Monthly Archives: October 2016

Reports of Voting Fraud, Campaign Violations Across the Nation

From across the nation, news reports and studies continue to verify the reality of voter fraud, campaign violations, and the growing influence of illegal aliens. Here’s a sampling:

  • The Department of Justice continues to harass states that seek to clean up voter registration roles and enforce state voter ID laws.
  • The Washington Free Beacon:  “A high-dollar lobbyist and fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign failed to file legally required disclosures for his advocacy on behalf of a foreign government in discussions with Clinton’s future campaign chairman, according to a political law expert.”
  • Arizona Family.com:  “A campaign finance violation complaint has been filed with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office against a newly formed independent political committee linked to [ major Clinton backer] George Soros…Soros has been spending millions of dollars this year to support Democrats in prosecutor races around the country and all but one of his favored candidates have won. Phoenix lawyer Brett Johnson says the law requires political committees making independent expenditures to a candidate or office within 60 days of an election to provide 24 hours’ notice to opponents about submitted print or television ads.”
  • The Dallas News  Complaints have been filed that in early voting, votes cast for Trump have been ‘switched’ by faulty machines into votes for Clinton.
  • The Washington Post:  “a group of undocumented immigrants is knocking on doors in Northern Virginia in support of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates…The vote-seekers are some of the 750,000 recipients of temporary legal status under the Obama administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. …‘All DACA recipients should take this on as an added responsibility, to change the power structure,’ said Luis Angel Aguilar, 28, who received his protected status in 2013 and is helping to coordinate the effort. ‘Our voices need to be heard”
  • Project Veritas:  NYC Democratic Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin stated at a  at a United Federation of Teachers party that there is widespread voter fraud in New York City…”Schulkin, a Democrat, said that to effectuate illegal voting, people are bussed to various polling sites. He places a blame on NYC’s radical-left Mayor de Blasio.  “He gave out ID cards. De Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There’s a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud.”
  • A Science Direct white paper notes: We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
  • The Gateway Pundit’s  examination of a wikileaks release finds that Clinton campaign chief John Podesta stated it was OK for illegals to vote if they have a drivers license . The quote: John Podesta:  On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.
  • Virginia: Terry McAuliffe has used various means to attempt to restore to convicted felons who have served their sentence the right to vote, a move expected to provide substantial support to Clinton.
  • California: Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation allowing convicted felons the right to vote.  Some have speculated that polling stations could be set up in prisons.

Some threats have been prevented. Click Orlando reports that “A federal judge has rejected the Florida Democratic Party’s request to let people cast a ballot during early voting even if their registration application hasn’t been verified.”

Obama/Clinton Nuclear Policies Endanger America, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s two-part overview of Russia’s relatively  little-reported national security challenges to the United States concludes today.  

It is stunning how, in the hotly contested American presidential contest, little mention is made about former secretary Hillary Clinton’s sale of massive interests in uranium (the basic ingredient of nuclear weapons) to Russia.

Robert Monroe, a former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency writes in The Wall Street Journal  that “… one of the most important issues in the 2016 election should be the precarious decline of America’s nuclear forces…Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military strategy focuses on early use of these weapons in conflicts large and small. China is in the midst of an immense strategic modernization. India and Pakistan are expanding and improving their nuclear arsenals. North Korea issues nuclear threats almost weekly. The Mideast is dissolving into chaos, and Iran’s advanced nuclear-weapons program has been on the front pages for two years.” He notes that “Since the dawn of the nuclear era, 12 U.S. presidents—six Democrats and six Republicans—have specifically stated nuclear superiority as U.S. policy. Mr. Obama reversed it upon taking office and has accelerated the deterioration of America’s nuclear arsenal.”

Monroe advocates a return to realism in the setting of our nuclear defense strategy, a sharp reversal of the Obama/Clinton naïve policies. To address these multiplying threats, “U.S. nuclear policy must undergo radical changes.”

He notes that “Since the dawn of the nuclear era, 12 U.S. presidents—six Democrats and six Republicans—have specifically stated nuclear superiority as U.S. policy. Mr. Obama reversed it upon taking office and has accelerated the deterioration of America’s nuclear arsenal.” He includes in his recommendations the modernization of America’s increasingly obsolescent nuclear arsenal. “President Obama’s policy doesn’t permit research, design, testing or production of new, advanced nuclear weapons. Our current nuclear weapons—strategic and tactical—were designed and built decades ago to meet different threats, and have gone untested for decades.” Monroe also calls for a refutation of the essentially pacifist Obama/Clinton policies and a “• A return to legitimate deterrence in U.S. foreign policy.”

The Center for Security Policy quotes  General Kevin P. Chilton,  who served as Commander of the United States Strategic Command: “Other declared nuclear powers continue to modernize their nuclear weapons, delivery platforms, and infrastructure. Conversely, the US has effectively eliminated its nuclear weapons production capacity and allowed its infrastructure to atrophy. We no longer produce successive generations of nuclear weapons and we have discontinued underground testing.”

The Heritage Foundation’s analysisof the health of the dwindling U.S. nuclear arsenal found it to be only “marginal,” and notes further worries, as well.

“The National Nuclear Laboratories are beset by talent and recruitment challenges of their own. Thomas D’Agostino, former Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), stated that in about five years, the United States will not have a single active engineer who had ‘a key hand in the design of a warhead that’s in the existing stockpile and who was responsible for that particular design when it was tested back in the early 1990s.’ This is a significant problem because for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, the U.S. will have to rely on the scientific judgment of people who were not directly involved in nuclear tests of weapons that they had designed and developed and were certifying… our ability to reconstitute nuclear forces will probably decline with the passage of time…Fiscal uncertainty and a steady decline in resources for the nuclear weapons enterprise have [also] negatively affected U.S. nuclear weapons readiness… Certain negative trends could undermine U.S. nuclear deterrence if problems are not addressed. From an aging nuclear weapons infrastructure and workforce, to the need to recapitalize all three legs of the nuclear triad, to the need to conduct life extension programs while maintaining a self-imposed nuclear weapons test moratorium, to limiting the spread of nuclear know-how and the means to deliver nuclear weapons, to adversaries who are modernizing their nuclear forces, there is no shortage of challenges on the horizon.”

Dire military threats, and urgent national security challenges are apparently far too trivial for the media to cover.

 

 

Doug Schoen, Herb London on Vernuccio/Novak

One of America’s most renowned political analyst and leading pollsters, DOUG SCHOEN will discuss his new book on Russia’s aggression and the 2016 presidential contest.

HERB LONDON, president of the London Center for Policy Research will provide fascinating insights into America’s precarious international position

Obama/Clinton Nuclear Policies Endanger America

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s two-part overview of Russia’s relatively  little-reported national security challenges to the United States begins today

The mainstream American media is apparently sleepwalking through one of the most dangerous challenges in the nation’s history.

Barely remarked upon in either electronic or print journalism, and little more than an extremely brief afterthought in presidential debate questioning, Moscow’s extraordinary military buildup, its blatant preparations for a major conflict with the United States, and its aggressive actions across the face of the globe have received less attention than the Kardashians’ wardrobe.

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government has often discussed how Russia became the world’s foremost nuclear power, thanks to the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with the Kremlin which gave away America’s lead in nuclear weapons, leaving Putin with the most powerful strategic atomic arsenal on the planet, (the U.S. State Department reports that Moscow has 1,796 warheads to America’s 1367) and a ten to one lead in tactical atomic weapons as well. Moscow’s resumption of nuclear armed patrols off the coasts of the U.S. and its use of Nicaragua as a landing site for its atomic bomb bearing aircraft hardly gets mentioned outside of the New York Analysis and defense-oriented publications. Putin’s $800 billion hike in military spending while America slashes its defense budget doesn’t seem to make a dent in the headlines.

Here are some other worrisome actions the American media seems to find not worthy of major note:

  • The United Kingdom newspaper The Sun reports that Russia recently held a massive evacuation drill for more than 40 million people, including over 200,000 emergency services personnel and soldiers will use 50,000 pieces of equipment during the massive civil defence exercise. The exercise, run by EMERCOM, Russia’s Emergencies Ministry, is what the nation would do in preparation for a nuclear war.
  • The Daily Mail  noted that Putin has reportedly ordered officials to fly home all relatives from across the planet.
  • Newsweek discloses that Russia has moved nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles into the Kaliningrad enclave bordering Poland and Lithuania.
  • The Independent has reprinted comments by “Russia’s chief propagandist” warning that any American action regarding Syrian/ISIS which Moscow disproves of could have “nuclear implications.” The authors describes the reactions of European officials: “The German foreign minister claimed that mounting tensions between the US and Russia have led to a global political situation which is ‘more dangerous’ than the Cold War. Writing for German newspaper Bild, Frank-Walter Steinmeir wrote: “It’s a fallacy to think that this is like the Cold War. The current times are different and more dangerous”.
  • According to the Russian news source RT Russia will soon unveil a new stealth strategic bomber, known as the PAK-DA. “The plane is expected to cover a range of 6,470 nautical miles and carry 30-40 tons of weapons…”According to another United Kingdom publication, The Mirror Russia has developed the world’s first weapon to successfully use microwave energy.

While the United States has reduced its nuclear arsenal, and while former secretary Hillary Clinton opposes spending the funds necessary to adequately maintain those that remain, Russia has moved ahead in modernizing its atomic prowess.

Moscow is not relying solely on force of arms to achieve its aggressive purposes. A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that the Kremlin was engaging in “A strategy designed to exploit governance deficits to weaken the internal cohesion of democratic societies and strengthen the perception of Western economic and political dysfunction by influencing and eroding democratic governance from within… Our study found that countries in which Russia’s economic footprint was on average more than 12 percent of its GDP were generally more vulnerable to pressure via economic tools such as gas supply and transit, corporate raiding of key national companies, and capture of strategic sectors. For those countries with less than 12 percent of GDP, Russia has relied on high-level political patronage, visits, and support for foreign policy positions contrary to Euro-Atlantic values and objectives… The United States cannot afford to remain indifferent to events in Europe or at home, as Russian influence is not just a domestic governance challenge but a national security threat.”

The Report concludes tomorrow

National Security is a Real, Not Just Political, Issue

“Third Way,” a Democrat think tank that currently attempts to soft-pedal the extreme leftist perspective on national security brought about by the Obama/Clinton wing of their party, views the national security challenges facing the United States not in terms of the very real threat facing the safety of the American people but as a political issue that has arisen due to a psychological attitude of the citizenry.

Its recently published a report entitled the National Security Debate Book, opens with this analysis:

“In the 2016 election cycle, Democrats are facing a challenge they haven’t seen since the Vietnam War. National security, specifically terrorism, is now among voters’ most important public policy concerns, and they overwhelmingly trust Republicans more than Democrats to keep them safe. If handled ineffectively, this yawning gap between the parties on security poses a serious political risk to Democrats and continues to undermine public faith in government.”

Rather than discuss the reality that, during the past eight years, terrorist forces have reached an unprecedented level of strength and influence, Russia has become the most powerful nuclear force on Earth, and China has risen to military superpower status, the report notes:

“Following a terrorist attack on the West, the acute symptoms of fear may fade quickly, but there is evidence that heightened levels of anxiety in the general population can linger for years. Now, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, the public is going through this psychological response to terrorism to a degree not seen since 9/11. For example, a Gallup poll from December 8-9, 2015, found that 51% of Americans are worried that they or a family member will be the victim of a terrorist attack,7 a higher percentage than at any time since 2001. Moreover, the survey found a widespread sense of hopelessness: confidence in the government’s ability to protect citizens from terrorism was at an all-time low of 55%. By comparison, immediately after 9/11, [when Republicans controlled the White House] 88% said the government could protect them…Beyond public opinion data, there are deep psychological reasons that security has such an outsized effect on voters. Research on the psychology of terrorism shows that, unsurprisingly, populations experience heightened levels of fear following terrorist attacks…The problem with this extremely heightened level of concern for terrorism is that, all too often, Democrats seek to minimize the threat of terrorism. Instead of empathizing with voter fears, Democrats frequently dismiss them…”

Perhaps the authors of the Report need to discuss among themselves or with their psychologists the inability of the elected officials they support to deal with the reality of the dangers that have arisen from their refusal to acknowledge reality.  Nothing illustrates this blindness more than President Obama’s State of the Union comment that “The shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed,” unless, of course, one counts Hillary Clinton’s opposition to at least maintaining America’s diminished and rapidly obsolescing nuclear arsenal.

The Russians now have a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons and, for the first time in history, an advantage in strategic nuclear weapons as well. The Report notes this, stating:

“Russia maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal … Its …military has undergone significant modernization, outmatching U.S. forces in some areas.” The Report’s short term strategy to deal with this? “…in the short-term, we must avoid giving Russia a pretext to escalate tensions.”

China not only has a rapidly growing advantage in numbers of submarines and, within less than three years, ships, it has closed the overall military gap in quality and technological sophistication as well. It’s modern, capable military received a major upgrade in quality following President Bill Clinton’s sale of a Cray supercomputer to them in the 1990’s.  The report recognizes Beijing’s superpower status:

“China is in many respects the second most powerful country in the world. A nuclear power with the second largest military… The Chinese military wants to be able to win a potential conflict with the United States in the western Pacific Ocean, and is modernizing to meet that goal. Together with China’s aggressive territorial claims, its military expansion has alarmed its smaller neighbors, such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia, who look to the United States for protection.”

The Report suggests that America “Maintain a strong U.S. military presence in Asia and strengthen the capabilities of regional allies;” but fails to endorse the necessary steps to allow that to happen. For example, the U.S. defense industrial base is a mere shadow of what it once was. A prime example: there is only one plant in America capable of building tanks, and the President has repeatedly attempted to close it down.

There was a time following the Second World War when, all sides, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, believed that insuring America’s role as the world’s strongest military power was absolutely essential.  That philosophy prevented a third world war from starting. It’s time to stop thinking of national security as a political or psychological problem and return to viewing it for what it truly is: national survival.

Clinton Campaign’s Unsurprising Anti-Christian Stance, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Governments concludes its review of the left’s  anti-Christian bias. 

The Catholic League reacted sharply to the Wikileaks revelation of anti-Catholic bias within the Clinton campaign:

“There was a time, not too long ago, when Catholics on the left could be expected to at least feign outrage over anti-Catholicism. But no more. Some find excuses for it, while others cheer it on. Few are principled in their discourse, so thoroughly politicized have they become… Sandy Newman, the left-winger who wants Podesta’s advice on how to ‘plant the seeds of the revolution’ within the Catholic Church…told Podesta he needed some coaching in this area—it was a little out of his league—and Hillary’s top aide said he was happy to oblige… The apologists also try to divert attention from the bigotry by saying that the guilty were ‘just talking.’ [Clinton’s running mate] Sen. Kaine wrote it off by saying the email exchanges amounted to nothing more than ‘opinions and mouthing off a little bit here and there… the conversations centered on sabotage. That’s what it means when political agents discuss how to ‘plant the seeds of a revolution’ within an institution… Their objective, which is right out of the playbook of Saul Alinsky (Hillary’s hero), is to sow the seeds of division within the Catholic Church. There is nothing noble about their campaign, and there is nothing meritorious about defending them.”

Speaking at a bishops symposium, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput at the University of Notre Dame  stated: “America’s cultural and political elites talk a lot about equality, opportunity and justice.  But they behave like a privileged class with an authority based on their connections and skills.  And supported by sympathetic media, they’re remaking the country into something very different from anything most of us remember or the Founders imagined. The WikiLeaks email release last week from the Clinton entourage says a lot about how the merit-class elite views people like those in this room.  It’s not friendly.”

The revelation that several key Clinton campaign figures engaged in bigoted anti-Catholic statements should not come as a surprise.

The fact of anti-Christian bias in the Clinton-Obama wing of the Democrat Party is an established fact. The remaining question is why. In the case of the Catholics, the enmity of the left is particularly confusing.  Other than the issue of abortion (admittedly a key issue for some) the current Catholic hierarchy, particularly under the leadership of Pope Francis, shares many of the same inclinations as the progressive-left.

The Clinton-Obama wing of the Democrat party strongly believes in the necessity of a powerful and large government with the broad ability to force their goals on the citizenry, often through means not envisioned in either the Constitution or traditional American practice. Non-governmental institutions that have gained sufficient trust to legitimately question those goals or even the means used to achieve them represent a threat to the left’s view of overarching government supremacy.

The more well established those institutions are, the greater the left sees them as a threat. Consider that is has been the Obama-appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch who openly speculated on criminally prosecuting those who merely disagreed with his climate change policy, a concept which was given actual teeth when a number of leftist state attorneys general slapped nuisance subpoenas on independent think tanks for issuing research papers questioning much of Obama’s climate change views.

There is historical precedence for this in strong-arm and dictatorial governments. The Soviet Union mercilessly suppressed religion. Both Jews as a whole, dissenting Christian pastors, and even Free Masons who opposed the Nazi vision were dispatched to death camps. In today’s China, the tiny Christian minority is oppressed, along with practitioners of Falun Gong, a group with no political aspirations.

The Los Angeles Daily News describes Falun Gong: “Falun Gong (also called Falun Dafa) arose out of the so-called ‘qigong boom’ of the late ‘80s. Qigong is an umbrella term for a number of practices involving meditation, slow-moving exercises and regulated breathing. Qigong groups exploded during this time, attracting tens of millions of mostly urban and elderly Chinese. At one point, more than 2,000 different groups existed. Falun Gong differed from most qigong groups in that it combined exercises with moral and spiritual teachings. Adherents aim to cultivate ‘truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance’ and refine their ‘xining,’ or moral character.”

The group has no hierarchical structure, no established centers, and no administrators—hardly a credible threat to the state. But the very existence of a philosophy that wasn’t controlled by the government was beyond what the government was willing to tolerate.

The commonality in all these historical and current examples of anti-religious oppression is this: Advocates of an all-powerful government will not tolerate any countervailing centers of influence.   Religions, with their established moral codes, are seen as potential sources for thoughts that question the actions or morality of Big Government actions, even in the absence of any present significant policy differences.

Clinton Campaign’s Unsurprising Anti-Christian Stance

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government begins a two part examination of anti-Christian bias within the Clinton campaign. 

Wikileaks’s recent exposure of anti-Catholic statements by Clinton campaign officials should be understood as part of the Left’s drive to reduce the influence of most faith-based organizations.

Emails from Clinton campaign director Jennifer Palmieri to campaign chair John Podesta discussed their views of Catholics as being “backwards” and, most disturbingly, included a desire for inducing change in the religion. Voices for Progress President Sandy Newman also emailed Podesta, speculating that the opposition of Catholic bishops to mandatory insurance for contraceptives could be used to spark a revolution within the Church.

It is chilling that political figures would consider interfering in the internal workings of a religion.

A Lifesitenews article quotes New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who stated that the comments were “extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics.”

Statements from Democrat leaders demonstrate their disdain for Christian religious denominations, as noted in the September 26 edition of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. These comments have become fairly standard.

It’s not just words; their biases are clearly reflected in policy. The Gatestone Institute  previously reported that “The Obama administration has taken in 5,435 Muslim refugees, but only 28 Christians — even though Christians are approximately 10 percent of Syria’s population and are classified as experiencing a genocide there.” More Syrians have since been admitted, but the near total exclusion of Christians remains. Gatestone  also stressed that “the ‘Caliph’ of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ridiculed by Charlie Hebdo, triggered self-censorship because of ‘hate speech,’ while the work of Chris Ofili ‘The Holy Virgin Mary,’ in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia, was defended by the New York Times as ‘free speech.’ Does this now mean that some religions are more equal than others?”

It follows a long pattern of denigrating statements and actions from Democrat leaders concerning religion. Obama deprecated those who practice religion as bitter people clinging to their bibles and guns, and Obamacare supporters refused to accept that religious principles prevented some nonprofits from accepting certain mandates in the health care legislation. In 2014, Houston’s Democrat mayor Annise Parker attempted to subpoena sermons of conservative pastors.

While the latest Clinton-related comments were targeted at Catholics, the reality is Christian groups in general have frequently been in the crosshairs of leftist Democrats and many of their media allies.

The media has long ignored the left’s open bias. American Thinker’s Stephen Kokx  wrote in 2012 described, in 2012, a lawsuit by 43 Catholic organizations to protect their rights from the intrusions of Obamacare mandates, and the media’s lack of coverage for that action. “Similar to the media’s decision to not report on the half-million or so protesters who attended the March for Life rally this past January, outlets like ABC, NBC, and CBS — all of whom spent hours on end drooling over comments made by a 30-year-old law student [Sandra Fluke, who, notes WND, was the  “the feminist attorney who in 2012 claimed she couldn’t afford the $9 monthly cost of birth control pills and has said taxpayers should pay for it , but managed to loan her own legislative campaign a hefty sum of $100,000.]– have largely ignored what has become the largest legal defense of religious liberty in American history…Evidence of big media’s bias against religion is beyond dispute,” writes Cal Thomas, a Catholic commentator.  Noting the countless number of attacks on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, Thomas concludes that ‘any faith attached to a conservative agenda is to be ridiculed, stereotyped and misrepresented [by the media].  Islam is a notable exception… Not long ago, ABC decided to air a program originally entitled Good Christian Bitches.  Though the show changed its name and was canceled due to low ratings, it proved Cal Thomas’s point about the media’s double standard when it comes to religion.  Could you imagine a sitcom entitled Angry Muslim Clerics…?”

The report concludes tomorrow.

The Media’s Terrible Coverage of Key Issues

The United States is endangered by at least four crises of unprecedented proportion: The nation faces more perilous threats to its national security than at any time since World War 2; the economy has stagnated and the middle class is dwindling; the national treasury is rapidly approaching bankruptcy, and the framework of the federal government has been, to a far greater degree than has ever occurred throughout the life of the country, been diverted and abused for partisan political purposes.

You would hardly know these challenges exist by listening to the general press coverage of the issues facing the presidential election.  The level of discourse has been reduced to commentary more commonly found in contests for high school prom kings and queens, or in the pages of supermarket scandal sheets, than in the contest for the most important public office on the planet.

The nation’s safety is at risk as never before, as Russia, for the first time in the nuclear age, has a lead over the U.S. in both strategic and conventional nuclear arms, (thanks in large part to the Obama/Clinton “reset” with Moscow) and China verges on becoming the Pacific’s predominant naval power. The two nations, in combination with Iran, represent the world’s most powerful military alliance.

From one end of the globe to the other, the reduction in and withdrawal of American arms has caused havoc. Russia, after invading the Ukraine with impunity, has now set its sights on the Baltic states Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all of whom are NATO members. Moscow has moved nuclear armed Iskander missiles into place, and has openly threatened war with the western nations.  The Kremlin has conducted massive nuclear drills, and has prepared its forces for conflict.  All this occurred while the U.S. cut its defense budget and European nations continued to spend very little on their armed forces. Moscow has also militarized the Arctic, and opened military agreements with Latin American and Caribbean nations.

China, having paid no price for its aggressive moves against the Philippines and in other parts of the Pacific, has swiftly moved to assert hegemony throughout a large portion of the Asian/Pacific region. In the middle east, the premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq led to the empowerment of ISIS and the horrors that followed. Terror now plays a role in the daily lives of Americans and Europeans alike.

Within the nation, the federal bureaucracy has been co-opted for partisan political purposes, a complete abandonment of the principal and mandate of equality under the law that has previously guided the nation. The deeply disturbing confirmation that the leadership of the Internal Revenue Service was aware that their agency’s resources were being used to target political opponents of the Obama Administration adds to concerns that there has been a wholesale hijacking of taxpayer funded government agencies for partisan purposes. That series of crimes combines with revelations, discovered by Judicial Watch through an examination of FBI documents, presents a worrisome picture, particularly when combined with other research and information about the unlawful and biased practices of various federal departments during the Obama Administration. The failure to prosecute key Administration figures for crimes which have ended the careers and resulted in substantive punishment for others essentially enacts a two-tier system of justice. Add to that the Attorney General’s considering of criminal prosecution for those who merely express disagreement with Mr. Obama’s climate change position.  Taken together, the American legal and political system has become unrecognizable.

Over the past eight years, the national debt has nearly doubled, and there is nothing to show for it.  America’s infrastructure continues to crumble, schools turn out uncompetitive students, the military is shrinking, the poverty rate has gone up, social security is heading for bankruptcy, and taxes remain high. The fact that all those dollars were spent without getting anything in return is the greatest economic crime in history, but the media remains silent.

Unlike the aftermath of prior recessions, the nation’s economy has not snapped back.  A National Review article recently noted:

“The grim news is not that the economy continues to resist returning to normal. Rather, it is that this ‘current equilibrium’…is the new normal. If 2 percent growth is…’the most likely scenario’ for the foreseeable future, the nation faces a second consecutive lost decade — one without a year of 3 percent growth…Those whose wealth comes from wages … are losing ground.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government recently outlined, “As one digs deeper into the official statistics, more distressing news becomes evident, as the data further indicate that steady, middle class employment continues to decline. Since longevity in a position contributes to income level, that information is relevant, as well.  The BLS reports that the median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer was 4.2 years in January 2016, down from 4.6 years in January 2014. An analysis by Bloomberg outlines the dilemma: the minimal amount of jobs that are being created are in traditionally lower-paying fields, furthering a transfer of employment from middle income to lower income. Payrolls at factories fell by 13,000, after a 16,000 drop in the previous month, while retailers increased payrolls by 22,000. Employment in leisure and hospitality rose 15,000.”

These are real issues, worthy of deep consideration and lengthy debates about how to resolve them. Unfortunately, the major media appears uninterested.

 

Was Assange targeted for Exposing Clinton?

A Wikileaks tweet has stated that “heavily armed police” have appeared outside of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Julian Assange has taken refuge.

Julian Assange has clearly and substantially offended the U.S. government on a number of past occasions, but no actual action against his internet connection was taken until it began exposing Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoings, including providing evidence that Clinton was instrumental in the transfer of uranium (the basic ingredient for nuclear weapons) to the Russians, and providing information about her criminally negligent handling of emails classified as secret.

Wikileaks previously released classified documents from U.S. soldier PFC Bradley Manning. In 2010 it published 250,000 sensitive U.S. embassy cables. In 2012, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald  “The US military…designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as ‘enemies of the United States for releasing declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents’… The suspected offence was ‘communicating with the enemy’… an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from ‘communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy.”

But the Obama Administration only truly became enraged at Assange when he released embarrassing information about Clinton in her presidential bid.

As noted by Politico “WikiLeaks has taken on a greater role in the presidential election in recent days, releasing thousands of pages of allegedly hacked emails from the personal account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Neither the Clinton campaign nor Podesta himself has verified the authenticity of the emails, which detail the inner working of the former secretary of state’s White House bid. Podesta is far from the only high-level political figure to become the target of online hackers. An attack on the email systems of the Democratic National Committee yielded embarrassing messages that led to the resignation of committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz just days before the start of her party’s nominating convention in Philadelphia…”

Assange had promised that in the remaining weeks before the U.S. presidential election he would publish further information that could implicate Clinton in additional law breaking.

A sidebar to the Wikileaks information about Clinton has been the attempts by the media and the Obama Administration to implicate the Russian government in the information dumps, on the premise that Moscow preferred Trump to win the election.  The concept is illogical. It was Clinton, along with Obama, that engineered the “reset” with Russia that gave the Kremlin the lead, for the first time in history, in nuclear weapons, and those two made no substantive response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As noted previously, Clinton also was instrumental in the transfer of uranium to Moscow. Clearly, Putin would profit from a Clinton presidency.

Wikileaks has become a significant issue even in down-ticket races.  In New York, Wendy Long, the Republican candidate opposing incumbent Senator Chuck Schumer (best known for introducing legislation that would weaken the First Amendment) called for a “full, complete, and absolute pardon” to be extended to  Wikileaks  founder Julian  Assange  for any potential violations of U.S. law, “on the ground that he has served a far greater good of truth and transparency. Long stated that “Julian Assange has shed the light of truth on matters that the American people need to know to conduct self-government under our Constitution.  Investigative journalism is dead in this country, and citizen journalists are trying to fill the void. We know that almost 100 percent of the mainstream media are in the tank for Hillary Clinton. And were it not for Julian Assange, we would not know that: * she dreams of a ‘hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders’* she believes that a politician must have ‘a public and private position’on issues* her team that disparages Catholics and evangelicals, and is plotting a ‘Catholic Spring’* her campaign was in touch with Obama Department of Justice officials about the release of her emails* the State Department sought a quid pro quo with the FBI on reclassifiying some of her emails.”Assange is the only source of transparency and truth that most Americans now have about some of the most important matters affecting this election and our country.  We need him, we need his help, and we need him on the side of America. We should pardon him and do all that we can to get his assistance in the future on behalf of the American people.”

While it has not been definitively proven who ordered the cut to Assange’s internet, Wikileaks has claimed that a “state party” is responsible, and the trail seems to lead to the White House, eager to see Ms. Clinton elected, influencing the Ecuadorian government to cut the connection.  The connection was cut shortly after Wikileaks published embarrassing remarks made by Clinton during a private speech to the financial firm Goldman Sachs.

Press Fails to Cover Candidate’s Differing Views on Global Affairs

The United States currently faces more danger than at any time since the conclusion of the Second World War.

However, in the candidates’ debates, and in media coverage overall, questions and reviews about the international perspectives of the two contenders for the job of commander in chief, and their views on foreign affairs and national security in general, are few and far between. At a time when global affairs are more unsettled than at any time over the prior seven decades, that lack of appropriate emphasis by the press has not served the public well.

Trump and Clinton portray each other as unqualified for the role as America’s top policy maker on foreign affairs.  Clinton emphasizes Trump’s inexperience and his blunt language. Trump points to America’s deterioration in influence and military strength during the period when Clinton served as Secretary of State.

Here is a basic summary of the candidates’ broad positions, gleaned from their speeches, position papers, and various statements:

Clinton outlines her policy in several key points: Continuing traditional relationships with allies, embracing diplomacy and development, being “firm but wise” with rivals, and enacting an overall strategy for confronting terrorists. She strongly supports the Iran nuclear deal, of which she was an architect.  She would increase the number of refugees from Syria, and support more opportunities for illegal immigrants to move into the U.S. mainstream. Her position on U.S. military strength is somewhat more dovish than President Obamas’. Of particular note is her reluctance to support generally accepted levels of funding for the maintenance and modernization of the American nuclear deterrent. She has not taken a clear stand on international trade agreements, both supporting and opposing the Transpacific Partnership at various times. She mixes in domestic policy with her international perspectives by calling for greater economic equality at home.

Trump’s basic approach to foreign affairs and national security includes increasing military spending and insuring that U.S. conventional and nuclear armed forces are the world’s strongest; pressuring allies to pull their own weight, (often in blunt language) and if they do so, providing substantial U.S. support to deter threats to those nations; opposing the Iran nuclear arms deal; halting illegal immigration; and stopping the flow of refugees from areas that threaten the U.S. with terrorism. He would use ground troops if necessary to combat ISIS, but would refrain from becoming involved in foreign disputes which America has no stake in. He believes that international trade agreements have harmed more than helped the American economy and the American worker.

There have been specific areas of very sharp disagreement between the two:

Trump points out that due to the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia, Moscow now, for the first time in history, possesses the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Clinton emphasizes that Trump has frequently stated that Putin has restored Russian pride.

Clinton notes that the Iran nuclear deal prevented Tehran’s near-imminent acquisition of an atomic bomb. Trump counters by noting that the agreement freely allows Iran to build nuclear weapons within the next decade, and provided the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism with a vast amount of funding which could be used to further support those activities.

Trump has endorsed a more muscular policy stance towards China’s pacific adventurism, while Clinton tilts towards a more diplomatic approach.

Perhaps the greatest overall debate between the two contenders is the battle of Clinton’s claim to significant experience versus Trump’s outlining of significant policy failures under her watch. Clinton contrasts her eight years as the first lady and key advisor to President Clinton, her tenure in the U.S. Senate, and her role as Secretary of State to Trump’s inexperience. Trump counters with the unprecedented decline in America’s fortunes and the numerous missteps that occurred during her tenure, including the transfer of nuclear supremacy to Russia, the dissent into chaos in the Middle East and the rise of terrorism, and the growing aggressiveness of China.