfathomable abuse the left and the media have heaped upon Trump?
No one that I am aware of.  Trump needs to establish a long-term movement and a permanent majority — and it is not certain that he is able to do so.  Meanwhile, demographics are steadily favoring a Democratic future.
With Democrats in control of the House, it is evident that Trump's wall to stop illegal immigration will not get built.  Nor will legal immigration be limited — in fact, Trump is in favor of it.  Yet immigration, both legal and illegal, will eventually flip Texas and Florida blue and ensure Democratic hegemony for the foreseeable future.
So the question remains: will the Trump presidency "make America great again," or will it be a temporary stay of execution from what the Democrats have planned the next time they gain power?
The stakes remain as high for 2020 as they were in 2016.  Maybe higher.
America itself still hangs in the balance.

The Blurry Line between Party and Country

The latest summit between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un highlights the ever-increasing chasm between Democrats and Republicans. The rivalry and animosity has become so intense between warring political factions that the economy/employment, energy production, world events and international relations are no longer judged by the big-picture yardstick of whether or not it’s good for the country, but instead, through the myopic, competitive lens of how any particular development or occurrence affects one’s favored political allies.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, there was an immediate patriotic rush to enlist in the armed forces and strike back at the enemy. People weren’t asking what party you belonged to, nor were the major media outlets (in those days, radio and newspapers) questioning whether Pearl Harbor was actually the fault of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt. There was some muted criticism of his handling of Japanese relations in the months leading up to the attack, but it did not dominate the media coverage.
Likewise, when the Soviets placed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba in October 1962, everyone in this country -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- was transfixed and riveted on the crisis, hoping that President John F. Kennedy could extricate us from the mess and find a way out that spared the world from a potentially disastrous nuclear exchange. There was exceedingly little talk of “this was a Democratic President’s fault.” Instead, there was an overriding feeling within the country that we -- as one nation -- had to be successful.
As recently as 9/11/01, the country reacted as one to the terror attacks on the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA. The anger over the attack was almost universally directed at the attackers and their mastermind, Osama Bin Laden. Who can forget the image of our Washington D.C. lawmakers, standing as one body, singing God Bless America in the immediate aftermath of the attack?
Does anyone think that such a show of national unity would be repeated today?
The first thing that would happen in the event of another crippling multi-thousand-casualty terror attack would be party-based finger-pointing:
“Trump is more interested in giving tax cuts to his rich buddies than he is in keeping the country safe.”
“Yesterday’s terror attack highlights the Democrats’ weakness on national security.”
Today, seemingly every comment or analysis is party-based. Since President Trump is a Republican, any positive results from his policies that benefit the entire country -- or worse yet, accrue largely to the benefit of a Democratic voting bloc -- are either ignored by Democratic politicians and the Democratic-leaning media or dismissed by them as not resulting from his administration’s actions at all.
https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-09/208909_5_.png
There are many such examples:
Black, Hispanic and female unemployment is at an all-time low, yet because it’s the result of President Trump’s common-sense business-friendly policies, it’s overlooked.
The stock market, GDP growth/job creation and energy production -- real indicators of the general quality of life for average Americans -- are all uniformly excellent, but because these positive developments are occurring under the Trump administration, no Democratic politician or commentator will credit President Trump’s policies with any of these positive results, lest such public credit strengthen Trump’s electoral chances in 2020. The Pelosis and Schumers of the world would rather see their constituencies suffer a reduced quality of life than give President Trump any credit at all. Let that thought settle in.
The liberal media and hyperpartisan Democratic politicians openly root for President Trump to be unsuccessful when he meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un or China’s Premier Li Keqiang or when he meets with a NATO country or a Middle East oil producer. President Trump’s political enemies would actually rather see an adversarial foreign nation continue to be a destabilizing threat on the world stage or for France to criticize us or for Saudi Arabia to raise oil prices than to cede any credit to President Trump for improving an international situation. Democrats will gladly accept a disadvantageous foreign policy circumstance for America if it means gaining political advantage over the Republicans.
The same holds true with border security. Democrats are well-documented as being in favor of a physical wall and strong border security as recently as during the Obama administration, but now that President Trump wants the wall, the Democrats are against it, wailing in their pathetically disingenuous voice that it’s “immoral” as they hide in their walled-in private residences. The Democrats -- bolstered by the Democratically-dominated media, as always -- would gladly take uncontrolled illegal immigration with all of its drugs, violence, and negative economic upheaval to the country’s detriment than allow President Trump to achieve what they deem is a political “victory.”
Although throughout history both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty at times of allowing party-based favoritism to take precedence over national common interests, there is very little question that today such behavior is far more prevalent and deeply-held among Democrats. Their open personal disdain and their nonacceptance of Donald Trump’s legitimacy as President has no previous analogue in modern American political history. While Republicans certainly didn’t hide their disregard for the hapless Jimmy Carter, the slick-talking, womanizing Bill Clinton or the socialist/politically-correct, anti-military Barack Obama, the presence of those Democratic presidents just motivated Republicans to offer a stronger candidate next time and endeavor to defeat the Democrats within the rules -- by winning the election.
Democrats -- office-holders, liberal media members and rabid partisan supporters alike -- would much rather see President Trump “fail,” even if that means that the economy worsens, employment prospects for their pet constituencies decline, the country becomes less safe and we become more dependent on unstable, anti-American foreign sources of energy, as long as that failure and its concomitant short-term misery portends a near-future Democratic Presidential victory. And they will rationalize and justify their own behavior all day long, indefensible and disgraceful as such behavior is.
Today’s Democrats epitomize the lowest standard of political conduct: “Party before Country.”


No comments:

Post a Comment