+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Solomon uncovers and reveals more FBI skullduggery designed to entrap Trump:FBI Hired Man To Set Up And Bring Down TrumpAccording to the John Solomon of “Just The News,” documents released in February relating to one of the spies hired by the FBI to discredit Donald Trump and his campaign team in 2016 was Stefan Halper, an American foreign policy specialist and former drug addict who served in the Nixon, Reagan, and Ford administrations.
Halper reportedly agreed to become a spy for the FBI, or a “confidential human source” as they like to call it. He was tasked with recording contacts between numerous members of the Trump campaign team to assist with the narrative that Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election.
Since the end of the Mueller Russia probe, the world has learned that there was no evidence the then-candidate Trump colluded with Russia in any way.
“The memos show that the FBI instructed Halper in August 2016 not to focus on Papadopoulos first, but rather on Page, whom the FBI described as an “opportune target.” Papadopoulos was given the code name Crossfire Typhoon (CT), while Page was given the codename Crossfire Dragon (CD) in the memos,” Solomon writes.
One report from the FBI dates August 24, 2016, said that the “main goal of the operation is to have CD admit that he has direct knowledge of and is either helping coordinate or assisting the RF [Russian Federation] conduct an active measure campaign with the ‘Trump Team.’”
Smoking gun, right?
The previously confidential reports show that Halper offered evidence to the FBI which included transcripts of conversations recorded between Trump advisors. They also show that the claims by FBI Director Chris Wray that the FBI didn’t spy on the Trump campaign are false.
The FBI under the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign to assist in creating a false narrative that the 45th President only won the election because he worked with Russia.
The memos, which are available here, document the extensive efforts by Halper between 2016 and 2017 to discover evidence of a secretive plot to somehow use Russian agents to win the election. He found none.
He was one of the two primary informants used by the FBI in the Crossfire Hurricane operation and has yet to offer any comments on the shocking revelations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden and Pelosi and other Democrat radical socialists make Johnson look like a piker. Johnson made many mistakes and they caused him not to run but I never questioned that his heart was in the right place. He was a man of the soil and though he enriched himself while in government he truly cared about America's underclass.
Biden’s $1.9 Trillion Great Society Remake
The Covid relief package is the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ’s signature program.
By Jason L. Riley
President Biden is poised to put his signature to what is arguably the largest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. And if past is prologue, liberals are poised to take credit for any positive trend lines that follow implementation, regardless of whether credit is warranted.
Even the Biden administration has come around to acknowledging that its Covid-19 relief package—the “most progressive piece of legislation in history,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki bragged the other day—has little to do directly with Covid. The Journal reports that only $50 billion, or 2.6% of the $1.9 trillion price tag, is directed at testing and contact tracing, and only $16 billion is earmarked for vaccine distribution. Most of the rest consists of state bailouts, student-debt relief and various income-redistribution schemes involving tax credits, health-insurance subsidies and unemployment benefits.
Likewise, the Great Society’s ambitions extended well beyond the war on poverty and included programs designed to address racial injustice, healthcare, immigration and environmental conservation. Today’s liberals also share with their 1960s precursors an abiding belief that government is best suited to help the underprivileged. The objective is to widen by as much as possible the eligibility requirements for public assistance and then ask as little as possible from the recipients in return.
Johnson’s stated goal was a reduction in dependency, not simply a redistribution of wealth to the poor. “The days of the dole in our country are numbered,” he declared in 1964. Alas, the opposite occurred. After his antipoverty programs were implemented, the proportion of people who relied on government aid to stay above the poverty line increased, a sharp reversal of the pre-Great Society trend.
Poverty rates at the time tell a similar story. It’s true that privation fell under Johnson in the 1960s, but that had already been happening for more than a decade before his war on poverty began. The poverty rate was approximately 30% in 1950 but had dropped to 18% by 1964. Moreover, as the scholar Charles Murray detailed in his landmark study, “Losing Ground,” the poverty rate would start to increase in the 1970s, after two decades of steady decline, and even as Johnson’s successors threw more and more money at creating new antipoverty programs or expanding the existing ones.
“The real [inflation-adjusted] annual expenditures of the 1970s were far larger—by many orders of magnitude, for some of the programs—than expenditures in the sixties,” Mr. Murray wrote. Yet “the number of people living in poverty stopped declining just as public-assistance program budgets and the rate of increase in those budgets were highest.”
This history won’t sway the ideologues who believe in cradle-to-grave entitlements, or the politicians who believe that spending money—even counterproductively—is the way to win elections. But the experience of the 1960s should help temper expectations for the rest of us. And it ought to give pause to those Republicans and conservative thinkers who now argue that GOP-style government interventions—in the form of higher minimum wages, tax credits or guaranteed basic income—will somehow work better than the Democratic versions. We’ve already gone some distance down this road, and the laws of economics don’t care which party you belong to.
History shows that no government program has been able to match what people can do for themselves, and this applies equally to some of society’s most historically marginalized groups. No Great Society program was ever able to match the rate of progress made by blacks—in poverty reduction, income, homeownership or other measures—before that program’s implementation. Instead of helping, welfare-state expansions too often become lures and traps, inflicting damage that can last generations.
Democrats insist that the so-called stimulus is necessary to help the unemployed find work, but what working parents most need are schools to reopen, and what’s holding businesses back are lockdown rules that keep away potential customers. Liberals say the relief checks will give people money to spend. But the personal savings rate in 2020 was the highest in 50 years, which suggests that consumers already have money to spend but few places to spend it until the economy fully reopens.
It is quite possible that a year from now, if not sooner, the U.S. economy will be thriving, kids will be back in school, parents will be back to work, and the virus will be under control. Democrats will cite the bloated Covid-relief package as the reason. But the country was already experiencing generational lows in poverty and unemployment before the pandemic, and wages were rising fastest for the working class. A lot of people may not remember what was going on in the 1960s, but Democrats are hoping that they won’t remember 2019.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I know I am repetitive but I always try to look at an existing matter with a new set of eyes, approach it from a different perspective etc.
That America is waning continues to be my conviction and posture. The question I always seek an answer to, when I have a dour view about something happening, is can it be improved and if so how.
There is too much money determining America's political direction. Consequently, American interests are often either entirely excluded or come last.
Second, limited terms (LT) will bring fresh and contemporary thinking into government, increase the potential politicians will focus more on the nation and less on getting re-elected. The downside is my concern "LT" strengthens the position of unelected bureaucrats who already have too much power.
My third pressing concern is how to increase greater citizenship awareness of what can be done to keep Train America on the tracks laid by the founding fathers in order to prevent the train wreck causes we are presently experiencing that are dividing our nation, crushing our freedoms and rights and weakening our financial ability to meet the technological and other challenges presented by serious/committed adversaries.
Lamentably, I have no answers because the problems are so embedded and protected I see little hope short of a revolution. Money has become the life blood that keeps the body politic greased and alive. There is a move afoot to constitutionally bring about "LT" but more states much be brought into the fold to meet the necessary legal requirements.
A rock at rest (citizenship lethargy) is a powerful deterrent to any solution in a democracy. I fear the wall of change options have reached an un-scalable height.
In my opinion the most critical problems, in no particular order, are:
a) mounting debt and total disregard of any discipline to restrain spending.
b) contempt for those who express differing views.
c) lack of patriotism, the effect of intimidation and being tagged a racist quells free speech and resistance on a multi level basis.
d) laws which allow/protect funding by Soros and his likes to organizations whose goals are antithetical to American principles and precepts.
e) a Democrat Party controlled by radicals who prefer socialism to capitalism and seek our nation's destruction through manipulation of race relations causing heightened discord by anti-cultural attacks etc.
f) the systematic decline in a quality and challenging education.
g) weaponization of politics and the propensity to employ character assassination.
h) unsecured borders and the drug infiltration of our society.
i) morphing of wants into entitlements.
j) perhaps allowance of too many divergent cultures to immigrate, even legally, who do not share our basic, core beliefs and aspirations.
k) lack of the enforcement of law and order, attack on those who enforce order and a belief that one can manipulate the system with impunity because of reactive anti-authority habits formed and tolerated in the '60's.
l) there are others but the above seem to stand out as being among the most critical.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More commentary from my liberal friend who believes Biden is helping people. He is helping them to lose jobs that pay well and more blacks voted in Ga. last year than ever before so that is a weird way to explain suppression. Voting is a privilege and right and should be protected by making sure only those legally registered and citizens do so. You need identification to get a book from the library, go to a doctor, board a plane and these acts are not more sacred than voting.
"What else can you republicans complain about. Biden is helping people, and that is what he is supposed to do! No crappy politics what you guys are masters at. GOVERN, DO SOMETHING,HELP, MAKE PEOPLES LIFE BETTER. YOU HAVE ONLY ONE LIFE TO LIVE, MAKE THE BEST OF IT. NO BLOODY EXCUSES ALL THE TIME. AND STOP SUPPRESSING PEOPLE FROM VOTING, MAKE IT EASIER, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, EXPAND THE TENT, SO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO THAT !!!! J-----"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Chinese have to be kidding. Biden will do nothing to defend Taiwan.
Top Chinese military official stresses the need for higher expenditure to combat the U.S. war threat | |||
Meanwhile: Pentagon Furious With Tucker Carlson For Mocking Military’s Gender ObsessionBy Jon Brown Fox News host Tucker Carlson took flak from the Pentagon on Thursday for warning that the military worries too much about gender and diversity in the armed forces while China increasingly asserts its dominance in the world. John Kirby, the press secretary for the Department of Defense, accused Carlson of “[using] his show to denigrate the contributions of women in the military and to say the Chinese military is catching up to the U.S. military because it does not allow women to serve in the percentage the United States does,” according to a story from DoD News, titled “Press Secretary Smites Fox Host That Dissed Diversity in U.S. Military.” Carlson warned earlier this week that while U.S. citizens stay in their homes on the advice of Dr. Anthony Fauci, China is working to make their society more masculine on the recommendation of a top adviser who warned that Chinese boys are being “spoiled by housewives and female teachers.” Carlson went on to contrast the Chinese military, which has recently assembled the largest naval force in the world, with the military of the U.S., which is preoccupied with “new hairstyles and maternity flight suits.” “Pregnant women are going to fight our wars,” Carlson said. “It’s a mockery of the U.S. military.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Psaki was chosen as Press Secretary because she played dodge ball in college:
|
No comments:
Post a Comment