What we are looking at here is outward evidence that not only does the deep state very much exist but that the jig may be up.
This past week, if you were paying attention, you noticed that the deep state was revealed. And I don’t just mean hinted at or alluded to, I mean it was REVEALED, fully, in all its dark slithering unconstitutional un-elected corrupt criminal subversiveness. Did you notice?
So, what did we learn this past week that was so different? I’m so glad you asked!
We learned that the awesomely powerful government agency that is The State Department has not maintained allegiance to the law or to our nation when on last Friday a federal judge complained that he was lied to by the State Department in a suit related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
At a hearing on a Freedom of Information Act case about talking points related to the 2012 Benghazi attack, Judge Royce Lamberth complained that officials told the court that they had completed searching the agency’s records for information on the topic even though they knew that Clinton and other officials had used private email accounts for official business.
“The State Department told me it had produced all the records,” Lamberth complained. “That was not true at the time. It was not true. It was a lie.”
During the hearing on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth accused State Department officials of signing “clearly false” affidavits meant to thwart legal investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
During the heated exchange, Lamberth said that he was left “shocked” and “dumbfounded” when he discovered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation granted former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills immunity during the investigation of Clinton’s infamous e-mail server — especially because Lamberth himself had found that she had previously perjured herself.
“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case,” Lamberth said.
How Big Of A Deal Is This?
It’s huuuuuuge!
This is a very high-profile, very credible claim, based on a first-hand account by a federal judge, that he observed a lawless, rogue element within the highest and most powerful agencies of our government, working across the DOJ, FBI and State Department, operating completely outside the law in service of its own agenda.
If ever there was a definition of a deep state, or a state within a state, this my friends, is it.
This is a big deal. A very big deal. This story is disclosure.
This Judge’s bombshell declaration is an important public piece added to the puzzle of what happened to our country, and it comes at a curious time (again, if you’re paying attention.) It is a precarious time for the deep state, one where we see the noose of the truth tightening around the necks of its actors more and more.
There are no coincidences guys. Both the timing and content of this revelation are very noteworthy here. It lets us know things are moving swiftly enough for this Judge to suddenly be emboldened enough (read safe enough) to disclose this information.
Also on last Friday, not coincidentally, the U.S. government revealed that it used multiple informants to obtain information against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. In court filings, government officials also revealed confidential human sources were paid for their work. The FBI relied heavily on an uncorroborated dossier to obtain warrants to spy on Page.
The FBI’s use of multiple confidential sources is not a surprise, but the disclosure is the first time that the government has acknowledged using sources beyond Steele, who was hired to investigate Trump by the Democrat-connected opposition research firm, Fusion GPS.
So, the FBI has now admitted to placing spies inside the campaign of a US presidential campaign. What do you think the implications of that are? What does that really say about how the most powerful agencies of our government view ‘the rule of law?’ All of this is very telling and paints a clear picture of the absolute irrefutable fact that a ‘state within a state’ has very clearly been operating within and throughout our government. In case you’re not sure, a ‘deep state’ is by definition the opposite of a republic.
Another Important Tid Bit of Info
Combine these two revelations with what is being called a public service announcement issued by Politico, also on Friday, to all Russiagates, based on defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case. As the Mueller investigation shows clear signs of winding down, those waiting to see proof of collusion and treason by Donald Trump are being advised to ‘prepare for disappointment.’
What we are looking at here is outward evidence that not only does the deep state very much exist but that the jig may be up. So up in fact that it’s now safe to start disclosing how this lawless conspiratorial apparatus has functioned, in preparation for the next phase, where justice, hopefully, will be served.
My prediction is that there will be a lot more of this type of information hitting the mainstream. I also predict that as it does, the ‘migrant caravan’ (or some other distraction, like the killing of a “journalist”), will continue to swell and make noise. See how that works? Keep a keen eye out for deep state proof hitting the news!
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
This man is crass. Okay. He’s not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is DOING THE JOB of rebuilding the nation
This was written by the mother of a Navy Seal who was KIA
THE SALTY SAILOR and the FIREMAN”
The views this mother has about Donald Trump are much like many other people. Her characterization of Trump as the “Salty Sailor” or as “The Fireman” paint an excellent picture!! She has written many great books about her son and family. This is a Comment from KAREN VAUGHN, Mother of Aaron Vaughn, Navy Seal.
Sometimes God uses the no-nonsense, salty sailor to get the job done. Appreciating what the man is doing doesn’t mean we worship the salty sailor or even desire to be like the salty sailor. It doesn’t even mean God admires the salty sailor. Maybe He just knows he’s necessary for such a time as this.
I believe with all my heart that God placed that salty sailor in the White House to give this nation one more chance in November 2016. Donald Trump is what he is – and he is still the man he was before the election – and without guilt. I very much admire what that salty sailor is accomplishing.
He’s not like me. That’s okay with me. I don’t want to be like him. I will never behave like him. I know we’ve NEVER had a man like him lead our nation before. It’s crazy and a little mind blowing at times. But I can’t help admire the stamina and ability he has – acting with his heart rather than a calculated, PC, think tank-screened, carefully edited script. I still believe that is WHY he became our President and WHY he’s been able to handle a landslide of adversity and STILL pass unprecedented amounts of good legislation for our country AND do great works for MANY other nations, including Israel.
I’m THRILLED with what he’s doing for my nation, for the cause of Christ (whether intentional or unintentional, doesn’t matter to me), and for the concept of rebuilding America and putting her FIRST. I will not be ashamed of my position because others don’t see him through the same lens.
Should it matter to me if a fireman drops an f-bomb while he’s pulling me from a burning building? Would I really care about what came out of his mouth in those moments? Heck no! I’d CARE about what he was DOING. He wasn’t sent there to save my soul and I’m not looking to him for spiritual guidance. All I’m thinking in those moments is, “Thank you, GOD, for sending the fireman.” AND DONALD TRUMP IS OUR FIREMAN.
I’ll soon post this article again for those who still might not understand me. This man is crass. Okay. He’s not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he’s not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is DOING THE JOB of rebuilding the nation my son died for… the nation I feared was on a fast track to becoming a hopeless cause.
Forgive me if I’m smiling.”
Written by KAREN VAUGHN
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Brennan-aligned Saudi ideologues like ostracized Prince Alweed Talal; who use massive amounts of money to corrupt U.S. politicians and intelligence officials; coordinated an opportunity to strike back at Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) through the death of Khashoggi.
Tribal divisions, based on political ideology, exist within all government institutions – including the intelligence community. To dismiss this truism is to be intellectually dishonest. Our recent American history has provided us a clear reference in the example of President Obama weaponizing the DOJ, FBI and CIA to target his political opposition, Donald Trump.
One theory is that Jamal Khashoggi held a strong alignment with Brennan-minded U.S. intelligence officials, hence his working relationship with the Washington Post. Under this premise Khashoggi would be negotiating with officials inside Saudi for a meeting in Turkey specifically because the Pro-Iran sketchy Brennan types have close relationships with corrupt Turkish intelligence officials and could monitor closely.
After setting up the meeting at the Saudi consulate in Turkey and coordinating therein; U.S. and Turkish intelligence were closely monitoring the visit anticipating the outcome.
I believe the theory is plausible. Alwaleed definitely wanted to avenge his treatment by MSB and his probable loss of beau-coup assets as well as loss of influence with the US politicos. All three could have been avenged by whacking Kashaoggi…and as a bonus it put PDJT on the defensive with the Dems, MM, GOPe and Never Trumpers. And the Turks – well I don’t think the Turks like anyone except themselves. They would never pass up the opportunity to poke Uncle Sam in the eye.
Brennan-aligned Saudi ideologues like ostracized Prince Alweed Talal; who use massive amounts of money to corrupt U.S. politicians and intelligence officials; coordinated an opportunity to strike back at Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) through the death of Khashoggi.
This theory would explain the outcome and massive attention therein.
One of the biggest ‘tells’ for me in this whole ordeal is that CIA director Haspel flew to Turkey. If this were a diplomatic incident involving a US citizen and a foreign government, then why would Haspel fly there to investigate?
My theory: Khashoggi was involved with the CIA as an asset.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Search for Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi-Turkish Islamist activist who hated Jews and backed Hamas, and the results are legion.
Search for Jerry Wolkowitz, an American Jewish journalist, at the Washington Post and you get zero results.
Search for Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi-Turkish Islamist activist who hated Jews and backed Hamas, and the results are legion.
Search for Jerry Wolkowitz, an American Jewish journalist, at the Washington Post and you get zero results.
While the Washington Post weeps and wails over Khashoggi, an anti-Semitic foreign Islamist, it has no interest in the murder of a Jewish journalist in the United States.
Jerry Wolkowitz, a longtime EMT, photojournalist and son of Jewish Holocaust survivors who was the victim of a vicious racially-motivated attack, has died at age 56 after nearly six months on life support.
On May 1, 2018, 25-year-old Jamil Hubbard allegedly approached Wolkowitz from behind and punched him in the head and face. He then allegedly pulled Wolkowitz’s body into the parking lot of his Freehold, New Jersey apartment building and ran him over with his car, leaving him for dead.
Wolkowitz was a freelance journalist and photographer for numerous publications including the Asbury Park Press. He was also an EMT and ambulance driver and volunteer with the Freehold First Aid and Rescue Squad.
Jerry Wolkowitz, a longtime EMT and journalist, has died nearly six months after a brutal, allegedly racially motivated beating left him on life support. He was 56.
Wolkowitz, described as an “innocent soul” by younger medics he took under his wing, was walking near his Harding Road apartment on the morning of May 1 when authorities believe 26-year-old Jamil S. Hubbard of Sayreville beat him and dragged him into a parking lot
Wolkowitz was hospitalized for weeks before being taken to a long-term care facility, where he stayed until his kidneys failed, friends said. Family members took turns to visit him each week until he died.
In the months that followed the assault, Wolkowitz’s loved ones remained by his side through infections and organ failures.
Hubbard “explained that he chose him because he was a white man,” Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Keri-Leigh Schaefer said in a September court hearing. Although Hubbard had never met Wolkowitz, he wanted to kill him because of his race, she said.
But the Washington Post can’t be bothered to care about a murdered American journalist. Just about anti-Semitic Islamists.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
What is to be assured is that Khashoggi was a man deeply embedded in the global apparatus currently known as the Deep State. His death may be a carnie call to the stay-behinds still actively undermining US policy.
Reposted from Americanpartisan.org
Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy: Jamal Khashoggi and the Story Not Being Told
On 2 OCT 2018, Washington Post journalist and middle eastern political activist Jamal Khashoggi went missing after entering the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Some in the course of the last news cycle has alleged this to be a much deeper incident than it appears on the surface; a vanished journalist, murder, international intrigue, a Saudi administration in conflict with Turkey; both jockeying for power in a region bound for widespread war in the coming years. Over a year post-living in exile after being banned from the Kingdom of al Saud, Khashoggi returned to the assumed security of the nation of his familial ancestry while continuing a career of revolutionary praxis through media in the mideast region. Needing a legal certificate of divorce from the Saudi government, Khashoggi felt safe approaching the embassy- in and out, no harm, no foul.
How wrong he was.
Embassies and consulates are nerve centers for declared spooks of a nation. Formal intelligence officers working in a nation must be declared. Journalists, on the other hand, can get placed into positions of unique access and are often conduits for sensitive information. In any country where intelligence operations are being run (and that’s all of them) a nation’s embassy serves as the hot spot for intelligence and in turn, counterintelligence. With Khashoggi, we find an example of split loyalty divided between revolutionary Marxism and a convenient ally found in the politics of revolutionary Islam. Possibly best examining this juxtaposition is his quote from a WaPo piece in late August:
The United States’ aversion to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is more apparent in the current Trump administration, is the root of a predicament across the entire Arab world. The eradication of the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing less than an abolition of democracy and a guarantee that Arabs will continue living under authoritarian and corrupt regimes. In turn, this will mean the continuation of the causes behind revolution, extremism and refugees — all of which have affected the security of Europe and the rest of the world. Terrorism and the refugee crisis have changed the political mood in the West and brought the extreme right to prominence there.
He goes on:
There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it. A significant number of citizens in any given Arab country will give their vote to Islamic political parties if some form of democracy is allowed. It seems clear then that the only way to prevent political Islam from playing a role in Arab politics is to abolish democracy, which essentially deprives citizens of their basic right to choose their political representatives.
…There are efforts here in Washington, encouraged by some Arab states that do not support freedom and democracy, to persuade Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. If they succeed, the designation will weaken the fragile steps toward democracy and political reform that have already been curbed in the Arab world.
The point made by that last paragraph is critical. “Freedom and Democracy” is a common phrase touted by Marxian-inspired revolutionaries. And Islamist revolutionaries are exactly that. Thriving in the swamp of Washington DC, Khashoggi no doubt not only found himself among willing peers but cheerleaders among the Deep State apparatchik, with those ties neither recent nor random. His tale is one of deep alliances with what we now know of as the Deep State, made of the Marxist-inspired and academia-groomed bureaucracies of the Washington elite. The Muslim Brotherhood to which he refers is the revolutionary party of Egypt, spearheading the so-called “Arab Spring” which plunged the stable nation into chaos and directly endangered the control of the Suez Canal, keeping fuel prices affordable, in the hands of Islamists. Mohammed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, found a quite inviting home in the White House and among the leftist administration of Barack Hussein Obama. Wasting no time eliminating political rivals and religious minorities, most notably Coptic Christians, the Egyptian Army stepped in to remove the leftist cancer that had been installed as a proxy of the Obama administration.
Tracing the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization gets its guiding philosophy from Sayyid Qutb, a Western-educated Islamic cleric who came to seek strict reformation and removal of Western influence from the Islamic world. It is from Qutb that many early Islamic movements sprang and later ones would thrive; al Qaeda being most notable. And Khashoggi would find himself comfy bedfellows with al Qaeda’s revolutionary leader and fellow Saudi, Osama bin Laden. Traveling to Afghanistan to support bin Laden in the 80s, the New York Times notes:
…the war’s failure to put Afghanistan on sound footing haunted Mr. Khashoggi, as did Bin Laden’s later turn to terrorism.
“He was disappointed that after all that struggle, the Afghans never got together,” said a Saudi friend of Mr. Khashoggi’s who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
Mr. Khashoggi’s trips to Afghanistan and his relationship with Prince Turki al-Faisal, who headed Saudi intelligence, made some of Mr. Khashoggi’s friends suspect he was also spying for the Saudi government.
His connections with not only the Saudi intelligence apparatus but the larger revolutionary movements of the region becomes clear when examined further:
The friendship endured with Jamal Khashoggi following Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan. Khashoggi credited Adel Batterjee, listed at one time as one of “the world’s foremost terrorist financiers” by the Treasury Department, with bringing him to Afghanistan to report on the fighting.
The media calls Khashoggi a journalist, but his writings from 80s Afghanistan read as Jihadist propaganda with titles like, “Arab Mujahadeen in Afghanistan II: Exemplifies the Unity of Islamic Ummah”.
And when Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda, he called Khashoggi with the details.
After Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi went to work as a media adviser for former Saudi intel boss, Prince Turki bin Faisal, alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. Those allegations came from, among others, Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged twentieth hijacker.
When the other 19 hijackers perpetrated the attacks of September 11, Khashoggi wrote that the Saudis would not “give in” to American “demands” for “unconditional condemnation” and “total cooperation”.
“Saudis tend to link the ugliness of what happened in New York and Washington with what has happened and continues to happen in Palestine. It is time that the United States comes to understand the effect of its foreign policy and the consequences of that policy,” he declared.
“A Muslim cannot be happy with the suffering of others. Even if this suffering is that of Americans who neglected the suffering of Palestinians for half a century.”
The suspicion of him being a spy was likely true. The espionage of Khashoggi would be one of convenience and serving multiple masters however; living and working for that same revolutionary praxis, diverging only where he saw fit all the while running afoul of the established order of his nationsake. For Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman, his activities had not only grown counterproductive but a direct threat to the Kingdom- once there was a changing of the guard in Washington. As recently as 2016, Khashoggi was criticized for his close ties to both the Saudi intelligence apparatus and that of the Turkish government, with Bahraini media commenting on the issues in Cyprus noting,
Khashoggi seizes every opportunity to confirm his complete support for the Turkish role in the region. He is one of the public opinion makers having close ties with the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, who vigorously worked, through the media, on narrowing the Saudi-Turkish difference following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, as well as promoting a partnership between the two countries based on leading the Sunni Muslims and supporting “Islamist Jihadists” in Syria. He is almost a frequent visitor of Turkey and his personal Twitter account is full of news about his meetings with Turkish Justice and Development Party officials and statements praising them and their policies in the region.
Post Saudi anti-corruption purge of 2018, Khashoggi likely had too many friends running counter to the intent of the Kingdom and thus became persona non grata. His troubles however surfaced early in the newly-minted regime of bin Salman’s father. After directly criticizing then President-elect Trump, Khashoggi was effectively muzzled before departing the nation in 2017, all the while not diverting from his revolutionary path and defaulting to his Deep State allies in the West and in Turkey. Suspected of being an agent for the failed Saudi ‘Arab Spring’, such a destabilization could not be tolerated.
This begs the question of just who would benefit from chaos in Saudi Arabia. Iran would for one, exploiting the blood feud between Shia and Sunni Islam while simultaneously uniting under one banner of Sharia; a prerequisite goal satisfying Tawhid, or unity under Allah before the Islamic Day of Return. Khashoggi did not share common ancestry nor ideology with the Persians however; he was at home with the restorationist Ottomans of Erdogan and the Turkish government. Vowing he is “he is personally “chasing” the investigation”, Turkish President Erdogan has taken personal issue with a matter among Saudi nationals. Turkey, seeking to expand their sphere of influence away from the Whabbism of the House of al Saud, would benefit most from destabilization of the Saudi Kingdom and thus explains their complicit support of many elements of Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan and John Kerry’s failures in regime change.
What is to be assured is that Khashoggi was a man deeply embedded in the global apparatus currently known as the Deep State. His death may be a carnie call to the stay-behinds still actively undermining US policy. Leftist in both origin and ideology, Khashoggi’s role was change in the middle east assured by the hubris of aligned media outlets; a common home for burned spies with too much baggage. He was not protected as he so thought, he was not untouchable, and his story should not be the October surprise that drives a wedge between Trump and an otherwise strong economy through a rise in gas prices. Rogue operation or not, Khashoggi was an agent of the worst actors of the West and perished by the idiotic game he played. He should neither be mourned nor exalted as a martyr- he was nothing more than a pawn to those playing in the affairs of other nations. What is likely however may be a different issue altogether, signaling a larger power struggle throughout the Middle East. Erdogan is on the rise and seeking to expand his influence not only in the middle east but in Europe; he will no doubt use this to his advantage as the Turkish government already has done. Taking into account his strategic point into Europe and the Middle East, uneasy times are following.
My thoughts:
The media and uninformed politicians are beating the “punishment drum” regarding Saudi Arabia and the death of Jamal Khashoggi.
He is being portrayed as a “journalist”, a rather disingenuous description of the man.
There’s no justification for his murder. But don’t whitewash what he believed – his commitment to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, his long-standing association with Osama bin Laden and continuing connection to Islamic extremists.
In August, Jamal #Khashoggi wrote about the Muslim Brotherhood and the need to accept political Islam. The U.S. is wrong to ignore the Muslim Brotherhood — and the Arab world is suffering for it. Muslim Brotherhood! The same group led by Qaradawi who is advocating suicide bombers. Yeah sure, that is exactly what we need in the world and exactly why #Khashoggi is being be canonized by his fellow “Deep State” actors.
Khashoggi was a journalist like Jeffrey Dahmer was a chef.
There is more to this story.
Why grab him inside the embassy, when you could grab him on the street? Or in his hotel. Why dismember him inside your embassy, when you could do it inside a thousand different abandoned buildings?
Why would you fly the hit squad into Turkey on a business jet?
Either this is the most poorly planned hit of all time…or there is more to the story.
I smell a rat, or at least a very sinister mouse. But probably not the CIA rodents.
Brennan in particular would never push anything like – he’s a Muslim Brotherhood BFF. Nor Hillary. Her agenda was also pro-M.B., because that’s where the money was from her POV. Arms deals, from what I remember reading about the time of Benghazi.
Most of the info in our MSM is coming through Turkish news processors, which are very much pro-Brotherhood and anti the new Saudi regime. How much is true?
Could the Saudis be that crude about an assassination? I don’t want to think so, but the latest meme I’m seeing is that it was not authorized by the Prince. Apparently some underling is taking the fall for it, and it might actually be true that somebody went off the reservation.
Right or wrong, at this time the Saudis and the Egyptian military are the only sane Islamic actors in the M.E., so far as relations with the USA and Israel are concerned. Trump will have to make some noise to satisfy the jackals in our media corps, but nothing substantial will change, nor should it.
Listen to Brennans comments on the issue. “US govt fabricating story”. If no action by Saudi, US will have to act. MSM fed by CIA, FBI, all the rest.
Key words: Trump-“who ever” is behind this (Saudi not mentioned) will suffer severe consequences.
Most likely he knows who/what is. Hopefully he is just biding his time.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
Proverbs 1:10-15
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing. It happened just as President Franklin Roosevelt said it would: “The lessons of history,” he said in 1935, “show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
“the poor you have with you always…”
–John 12:8
Fifty-four years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared “unconditional war” on poverty.
“The War on Poverty is not a struggle simply to support people,” declared President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. “It is an effort to allow them to develop and use their capacities.” During the 20 years before the War on Poverty was funded, the portion of the nation living in poverty had dropped to 14.7% from 32.1%. Since 1966, the first year with a significant increase in antipoverty spending, the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau has been virtually unchanged.
40 million Americans live in “squalor and deprivation. Welfare and the criminal justice system is effectively a system for keeping the poor in poverty according to “Progressive” think-tanks.
The Census Bureau counts as poor all people in families with incomes lower than the established income thresholds for their respective family size and composition.
The thresholds, first set in 1963, are based on a multiple of the cost of a budget for adequately nutritious food, adjusted for inflation.
While the Census Bureau reports that in 2016 some 12.7% of Americans lived in poverty, it is impossible to reconcile this poverty rate, which has remained virtually unchanged over the last 50 years, with the fact that total inflation-adjusted government-transfer payments to low-income families have risen steadily.
Transfers targeted to low-income families increased in real dollars from an average of $3,070 per person in 1965 to $34,093 in 2016.
The measured poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged only because the Census Bureau doesn’t count most of the transfer payments created since the declaration of the War on Poverty.
The bureau measures poverty using what it calls “money income,” which includes earned income and some transfer payments such as Social Security and unemployment insurance. But it excludes food stamps, Medicaid, the portion of Medicare going to low-income families, Children’s Health Insurance, the refundable portion of the earned-income tax credit, at least 87 other means-tested federal payments to individuals, and most means-tested state payments.
If government counted these missing $1.5 trillion in annual transfer payments, the poverty rate would be less than 3%.
The stated goal of the War on Poverty was not just to raise living standards, but also to make America’s poor more self-sufficient and to bring them into the mainstream of the economy.
In that effort the war has been an abject failure, increasing dependency and largely severing the bottom fifth of earners from the rewards and responsibilities of work.
The War on Poverty has increased dependency and failed in its primary effort to bring poor people into the mainstream of America’s economy and communal life.
There are three other factors:
1. A severe decline in the number of jobs that can be done by an unskilled or uneducated person, along with technologies that make it increasingly difficult for people on the margins to even apply for them.
2. The much greater gap between how far one income goes in terms of spending power and what it costs to actually live.
3. Badly handled programs that instead of encouraging part-time work and self-employment (the way most people who actually get out of poverty manage to do it) punish it; both by harsh regulations that discourage any sort of part-time work for fear of losing what benefits a person/family has and/or insane amounts of regulations and fees to set up any sort of small business or be “certified” for traditional jobs like hairdresser, home sewer, cookie baking or even taxi driver.
The idea of “Universal Basic Income” was supposed to “solve” this last problem but so far hasn’t worked very well (the idea is there are no penalties for making more money).
Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing. It happened just as President Franklin Roosevelt said it would: “The lessons of history,” he said in 1935, “show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
There is an economic truism; “You can’t get rid of something by subsidizing it.”
After fifty-four years of intense combat and the expenditure of almost uncountable wealth it would be accurate to say, the war is over. Poverty won.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
For the millions upon millions of Americans of all ages and all races contemporary “Progressive” callout culture merely looks like an excuse to mock the values or perceived ignorance of others.
According to an article in the October 10th Atlantic magazine Americans strongly dislike PC, (Politically Correct) culture.
In a report written by More in Common, an organization of globalists founded in 2018, they argue that while over 80% of Americans are uncomfortable or dislike political correctness, the numbers do not reflect an accurate picture.
The authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.
According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream.
Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, described as “woke”, and their views are even less typical.
By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”
Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24.
On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.
Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.
Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment.
Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. As one 40-year-old American Indian in Oklahoma said in his focus group, according to the report:
“It seems like everyday you wake up something has changed … Do you say Jew? Or Jewish? Is it a black guy? African-American? … You are on your toes because you never know what to say. So political correctness in that sense is scary.”
Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem. (NOTE: that’s 30% of 8% or 2.4% of the population).
So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white.
They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are.
With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.
The author of the article then goes on to say;
“Obviously, my followers are not a representative sample of America. But as their largely supportive feelings about political correctness indicate, they are probably a decent approximation for a particular intellectual milieu to which I also belong: politically engaged, highly educated, left-leaning Americans—the kinds of people, in other words, who are in charge of universities, edit the nation’s most important newspapers and magazines, and advise Democratic political candidates on their campaigns.”
A clear majority of all Americans holds a nuanced point of view: They abhor racism. But they don’t think that the way we now practice political correctness represents a promising way to overcome racial, (or any other type of), injustice.
What the vast majority of Americans seem to see is not so much genuine concern for social justice by “Progressives” as the preening display of virtue signalling and self-perceived cultural superiority.
For the millions upon millions of Americans of all ages and all races contemporary “Progressive” callout culture merely looks like an excuse to mock the values or perceived ignorance of others.
The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue should do damage to the institutions that the progressive elite collectively run, (leftist politics, Hollywood, Big Media and academia), AND IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
CNN’s history of dismissing, inciting, downplaying, or outright advocating in favor of political violence against Republicans and conservatives is a long and sordid one.
“The left is not necessarily aiming at totalitarianism. But their know-it-all mindset leads repeatedly and pervasively in that direction, even if by small steps, each of which might be called ‘micro-totalitarianism.'”
–Thomas Sowell
“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.”
–Barry Goldwater GOP Acceptance speech
CNN spent much of last Tuesday defending mob action against Republicans as a “Constitutional right” and as fearless acts of free speech.
Far leftist CNN host Don Lemon launched into a full-throated defense of mob action:
“In the Constitution, you can protest whenever and wherever you want. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it in a restaurant, that you can’t do it on a football field. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it on a cable news — you can do it wherever you want.”
“To call people mobs because they are exercising their constitutional right is just beyond the pale,” Lemon said before cutting to a commercial.
CNN’s history of dismissing, inciting, downplaying, or outright advocating in favor of political violence against Republicans and conservatives is a long and sordid one.
“Michelle [Obama] always says ‘When they go low, we go high,’” Holder told the audience, recently released video shows. “No. No. When they go low, we kick them.”
“When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go.”
–Thomas Sowell
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
Should we replace her with the court of public opinion? The court of the talking head panel of experts? Should we place additional weights on the scales to compensate for past wrongs of “privilege” or “prejudice?
For all the recent talk about facts versus “fake news,” telling the truth, and recapturing the public’s trust in the era of President Trump, some of our most important media blew it when it mattered most. Worse still, some demonstrated an immediate willingness to trade this industry’s already badly battered reputation for a political victory.
We are now at the unsuccessful conclusion of a four-week-long effort by certain media organizations to prove Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a violent sexual predator and a lying alcoholic. The reckless and grossly irresponsible scramble by the New Yorker, NBC News, the New York Times, and others to make Kavanaugh into a monster produced some of the worst journalism of the Trump era to date – and that’s a pretty high bar.
Journalists make mistakes, of course. But had all of the sloppy and often unethical reporting on Kavanaugh been the product of mere negligence or human error, the law of averages suggests that some of the errors would have been in his favor. None of them were. From great to small, they all tried to prove Kavanaugh unfit to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be hard to blame a viewer or reader who concluded that these newsrooms acted not as the gatekeepers of truth, but as willing agents in the Democratic Party’s 11th-hour effort to destroy the judge’s good name, along with his chances of becoming the swing vote on the Supreme Court.
In this matter, the Rule of Law has been our dispassionate arbiter of justice.
She is depicted as blindfolded, with a sword in one hand and scales in another. She is blindfolded to accept parties who come before her with impartiality and without bias. We are equal before her.
The sword represents her authority and the force of government at her side. The scales represent the deliberative process that weighs the solid, verifiable evidence brought before her of the guilt of the accused of wrong doing. The scales must tip further to one side or another to establish guilt in a civil matter between parties. It evidence must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in establishing a crime.
This is America’s icon of justice. To the degree we accept her as the arbiter of disputes and the decisions she reaches, we are in civil society together.
When large portions of society no longer agree to abide with her outcomes, and “resist” her system, we are simply no longer in civil society together with them.
When our Supreme Court Justices are no longer pillars that support her, we crumble.
Sure, she has flaws – she may be peeking or allowing a thumb to be placed on the scales or the sword to be brandished too heavily. We must always work together to correct that.
Should we replace her with the court of public opinion? The court of the talking head panel of experts? Should we place additional weights on the scales to compensate for past wrongs of “privilege” or “prejudice? Should we give extra credence to the weight of alleged survived victimhood?
As a person who believes that blind justice is “the best we got,” I will not agree to appease her resistors or to substitute Sharia or other international forms of justice in her stead. It is fundamentally not acceptable to me.
This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.
