The sustained invasion of the West from the third world continues as yet another caravan composed of thousands of Central American migrants makes its way north toward the US-Mexico border.
Again, rather than arrest and deport the migrants, Mexican authorities have done absolutely nothing to prevent the caravan from heading toward the US border. Mexico’s federal police are escorting the entitled migrants north toward Tijuana.
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who’s an anti-establishment leftist, has said that he’s pursuing a ‘humanitarian’ approach to the ordeal, saying that he’ll help stem the flow of migrants by finding them jobs.
Right… Mexico, an all but failed narco-state at this point, who can’t even provide enough jobs for its citizens, is going to find jobs for thousands of unskilled workers from Central America. That sounds completely feasible.
In exchange for Obrador’s selfless ‘humanitarian’ services, he has called on Trump to help prompt economic development in the region. The 320 million dollars of annual aid that the United States gives Mexico isn’t enough.
But why do these migrants seem to think they can waltz into our country, be handed jobs, homes, food stamps, and free healthcare? That question is an evasive one.
It’s almost as if they think that it’s their God-given right to live in the United States. Well, I have news for them – it’s not. Furthermore, the majority of American’s don’t want them inside of the U.S. Millions of Americans are already struggling to make ends meet. We cannot afford to take in, house, feed, provide jobs to, and give medical care to a never-ending line of migrants from the third world. It’s unfortunate, I know. But it’s also the reality.
Immigration officials in Mexico reported on Sunday that nearly 3,700 people from Central American migrant caravans have registered for temporary status in the country.
Hundreds more refused to wait for ‘humanitarian’ visas from the Mexican government and illegally crossed the loosely guarded border bridge from Guatemala into Mexico. Most migrants who were interviewed by various news outlets like France 24 and Fox News have stated that reaching the United States is indeed their ultimate goal. Others have said that if that doesn’t work out, that they will likely stay in Mexico.
Unfortunately, this problem isn’t going away anytime soon unless the U.S. government takes drastic actions against Mexican and Central American governments. As long as the governments of Central America and Mexico are complacent and assist these caravans in reaching the United States, the issue will persist.
Trump has already floated the idea of withdrawing the vast amount of aid that U.S. taxpayers generously gives to these countries if indeed they continue to refuse to enforce immigration law.
If Trump cares about the already struggling U.S. worker, then he would be wise to add some bite to his loud bark. Perhaps then these countries would be more receptive to our concerns.
Constitution provides that from time-to-time the President of the United States is to provide Congress with his views as to the state of the union. The report is also to inform Congress on any legislative actions he would like them to consider. The Constitution does not say how that is to be accomplished.
George Washington believed it should be in the form of a formal address to the Congress. That tradition was short-lived when America’s third President, Thomas Jefferson, decided that heading up to Capitol Hill was a waste of time. He provided his perspective on the state of the Union in written form. That was how it was done until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson decided to address the Congress. This required that Congress – specifically the Speaker of the House – tender an invitation to the President. That has been the practice since.
It has been one of the high points of the presidential year – becoming more important with the advent of television. The entire American public – indeed the rest of the world – could tune into the speech and hear what the American President thought of the critical issues. It became a direct link between the President and we the people.
Virtually all presidents got high marks for their speeches. Of sure, there were those in opposition who viewed with alarm the very same things the President pointed to with pride. In more recent years, the opposition party was provided an opportunity to rebut. Anyone who believes in transparency and an informed public had to see the speech and the rebuttal as a good thing.
Apparently not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the act of political petulance, Pelosi announced that she would withdraw the invitation for the President to address the nation from the floor of the people’s chamber. She said that she was concerned about security, but that was a false and flimsy excuse.
Pelosi seemed to have two motives – to deny the President the ability to speak to the people and to vent her anger at Trump for not giving in on the funding for the border protection – the wall. It is not easy to know what Pelosi hoped to achieve, but her pettiness may have reminded many Americans why she has been such an unpopular figure in the Washington establishment.
In the game of political one-upmanship, Pelosi may have given Trump another opportunity to turn the tables. Rather than try to override her childish petulance — not unlike that prepubescent angry refrain “I’m not going to invite you to my birthday party” — Trump should accept Pelosi’s decision (or was it just a threat?) and move forward with plans to address the nation from another location.
The steps or portico of the Capitol Building would be a good location – conjuring up the false image of Martin Luther posting his reforms at the door of the Whittenberg Castle Church. It would be an invitation-only event to which Trump would invite the entire Congress. Sticking with tradition, Trump would also invite the Supreme Court, the military chiefs-of-staff, the Cabinet and special guests.
Pelosi would also be on the invitation list. If she attended, she would be seated in the front row, but not behind Trump, as is the traditional position of honor. Her presence would be a public embarrassment as Trump led off his speech with an explanation for the unusual venue – how the lady of the House had ended a more than 100-year tradition for no good reason. If she did not attend, she would be conspicuous by her absence. In fact, the more Democrat legislators who boycotted the event, the more petulant they would look.
This is just the sort of event that only a Donald Trump could execute with maximum effect – and would very likely bring very high ratings. It would rival Hollywood’s Oscar night in building anticipation of who would be seen, how the event would proceed and how the audience would react. It would sure beat that tired old imagery of the President orating for more than one hour as the Vice President and the Speaker of the House served as stage props – looking like a pair of Toby mugs. Hell, it may even kick off a new tradition.
So, there ‘tis.
It’s no secret that as the biggest opposition party in the country, right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) poses a massive threat to globalist politicians like Angela Merkel.
This is precisely why earlier this week on Tuesday, Focus Magazine reported that Thomas Haldenwang, the newly installed head of the Verfassungsschutz (BfV), the German secret police, plans to put Alternative for Germany (AfD) under surveillance for purported ‘anti-democratic tendencies.’
Just in November of last year, former head of the BfV, Hans-Georg Maassen, was ousted from the position due to his vocal opposition against domestic intelligence in Germany observing the AfD.
A few months earlier in August, following the murder of two Germans by Middle Eastern migrants in the city of Chemnitz, mass protests against immigration were carried out by German civilians. German Chancellor Angela Merkel denounced the demonstrations, calling them ‘Nazi manhunts,’ a ridiculous claim with zero evidence to back it up.
Massen, head of the BfV at the time, challenged Merkel on this outrageous claim that was of course echoed by the international mainstream press.
You can now begin to see the reason Massen was removed from his position. In true authoritarian fashion, Merkel couldn’t have the head of the domestic intelligence apparatus calling into question her unfounded claims.
The investigation into AfD marks the very first time in German history since World War II that a party seated in the Bundestag (German parliament) has been put under this degree of scrutiny.
After World War II, Germany adopted a new constitution which allows the government to restrict so-called ‘extremist’ ideologies via the monitoring or banning of parties deemed as ‘too extreme.’
In the case that German secret police do officially label the Alternative for Germany party as ‘extremist,’ government employees, teachers, lawyers, and others will be prevented from joining the populist party.
In a recent tweet, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas hinted at the latest report and suggested the ideas of AfD should be challenged instead of being limited or shut down by the government. He wrote, “Observing them won’t solve the problems. Above all, we need to deal with the AfD objectively and politically.”
Regarding the intelligence probe, AfD foreign policy spokesperson, Petr Bystron commented saying, “This is a pure propaganda campaign to smear us. The Verfassungsschutz has been keeping tabs on us for months and published a thousand-page report, which found no evidence whatsoever of any illegal activity. With the European and state elections coming, which promise to be a landslide for the AfD, the ruling parties need some way to attack us. This is the same secret police that has allowed Islamic terrorists to roam freely, such as Anis Amri, who perpetrated the 2016 Christmas market massacre. They are subject to political control by the ruling parties, who now are not hesitating to use them as a political weapon to club their opponents with.”
After narrowly missing the 5% electoral threshold to sit in the German parliament in 2013, four years later in 2017, the AfD successfully secured representation in 14 of the 16 German state parliaments, and became the third-largest party in Germany, laying claim to a total of 94 seats in the federal parliament.
Since 2017, support for populist parties across Europe has only continued to surge. As of today, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Slovakia all have populist politicians as heads of state and as ruling parties.
Globalist politicians like Merkel in Germany or Macron in France have reason to be afraid. Angela Merkel isn’t dumb. She sees the writing on the wall.
The only way for parties like her own to stay in power is to usurp the democratic process and attenuate the will of the German people.
The irony is that to both usurp the democratic process and limit the will of the German people. She must denounce and investigate the party with ever-increasing public support as anti-democratic.
Regardless of your personal feelings about Alex Jones, there’s no denying that the man is the probably the most censored public figure of our time.
Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and now as of a few days ago, Roku.
In case you aren’t familiar with Roku, it’s a California-based tech company that provides video-streaming services to users, giving them access to many thousands of channels of third-party content. Roku’s technology is built into many different brands of Blu-ray players and smart TVs. Nearly 24 million people use the service.
Roku added Alex Jones’ Infowars to their platform sometime this month – six months after he was banned from the other Silicon Valley platforms last year.
The SJW Twitter Stasi was quick to call the company out for allowing Jones onto their platform.
One Tweet from @DanielMadison78, a Roku user, read, “Hey @Roku, what’s with you adding Infowars to your platform?”
The move also drew the attention of the Twitter account Sleeping Giants, a tattletale account that urges people to call out and screenshot brand ads on websites and platforms with content deemed outside of the political left’s scope of acceptability.
Lawyers involved in a lawsuit between Sandy Hook parents and Jones also called out the streaming platform publicly, saying that it was “indifferent to the suffering” families of Sandy Hook had experienced. Lawyers added that Roku was interfering with “efforts to prevent people like Jones from profiting off innocent victims whose lives have been turned upside down by unspeakable loss.”
Initially, Roku defended its decision to host Infowars on its platform because it doesn’t censor content unless it’s illegal. However, after facing widespread criticism and abuse, the company later bowed to the demands of these loudmouthed leftists.
Roku, in a tweet, said, “After the InfoWars channel became available, we heard from concerned parties and had determined that the channel should be removed from our platform.”
Free speech advocates have rightfully criticized Roku for siding with the leftist SJWs. Unfortunately, their cries will likely fall on deaf ears, just as they have in the past.
The extreme politicizing of the business sector, especially in social media companies who traffic in information, is particularly alarming. It’s eerily reminiscent to days of communism when businesses were forced to propagate communist ideology.
“Absurd” was the word that President Obama’s former head of the Border Security used when describing the democratic rebuttal to building Trump’s proposed border wall.
Mark Morgan, who led the US Border Patrol during Barack Obama’s presidency said, “It’s absurd, the arguments that are being made right now.” Morgan was largely referring to the arguments that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and many left-wing pundits are offering in opposition to Trump’s wall.
Speaking recently on Fox News’ Cavuto Live, Morgan echoed President Trump’s message to America by saying the current situation at the southern border is indeed a “national security and humanitarian crisis.” He went on to say that President Obama and politicians from both sides of the aisle used the same kind of language then, as the President did in his recent Oval Office address.
He said that starting in 2014, the demographics of the people coming across the U.S. border started to change, ”we saw an influx in family units and unaccompanied minors. It was then, also, across the aisle on both sides that referred to that as a humanitarian crisis.”
He added that “nothing has changed” regarding governmental strategy on border security for years, indicating that a long-standing strategy of infrastructure, technology, and personnel — a multilayered approach which includes a wall — still works.
We Need to Do It All
Morgan went on to tell host Neil Cavuto, “I agree 100 percent with what the president is trying to do with all things related to border security. “This is not based on political ideology. It is based on 30 years of governmental service.” Morgan also served in the FBI for two decades.
Just as in the President’s address, Morgan said a wall or barrier is a necessary part of enhancing border security, but a wall alone cannot do the job. Morgan added that while the use of new technology and added personnel at the border are effective, they don’t solve the problems in and of themselves.
“We need to do it all, including the wall,” he said.
In confirmation hearings that sometimes got a little heated, President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, William Barr, has pretty much vowed he would not stand in the way of Bob Mueller completing his investigation. However, he also said that he “would not be bullied,” and that it would remain his decision whether or not to recuse himself from his oversight role in that investigation.
He also did not make it 100% clear whether he would, or would not, hold back some of the information in the yet to be released Mueller’s report from the public.
As opposed to the President, Barr had nothing but praise for the Special Counsel. “I don’t believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt,” Barr said, who was pressed immediately by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to investigate what Republicans say was wrongdoing within the FBI and Justice Department with regards to President Trump. He went on to say, “I’ve known Bob Mueller for thirty years,” Barr said, recalling their work when Barr first served as Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. “We’ve been friends since.”
Barr was asked repeatedly about a memo that he wrote to the Justice Department, in which he weighed in with his thoughts about questions he had about the scope of the Mueller investigation. Despite being goaded by Democrats, who feared that he would shut down, or otherwise hinder the research, Barr said flatly, “Bob will be allowed to finish his work,” pledging as much “transparency as possible” in releasing the details of Mueller’s findings, but he stopped short of saying that he would release the results in their entirety to the public, pending classified information that could be in the report.
However, he said he believes that “The country needs a credible resolution to these issues…”
All Things Mueller
While other issues were raised during the hearings, including how Barr feels about the stalemate over the border wall funding and the subsequent government shutdown, the hearings quickly became consumed with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election.
When asked about the decision of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, Barr said Sessions made the right decision to stay out of the Mueller probe.
Barr also revealed that he met with President Trump in 2017 when the White House was looking for lawyers to defend the President with regards to the Special Counsel investigation.
“How well do you know Bob Mueller?” Barr recalled being asked, describing the meeting as a short one, to which there was no follow-up until the President moved to select him as the Attorney General, following the departure of Sessions.
As Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Barr about his memo on the Russia probe, Barr said Mueller could only be fired for “good cause” regarding his conduct during the investigation. “Frankly it’s unimaginable to me that Bob would ever do anything that gave rise to ‘good cause,’” Barr told Senators.
Asked about a statement by one of the President’s lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, that the White House should have the chance to ‘correct’ any public report by the Special Counsel, Barr frowned on that idea.
“That will not happen,” Barr said.
“I believe the Russians interfered, or attempted to interfere, in the election and I think we have to get to the bottom of it,” he added.
AG Nominee Supports the Border Wall
While seemingly to depart with the President on his opinion of Mueller and his probe, his nominee staunchly supports his position on the need for a border wall. When asked about the ongoing partial federal government shutdown, Barr said, “I would like to see a deal reached whereby Congress recognizes that it’s imperative to have border security, and part of border security, as a common sense matter, involves barriers.”
Barr said a “barrier system across the border” is needed for stopping illegal immigration and the “influx of drugs.”
Barr, 68, was nominated by the president to lead the Justice Department in December after Sessions resigned at Trump’s request in November.
Barr previously served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993, and his confirmation hearings nearly 30 years ago went off mostly without incident. To be confirmed, Barr will need to garner a simple majority of votes in the Senate. Republicans currently hold 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats.
President Trump continues to be dismissive of his former “fixer” Michael Cohen. However, Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis, says that is only because Trump sees his client as “the greatest threat” to his presidency right now.
“Donald Trump sees Michael Cohen, and I would say justifiably, as the greatest threat to his presidency and what could be criminal and impeachable actions as president,” Davis, said speaking to MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt recently.
In his interview with Hunt, Davis went on to slam Trump for his Fox News interview the previous day, in which the president attacked Cohen and his father-in-law. Trump claimed Cohen, his longtime personal lawyer, is lying “to get a sentence reduced” and vaguely referenced possible wrongdoing by his father-in-law as “the money in the family.”
Cohen is currently preparing to publicly testify before Congress in February.
How Big of a Threat Is Cohen to Trump?
But just how much of a threat does Trump actually face from his former lawyer and confidant?
According to Fox News’ Howard Kurtz, not as much as Davis would have you believe. Kurtz says Davis’ statements are just a lot of defense attorney bluster, and that left-wing journalists who are already painting Cohen as the next John Dean, are “probably jacking up expectations too high.”
Citing inside sources who know Cohen very well, Kurtz said in a recent column, “Cohen will offer compelling testimony, but those who expect him to be able to fire a silver bullet that would bring down the president are going to be sorely disappointed. Cohen may have important new information that he has disclosed to Robert Mueller in 70 hours of interviews with prosecutors, but if so, he won’t be able to reveal it.”
When Cohen appears before Congress in February, it will make for another great reality TV moment, but he will be under severe restrictions. The major limitation says Kurtz, “is that he can’t discuss anything still under investigation by the special counsel.” That means Cohen, who is vying for a reduced sentence, can’t answer questions about Russian collusion or the proposed real estate project in Moscow, or the salacious 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and a Russian lawyer (who was recently indicted on money-laundering charges).
Since he cannot openly discuss anything he may know about some of the most damaging allegations swirling about Trump, Cohen’s testimony will be more about trying to save his own skin, than it is likely to be designed to hurt the president. Kurtz says that Davis told him, “I expect Michael’s testimony will be personal, not partisan, and compelling. He will describe what he did for Mr. Trump for 10 years that he now looks back on, as stated in court, with shame and regret. And he will explain what caused him, on July 2, 2018, to turn and put his family and country first; recognizing the dangers to the country in Mr. Trump’s misconduct and reckless behavior.”
Davis went on to tell Kurtz that his client believes that, “compared to others who committed far worse offenses, [his sentence] is disproportionately excessive and unjust.”
Cohen is currently facing a three year prison term.
New tensions have arisen between the United States and Turkey after Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, met with state officials in Ankara on Monday to discuss details about the US withdrawal from Syria.
Tensions first erupted after Bolton said the US retreat was conditional on the safety of US-backed Kurdish fighters – a group who Turkey regards as terrorists.
Bolton traveled to Ankara seeking assurance that when the US pulls its 2,000 troops out of neighboring Syria, the Turkish will not attack Syrian allies of the US on the ground.
What he received instead was a big snub. Turkish President Erdogan, who refused to meet with Bolton personally, said, “No one should expect us to accept or swallow national security adviser Bolton’s comments.” He insisted that there was no need to meet with Bolton when he could speak to Trump at any time on the phone.
Erdogan has insisted repeatedly that his government does not make a distinction between ISIS and the Kurdish YGP, saying, “If they’re terrorists, we will do what necessary no matter where they come from is.”
The Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) has served as the primary proxy ground force for the US intervention inside of Syria.
For a long time now, Turkey has condemned Washington’s military relationship with the Kurdish YPG in Syria because of the group’s ties to the banned Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) in Turkey.
Trump first announced US troop withdrawal in Syria on December 19 after a telephone conversation with Erdogan but has since backpedaled, stating that the removal would be made cautiously over a more extended period.
We all know what that means…
Meanwhile, the Syrian Democratic Forces, an alliance of Arab, Kurdish, Assyrian/Syriac, Chechen and Turkmen forces who have participated in the Syrian civil war, feel betrayed by the US – calling the withdrawal a “stab in the back.” Without US backing and support, they surely would be demolished by the superior Turkish military.
Inside of the US, officials inside of both Republican and Democratic parties have denounced Trump’s plan to withdraw troops as an unacceptable geopolitical concession to Russia and Iran.
Trump now finds himself in an awkward position as he will be unable to please everyone in this situation.
Recent statements given by top officials from the Trump administration, including John Bolton, have suggested that the illegal presence of the US military in Syria, in some form, will continue for the foreseeable future.
So, the quarter-century of continual war for hegemony over the oil-abundant and religiously fanatic Middle East doesn’t appear to be stopping anytime soon. Quite the opposite, as a broader regional and possible global conflict, threatens to erupt.
French protestors have now shifted their attention to the industry that pulls strings behind both the corrupt government and lying mass media – the banking or financial industry.
This is a pivotal moment in history.
As the ninth straight weekend of Yellow Vest protests approaches, the Gilets Jaunes have planned a demonstration outside the Rothschild Bank of Lyon on Wednesday night.
The Facebook event has suggested that more than 3,000 French Yellow Vest activists have expressed an interest in taking part in the protest. The people’s grievance stems from legislation having to do with France’s private banking system that’s more than 40-years-old.
Similarly to the US with its private central bank, the Federal Reserve, the French government must borrow money from its private central bank, the Bank of France, then repay the debt with high interest, which only serves to plunge the people of the country further and further into debt.
Like people who are aware of private central banking in the US, French citizens are wondering why their government can’t take control of the power to issue currency and do it interest-free.
It’s a legitimate question we all should be asking. Why must the governments rely on shadowy, private banks to issue a country’s currency with high interest when governments could do it themselves interest-free? It certainly would make every day working class citizens much better off.
People within the Yellow Vest movement have rightfully drawn connections between government, corporate media, massive profits made by banks, their tax avoidance, their interest charges on debt that’s created out of thin air, as well as other perceived underhanded behavior that international banking represents.
In addition to planned demonstrations, activists have also urged their fellow French citizens to empty their bank accounts to spark a massive run on French banks.
French boxer and Yellow Vest activist, Maxime Nicolle, recently took to YouTube and called on French citizens to withdrawal all their money from the banks. He called it the “tax collectors referendum.”
Political commentators and analysts have surmised that a coordinated run on banks could collapse the banking system in France, paralyze the country, and may even cause the euro to collapse.
American broadcaster, filmmaker and financial expert, Max Keiser, in a tweet said, “If every French person converted 20% of their bank deposits into Bitcoin… French banks and the government would collapse, and a lot of bloodsheds could be avoided.”
The world should be watching moves like this one made by the Yellow Vests closely, and if successful, they should be reproduced by working people around the globe.
On Monday night, 66-year-old Frank Magnitz, a state chairman and MP of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party was savagely beaten, seriously injured, and left for dead by three masked assailants in what’s being called a politically motivated assassination attempt.
Magnitz was reportedly attacked in Bremen’s Goetheplatz as he left a new year reception at Kunsthalle art museum. Police have said that the AfD politician was bludgeoned over the head repeatedly with an unknown object. He was left with a gruesome gash on his forehead along with severe bruising near his right eye.
Prominent members of the AfD have blamed anti-fascist activists for the assault, and have claimed that the violence was a result of “the everyday incitement against the AfD, for the media and politicians of the old parties are responsible.”
On Tuesday, when German police and members from the press spoke with Mr. Magnitz he stated that he had little memory of the events of Monday night.
This attack marks the second attack on the growing right-wing populist party in less than one week. Late last week, AfD’s regional office in Döbeln, a small town in East Germany, was damaged in a suspected bomb explosion. Fortunately, no one was injured in that incident.
German politicians and members of the government from all sides of the political spectrum have condemned the brutal attack.
The speaker of the German parliament, Wolfgang Schäuble, stated, “Violence cannot and should never be a means of political debate. Political debate must be conducted in such a way that it can not give rise to hatred or aggravation, still less violence.”
Jörg Meuthen, the AfD party spokesman, tweeted a photo of Mr. Magnitz lying in his hospital bed unconscious with a gaping head wound.
Another spokesman for the party says that Magnitz remains hospitalized and in serious condition.
In 2017, Alternative for Germany became the first national populist party to enter the national parliament (Bundestag) since the 1960s. The party now occupies 94 seats in the Bundestag and has representatives in every state parliament in the country. The AfD now represents the third largest party in Germany.
Many consider the AfD as a natural ally of our President Donald Trump. They were among the first German parties to congratulate Trump after his 2016 presidential election victory. Like Trump, the AfD platform stresses the need for secure borders, a return to traditional values, and stands up for the well-being of native working class citizens.
Look for AfD to make gains in the European Parliament elections in May of 2019.