The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18 has shaken up the 2020 election and is sure to plunge an already dramatic election year into a raging political firestorm. Already dealing with riots, massive forest fires, economic problems and a global pandemic, the United States now faces an election that might actually be the most important in many people’s lifetimes — and not just in the way that the line has been previously employed for the sake of political rhetoric to get voters to the polls.

A conservative replacement will be appointed soon. US President Donald Trump will reportedly nominate a woman to SCOTUS this coming week.

RBG’s Record

Ginsburg took her seat on SCOTUS in 1993 under President Bill Clinton and served there almost three decades. She was often part of the dissenting opinions as conservatives held a 5-4 voting majority for many years, bolstering the image of her as a feisty fighter and underdog.

RBG was a committed progressive who was staunchly in favor of abortion rights and legislating for increased labor protections and rights protections for women and minorities. Her dissenting opinions became well-known for their fiery conviction about gender equality, including landmark rulings on a women’s right to administer estates and get survivor benefits when their husband died.

Cases such as these and more made RBG into a feminist and progressive icon as she rose up the ranks and became prominent in the national eye.

Who Will Trump Pick?

Trump will most likely select Barbara Lagoa or Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant SCOTUS seat. Both picks have various advantages. Both are socially conservative, devout Catholics, but there are some compelling reasons in favor of each from the right-wing perspective.

Barrett works for the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago since being put there by Trump in 2017 and previously clerked for Justice Scalia. She’s a former law professor who is believed to be committed to overturning landmark abortion ruling Roe vs. Wade. 

Lagoa has more judicial experience than Barrett and was put on the 3rd District Court of Appeals by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in 2006. She moved to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th District in 2019 under orders from Trump. Lagoa is conservative, but is not as strongly opinionated on Roe vs. Wade. As a Cuban-American from Miami, however, she could also help solidify Trump’s growing support among Hispanic Americans and help him win the key state of Florida.

Left characterizations of Barrett as a “Catholic extremist” tend to tip the scales in favor of her being chosen by Trump. Furthermore, choosing Barrett would allow Trump to jeopardize much of the media and Democratic party’s emphasis on Biden’s Catholic faith. Is Hunter Biden also a “Catholic extremist” for having a large family? Is Biden a “good Catholic” for being liberal but Barrett is a “bad Catholic”? These are exactly the kind of litmus tests that will further sink the already disastrously falling support for Democrats among Hispanics and other portions of the electorate.

Republicans Want to Fill RBG’s Seat ASAP

Trump is promising that RBG’s seat will be filled quickly, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to confirm Trump’s appointee, although there’s no guarantee that will happen before election day on November 3. In order to confirm the pick the Republicans would have to be singularly unified without losing more than three party member confirmation votes.

Senators do not like being pressured on SCOTUS appointees and generally like to take their time to make a lifetime appointment to the vitally important court, and there’s a chance that the GOP could lose more votes than it could afford from Senators who are already finishing up their political career anyway, don’t support the pick, and don’t care any longer about the political suicide of not voting to confirm a new conservative justice.

Regardless, progressive fury at the perceived Republican hypocrisy will be intense. President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the spring of 2016 was declined by the Republican-controlled Congress who insisted that the presidential election must be finished before a SCOTUS nomination could move forward. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was put in the seat in 2017.

McConnell wouldn’t move forward then on the other party’s pick, but he will now on his own party’s selection.

This should not surprise anyone, particularly as federal politics has slid into an all-out brawl in the past few years and Democratic tactics have become increasingly intense and gloves-off as they seek to oust Trump from office. There is no reason to expect the GOP to play fair or adhere to standards of political civility at this point.

Biden has already emphasized that the nomination should not take place until this presidential election is decided, but has declined to put out a list of who he would potentially nominate were he to become president. It is also possible that Democrats will put through some legislation to make it easier to pass laws in the Senate and allow them to possibly expand the Supreme Court and end the impending Republican power play.

More Possible Choices to Replace Ginsburg

Although reports say Trump has narrowed it down to Barrett or Lagoa, other women on the shortlist include Bridget Bade from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Martha Pacold from the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Sarah Pitlyk from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, deputy White House counsel Kate Todd, Joan Larsen of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Britt Grant of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Allison Jones Rushing of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

It is always possible that Trump will go with one of these women instead, as he is known for his unpredictability and has already changed his mind on a SCOTUS pick, having previously remarked he’d put Senator Ted Cruz in but recently announcing that it will be a woman instead.

Political Calculus

The Republicans could have held off on naming a replacement in order to further intensify the election and boost evangelical and socially conservative turnout. Making the 2020 election a referendum on Roe vs. Wade and whether the GOP would get the chance to put a conservative on the bench under a re-elected President Trump would have strongly enthused many right-leaning voters.

However, naming a replacement now has several advantages for the GOP. Firstly it can be seen as another feather in Trump’s cap and another win for voters to reflect on when they cast their ballot. Secondly, the Democratic party and left-leaning electoral meltdown that is sure to come as a replacement is named and vetted will likely provide unrest, dramatic rhetoric and behavior that will actually decrease support for the Democrats in crucial swing states and boost Republican voter turnout.

RBG’s reported statement prior to her death that she wishes above all that a replacement not be appointed until a new president is “installed” will further inflame angry progressives and intensify their threats and accusations of rank hypocrisy from Republicans for their previous refusal to allow Garland to proceed forward onto SCOTUS.

Various celebrities and establishment liberal figures have already made outlandish and possibly illegal statements inciting violence and promising that they’ll die before they allow the GOP to put in a replacement for RBG and “burn the entire f–ing thing down,” in the words of TV host Reza Aslan, for example.

What’s Next?

If Trump nominates Barrett the media and national uproar will be considerable. The hearings will be intensely partisan and bitter, but the election would be clearly tipped in Trump’s favor. Even a less contentious pick than Barrett is likely to result in a meltdown by coastal elites and progressives. Look for late night talk shows and other broadcast mediums for coastal folks to go absolutely bonkers, and don’t be surprised to see increased street-level agitation and unrest.

The United States is now in the unenviable position of melting down over race relations and politics with a contentious Supreme Court hearing on the horizon. No matter what happens, the death of RBG is likely to go down as a pivotal point in US history and what comes next is likely to be dramatic on the political and popular level.

Trump got a major boost in 2016 with the chance to fill the Supreme Court with a conservative justice, and his later appointments of Gorsuch to replace Scalia and Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy helped bring many evangelicals and social conservatives over to his side and see him as a winner who gets things done. The death of RBG is likely to be what wins Trump the 2020 election and assists his administration in reshaping the federal bench to become more conservative across the board.

L'articolo RBG’s Death and the 2020 Election proviene da InsideOver.

Granted, it has become somewhat easy to dismiss anti-Trump comments by Democrats and the progressive media as mere partisanship, biased dislike or ideological blindness. However, the narrative changes if loyal, life-long conservatives turn their backs on a supposedly Republican president, fight him and openly call for the election of a Democrat in lieu of the own candidate.

Introducing the Lincoln Project

The latter is not the script of the latest political TV show, it’s a reality in the modern US. The Lincoln Project is campaigning against Trump and in favor of Joe Biden. And while Trump’s base will not be deterred by the apparent failures of the president and likely die politically on the Trump hill, many Americans are now being encouraged in realizing that they, and indeed, the nation, deserve a better president. The Lincoln Project thus strives to illuminate undecided and former — now dissatisfied — Trump voters.

The Lincoln Project is presently the talk of the town when it comes to American politics. Ironically, the group is utilizing the president’s weapon of choice: social media. Here, the president’s cerebral inaptitude, general embarrassments, lack of empathy and often inhumane moments are posted in all their glory. The Lincoln Project has highlighted the President’s missteps with significant success. The videos are liked and shared by millions of people including liberals.

Provoking Trump and His Supporters

The Lincoln Project videos being used with the aim of making Joe Biden the 46th president are deliberately provocative and insulting — just like the president himself. A sophisticated, well-crafted, in-depth message founded on science or coherent policy will hardly be found — again, also resembling the president’s “messages”. The attempt of trying to beat Trump at his own game is apparent and visibly savvy.

The group behind these efforts is operating as a Super PAC — a political action committee. Therefore, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign contribution limits do not apply, with the result that the Lincoln Project has raised $ 19.4 million to this point. This gives it plenty of liquidity, which the project continues to invest in videos and lobbying efforts.

Who is Behind the Lincoln Project?

The puppet masters are, among others, Steve Schmidt, former advisor to the late Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Other members include Rick Wilson and John Weaver, who previously worked for the Bush campaigns. Then there is George Conway, the rebel husband of Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. All are establishment Republicans who are appalled by the Trump phenomenon that appears to have overtaken the Grand Old Party’s traditional values.

The Conways, in particular, illustrate the zeitgeist of today’s conservatism in America: division. The Lincoln Project is the public representation of this division within the GOP that had existed long before Trump but now has turned into deep, unbridgeable trenches. Several Republicans now see Trump as a threat to the dignity of the presidency and consider his policies irresponsible at best and utterly un-American at worst. From Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney to John Kasich and Colin Powell, well-known Republicans are deserting Trump amid his poor performance during the pandemic.

Trump’s Troubles at the Polls

Moreover, the miserable poll numbers ​​of the president are now making even Trump loyalists on the Hill nervous. They, unlike the Never Trumpers, have tied their professional fortunes to Trump – and so far with considerable success. A Trump endorsement almost automatically equalled a successful campaign result in the past. With Americans waking from their slumber, however, Trump’s popularity continues to decline. As a result, many Republicans are now at risk of losing their congressional seats in November. One thus should not be surprised if more Republicans make a U-turn on the Trump question.

Even if every poll is only preliminary three months before the election — and it currently looks like a landslide victory for Biden — does anyone honestly believe that Trump will turn things around over the next 90 days? The pandemic and the disastrous riots in American cities have unmasked him. Any upcoming Biden blunder can’t outweigh the 153,700 dead Americans nor the unacceptable behavior of the president.

A Return to Normalcy

Trump’s presidency has led to parts of both major parties to seek a return to normalcy in American politics. If Republicans like those in the Lincoln Project are campaigning for a Democrat it is a sign of a failed Commander in Chief, but it is also a step in a direction that can partially overcome the divide in the United States. The latter is desperately needed.

If a president, after nearly four years in office, continuously tweets “make America great again!” during a national crisis — despite having done almost nothing to accomplish the latter — his body of work is summed up brilliantly.

L'articolo The Lincoln Project: Republicans Versus Trump proviene da InsideOver.

The closure of consulates the previous week will not have been the apogee in a series of clashes between Washington and Beijing. Instead, the last remaining hegemonic power and the aspiring superpower will keep the world busy with its ongoing showdown — while the European Union is destined to watch.

Beijing

Since the violent suppression of the democratic movement on Tiananmen Square in 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has waged an ideological war against enemy forces. Under the new head of party and state leader Xi Jinping, the conflict is intensifying. In a 2013 speech on “Defense and Development of Socialism” to members of the CPC Central Committee, he said that the Chinese system would ultimately triumph over capitalism. However, the party had to prepare for “long-term cooperation and debate between the two systems.” In the end, the CPC also tries to win the duel between the political systems in order to legitimize its authoritarian rule in China.

Of geostrategic importance are China’s claim to Taiwan — a democratic state that is not recognized by China and supported by the United States — as well as Beijing’s territorial aggression in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Here, China is attempting to extend its sovereign rights over the internationally determined airspaces and territorial waters.

It builds infrastructure on uninhabited or artificial islands in order to claim sovereign rights and natural resources in the South China Sea —  despite an international court ruling that puts China in violation of international law.

As a result, several dangerous military situations with warships and military jets from neighbouring countries as well as the United States and European countries have occurred during attempts to force China to respect international airspace and international trade waters. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a keynote speech to democracies in Europe and Asia asking to oppose China in a joint effort with the United States.

Washington

Compared to previous US governments, President Donald Trump has tightened the approach towards China – albeit not in regard to human rights and religious freedom. President Barack Obama acted more conciliatory and sought cooperation with Beijing in the global financial crisis. Trump, on the other hand, is using punitive tariffs to exert pressure on China to open its markets to Western products, just as China claims access to its goods in western economies. Trump’s constant attacks on China regarding COVID-19 — though justified — have further exacerbated the situation.

In addition to Trump’s combative course, the objective situation has also changed. Two decades ago, China had still been seen as a developing country, the kind of which does not question the technical and geostrategic dominance of the West — which is why one can react with caution if China does not adhere to the same standards in terms of trade rules, social regulations, environmental and climate requirements hold. Today China is technically and economically as strong as the USA or the EU. Unequal rules are considered a competitive disadvantage at the expense of America and Europe. Whoever believes that the conflict between China and the US will disappear once Joe Biden is in office, might be in for a rude awakening.

Brussels

The EU, meanwhile, is a bystander in this clash between the world’s two dominating forces. Its member states have such different interests that it is difficult to position them jointly on key issues. It would have been Germany’s task in its current EU presidency to find a common position for the EU-China summit initially planned for September. However, the summit has now been postponed due to the pandemic, and without a joint declaration, there will be no common European position – a further increase in tensions between Washington and Beijing notwithstanding.

The previous EU commission was cognizant of these aforementioned issues. In March 2019, it published a ten-point paper that aimed to counter China’s political and economic struggle for power in many fields. China is a partner, competitor and systemic rival, it says. However, national governments are often not guided by the EU decision, which emphasizes the importance of human rights and demands a level playing field. At the same time, China is influencing and dividing the EU. Investments from Beijing are very welcome in Italy, but also in other southern and eastern European countries. These investments make these governments mildly friendly when it comes to criticizing China.

The EU’s Lack of Unified Foreign Policy

When it comes to geopolitical interests, the EU does not fulfil the global political role that ought to be expected from an economic powerhouse. It simply is not capable. Accordingly, the idea that the EU could act as a global political pole between the United States and China is utterly preposterous, mainly as no real EU foreign policy even exists.

It also explains why Germany is not inclined to follow the US blindly. Berlin has emphasized that China remains an important partner in international politics, such as climate protection and the nuclear deal with Iran, and an important economic partner. The USA, on the other hand, is essential for Germany as a guarantee of security and shares common values, even if the friendship has suffered severely under the current administration.

With that being said, the conflict between China and the US will continue to exacerbate in the foreseeable future. And while the tone and decorum in the White House could significantly elevate from January 2021 onward if Biden is elected, American geopolitical interests will remain the same.

L'articolo US-China Relations Get Tenser, while Europe is Doomed to Watch proviene da InsideOver.

With less than 100 days until election day, Joe Biden is on course to become the 46th president of the United States, currently leading in every battleground state and the national polls. Biden’s main strength at this point is mainly based on Trump’s apparent weakness during a time the United States has been in urgent need of a decisive Commander-in-Chief. Biden is now set to reveal his pick for the vice presidency in the coming days.

Who Should Biden Pick for VP?

A suitable candidate for the VP slot ideally has strengths that conceal the presidential candidate’s weaknesses, for instance, with either experience, regional popularity, or ideology. For example, Mike Pence owes his vice presidency to his ideology, since Trump needed someone to address evangelical Christians and social conservatives. Biden’s vice presidency itself was due to the fact that Obama needed someone with extensive experience who could also appeal to the working class in key swing states.

Nonetheless, in the most recent past, the running mate pick seldom had a significant (negative) impact during election day, with the exception of John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin in 2008. A status of exception applies to the current race as well, however. It is a race that has become Biden’s to lose. The Trump team is waiting for him to step into a certain pitfall that allows them to paint moderate Biden as a far-left uber progressive semi-communist.

Moreover, with Biden being at an advanced stage in his life, chances are he may only choose to run for one term or in the worst case may not be capable of performing his duties sufficiently during his first term. A younger face to his side can thus alleviate these concerns significantly. There is also the ongoing issue of racial injustice. Biden may be inclined to pick an African American vice-presidential candidate as a statement of solidarity and appeal to the African American vote – though Biden himself has that vote pretty much secured already in any case.

During the primaries, Biden already limited the range of potential picks by announcing his proclivity during the Democratic primaries for choosing a woman. The remaining options are vast, nonetheless.

Kamala Harris

In a piece from August 2019, I already noted that Kamala Harris would be a perfect candidate for Joe Biden. At that point, she had still been running for president in the Democratic primaries and impressed audiences and voters with her cerebral aptitude, charisma and moderate stance – which was refreshing to see during primaries and claims by some of the candidates, that often resembled Politburo gatherings.

In addition, Harris’ experience as Attorney General of California from 2011 to 2017 and as a Senator since 2017 also makes her a strong candidate for Biden’s nomination. Some have argued that her background in the judiciary could also be a burden for her, as cases and decisions from her career as a San Francisco prosecutor have been criticized by progressives many times. Her crime: As a prosecutor, she had dared to prosecute individuals—an outrage for the woke wing of the party. However, picking a female African-American would not only be a strong signal to the country but also a direct response to the demand for equality – a message even the far-left likely could not argue against. At the same time, it would be a positive sign for Biden’s moderate voters, as Harris is not suspected of being too far to the left. What also speaks in her favor is the fact that Democrats, historically, have chosen a senator in 19 of 23 times since 1928.

Susan Rice

Susan Rice was the National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador to President Obama. The latter also makes her a viable and promising candidate. Like Biden, Rice is closely linked to the Obama administration’s foreign policy milestones, including the Iran Agreement and the Paris Climate Agreement. Biden and Rice can also look back on a political connection that goes back to the 1990s. However, what Rice lacks are a national profile and campaign experience. The latter is an absolute must since Biden will probably limit his appearances himself.

Karen Bass

As a member of Congress, many US media outlets haven’t had Karen Bass on the screen for a long time, but her name has come up more often in recent weeks. The 66-year-old leads the assembly of African Americans in the US Congress, the Black Caucus. Her special topics are scorching: she calls for reform to end the disproportionate police violence against blacks, a moratorium on student debt and a national care pact. Bass and Biden hardly know each other personally, and so far it is hardly known nationwide. Both can change quickly, however, as Biden cannot afford to experiment and needs someone with a high profile.

Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abrams was a member of the Georgia House of Representatives from 2007 to 2017. There she was also opposition leader for the Democrats from 2011 to 2017. In the 2018 governor election in Georgia, she ran for governorship but was defeated by her Republican challenger. The right to vote is a central issue in her policies. In doing so, she particularly pursues the goal of increasing voter turnout among African-Americans. Abrams, who grew up in Mississippi State and now lives in Georgia, could be the key to Biden’s success in the Southern States. She has been involved in the debate about Biden’s running-mate pick for months and has repeatedly said that she was very well suited to the job. However, just as it applies to Bass and Rice, Abrams has less experience with elections and politics than other potential candidates.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar has been a member of the State of Minnesota in the United States Senate since 2007. Until recently, she was Biden’s competitor in the Democratic campaign: after the first primaries, Klobuchar withdrew her — at one point surprisingly promising — candidacy for the presidency in early March and instead announced her support for Biden. Since then, she has performed at campaign events for the latter. As a potential vice candidate, Klobuchar brings the support of renowned US media from the primaries. It could also help Biden to come from one of the swing states in the Midwest.

Moreover, Klobuchar is a moderate and thus appealing to the working class in many other relevant states. However, as suitable as Klobuchar maybe – and she is – she has stated that Biden should pick an African-American woman, considering the current carnage in the United States. One can rest assured, that, even if Klobuchar does not end up being the vice-presidential candidate, Klobuchar will find her way into Biden’s cabinet in some other capacity. She simply is too talented of a politician to be left behind.

Elizabeth Warren

Biden’s former competitor for the Democratic nomination, Elizabeth Warren, has not taken a break since leaving the campaign. The Massachusetts senator picked up where her campaign ended: from health care reform to a corona pandemic to police reform – Elizabeth Warren has a plan for everything – so she believes. Warren was already in discussion for the post in 2016. Since Biden has prevailed against the uber-progressive Bernie Sanders, Warren, with her liberal and progressive politics, may seem like a solid choice to unite the movements within the Democratic Party. However, Warren remains the arguably greatest pitfall for Biden in this selection process, as she stands as a synonym for socialism and has close ties to Bernie Sanders.

Both individuals are simply persona non grata for many working-class Americans – and rightfully so. One must not forget, that the socialist message Warren as well as Sanders ran on, failed epically. The idea to now align his presidential campaign with these ghosts of the past and have people to contemplate whether they can give Biden their vote considering that Warren could well become his successor in a worst-case scenario, remains one thing in particular: a vote for Donald Trump.

Tammy Duckworth

Tammy Duckworth is a leading voice in national security and defence policy in her party. An American patriot. She lost both legs in the 2004 Iraq war when an armoured grenade hit her helicopter. Since then, she has been wearing prostheses and is partially dependent on a wheelchair.

The 52-year-old — who was born in Bangkok — thus normalizes unusual circumstances in everyday political life. She is one of Trump’s harshest critics, especially with regard to the soldiers. So she once said that she had fought her whole life for the well-being of the troops and would not be instructed by a “draft-dodger in the Oval Office.” Duckworth’s popularity has skyrocketed especially in the past few weeks after Tucker Carlson launched several personal attacks on her and questioned her patriotism.

Biden’s Many VP Options Give Him a Strong Path Forward

Despite the self-imposed limitations, Biden has solid options – and a great one in Kamala Harris. As long as Biden does not fall into the “woke Sarah Palin trap,” his chances will not decrease, and the race remains his to win. With Harris, however, Biden would add a genuine asset to his campaign, that has the chance to elevate his popularity and lead further, while also answering the call for racial equality.

L'articolo The Time Has Come: Joe Biden to Announce his VP Pick proviene da InsideOver.

It has to be really uncomfortable being Joe Biden these days! He is not even running his own campaign and apparently is not allowed to attend public events or answer any questions due to fears of showcasing his lapses in logic and inability to finish sentences. Furthermore, his campaign program has been crafted by the struggling Democratic primary electorate.

The Two Bidens

The presumptive Democratic nominee Biden bears little resemblance to the former Vice President Biden, and nowhere is this more evident than in the recently published 110-page document from the Unity Task Force appointed by Biden and his former opponent, the socialist senator Bernie Sanders.

While one could have described Biden, throughout his very long years in public service, with a wide range of adjectives going from ineloquent to borderline creepy, far-left radical would not have been one of them. However, in his third try for the Presidency, he is definitely running on a socialist platform, rejecting everything he has ever stood for and abandoning his own achievements and policy initiatives.

The Unity Task Force Policy Plan

The document produced by the joint task force is meant to service as a “good policy blueprint that will move this country in a much-needed progressive direction”, as Sanders put it. Biden himself has declared that he intends to be a more progressive President than even Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Perhaps he intends to follow in the footsteps of another terrible progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, who nationalized several private industries, was one of the most racist Presidents ever and established significantly controversial efforts at government control and influence of information.

$2 Trillion to Fight Climate Change

Joe Biden has announced a $2 trillion plan in order to solve climate change. According to the task force document, the goal is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 for all new buildings. Biden’s original plan was to set a target of halving the carbon footprint of the US by 2035. In addition, Biden has vowed to outlaw the use of coal and natural gas. This is in all effects a promise to destroy thousands of jobs at a time when the economy is still suffering from the COVID-19 crisis. As per the Wall Street Journal, “a study by the National Ocean Industries Association finds that a ban on offshore drilling alone would cost 200,000 jobs, damaging regional economies.” For comparison’s sake, the industry, were Trump’s policies to remain in effect, would generate 2 million jobs in the next 15 years. Under Trump, America also achieved energy independence, which would certainly evaporate under Biden.

Cutting out Consumer Choice

Biden’s plan would be nothing less than an elimination of consumer choice. The government would mandate what to use for transport and at a much higher cost than now, while the Justice Department would be used to target any business that would disobey. So that Congress does not turn out to be a problem, he intends to eliminate the filibuster rule and approve his proposals with a simple majority. No one of those who predicted Trump would be a Dictator are saying anything now.

The task force also included in its plan a commitment to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035 as well as an expansion of solar and wind energy systems, including installing 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines. How they are going to pay for all this? The task force does not specify, however if Biden’s words are any indication, taxes will increase massively, on everyone. The former VP promised this during one of his few campaign events.

‘Buy American’ … From China?

Joe Biden recently discovered the nationalist within, campaigning on a Buy American slogan, to counter Donald Trump’s America First policy. Ironically, China controls most of the materials needed to build all of the solar panels, electric cars and other items in Biden’s list. So, contrary to what he has been saying, based on this policy platform, under him, dependence on China would increase, which would be dangerous considering the conflict of interest he has been accused of having with regards to China.

Secondly, the task force proposed expanding the unemployment insurance system to include more workers. Said otherwise, more welfare benefits and less incentives to work. Too bad no one has explained to the task force that to pay welfare, you have to transfer money from those who work to those that do not. If you put nearly everyone in unemployment programs and tax massively those few that remain in the job market, there will be no one left working and no way to fund these benefits, leading to economic ruin. Furthermore, the joint task force proposed an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, a move on which Sanders has long campaigned, as well as 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, universal childcare for children of 3 and 4 year old and more food assistance programs. Social security would also change in a Biden Presidency, with increases in benefit payments. As recently as this week, Biden himself declared war on shareholders, capitalism and capital markets, calling them a massive farce.

Biden’s Education Proposals

Regarding education, the joint policy framework added policies long advocated by socialists such as capping and forgiving student loan debt, tuition free college for students whose families earn less that $125,000 annually, tuition-free community colleges for all students, including individuals included in the DACA programs. The task force has recommended to ban federal funding for private charter schools and private school vouchers, although both of them have proven to be very successful in the US. As CNN mentions, the program recommends up to $10,000 in immediate student debt relief for families.

Expanding Obamacare and Lowering the Medicare Eligibility Age

On the healthcare front, it would appear that not much has been changed from what Biden has said in the past. The plan is for an expansion of the Affordable Care Act to include a public option. It is true that Sanders’ idea on Medicare for All has not been including in the proposal. However, it is written that all Americans have a right to healthcare, raising doubts that it has not been included by name, so as not to scare off moderate voters who are not keen on full nationalization of healthcare, but the end result would be Medicare for All. Moreover, the Medicare eligibility age would be lowered from 65 to 60, adding millions to a program that is foreseen to be insolvent by 2026. While the task force condemned President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, it did not specify what they would have done differently, something that has not been clarified by Joe Biden neither.

Illegal Immigration Liberalization

Lastly, concerning immigration, it is made clear that a Biden administration would declare war on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Customs and Border Protection. The task force calls for a full-scale audit of both agencies. Furthermore, it has become clear from both Biden himself and the task force that there would be a legalization of the approximately 20 million illegal immigrants, less control and restrictions on illegal border crossing, in the hopes of gaining new faithful voters that would ensure Democrats governed for decades.

The task force said that family unit would be a “guiding principle”, referring to detention centers. However, some in the “fair and free media” should ask Joe Biden why the Obama administration pursued the policy of family separation in the border and used detention centers? If VP Biden was against them, why did he not speak out? If the media does not raise such issues, surely, Donald Trump would not shy away in the debates to come.

Changing Policing  in Unspecified Ways

On the police, the task force and Biden are promising to change the way policing is conducted in the US. It remains to be seen whether Biden supports abolishing the police that some of his Democratic colleagues and left-wing pundits and media personalities are proposing. If the model the Biden campaign is proposing is more of what leftist mayors such as De Blasio in New York or in other Democratic run cities, then America better prepare for Gotham City type of insanity and mayhem. He is also supportive of creating a commission to study possible reparations for slavery which would have consequences neither Biden nor other leftists realize that would make the racial matter worse. Not to mention that would embolden further radical groups that are terrorizing American cities.

The Final Democratic Party Platform Will be the Furthest Left in Decades

Whether some or all of these proposals are adopted in the finalized party platform, there is no doubt that it will be the most radical left-wing platform in decades. It is a deadly combination of unchecked spending that would drive the debt and the deficits to unsustainable levels, as well as massive tax hikes that would depress consumption and investments, hitting GDP growth. It would constitute the largest increase of government control ever, effectively changing the American way of life. Biden declared that he intends to transform America and this program proves he means. Or rather the people that run his campaign and who would govern in case he is elected. Few people know that the grey eminence and the true leader of the Biden campaign is David Axelrod, as the esteemed journalist Bill O’Reilly confirmed several times on his show. Axelrod is a close adviser and friend to Barack Obama. He, along with the self-proclaimed socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, far-left senator Elisabeth Warren and democratic socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are expected to govern for the next four years in case Biden wins.

Using Biden as a Smokescreen for Socialism

All of them control the Democratic Party of America. However, they cannot show their face to the moderate voter since their radical ideas are shunned by the majority of Americans. Thus, they use Joe Biden as a puppet. It is unsurprising that the former Vice President does not hold press conferences, does not appear in town halls or answer questions that would be uncomfortable to him. He appears in pre-taped videos and goes to friendly left-wing journalists. The plan of his campaign is to hide him in his basement and hope that Trump self-destroys by what he says in haste and in the heat of the moment, by the coronavirus crisis and by the unrest caused by the Marxist Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Nobody knows what Biden thinks about the destruction of monuments. Nobody has any clues as to what Biden’s proposals to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic are. The American people are unaware regarding the Democratic nominee’s ideas on a great many things. And it is meant to be this way by the people that run his campaign in cahoots with the mainstream media. Otherwise, if he were to speak about his radical program with sentences that make no sense, not knowing in what state or city or year he is in, he would probably win only the far-left state of California.

President Biden: a Worst-Case Scenario

Under a Biden Presidency, based on the program released by his task force and the words he has said during the last few months, we can safely deduce that there would be a major economic crisis, rise in crime and an overall weaker United States of America. It is to be expected that this would be the end result if the US is governed by people who hold Venezuela and Cuba as their models. A program that is estimated to cost around $7 trillion over a decade, together with all the tax hikes that are estimated to go as high as 56% in some cases, and cost the taxpayers $1 trillion over 10 years, the American economy risks going beyond the point of no return. Only $4 trillion out of the $7 trillion will be paid by the tax hikes. However, the mistake that all socialists make is to think that the rich and the middle class will continue to have the same income as now and will remain in the country. With the tax increases hurting businesses and consumers, there will be more unemployed, less growth and less income to tax. So all the projections they make about tax hikes paying for the enormous spending are made on false assumptions.

Businesses Would Leave America En Masse

According to reporting from the Journal, “the nonpartisan Tax Foundation concludes the Biden tax plan would reduce the size of the economy by 1.51% over the long run and lead to 585,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs while lowering after-tax income for all income quintiles”. And this comes just from the tax hikes. Companies would flee America faster than Biden is able to finish a sentence from November until he would be sworn in.  The tax hikes would be a burden on the middle-income families who would either live the country or become much poorer.

A Weak America Hurts Everyone

The question that would come to mind is why should we care? The answer is that a weak America is not something that harms just Americans. It harms all of us. First, because it is the largest economy on earth. A long economic crisis there would mean a crisis in an already weak and nearly zombified Europe. Secondly, if the US is in such a state, it would give free rein to China, Iran, Russia and even North Korea to continue their expansion and nuclear goals. The world would be a much more dangerous place. The US — and as a result the world — would be fundamentally changed and there is no doubt about that because the Biden campaign is saying they plan to do exactly that.

The only hope for a better and safer future is a Trump victory in November. This will ensure the golden age of low taxes and deregulation, meritocracy and individual rights and freedom as well as the example of patriotism and leadership with peace through strength continues.

L'articolo Joe Biden’s Policy Plan: a Roadmap to Perdition proviene da InsideOver.

With the chaos that is currently pervading the streets of America, the narrative that President Trump is the main reason is often reiterated.

The Not-So-United States

However, this narrative is only half the truth. Although Trump never had the intention of uniting the country and from the beginning viewed himself only as the president of his electorate, Barack Obama’s presidency had already been one of division. The United States had changed significantly during Obama’s tenure at a demographic, social, and technological level. Trump’s election was the first symptom of the division. The chaos now is the catharsis of patient America’s malady.

Under Obama, a demographic change had occurred that altered the face of America significantly. For one thing, millennials have now surpassed Boomers and account for the majority of the population. The effect is a trend towards more liberal and left-wing values among many of America’s young public, particularly in metropolitan areas.

Moreover, with the increase in younger people, the US has also witnessed a reversal of the country’s religious values. Under Obama, the proportion of Americans who do not belong to any religion has increased from 16 to 23 per cent. Unsurprisingly, this figure is the highest at 35 per cent among millennials too. Perhaps even more meaningful is a decrease in individuals identifying as Christians (78 to 71 percent).

The Changing Electorate

Moreover, the demographics of voters have also changed in recent years. In 2013, the majority of newborn babies belonged to an ethnic group for the first time while the electorate in Trump’s 2016 election was the most diverse ever. Minorities cast a third of all votes.

The strong growth in Latinos, in particular, has contributed to the change in the electorate. For the first time, the share of votes from Hispanics was as large as the share of African Americans.

The demographic change in the United States has affected both Democrats and Republicans, albeit in varying forms. While the Democratic has rapidly become more diverse, less religious and better educated, the GOP electorate has continued to age faster than the rest of the country, thus further widening the gap between Conservative and liberal agendas.

Republican vs. Democrat

The contrast between Democrats and Republicans becomes apparent, particularly in terms of sociopolitical issues such as migration. Between 1994 and 2005, the positions of both parties on this topic had still been relatively uniform. At present, however, Democrats are advocating an open border policy, while the GOP has turned to the other extreme and the enforcement of protectionism. Additional gaps that cannot be bridged remain issues relating to the Second Amendment, climate change and abortions. Both parties are de facto diametrically opposed on almost every policy matter and so are their respective constituencies.

The latter has been further exacerbated by the growth of digital technologies and social media channels, that played a significant role in Obama’s 2008 campaign. Now, however, the influence of social media has grown to an almost unhealthy extent.

Comments and opinions on politics had always been available for people who sought it. However, where people used to have to listen in to Rush Limbaugh or be at home to watch Sean Hannity or Wolf Blitzer, has transformed into a plethora of available news and opinion whenever and wherever desired — and often with questionable consequences.

Social Media Revolution

During Obama’s election campaign in 2008, just under 30 percent of American adults had used social media platforms. To date, the use of social media has soared to 72 percent. Among 18-29-year-olds the number is at a staggering 90 percent.

In this highly-unfiltered environment, partisan hackery has found fertile ground. From fake news, to hate speech and the occasional unbiased news, the social networks cater to everyone and open possibilities for pundits or politicians to mobilize their often gullible supporters. Trump himself has made a living out of the latter. He utilizes Twitter to interact with supporters, attack opponents and take positions in real-time.

Both Obama and Trump have had limited agency over the demographic change as well as the digital revolution. And yet one president attempted to mitigate the situation while the other has done everything to exacerbate it for personal gain and to the nation’s detriment.

L'articolo Deep Division in the US Precedes Trump proviene da InsideOver.

President Trump has long advocated the conspiracy theory that America’s intelligence community are part of the Deep State, a supposed hidden government within the wider US government bureaucracy which is inclined to subvert and sabotage the president’s work. With the appointment of Trump loyalist John Ratcliffe as the Director of National Intelligence, the President is clearly committed to continuing to fight an enemy that does not actually exist.

Who is John Ratcliffe?

John Ratcliffe has finally arrived where the president has long wanted him to be: the Senate confirmed the Republican Congressman last week as the country’s new Director of National Intelligence. In the future, Ratcliffe will coordinate the work of all 16 American intelligence agencies in a position that provides him with significant influence.

Ratcliffe, who has been a member of Congress since 2014, has thus made it in his second attempt: Last July, Trump had already announced that he would nominate the 54-year-old as the successor to Dan Coats. However, Ratcliffe withdrew after various senators in his own party raised concerns about him. Former intelligence officials stated worries that Ratcliffe might politicize intelligence, while media revealed Ratcliffe’s embellishments regarding his prosecutorial experience in terrorism and immigration cases, according to a report by the Washington Post.

Ratcliffe was treated “very unfairly” by the media according to what Trump tweeted at the time. Instead of looking for a new, majority-capable candidate, Trump initially appointed the previous Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joseph Maguire as interim director. When the latter fell into disgrace for unlawfully withholding a whistle-blower complaint, Trump delegated the task to another loyalist: ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell.

Sneaking Ratcliffe Through During a National Crisis

To date, many in Congress have not forgotten how Ratcliffe treated former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller in the Russia affair. However, Trump’s strategy worked. In the spring, when the country had utterly different concerns, i.e. COVID-19, the president nominated Ratcliffe again.

Senate Democrats reiterated their concern that Ratcliffe’s loyalty to the president would be more important than independent categorization. After all, intelligence investigations were at the center of domestic controversy from the first day of the presidency, and Trump’s first Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, had been forced to publicly straighten out Trump’s statements more than once.

However, Ratcliffe pledged at his Senate hearing in early May that external forces such as the president would not influence the work done under his leadership. He later agreed to always deliver the “unvarnished truth” and to ensure that all intelligence information was collected, analysed and reported in an unbiased manner.

Using Intelligence to Target Opponents

However, a list published by Richard Grenell a few days ago raised further concerns that the Trump administration could attempt to utilize intelligence information to combat political opponents. The list reveals that numerous members of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director James Comey and Joe Biden, requested the disclosure of classified telephone conversations protocols in connection with the Russia affair. These protocols affirm that Trump’s former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn made phone calls to the then Russian ambassador to America in December 2016.

It is a profoundly unique process that the names of actors requesting the declassification of protocols are being publicized. The fact that Grenell — in the midst of an election campaign — conducted the latter, and thus allowed the Trump administration to push the narrative further that the Obama administration did not only inflate the Russia affair but orchestrated it. This controversy, so-called Obamagate, is an appalling display of how the Trump Administration has been attempting to weaponize intelligence information for personal political gain and to distract from Trump’s abhorrent track record as Commander in Chief.

The notion that Ratcliffe could continue this legacy of disgrace is thus not far-fetched. After all, he made a name for himself by defending Trump in Congress when no one else would. It thus fits that Trump, who, after his acquittal in the impeachment trial felt encouraged to clean up the services and to dig out the alleged Deep State resistance nest, utilized the country’s biggest crisis since World War II to facilitate a successful Senate confirmation hearing for Ratcliffe. No one ought to be surprised if Ratcliffe now utilizes his position, not for the good of the country, but to appease his patron by fighting a conspiracy theory called the Deep State.

L'articolo John Ratcliffe: Trump’s Answer to Continue Fighting the Fairytale Called the Deep State proviene da InsideOver.

America is on fire. Many urban areas have been overrun by protests that have turned violent along with looting, arson, assault and property damage to vehicles, businesses and infrastructure. Riots first broke out May 25 following the death of 46-year-old George Floyd, a black man who was pinned down to the ground by white Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin for 8 minutes and 46 seconds after having been accused of passing a counterfeit $20 bill in a nearby pharmacy.

The Current Situation

Rioting in Minneapolis has now ceased, but cities across the United States are ablaze and crammed with protesters, agitators and looters from Philadelphia and New York to Portland and Salt Lake City, with one man shot dead in Louisville, Kentucky and various reports and footage of attacks on police, and tense police driving through protesters and tasing a young black couple in their vehicle. Burning city halls and streets littered with burned-out husks of vehicles have dotted the evening news for the past week. The US National Guard was called in by a number of states this weekend and there were around 5,000 arrests made by police. There are charges of third-degree murder and manslaughter against Chauvin who was fired on May 26 along with attending officers Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and Alexander Kuen. Floyd’s family’s lawyer calls the death an act of “premeditated murder.”

This is Not a Drill

In the 2004 film Man on Fire, Denzel Washington plays a former special forces operator called John Creasy who vows to get revenge on criminals who committed an atrocity against the family he was being paid to keep safe. In 2020 America on Fire — which is not a movie — a mass of people of many grievances and agendas are being driven by blind rage at the system. They are smashing the commercial structures that no longer employ 40 million Americans and opposing the police who they associate with racist violence and brutality. There are various groups involved in the ongoing unrest in the United States, despite the attempts by various media and political sides to frame the current situation simplistically. As Murtaza Hussain of the Intercept noted, “lots of people apparently want to condemn the protests and maybe even crush them but only after they’ve labelled them as having been corrupted by some ideological group they’re more comfortable posturing in opposition against.”

A Note on Narrative Building

Political talking points and narratives are constructed constantly, especially surrounding controversial and chaotic events that leave the public wanting straightforward answers. This fits well into politicians plotting how to exploit tragedy for political leverage. Almost immediately the Trump Administration and key supporters latched onto the idea of spoiled white agitators in “antifa” and well-funded hard-left agitators being behind the main acts of violence and instigating the destruction, tying into longstanding theories about George Soros and leftist oligarchs being behind attempts to destroy the United States and collapse the Trump government. Antifa, or “anti-fascist” is a loose umbrella of socialist, communist and anti-capitalist groups with roots in Stalinism.

Liberals, meanwhile, became disillusioned by the destruction and also sought a group to blame that would fit more neatly with their ideological proclivities. After all, communists and antifa have long made it clear that “liberals get the bullet too” and that kind of militancy isn’t exactly reassuring to Sally Soccer Mom in surburban St. Paul, and neither is the idea that a group they sympathize with — namely black people facing discrimination and economic abandonment that is egged on by jackal media and political operators — could also have numerous members of their community who would commit violence and property destruction.

Is Antifa Really Behind This?

The simple truth is that despite obvious instigators and hard-left groups the violence is mainly being driven by people who are angry over the death of George Floyd, poverty and police brutality and boosted along by a some determinedly menacing pencil-armed neo-Marxist white kids with too much time on their hands. The attempt to pin this all on antifa and the claim that they are going to be categorized as a terrorist organization is clearly based on political expediency rather than a pragmatic countermeasure. As Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller put it, “Antifa is terrible and all, but my guess is they’re responsible for a small fraction of the violence and looting going on.”

What About the Racists?

For their part, some suburban liberals found a new scapegoat in the white nationalist bogeyman: this upheaval was somehow a plot to make black people look bad by white racists and Russian agents. Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, Governor Tim Walz and others promoted the idea that most of those damaging the state were from elsewhere, which turned out not to be true. Ellison has previously promoted antifa and was formerly a member of the black nationalist Nation of Islam which has long called for black separatism and violent resistance of the white-dominated societal structure.

To be sure, there is a contingent of peaceful protesters and concerned citizens, along with a smattering of hard left communists and antifa and several riot-curious far right accelerationists and white nationalists, but this last number is miniscule as far as the evidence goes. Despite bizarre attempts by some in the mainstream media to claim the majority of damage is being done by white nationalists, racists and Russian-linked provocateurs trying to accelerate the downfall of modern, multi-racial America by striking at its fault-lines, there is no proof of more than a few white nationalists, militias and Trump supporters working their way into the upheaval. There is seemingly no end to blaming Vladimir Putin for everything that happens in the United States, which is, arguably, one of the ongoing political and media delusions and deflections that has led to this violent moment.

Fox News has been chased down and insulted by mobs, several Trump supporters were surrounded and pushed back to a building with one having his Trump hat burned as the crowd screamed “F*** Trump!” and several white nationalists who did try to infiltrate a protests were tracked and then turned into a bogeyman by antifa and left groups who claim these people are everywhere. Apart from Nick Fuentes and some “boogaloo” types popping up for photo opportunities, the violence does not appear to be orchestrated by these young internet racists. It is particularly odd to see the media blaming Trump for the vandalizing of CNN headquarters in Atlanta, for example, when this was done by a crowd who clearly despises the President and his supporters as well as CNN and mainstream media.

Where’d All the Good People Go?

There are still plenty of good people. Some protesters have restrained and delivered violent agitators to police and others have done their best to stand up to violent looters and agitators. But at the end of the day what is happening in America’s cities is a social problem more than anything else. Trust has broken down and year by year Western civilization is reverting into Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature: every man and women for themselves.

The bottom line here is simple: American society is breaking down. Look for rural communities to increasingly fortify themselves against the cities, protecting their food sources, businesses and streets from outsiders through force of arms and even vigilante patrols. There is plenty of blame to go around and deep-seated problems to reference, however now the situation truly is spiraling out of control. The United States is well on the road to becoming a failed state. Economic meltdown, the COVID-19 pandemic that is still decimating the country and an enraged uprising have come together to form the perfect storm.

Certainly, economic, racial and political aspects have all had a major role in leading to this situation, but at the end of the day the sound you hear is the social fabric tearing apart from Houston to Los Angeles. It’s the frustration boiling over, and whichever agendas and extreme groups may try to use that frustration for their own purposes it would be a mistake to think that the situation itself is entirely engineered or delusional. After all, the media and many politicians continually trying to place the motivation for unrest and problems on anything other than the actual causes of those problems is a big reason why we are in this position today.

Whatever exactly is going on, Jelani Cobb of the New Yorker put it aptly in noting that “you know we’re in uncharted territory when something happens in Minneapolis and they’re setting cars on fire in Salt Lake City.”

L'articolo America on Fire proviene da InsideOver.

In Washington, the case of Michael Flynn is once again in the spotlight. While Attorney General William Barr instructed the Department of Justice to end the case, a federal judge has now instructed a retired judge to review the situation and thus making Flynn’s fate uncertain — all while President Donald Trump has begun to utilize the affair for his reelection efforts.

The Neverending Case of Michael Flynn

The unusual legal tug-of-war over President Trump’s former National Security Advisor does not appear set to end anytime soon. While the Justice Department via Attorney General William Barr had requested an end to the criminal proceedings, the responsible federal judge Emmet Sullivan has other ideas. Sullivan is not inclined to cease the proceedings without further ado.

On Wednesday evening, he ordered that a retired judge, John Gleeson, should now, among other things, assess the legal situation of the Flynn causa (cause and origin of the case), and to recommend whether Flynn should be subjected to the perpetration of a new charge of contempt for a criminal offence. Gleeson was also asked to explain why the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case ought to be rejected.

Judge Sullivan’s actions are unusual. However, it can be argued that he is simply inclined to rebalance a justice system that, in the eyes of some, has been compromised in recent years. Attorney General Barr stands out for his previous intervention to end the trial, which will soon be three years old. Barr made it clear where his priorities were when the Mueller report was delayed when he turned the critical message completely, and then in his statements on impeachment. He intervened increasingly directly in trials against Trump’s allies, first in the case of Roger Stone, now in the case of Flynn.

Russiagate and Flynn

The matter had long been considered one of the more straightforward chapters in the affair surrounding Russian influence over the 2016 US presidential election. Michael Flynn, ex-general had not only conducted politically sensitive business with Turkey in 2016 without the necessary registration as a lobbyist but had suspiciously good relations with Moscow purportedly in order to prevent an escalation of tensions in bilateral relations after the Trump win in 2016.

Flynn admitted that he had lied to the FBI federal police during an investigation into Russian influence over the 2016 US presidential election. He pleaded guilty in December 2017 for telling the truth about his contacts with the Russian ambassador when he testified to the FBI in January of the same year. Flynn was forced to step down as security advisor to Republican Trump in February 2017 after only 23 days in office. Trump himself wrote on Twitter in late 2017 that he had to fire Flynn because he lied to the FBI and Vice President Mike Pence. In January, however, Flynn asked to withdraw his confession.

Did the FBI Trick Flynn?

Earlier, documents had emerged that Trump and his conservative allies believed that the FBI had tricked Flynn. An FBI investigator’s handwritten note stated that Flynn had to be told to lie so that he could be prosecuted or fired. Trump then said Flynn was now “completely exonerated”.

In the meantime, the Flynn trial has become a campaign strategy, with which the Republicans, in particular, are inciting their base against an alleged conspiracy of the establishment. Trump now calls Flynn a “hero” an “innocent man,” and “a victim of the FBI’s crooked machinations.”

The role Flynn will play – in absentia – in the upcoming election, has now become evident when Trump accused President Obama and his team (including the relevant FBI personnel responsible for investigating Flynn) of “by far the greatest political crime in the history of the United States. Since then, Trump has been trying to coin the term Obamagate, which will undoubtedly become a key message in his reelection bid. The latter is strongly reminiscent of attempting to brand Hillary Clinton as a criminal in 2016 (“lock her up”). Already, Trump is posting “Obamagate” on Twitter daily, in an attempt to make it a public dictum.

The causa Flynn, meanwhile, is by no means settled. With the judge’s intervention, the former National Security Advisor remains a subject of interest and equally a cornerstone of the Deep State narrative that it supporters hope will take Donald Trump back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a second term.

L'articolo The Michael Flynn Case Enters its Next Chapter proviene da InsideOver.

Barack Obama is an international superstar to the uninformed, disengaged and uninterested public everywhere. He is deceivingly charming, with an enviable eloquence and charisma. In the several European countries that I have lived, including my own, I have heard constantly how the former US President was a champion of equality and political correctness, a staunch fighter against the incoming “terrible” climate apocalypse and a sincere defender of feminism.

Obama’s True Legacy

This analysis will not waste any lines explaining the failures of the Obama administration, how he crippled his own country economically, dealt a fatal blow to national unity and destroyed America’s standing on the world stage. These are all facts easily accessible for anyone who wants to discover Obama’s true legacy for the United States and the world beyond what the media allows the people to see. And he did all of these things with a smile on his face and his unparalleled rhetoric. If we live in more dangerous world today, it is also because of Obama.

For many, unfortunately, rhetoric is a siren’s song that hides all facts. Who cares to know about the economic and political damage when you can hear someone explain how they are valiantly fighting climate change for example? From inside a private jet, nonetheless.

Obama’s Arrogance and Corruption is Finally Catching Up With Him

However, it appears that the arrogance of the former President, his desire for the spotlight and his alleged wrongdoings in office will not allow him to retire gracefully, as his predecessors did. He is a social justice warrior, after all. It seems that for Obama the troubles are starting precisely because he allegedly helped in his “retirement” with his administration’s work to prevent then-Republican nominee Donald Trump from taking office. Actions that are subsequently harming Obama’s legacy are starting to come to light.

Michael Flynn is a three-star general who retired from the military after a conflict of ideas with the Obama administration. In 2016, after starting his own consultancy firm, he worked as an adviser to candidate Trump. When Trump was elected President, he nominated Flynn as his National Security Adviser. It was then that the FBI questioned him about a conversation Flynn had had with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. Legal experts say that having the conversation was legal, since Flynn was an incoming national security adviser to the new President.

The FBI Broke its Own Rules in Interrogating Flynn

As the Heritage Foundation reports, the former deputy attorney general of the Obama administration told Congress that the General had allegedly violated the Logan Act. This act is a criminal statute created more than 200 years ago that prohibits American citizens who are not authorized to hold negotiations with officials from foreign governments. In America’s history there have been only two attempts to prosecute under the Logan Act, and none has been successful. According to Heritage, nearly all legal experts agree that the Act is unconstitutional. Thus, there was no base for prosecuting Flynn.

Moreover, the FBI violated its own rules when they summoned Flynn to interrogate him. The then-deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe called the General and asked him if he could meet with a few FBI agents on a matter of no great importance. The protocol for interviewing someone of the stature of Flynn is to go through the White House to make the request. Since its inception, this probe has been ill-intentioned and in bad faith.

The Obama Admin’s Russiagate Conspiracy

Information that came to light recently confirms that the FBI launched a corrupt investigation designed to damage Trump by linking him to Russia during the campaign of 2016. Two weeks ago, the Justice Department finally dropped its prosecution of General Flynn, after three years, and only subsequent to the discovery of  hand-written notes from an FBI investigator that indicated the Bureau was discussing how to entrap Flynn into “lying to the FBI”.

Furthermore, GOP Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released a declassified list of officials from the Obama administration who were listening to various conversations Flynn had. However, it is illegal to release the names of private citizens caught on tape by US intelligence. In fact, the names of private citizens caught while the NSA follows foreigners are redacted. Their unmasking, as the process is known, happens only when there is a strong suspicion that national security is at risk by such citizens or the matter concerns international terrorism. So, the officials who request the unmasking must have a justification. The publication of this list of names proves that high ranking officials of the Obama administration such as then-FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Vice President and current democratic nominee for President Joe Biden, then-Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew and Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, among many others, requested the unmasking of a private citizen of the United States.

Why were they reading NSA transcripts and what was their justification? How come they requested to be informed precisely on that surveillance on which they later asked to learn the identity of the American involved? At the very least, if we were to follow logic, they knew that the FBI was trying to investigate Flynn in advance, even though the Bureau found no relation to Russia in their initial inspections. Did these Obama officials know then what has been discovered now, that agents from the FBI were trying to force Flynn to testify and lie under oath by threatening his son, in order to make Trump look guilty in colluding with Russia?

Obama Didn’t Know?

Is it logical to assume that the Vice President, the Chief of Staff, various members of the Cabinet knew, whereas President Obama did not? Biden and former Ambassador Power are now caught lying. They were asked on multiple occasions whether they had any knowledge on the Flynn matter at the time this was happening, and they replied negatively. Now, the publication of the list with their names proves the falsity of their words.

In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cites documents released not long ago, then Attorney General Sally Yates first learned of the wiretapping of Flynn from President Obama, on January 5, 2017. So, he knew at some point between December 2016 and January 5. Who told Barack Obama and how much did he know? What was President Obama’s reaction to the illegal surveillance on the Trump campaign? Did he try to stop it, in which case the fault lies with rogue FBI agents, or did he turn a blind eye? Congress should summon him to testify, as they would for any other official. Recently, Obama attacked the decision to drop the prosecution of General Flynn as undermining the rule of law. Where were his ethics and love for the rule of law, while Hillary Clinton was being accused of deleting 33,000 emails and his Vice President and cabinet were involved in the illegal surveillance of an incoming President?

More Damaging Information Being Revealed

Other information discovered include the fact that FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok interviewed the General on January 2017, even though the Bureau found no collusion with Russia and ended its investigation on December 2016. Strzok and his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, edited the Flynn interview report. Moreover, leaked messages between the two show that during the campaign they were discussing about a contingency plan they had, just in case Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.

The dots are connected with the fake report — now discredited and proven false — on Trump and Russia. The report was made by a company on behalf of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 elections. This report was used by the FBI to get a surveillance warrant on the Trump campaign, even though the Bureau knew it was fake, according to the documents made public. It was this dossier and the Russia collusion hype that kept alive the Muller investigation into Trump’s Russia relations, which cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. In the end, after two years, the American President was exonerated. There was no Russian collusion, but apparently there was a White House conspiracy with the FBI and the CIA to take down Donald Trump and destroy his Presidency. If this can happen in the world’s greatest democracy, it is enough to sound the alarm bells for all the rest of us. It is a scandal that based solely on the facts made public until know, goes so deep and so wide that it is hard to believe we are talking about the United States. It makes the Nixon matter look like child’s play.

What if This Had Happened to Someone Other than Trump?

If Donald Trump had not been elected President, all this would have never been discovered. Even worse than this, if it had been a Republican instead of Obama, this would have been the story of the century. Every media, in every corner of the world would have found out about the criminal Republican trying to rig an election or destroy the winner. Alas, the standard of truth, justice and the American way is valid only when it can be used as a weapon against conservatives. As always and for everyone, President Obama is innocent until proven guilty, if he is ever proven so. Yet, the sad part is that the chances of going to the bottom of this will be minimal, unless Trump wins again.

It is important to understand why this scandal is important for the rest of the world as well. A United States with internal corruption that is let to fester, and with coups worthy of a Third World country will weaken the world’s greatest democracy and diminish its moral standing and strength in the global stage. Currently, with China’s threatening expansion, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Russia’s ever looming shadow and a zombiefied Europe, we cannot afford the United States to be undermined from within. What has happened in this story shows a deep corruption in what is supposed to be the best law enforcement agency, which together with members of the Obama administration tried to take down a duly elected President. To restore faith in the American system, in the country’s justice and institutions, the matter needs to be investigated in every detail and the culprits need to face the consequences, no matter the office they used to occupy.

Mainstream Media Lies

There is one last actor in the story and that is the media. The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and many others published and made for years misleading reports and commentary. They openly came out of the closet as terribly biased, dropping any pretense that they are working as an extension of the Democratic party of America. Even after all these documents and facts were made public, they continue to repeat the same lies and try to hide all the facts from the public. Instead of serving as the paladins of truth, in pursuit of the facts, they helped cover up the biggest scandal in American history. Where are the heroes of Watergate now?

Unfortunately, no one will hold them accountable. The media in the US is in the large part corrupt and serving the left, the same as in Europe. They have become the servants of the highest bidder, which is always the unprincipled and unscrupulous left. The majority of the people will continue to watch and read what the media serves them, because the media is accountable to none. The current case in the US is proving it. And for as long as this goes on, the masses will be happy to read about the fighters of climate change, the celebrities and all the superficial news that bear no true relevance, while cheering the Obamas of the world without even trying to know their true nature.

L'articolo Obamagate: the Legacy of a President proviene da InsideOver.