Paul Harvey Speaks the Truth: Freedom to Chains is a radio broadcast from 1965 by Paul Harvey, a word of prophecy for today. Please, please listen to this message below.
Paul Harvey tells it like few others ever have. Will we heed his warning???
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: It “is considered the bible for the left, the Democrat Party playbook. Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Alinsky’s book. Barack Obama is a disciple of this guide for community organizing. The reality is that the “Rules” are applicable to any political cause or movement, not just one on the left side of the political spectrum.”
A classic article on how Donald Trump is using their playbook against the progressive liberals. Read the article below.
New York Times Bias: During an “internal” off the record (which was leaked) TownHall meeting, NY Time Chief discusses they biased anti-Trump coverage. They openly admit pushing the Trump Russian Collusion story and now shifting to Trump Racism and Division after the Mueller report exonerated the President and his campaign.
Read the story below… as shocking of an admission it is…its indicative of why most Americans don’t believe the Fake News and why so much of the “mainstream media” is mistrusted.
Truly a sad state of affairs for journalism today.
Weekly News Summary Video:
Indexing capital gains would be a game changer (Grover Norquist)
Ending the taxation on inflation for capital gains would immediately increase the value of every asset — land, homes, stocks, business — in the United States.
A new Medicare scam prompts FCC warning
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in an interview with Fox News on Monday says scammers are finding new and sophisticated ways to collect Medicare information.
Trump slams ‘ridiculous’ report that he wanted to blow up hurricanes with nukes
President Trump on Monday denied a report that said he suggested dropping nuclear bombs into hurricanes to stop them from hitting the U.S., calling it “ridiculous” and “FAKE NEWS.”
Watch our Weekly News Summary Video Here
–Saul Anuzis
Click Here for Past Commentary from Saul
Trump Was Always the Target of the Russia Investigation. The IG report confirms it.
Donald Trump was always the target.
The point of the Russia investigation was to make a case against Donald Trump. Preferably, the case would drive him from office. At a minimum, it would render him unelectable by the 2020 stretch run. The kind of case was less important than the objective: criminal prosecution or impeachment. In accordance with the collusion narrative, the latter would mean trying to show that Trump was compromised by the Kremlin.
That is the astonishing takeaway from Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on former FBI director James Comey’s handling of his memos.
In truth, it’s not that astonishing. It happens to be the theory of my new book, Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. Obviously, if a book can show that Donald Trump was in the FBI’s crosshairs all along, that fact had to have been knowable for some time.
Still, if you’re going to write a book about a mind-blowing theory, it is gratifying to have that theory confirmed — notwithstanding how alarming it may be for the state of our republic.
What Is Justice for McCabe?
The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump. Now he seeks clemency… even as he sues the Justice Department.
Hillary Clinton checked every box for a violation of the Espionage Act. So much so that, in giving her a pass, the FBI figured it better couch her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” The latter description was stricken from an earlier draft of then-director James Comey’s remarks because it is, verbatim, the mental state the statute requires for a felony conviction. It wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.
In point of fact, the careless/negligent semantic game was a sideshow. Mrs. Clinton’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. In contemptuous violation of government standards, which she was bound not only to honor but to enforce as secretary of state, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up. Her Obama administration allies stress that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, but it’s condemnable all the same.
While Clinton’s mishandling of classified information got all the attention, it was just the tip of the felony iceberg. Thousands of the 33,000 emails she withheld and undertook to “bleach bit” into oblivion related to State Department business. It is a felony to misappropriate even a single government record. The destruction of the emails, moreover, occurred after a House Committee investigating the Benghazi massacre issued subpoenas and preservation directives to Clinton’s State Department and Clinton herself. If Andrew Weissmann and the rest of the Mueller probe pit-bulls had half as solid an obstruction case against Donald Trump, the president would by now have been impeached, removed, and indicted.
And that dichotomy is the point, isn’t it?
All the Facts, Spin-Free, About Obama, Comey, and Crossfire Hurricane
Even after nearly four years, we still do not know the full scope of the massive abuse of power by the federal government in the efforts to sabotage Donald Trump’s candidacy, transition, and presidency.
However, through the work of a handful of intrepid reporters around the country and at several different media outlets, a clear picture has been drawn of the timeline of what has become the greatest scandal in American history. You may know it as FISAgate; others call it Russiagate; and some prefer Spygate. Its proper name is ObamaGate.
The following is a comprehensive summary of all the major aspects of the scandal, based entirely on factual information that has been confirmed and variously reported, even if the mainstream media has not covered it. The truth, and nothing but the truth.
The Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele…
What real Americans in the heartland are saying about the Trump economy
I’ve been on a 50-city Solutions Tour across Indiana over the past two weeks, and the one message that I heard from job creators across my state is that they have never seen a better climate for job growth, bigger paychecks and for companies to reinvest in themselves.
We can thank President Trump’s economic policies.
For example, during a tour of a national food and beverage company, one of the executives pulled me aside to say that the unemployment rate – which is 3.7 percent in America and 3.3 percent in Indiana – is so low that it’s hard to find talented, skilled workers to fill the open positions. This is a great problem to have.
A Squeaker in 2020? Not Likely
If history is any guide, the election will not be close — whether the incumbent wins or loses.
Will Donald Trump’s reelection campaign be a nail-biter? No Republican president has ever been reelected with less than 50 percent of the vote. Historically, when a president runs for reelection, it usually isn’t close. Of the 31 times in U.S. history that a sitting president ran for reelection, 19 of those were blowouts: 15 easy wins, 4 lopsided losses. Among the other 12, nearly half offered very little real suspense at the end. Let’s rank the twelve closest presidential reelection races in American history to see how few of them were really that close.
Myths Aside, the GOP Can Win a Presidential Popular Vote
Can you imagine a presidential election without battleground states?
That could be the future as momentum builds for reforming the way states allocate their Electoral College votes through the national popular vote.
Influential 2020 candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are calling for the constitutionally mandated Electoral College, with its indirect method of voting, to be abolished. Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is all a-Twitter, calling the Electoral College a “scam” and saying it has a “racial injustice breakdown.” (Whatever that means.)
Then, there is the overarching question: Would such a monumental change favor one party over the other? The answer cuts both ways. But the good news for Democratic voters in states with a solid red history and Republican voters in states with a solid blue history is that their presidential vote would no longer be wasted. Turnout would increase as, for example, Republicans in California and other deeply blue states would have a reason to vote. Today, the sad fact is that voters in 34 out of 50 states already know the party of the presidential nominee who will win their state.
Furthermore, if the popular vote is instituted, presidential candidates will not spend a majority of their time and resources in the dozen or so battleground states, virtually ignoring the rest. (The number of 2020 swing states could significantly increase since, according to Morning Consult’s latest 50-state tracking poll, there is a precipitous net job-approval decrease in states Donald Trump won in 2016. But as I wrote in May, Republicans comfort themselves with a “don’t-believe-the-polls mantra.”)
Nervous Republicans focus energy on protecting Senate ‘firewall’
The GOP majority in the Senate is shaping up as a firewall for Republicans who are worried that President Trump might falter and lose the White House next year.
Republicans see winning back the House majority as a tough climb in 2020, and head-to-head matchups between Trump and various Democratic presidential contenders show the president behind his potential challengers.
Though Republicans overall are optimistic about Trump’s reelection prospects, they see holding the Senate, where they have a 53-47 edge, as crucial given the shape of races for the White House and lower chamber. And they’re playing their cards accordingly.
“If we lose the presidency – and if I had to guess right now, the odds are 10 percent we get the House back – the Senate is the only check and balance,” said one former Republican Senate chief of staff. “If we don’t keep the Senate, we’re basically screwed. I hate to just cut to the chase, but that is exactly what the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] is running with.”
Senate Republicans have relished their power to sideline major Democratic bills passed by the House, including sweeping election reform and gun legislation.
They argue that maintaining a GOP majority in the Senate is a crucial failsafe against “socialist” policies – the Green New Deal and “Medicare for All” – that could be pursued by a Democrat in the Oval Office coupled with a Democratic-controlled House.
China announces it seeks ‘calm’ end to trade war, as markets tank and currency hits 11-year flatline
China signaled Monday it is now seeking a “calm” end to its ongoing trade war with the U.S. and President Trump voiced optimism about a deal, as Asian markets crumbled and China’s currency plummeted to an 11-year low following the latest tariffs on $550 billion in Chinese goods announced last Friday by the Trump administration.
“I think we’re going to have a deal,” Trump told reporters.
Trump said Monday that officials from China called U.S. officials and expressed interest to “get back to the table,” The Wall Street Journal reported. He called the discussions a “very positive development.”
“They want to make a deal. That’s a great thing,” he said.
News of the possible opening in negotiations came shortly after Trump threatened to declare a national emergency that would result in American businesses freezing their relationships with China. Trump’s tariff barrage on Friday was a response to China imposing its own retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion in U.S. goods.
The Left Can’t Stop Lying About The Tea Party
“In the late summer of 2009, as the recession-ravaged economy bled half a million jobs a month, the country seemed to lose its mind,” The New York Times says, kicking off its tenth anniversary retrospective of the Tea Party movement. As you can imagine, the rest of the article continues in this vein, portraying conservatives who organized against Obamacare as a bunch of vulgar radicals.
Yet even this revisionism wasn’t enough for most contemporary leftists, who see everything through the prism of race.
“A fundamental flaw in this analysis is there is no mention of race and how much racism drove the Tea Party movement,” ABC’s Matthew Dowd claimed. “You can’t talk about the rage politics and leave out race.”
“This @jwpetersNYT retrospective on the Tea Party’s ‘summer of rage’ ten years ago makes not a single, solitary reference to race or racism,” Rolling Stone’s Jamil Smith said. “Nor does it acknowledge the reality that a good deal of it involved opposing President Obama because he was black.”
Paul Harvey’s Freedom of Chains – Please listen
In 1965, American radio host Paul Harvey gave an immense warning to the American people about the fate of the nation. “We Were Warned: Freedom to Chains” is a short film about the the parallels between the warning Harvey gave over fifty years ago, and today with the Socialist influences in government and society.
Capitalism’s enduring value
Light bulbs and iPhones were invented for profit, not public service, but they’ve undoubtedly done more to help “humanity,” “society,” “community” or however you choose to describe the intended recipient of “help” that dominates so much of the discussion in politics, than any humanitarian or government program ever has.
“Humanity,” “society” and “community” are in quotation marks because these are abstract concepts that are defined by people who want to use government force to compel other people to work for them.
In contrast, “individual” and “family” are not defined by other people. Those concepts exist independently of anybody else’s opinion, and without government force.
A free country protects individual rights. That’s what the Declaration of Independence means when it says we have the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted “to secure these rights.” You have the right to provide for yourself and your family.
What happens if we change the government’s purpose from “secure individual rights” to “help humanity, society and community?”
Hope In a Small Town
The first thing you should know about me is my town: New Bern, North Carolina. It’s a lazy town, just 10 minutes from Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and 20 minutes from Camp Lejeune, NC—so yeah, we love the Marine Corps and the US Military.
The second thing you should know: I have stage four colorectal cancer. I am dying.
I had nothing in common with Donald J. Trump. Yet I couldn’t help but trust the man.
In late 2015, when Donald J. Trump took that now-famous escalator ride, I didn’t notice. I had my candidate picked out: Dr. Ben Carson. I was utterly committed; his soft demeanor and wise understanding seemed to fit me. And it went great at first; he was challenging and ahead in the polls.
Then it came: the leftist media firebombing. First, they came for Herman Cain, because black conservatives were and are unfathomable to them. The media slammed him as unintelligent because of his religious beliefs. As horrible as it was in real-time, it was mesmerizing to watch a media narrative being constructed right in front of you.
Then Donald Trump jumped in. At first I was angry and startled. But I slowly began to see what we, as a nation, needed: a man who would, and could, defend himself. So I started to do my homework.
Border Patrol Chief: 5,800 ‘Fake Families’ Discovered at the Border
Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Mark Morgan told a Senate committee on Tuesday that 5,800 “fake families” have been discovered trying to enter the U.S. illegally this year.
“Our laws prevent us from holding people more than 20 days and because we can’t get the information we’re probably releasing them even sooner than that in many cases, correct?” Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) asked Morgan during a Senate Homeland Security hearing on the border crisis.
“With respect to family units, since March of this year, United States Border Patrol has been releasing family units directly so in some cases they’re being released in under 48 hours into the interior of the United States,” Morgan said.
Johnson replied, “Because it really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to try and find facilities to hold them for 20 days with this overwhelming flow so instead of border patrol turning them over to ICE for a more thorough vetting process and then ICE releasing them, border patrol is doing it directly?”
New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president’s alleged racism.
“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet said. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”
Baquet made the remarks at an employee town hall Monday. A recording was leaked to Slate, which published a transcript Thursday.
In the beginning of the Trump administration, the Times geared up to cover the Russia affair, Baquet explained. “Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”
Claims that Trump’s a Racist Take a Beating as New Polling with Minorities Confounds Media Narrative
If there’s been one unified theme from the establishment media over the last year, it’s this: “Donald Trump is a racist.”
On nearly every news channel across the country, pundits have breathlessly insisted that the president of the United States is a bigot, a wildly unpopular figure who is one step away from being tossed out of the White House.
Major politicians have also joined in that chorus, with 2020 hopefuls like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren openly declaring that the president is a white supremacist. Other prominent voices have implied that anyone who defends Trump is automatically a racist. But all this ranting is falling on deaf ears.
Despite the left’s best efforts, the tired claims about how terrible Trump is have not been reflected in polling. Respected survey group Zogby Analytics just found that the president is viewed favorably by the majority of likely voters — and he’s also doing amazingly well with black and Hispanic Americans.
“President Trump’s job approval has continued to rise the last few months,” Zogby reported last week. “Overall, a slim majority (51%–27% strongly and 24% somewhat approve)…
Americans Have Shifted Dramatically on What Values Matter Most
The values that Americans say define the national character are changing, as younger generations rate patriotism, religion and having children as less important to them than did young people two decades ago, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey finds.
The poll is the latest sign of difficulties the 2020 presidential candidates will likely face in crafting a unifying message for a country divided over personal principles and views of an increasingly diverse society.
When the Journal/NBC News survey asked Americans 21 years ago to say which values were most important to them, strong majorities picked the principles of hard work, patriotism, commitment to religion and the goal of having children.
Most Americans say war in Afghanistan not worth fighting. Have we learned any lessons?
If you were born on that terrifying morning of 9/11, you could today be in military training to join that very same faraway war that started immediately after in Afghanistan.
That’s how long the United States’ longest war has been.
As he has for years, President Donald Trump says he wants to withdraw most American troops. He met with top national security advisers last weekend to discuss, among other things, “peace” talks with the Taliban who provided safe haven for Osama bin Laden to plan and train the 9/11 attackers.
But can the Taliban control lingering al Qaeda or ISIS cells, which just blew up a Kabul wedding, killing 63? And after so many years of bitter fighting can the central government coexist with the Taliban, especially if guerrillas escalate violence to disrupt Sept. 28 elections?
The Taliban will go along with the “negotiations” line for now because it offers victory with less fighting. Then come detailed talks with Kabul.
Taliban leaders claim they’ve changed since their brutal 1990s rule. The new constitution proclaims equal rights for women, who comprise a higher percentage of members (28) in the National Assembly than in the U.S. Congress.
The Best Way to Deal With Russia: Wait for It to Implode
Over the past decade, the Russia threat has loomed larger and larger in the minds of U.S. foreign-policy experts and officials, but the fear has especially grown in the wake of the Russian government’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election. “It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here,” former special counsel Robert Mueller said of Russia’s election interference efforts during his recent hearing on Capitol Hill. “And they expect to do it during the next campaign.” “We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago,” one intelligence official told the New York Times in mid-June about stepped-up attacks on Russia’s power grid in response to Moscow’s hacking and disinformation campaigns.
But what if the biggest threat to Russia isn’t the United States, or any other foreign government for that matter, but Russia itself?
As Russian President Vladimir Putin has moved to annex former Soviet territories, orchestrated cyberattacks on foreign infrastructure and rolled back domestic democratic protections over the past decade, the country may appear very powerful. But in reality, Russia today is much weaker than either the Romanov Empire, which lasted from 1613 to 1917, or the Soviet Union. Russia’s biggest problem is internal: This vast Eurasian country failed to produce a national identity that would encompass its entire population. Millions of citizens of Russia have a dubious allegiance to their state, and as soon as Moscow weakens its tightly held control over local elections—likely only to happen when Putin is no longer president—those groups will seek independence. As an anthropologist, historian and political scientist who has spent a great deal of time in Eurasia, I think it’s likely that the ticking time-bomb of separatism that Putin so fears will explode in 10, 20 or—maximum—30 years.
Why? Three big reasons.
64% Of Federal Arrests Were Of Non-Citizens In 2018, DOJ Finds
Federal arrests of non-citizens has increased exponentially over the past two decades, and account for the majority of all federal arrests, data released by the Justice Department revealed.
Non-citizens made up 64% of all federal arrests in 2018 despite making up 7% of the U.S. population, according to Justice Department data released Thursday and reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Between 1998 and 2018, federal arrests of non-citizens grew by 234%, while federal arrests of U.S. citizens climbed 10%.
Trump is using the left’s tactics against them, and they don’t like it
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is considered the bible for the left, the Democrat Party playbook. Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Alinsky’s book. Barack Obama is a disciple of this guide for community organizing. The reality is that the “Rules” are applicable to any political cause or movement, not just one on the left side of the political spectrum.
I kept hearing about this book and decided to read it for myself. Wearing a tin foil hat with a clove of garlic around my neck, I ventured to the dark side and opened the book. I found Alinsky’s philosophy and rules quite interesting. I also drew parallels to what is happening now, decades after the book was written. But not in an expected way.
Democrats are adept at using Alinsky’s rules to further their agenda. Many conservatives bemoan the fact that Republicans are unaware of these tactics or are unwilling to use them. Much like a baseball team not knowing they can bunt or run double plays and then wondering why the other team uses these tactics and wins games.
The rules can easily be used by the right too. In Alinsky’s own words, “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people.” Who else in the GOP might say similar words? Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell? Mitt Romney? Jeb Bush? None of the above. Only Donald Trump.
What Murray Rothbard Could Teach Bernie Sanders about Rights
The idea that there exists some sort of moral authority for the state to provide for the poor is nothing new. FDR declared nearly 90 years ago that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.
In 2019, progressives and democratic socialists have upped the ante, now declaring everything from a job to housing and health care a “right.” Case in point is the recent headline-grabbing speech by presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders in which he proclaimed that “Economic rights are human rights,” and called for a “21st Century economic Bill of Rights.” Such “rights,” according to Sanders, include quality health care, affordable housing, and education, among other items.
Conflating “Rights” with Goods
Sanders’s arguments, however, completely bastardize the very concept of “rights” and ignorantly conflate rights with scarce goods and services.
The revenge of the woke
College students across the U.S. are returning to classes for the fall semester. It’s an odd moment in time to be enrolled at university. Public opinion of higher education has never been lower—and a handful of militantly progressive students are largely to blame.
According to Pew Research, some 38% of people now say colleges and universities are having a negative effect on the direction of the country, up from 26% in 2012. This change in opinion is largely driven by Republicans: While just 18% of Democrats take a dim view of higher ed, the number of college-skeptical Republicans has increased from 35% to 59% over the last seven years.
What’s driving this change of opinion? The antics of the “woke” (slang for awake to the reality of inequality) scolds—the student radicals who have largely succeeded at turning some of the most prestigious American educational institutions into safe spaces. These are the kids who shout down—and even attack—conservative scholar Charles Murray when he tries to speak on campus; told a dean of Yale College that his job was to shield them from all emotional discomfort; tried to destroy a bakery at Oberlin College for daring to stop a minority student from shoplifting; compelled Harvard’s administration to deal a series of blows to the principles of free speech and due process; and routinely file complaints against their own professors—even progressive ones—for doing or saying something that bothered them.
What’s happened at Harvard, Oberlin, and elsewhere has raised public concerns that higher education no longer prepares young people to succeed in the real world. Indeed, some 73% of Republicans, and 54% of all respondents, think colleges and universities are too concerned with protecting students from views they might find offensive.
