When it comes to healthcare, Democratic 2020 hopeful Kamala Harris seems to still be struggling to get her story straight. What she truly believes seems to vacillate, especially when she is speaking to a group of wealthy donors at a fundraiser in the Hamptons, and not the American public on the debate stage.
The Daily Beast among other outlets has reported that the Democrat had waffled once again on her support for Medicare for All. “I support Medicare for All,” she told the crowd of wealthy donors. But as you may have noticed, over the course of the many months, I’ve not been comfortable with Bernie’s plan, the Medicare for All plan.”
This despite being the cosponsor of Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill. What really seems to have Harris backpedaling faster than a rewinding video of Lance Armstrong is one of the proposed legislation’s major features — the elimination of private insurance.
In late July, she finally released her own version of a “Medicare-for-all” bill, which, in a departure from Sanders’s proposal, would maintain a role for private insurance within a universal public system. Why would she do that? As her rival and bill’s cosponsor Bernie Sanders might say, “it’s all about the Benjamins.”
In other words, Harris, who unlike Bernie who has made elimination of for-profit insurance a key part of his vision for healthcare – is afraid to piss off wealthy donors and corporate interests. In fact, David Sirota, a Sanders campaign adviser, wrote in his newly minted newsletter, Bern Notice, “The Harris flip flop is a reminder that while Medicare for All received an enthusiastic response at Bernie’s Fox News townhall in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania — it doesn’t get that kind of response on the big dollar fundraising circuit in the Hamptons.”
The debate between Harris and Sanders on the healthcare issue is partly about a difference between Sanders’s proposal, which would eliminate private insurance, and Harris’s, which would preserve a role for insurers in the health care system. But by seizing on Harris’s remarks — and the venue where she made them — the Sanders campaign is connecting their healthcare plan to their candidate’s larger argument on corporate greed.
Harris Has Been All Over the Map on Healthcare
Harris really has been all over the place on Healthcare. Before she released “her plan,” it was nearly impossible to get any consistency from the candidate on healthcare. As stated earlier, she signed on to Sanders’s single-payer Medicare-for-all bill, and soon after, she was on the trail, publicly backing his idea to get rid of private insurance entirely, saying “let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on,” at a CNN town hall in January. She then walked that back, saying that she meant getting rid of “bureaucracy.”
Later on in April, at another CNN townhall, she emphasized that there would be some role for private insurance under Sanders’s bill, even though the Sanders Medicare for All Act would reduce private insurance’s role to things like cosmetic surgery or premium hospital rooms. And then, during the Democratic debate in June, Harris raised her hand when NBC’s Lester Holt asked, “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favorite of a government-run plan?”
But she then walked that back to say she misunderstood the question, saying she personally would prefer to enroll in public insurance.
In fact, since becoming an upper-tier contender for the Democratic nomination, every time she seemingly endorsed the actual bill she cosponsored, she’s eventually walked it back.
On the other hand, Sanders has remained steadfast in painting corporate America as the “enemy of the people.” He sees a for-profit health care system as fundamentally broken. His campaign platform is centered on fighting the greed of major corporate interests, whether pharmaceutical companies, the fossil fuel industry, or private insurance industry.
In a speech about Medicare-for-all in June, he pledged to reject money from the insurance and drug companies, and called on other presidential candidates to do the same.
For Sanders’s campaign — healthcare, like everything else is all about his perceived influence of the wealthy. But, in Harris’s case he may be right given her propensity to flip-flop on the issue.
The New York Post and other news outlets are reporting that dead and gone, proven pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, once had three 12-year-old girls from poor families flown in from France as a sick birthday present for himself.
Just when you thought Epstein couldn’t get any more vile, according to newly unearthed court documents, Virginia Giuffre — who has claimed Epstein and his gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell coerced her into being a “sex slave” when she was 15 — said that the girls who were flown in were molested by the financier and returned to France the following day.
“The worst one that I heard from his own mouth was this pretty 12-year-old girls he had flown in for his birthday,” she said, according to the court documents.
“It was a surprise birthday gift from one of his friends and they were from France. I did see them, I did meet them,” she said.
She said they were a gift from Epstein’s acquaintance Jean-Luc Brunel, a model scout, according to the Daily Mail. “Jeffrey bragged afterward after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from France because they’re really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out.”
Revelations Part of an Ongoing Case
The allegations were revealed in 2015 court papers, as part of a 2008 civil lawsuit filed by two Epstein accusers against the US following a plea deal that they argued violated the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
Despite Epstein’s death, civil proceedings are allowed to continue, and the case is still ongoing. Federal Judge Kenneth Mara recently ruled that Florida federal prosecutors acted illegally when they failed to inform Epstein’s underage victims of the wrist-slap deal — which included a non-prosecution agreement that shielded the financier’s alleged co-conspirators.
Epstein, who served just 13 months in prison after pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, hanged himself in a Manhattan jail cell Aug. 10 while being held on federal sex-trafficking charges, authorities said.
Giuffre said Epstein had described to her how the girls had messaged him and performed oral sex, according to the Daily Mail.
“He went on to tell me how Brunel ‘bought them’ in Paris from their parents, offering them the usual sums of money, visas, and modeling career prospects,” she said, according to the London based news outlet.
“Laughing the whole way through, Jeffrey thought it was absolutely brilliant how easily money seduced all walks of life, nothing or no one that couldn’t be bought.”
The same civil suit filed against the Miami US Attorney’s Office alleged that young girls from South America and Eastern Europe also were recruited for sex with Epstein.
The multimillionaire financier invested $1 million to help launch Brunel’s Miami-based modeling firm MC2 in return for a “supply of girls on tap,” according to the lawsuit.
MC2 has continually denied any connection to Epstein’s crimes and previously said Brunel no longer actively works for the firm.
“I strongly deny having committed any illicit act or any wrongdoing in the course of my work as a scouter or model agencies manager,” he told The Guardian, another London paper.
Perhaps the political class is starting to realize that we the people are sick and tired of the rhetoric warfare in which differences of opinion are consolidated into warring camps. It is bad enough that politicians are victims of strategic character assassination. As in any “war,” the people are propagandized into evil incarnate.
During World War II, we had to temporarily hate the German people, the Japanese people – and the same during the Vietnam War. The fact that we have good relations with these nations today gives hope for our own contemporary people-to-people hatemongers will find tolerance and acceptance in the future.
In recent days, there has been a rising call for civility. The family of the late Senator John McCain has launched a civility project to encourage people to reach out to what is unfortunately dubbed “the other side” in reasonable dialogue. Even the strident talking heads on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” have been talking about toning down the rhetoric.
“Morning Joe” regular Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, said that no one on the left believes that all Trump supporters are racists – and assumedly not sexists, xenophobes, homophobes and all those other pejoratives so often heard emanating from the left-wing of the Fourth Estate.
One of the mainstays of left-wing commentary has been the broad-brush branding of Trump’s supporters in the vilest stereotyping imaginable. If Robinson were to watch MSNBC – and not only appear on the network – he would have heard several hosts and panelists saying that supporting Trump makes the person a racist by extension. Folks like Donny Deutsch, host of “Saturday Night Politics” (one of the worst political talk shows ever conceived by the left), made their rejection of civility very clear.
You cannot – emphasized Deutsch – say you like Trump policies but not his personality (people like me). You must take the entire package. If you are a Trump voter, then YOU are guilty of everything the left ACCUSES him – no matter how outrageous the accusations may be. This same theme was played out across the MSNBC line-up by folks like Princeton Professor Eddie Glaude, MSNBC utility infielder John Heilemann and any number of other pop-up panelists.
Attacking Trump voters and supporters was not limited to the biased panels of parroting pundits but was part of the Democrat presidential candidate’s playbook. Beto O’Rourke led the assault on 40 percent of America to be quickly followed by such fellow struggling luminaries as Julian Castro, Tim
Ryan and Cory Booker.
Sorry Eugene, you just do not know what you are talking about. Or maybe you are just knowingly peddling a propaganda narrative – as usual.
Political incivility is largely a one-way street. Most of the venomous verbiage is directed at Republicans, conservatives and all those who disagree with the Democrats left-wing ideology – an ideology that is embraced and promoted in round-the-clock infomercials that the elitist east coast press passes off as news.
No, I am not absolving President Trump for his contribution to the acridity of contemporary political dialogue. I have never liked his pugnacious style and name-calling. I think he has done damage to the cause with his bellicosity. The problem of maligning the right is much bigger than him, however – and preceded his presidency. Unfortunately, he has given credence to Democrat complaints and provided a false appearance of equivalency.
It does not matter what side of the political divide you take up residency, the one thing that seems to unify most Americans – and should unify ALL Americans – is a disgust and repulsion of the degradation of political discourse. It is sad to note that false accusations, mendacious narratives and child-like name calling have supplanted serious political dialogue.
It has been evolving over the years. Back in the 1990s, President Clinton called out the trend toward “the politics of personal destruction.” Perhaps the beginning goes back to the mid-1960s, when “I like Ike” (President Eisenhower for those of you who went to school in more recent years) to “Tricky Dick” – a pejorative tagged on President Nixon by the Democrat he beat in the 1950 Senate race, Helen Gahagan Douglas.
One only need read and hear the words of our national leaders of generations past to see just how badly our current political language has been corrupted. The words of our Founders, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and others were eloquent and poetic.
We are told by the mavens of the media that both sides – Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals – use coarse language and personal attacks as a means of satisfying and solidifying their respective bases. The assumption is that supporters of one candidate or another – one perspective or another – relish the verbal mud wrestling.
That may be true – and even that is only “maybe” – of the fringe elements on the far left and right edges of the political continuum. It is certainly not the attitude of the vast majority of Americans on the rational left, right or in the middle. We are sick and tired of our national leaders communicating in ways that would bring parental correction if our children talked that way.
AND, we conservatives are particularly sick and tired of being maligned as cold, callous, heartless, inhumane, toxic human beings.
What is so hypocritical of the left is that they call on us all to be more civil while they continue to mischaracterize and malign those of us on the right with full abandon. The shallow lip-service call for civility — that was allotted less time than a commercial on MSNBC — was followed by business-as-usual brand bashing of Republicans and conservatives – and of course, Trump.
One cannot expect civility unless there is honesty. We can respect people with different opinions – even love them. All options for civility end, however, when we are unfairly and viciously maligned and demeaned – not by just another person, but by the major institutions of our society as a matter of form.
Political civility is not a grassroots phenomenon. It starts at the top and can only be stopped from the top.
So, there ‘tis.
Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ihan Omar had to unpack their bags when the Israeli government declared them to be persona non grata. In the spirit that nothing negative in the world happens without President Trump being involved. You know … it was his fault that a nut-case shooter killed 22 people in El Paso, that the stock market declined for a couple days and that Jeffery committed suicide – and if it is discovered that Epstein was murdered, that makes Trump even more culpable.
Of course, Tlaib and Omar hit the airwaves in outrage that members of the United States Congress would be denied a visa for a semiofficial visit. Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi thought it was a bad move on the part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But was it?
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East – unless you are inclined to believe that Turkey is still one. It is our most steadfast ally. However, that is not how the political twins see it. They describe the Jewish nation as a terrorist state. They accuse American Jews of using campaign money to “buy” the support of Congress.
Though both had promised Jewish voters that they would not support the BDS movement – which stands for boycott, divestment and sanctions. Yes, those ladies want the United States, our businesses and our people to boycott Israel, to hurt it economically by refusing to do business and to impose further damage by imposing sanctions. If those sound like the actions we take against our adversaries, you are not wrong.
They do not want to punish Israel. They want to destroy it. Neither has committed to the right of Israel to exist. They have described Netanyahu in the harshest terms. They do not want the United States to supply military equipment to Israel. They have never condemned the missile attacks by Hamas. They have referred to violence against the Jewish state as “protests.” They support policies that would reduce Israeli border security. They side with Israel’s enemies. In short, in terms of Israel, they are enemies of the state.
With Tlaib and Omar, their positions on Israel are not merely differences of opinion on matters of policies. Au contraire. They have a visceral and existential disdain for America’s ally in the Middle East – and more than a tinge of anti-Semitism in their remarks.
After being informed that they were on El Al Airlines’ no fly list – at least for this trip – Tlaib played the bleeding-heart card. It seems that she would be denied visiting her ailing 90-year-old grandmother in Palestine – possibly for the last time. She bled that heart for all it was worth in every interview. We could feel her pain.
I did sympathize with her. Family love is important. It should stand apart from politics, business and most other distractions. I sort of felt sorry for Tlaib and her grandmother. I am sure the old lady would have longed to see her famous and powerful grandchild. Grandmas are like that.
The Israeli government is not without heart. It offered Tlaib a humanitarian visa to visit granny. No official meetings. No pomp and circumstances. No organizing protests against the Israeli government. Just an American citizen visiting her grandmother in a distant land. This was the making of a Hallmark movie.
Then came the shocker. If you were expecting to see sweet pictures of Tlaib with her arms wrapped around her frail progenitor, you will be terribly disappointed. Tlaib would NOT be going to Israel under what she called oppressive conditions.
Apparently hugging grandma for possibly the last time was not that important after all. With her rejection of the offer, Tlaib demonstrated that the pathos of her public statements was nothing more than concocted political theater. I would suspect that grandma is heartbroken. She may never see her granddaughter again – not because Tlaib cannot come to her, but because she refuses.
And as far as the initial plan is concerned, what would make Tlaib and Omar think they would be welcomed in Tel Aviv after all the things they have said and proposed against the state of Israel specifically and the Jewish people generally?
So, there ‘tis.
The Twitter War between President Donald J. Trump and his one-time Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci continues to heat up.
The President hit back against Scaramucci over this past weekend, accusing him of warping the facts and distorting the truth about his time in the White House, just so he could remain a media darling.
“Anthony Scaramucci, who was quickly terminated (11 days) from a position that he was totally incapable of handling, now seems to do nothing but television as the all-time expert on ‘President Trump.’ Like many other so-called television experts, he knows very little about me,” Trump wrote.
“Other than the fact that this Administration has probably done more than any other Administration in its first 2 1/2 years of existence. Anthony, who would do anything to come back in, should remember the only reason he is on TV, and it’s not for being the Mooch!”
Scaramucci himself then retaliated the next day, saying he’s always supported the President, but took issue with Trump’s divisive language. He also accused the President of frequently turning against his allies.
“For the last 3 years I have fully supported this President,” Scaramucci wrote. “Recently he has said things that divide the country in a way that is unacceptable. So I didn’t pass the 100% litmus test. Eventually he turns on everyone and soon it will be you and then the entire country.”
Mooch Says That Trump’s Visit to Shooting Site Was “a Catastrophe”
Last week, prior to the President’s scathing tweets targeting him, Scaramucci called Trump’s visit to El Paso, Texas, a “catastrophe” during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, and he correctly predicted that Trump would eventually respond via Twitter.
“He probably would be mad at somebody for saying that. Maybe he’ll tweet something negative about somebody for saying he didn’t do well, but facts are he did not do well on the trip because if the trip is being made about him and not the demonstration of compassion and love and caring and empathy for those people, then it becomes a catastrophe for him, the administration, and it’s also a bad reflection on the country,” he said.
One of President Trump’s hitherto most loyal AND effective defenders has raised the prospect that it may be necessary to replace Trump and Vice President Pence as the Republican standard bearers in 2020. In fact, he says that he no longer supports Trump’s re-election. WHAT??
Businessman and political wonk Anthony Scaramucci — who served a very … very very … short time as White House Communications Director — has been one of the most reliable and effective supporters, defenders and explainers of Trump the man and the President. Now he claims he has had enough of the Trump pugnacious personality.
Scaramucci was not always been supportive of each and every Trump idiosyncrasy – and has often publicly and privately advised the President to tamp down his rhetoric and his overnight tweets. That modest and well given advice is what gave Scaramucci enhanced credibility.
Scaramucci’s break with the President is fraught with much greater significance. He represents a portion of the Trump base that likes the policies but not the personality.
This does not mean that they embrace the left-wing Democrats’ corrosive corruption of the political atmosphere – their own version of hate-mongering. As bad as Trump can be, he is not nearly as bad as what the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement claims him to be – and the hateful attack on his supporters is unconscionable. Even in the so-called base, not everyone is drawn to Trump as much as they are repulsed by both the rhetoric AND the policies of the Democrats — and the dishonest partisan propaganda by the bubble-encapsulated east coast news media.
Scaramucci is not one of those false-flag conservative Republicans – the ones CNN and MSNBC employ to give a false image of balance. Those folks deserted the cause at the onset. They included the former chairman of the National Republican Committee Michael Steele, longtime conservative icon Bill Kristol and a range of so-called “Republican strategists” — including Steve Schmidt, Elise Jordan, Rick Wilson and Max Boot. In a small example of honor, some have formally switched parties, including “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough and MSNBC paid contributor and former Florida Republican Congressman David Jolly.
Scaramucci is a different breed. He has been a long-time personal friend of the President and for the past two years a faithful loyalist. Apart from a few snide comments by former Trump appointees, such as former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief-of-Staff John Kelly, no one from the inner circle has come out so publicly and so completely against Trump’s re-election as has Scaramucci.
Scaramucci is not leading a potential exodus of Trump supporters but is more likely reflecting the growing feelings of a significant segment of the 90 percent of Republican voters who currently support Trump. There is a measurable degree of soft support in that number.
Most of the 90 percent will stick with Trump in a General Election when the only alternative is a Democrat from the ranks of the 25-candidate field and the radical left policies they propose to inflict on the nation. The real question is how many of the 85 percent will stick with Trump in the face of a credible alternative in the primaries – and keep in mind, that number suggestions that 15 percent of Republicans are not tied to Trump. There are a lot of Republicans who would welcome the opportunity to have that choice.
Scaramucci’s call for a challenge to Trump could … that is, could … kick off a search for a credible alternative. It would not include the current challenger for the GOP nomination, former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who has become a bit of a political joke after his humiliating Libertarian candidacy for Vice President in 2016. Former Congressman Mark Sanford is testing the waters, but he does not have the gravitas to defeat Trump. It would take a Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz type – and so far, none of them seem to be interested.
At this point, Trump looks unbeatable for the nomination to a second term, but if his prospects continue to fall for any reason – including an economic downturn or a plunge in his polling numbers — the currently inconceivable becomes conceivable – a serious challenge in the Republican primaries.
Unfortunately, Trump’s tweeted responses to Scaramucci’s statements could be seen as evidence justifying the turnabout.
Like a time-release capsule, Scaramucci’s opposition to Trump’s re-election could be a game changer as the future unfolds – or maybe not. But the mere fact that it raises the prospect of more primary challenges should be a warning to Trump to tone down the rhetoric. Time will tell.
So, there ‘tis.
On a recent broadcast
New York City Mayor, and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, Bill de Blasio told Sean Hannity he supports border security — just not the way President Trump wants it.
The Mayor claimed in an explosive interview last week on “Hannity,” that a border wall with Mexico is unnecessary but some reforms are needed,
“I support border security but not walls,” he said.
“I don’t think we need additional walls because, look, there are 11 million people here right now.” Adding, “There’s no invasion. There are people here already who are part of our community.”
At a May rally in the Florida panhandle, President Trump likened the influx of illegal immigrants to an “invasion.”
“When you see these caravans starting out with 20,000 people, that’s an invasion,” Trump said at the Panama City event.
Bad People Will Get In – “With or Without a Wall”
In his interview with Hannity, de Blasio also reacted to the import of illicit drugs and immigration of illegal aliens who are criminals, across the southern border.
“People get in with a wall or without a wall, that’s not how you do it,” he said.
“You create an actual border security mechanism. You have every tool you need and you create a reality in our communities where police and communities are working together.”
At one point, he pushed back on Hannity’s use of the words, “sanctuary city,” to describe municipalities that ignore federal immigration law.
“I don’t accept any of these terms,” he said.
Regarding illegal immigrants being granted access to health care services in New York City, the mayor argued the undocumented residents would cost the taxpayers money for their treatment either way.
“Folks go to the emergency room… who’s paying for it?”
Then the former city councilman from Brooklyn added, “These are human beings who are part of our economy and part of our neighborhood.”
Meanwhile, voters in his own City, aren’t too fond of Bill de Blasio as a mayor or as a presidential candidate, according to a poll released one day before his appearance on “Hannity”.
The poll conducted by Siena College found that the mayor is less popular with New Yorkers than President Donald Trump. De Blasio received a 26% favorability rating and 57% unfavorability, compared to Trump’s 35-62%. The poll was conducted between July 28 and Aug. 1, and included responses from 810 registered voters in New York State.
Nationally, among the over 20 candidates for the 2020 Democratic candidates, di Blasio has consistently polled at the bottom, rarely raising over 0% to a maximum of 1%.
While it is still early in the presidential marathon, we may be seeing the beginning of a trend that was predicted here – several times – over recent months. Just days ago, I wrote this:
“There are probably enough radical or gullible people in the country to keep either Sanders or Warren as a threat to Biden – but not both of them. There may be enough to actually overtake Biden and give the nomination to Warren. In that case, the big winner will be President Trump.”
Essentially, what happens to former Vice President Joe Biden’s lead as the field narrows and all those progressive votes begin to converge. I will be a problem for him.
Initially, it looked like Vermont’s socialist Senator Bernie Sanders would be the beneficiary. After all, he was the guy who almost took down the anointed one – Hillary Clinton. Based on that, and the fact the Democratic Party has moved to the left, Sanders had every right to feel that the voters would “feel the Bern.”
Instead, he now appears to have become old news – with emphasis on “old.” He could not have anticipated that an equally radical challenger would come on the scene – and in the form of a younger (not much, however) woman from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.
Let’s look at the numbers.
According to the Quinnipiac polls, Warren has started to move away from Sander and is creeping up on Biden. In last months poll, Biden held a 34 to 15 percent lead over Warren – with Harris at 12 percent and Sanders at 11.
In the most recent poll, Biden drops to 32 percent and Warren moves up to 21 percent. Sanders actually moves up to 14 percent, but now far behind his main competition. That’s right. At this stage, it is not Biden who will end Sanders’ dream of residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is Warren.
Sanders was not the only big loser. In the presidential game of Whack-A-Mole, the once highly touted Kamala Harris joined the legion of single-digit candidates by dropping from 12 percent to 7 percent. Ouch!
Despite their popularity on the left-wing media circuit, such presidential hopefuls as Mayor Peter Buttigieg (moving from 6 to 5 percent), the frenetic Beto O’Rourke (holding at 2 percent) and Senator Cory Booker (doubling his scored from 1 percent to 2 percent) lead a field of candidates striving for a humiliating one percent.
It has been obvious from the start that once the predominately left-wing candidates start dropping off or losing gravitas, one of the radical progressives will benefit. There are enough far-left votes scattered among the contenders to swamp Biden. He may find that his floor is his ceiling. Time will tell.
So, there ‘tis.
Our government may actually be a cryptocracy vs. a democracy. Cryptocracy is a term that still has not made it into the standard dictionary. Don’t believe me? Just go and check dictionary.com. This word is shrouded in mystery but Stewart Swerdlow is a man who has experienced mind control at the highest level where even sex magic has been used to help condition certain minds for specific types of covert missions and activities. Stewart would define the cryptocracy simply as secret society.
Stewart Swerdlow’s great uncle was Yacov Sverdlov who happened to be the 1st president of the Soviet Union. Stewart’s grandfather was sent to the United Kingdom to start the communist party. He later was sent to the United States to start a communist party there as well. Stewart’s grandfather was a Soviet spy during WWII. Many people are unaware that the US and Russia of the Soviet Union were allies at this time. Swerdlow was born a clairvoyant with great mental gifts. He has experience alien abductions as well as government tampering, to say the least, through various forms of physical manipulations.
Stewart was part of the Montauk Project from 1970 to 1983 which involved time travel as well as forward viewing to other planets, etc. He has worked on many projects with the US government as well as some foreign governments. His knowledge of mind-control is unparalleled based on his first hand experience and involvement.
Stewart Swerdlow mentioned in an interview with George Noorey from Coast To Coast in 2016 that we are witnessing the Book of Revelations’ script being played out right in front of our eyes. This agenda is being pushed forward by the Illuminati/government, he said. Stewart stated that this cryptocracy is attempting to cause the end times via war, financial collapse, and drastic earth changes. He said this will lead into the staged alien invasion.
Stewart revealed that in the outer reaches of our solar system, “there is massing there a fleet of beings both from other parts of this universe as well as interdimensionally,” who are plotting to get rid of the Illuminati. This is exactly why the Illuminati have boosted their efforts to control the world and usher in a global government, the second coming of Christ and the acceptance of a new world religion.
These people, beings, entities feel that humanity would be doomed without mind-control. I feel that mind-control is prevalent in our world today. The oldest record of mind control was recorded by Marco Polo the great explorer back in 1298 while traveling through Asia. Here he encountered the Ashinshin group in Persia.
Everything from the food we eat to 5G technology has been put in place to totally manipulate, control and reprogram or pre-program society. To find out more about this topic I would suggest getting your hands on some of the books the Steward Swerdlow wrote so that you can travel your mind deeper into the rabbit hole. You’ve been warned!
At first blush, it would appear that ethically challenged House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, hasn’t a prayer in getting his hands on First Daughter’s White House correspondents along with her personal email and phone records, simply because of “executive privilege.”
Regardless of the 23 to 16 vote resolution passed on Thursday by the House to subpoena those documents from Ivanka Trump.
The resolution authorizes House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings to subpoena “records relating to the Committee’s investigation into the use of non-official electronic messaging accounts by non-career officials at the White House.”
The Washington Post reported in 2018 that Ivanka Trump inadvertently sent hundreds of emails regarding government business over the course of 2017 using her own personal email account rather than her work account.
Which she had acknowledged to White House counsel in 2018, who had reviewed the issue with Ivanka, and noted within a lengthy statement that the First Daughter at the time did not understand the rules governing private email use during the beginning of her tenure in the administration.
“While transitioning into government, after she was given an official account but until the White House provided her the same guidance they had given others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes used her personal account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family,” the White House counsel concluded.
Fast forward three days after the embarrassing Mueller hearings and another corrupt Democratic leader namely Elijah Cummings. is once again attempting to harass another Trump, with a bogus demand for documents.
The embattled Maryland congressmen who’s currently facing his own ethics probe regarding allegations stemming from the congressmen’s wife regarding a charity and a for-profit consulting firm she owns and her alleged financial dealings that has drawn the attention of the IRS, along with a potential perjury charge, and the congressmen’s potential “pay for play” malfeasance mixing those chartable donations with the same individuals Cummings currently does business with in congress…which is both a conflict of interest along with an ethics violation
However that hasn’t stopped Cummings from harassing the First Daughter stating in a Thursday statement that the Committee “obtained direct evidence that multiple high-level White House officials have been violating the Presidential Records Act.”
Adding, that the Presidential Records Act “establishes public ownership of all presidential records and defines the term presidential records” and “requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from presidential records.”
Then in an ironic twist, considering what awaits Cummings the corrupt politician states “What we do not yet know is why these White House officials were attempting to conceal these communications.”
Adding “I don’t know how to say this any differently: We have laws, and the laws say we keep official records.”
“The Democrats are no closer to their goal of impeaching the President — in fact; I think they’re farther away. … But they don’t waste any time. … Now they’re going to go after the emails of the first family in an attempt to create an appearance of some type of controversy,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Oversight Committee, said Thursday.
What’s seems clear is that the Mueller hearings although they proved disastrous for Democrats, hasn’t curtailed their insatiable appetite to impeach the President, regardless of what the latest polls say.
Democrats will lick their wounds, and press forward waiting for another controversy to once again gin up their radical base of malcontents to demand impeachment hearings, right up until they lose the White House, the Senate, and the House in 2020.