During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing yesterday, Representative Robert Garcia (Democrat-CA) wanted to deliver a snarky retort about the unsecure southern border, complete with graphics and talking points. Unfortunately, what followed was an exhibition in just how detached and silly the Democrats are. Representative Garcia obviously doesn’t know where the idea for a border moat with alligators came from.
Back in 2011, Barack Obama went to give a speech in El Paso, Texas, proclaiming the security of the border. Using his customary style of ridicule against any political opposition, Obama said the Republicans were likely to ask for a moat with alligators. WATCH:
.
This speech became somewhat funny, as the insecure nature of the border and thousands of illegal aliens crossing daily stood in direct contrast with the proclamations of Obama. Indeed, the “whatever it takes” meme sprang up from this speech as people said sure, get alligators, get gun turrets, get sharks with lasers in their eyes, or piranhas, or whatever… BUT, SECURE THE DAMN BORDER. Ultimately, it was the Lightbringer who was embarrassed within the pushback.
Fast forward 13 years, the border is still not secure, the border crisis is worse than ever, and Democrat Representative Garcia revises the “alligator moat” remarks thinking it was some snarky comment that originated from MAGA republicans. WATCH:
This is kind of a funny and very real political story if you follow the mechanics of it. Essentially, it starts out with Politico noting the Ron DeSantis’ Super PAC Never Back Down, paid the Club for Growth Super PAC, Win It Back, $2.75 million dollars to run attack ads against Donald Trump. {Background Story}
Apparently, Ron DeSantis didn’t want to attack Trump directly, so using the Machiavellian tactics the professionally Republican group is known for, DeSantis funded a third-party to attack Trump on his behalf. A lot of people take issue with this discovery, but the story is actually deeper, and yes, even more Machiavellian.
You see, you might remember the DeSantis Super PAC was actually funded from the remaining campaign funds of Ron DeSantis in 2022. This was done with forethought and by specific design. This part is even noted in the Politico outline. However, what is missing is the other layer. The DeSantis campaign was funded with $20 million by the Republican Governors Association (RGA). That is a big part of the money that was later transferred to the super PAC.
So put this in context, because this is the non-pretending reality that was built into the program.
The RGA gives DeSantis $20 million in 2022 knowing it will be transferred into his presidential campaign super PAC in 2023. A part of that money – $2.75 million – is then sent to the Club for Growth (C4G). The Club for Growth then attacks Donald Trump. In essence, the Republican Governors Association funded the attack against Trump using DeSantis as the broker. Three layers of plausible deniability built in.
Now, ask yourself, who exactly does the RGA support? What is the goal and intent of this “approved Republican” political system that operates in the background of our national politics? When you answer those questions, you realize why the RNC has no support from Republican base voters.
French President Emmanuel Macron is reminding the European leaders of their responsibility to fund the multinational corporate war machine, especially if the United States doesn’t find a way to send $60 billion more in funding for the effort.
(Via Politico) – European countries must make bold and “innovative” decisions to help Ukraine even if the U.S. backs off from supporting Kyiv in the coming months, French President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday.
[…] Europe must not delegate its security “to big powers, even if they are very good allies, because they live on the other side of the ocean,” he said.
Macron’s comments come as European nations grapple with the looming consequences of Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House, with the NATO-skeptic ex-president on track to win the Republican nomination. In the U.S., further military aid for Ukraine is also stalled in Congress, with Republican lawmakers reluctant to continue funding Kyiv. Ukraine has been fending off Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion for almost two years now.
Republican Senators are very worried about the bloom coming off the border security ruse, and as a consequence, their Ukraine money might not be delivered. The multinational corporations, military contractors and Blackrock will not accept their Republican Senate failure; they’ve paid good money for the UniParty to deliver.
The UniParty Republicans trying to finance Ukraine are blaming Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson for not accepting the border security justification in exchange for the Zelenskyy payments. There is much anger and frustration as these traditional processes have always worked before.
Suddenly, people have become wise to the GOP ruse of the military as a justification for self-enriching spending bills, and apparently the K-Street lobbyists are not amused with this great awakening.
WASHINGTON – GOP infighting and indecision is already threatening to disintegrate the border deal, even before Senate negotiators release the long-awaited bill text.
As senators returned for a critical two-week sprint in D.C. before a lengthy recess, Republicans are starting to doubt whether the agreement — which would be tied to billions in foreign aid — can pass their chamber. GOP leaders first set out to find a compromise that could win a majority of Republican senators over, but that’s only grown more challenging as conservatives, Speaker Mike Johnson and former President Donald Trump hammer the deal.
Because of course he did…. Both the prosecutor Nathan Wade and District Attorney Fani Willis were on the cusp of losing control of their fabricated case against Donald Trump, because a hearing was scheduled for tomorrow where uncomfortable questions would have been asked during under oath testimony of Nathan Wade.
The duo will still have to face questions from the trial judge in the criminal case, where the evidence of their relationship first surfaced, but they both avoided devastating questioning in the civil case by settling the Wade divorce and getting the divorce attorney to back down. Their demanded testimony in the divorce case held massive ramifications for the criminal case in Fulton County.
We can only imagine the scope of the successful divorce terms for Wade’s soon to be ex-wife, Joycelyn Mayfield Wade, as the financial leverage created by this civil case against Nathan, and ultimately DA Willis, was enormous.
(Washington Post) – The lead prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case against former president Donald Trump and his allies settled a contentious divorce dispute on Tuesday, canceling a hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning that could have included testimony about allegations of an improper relationship between him and Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis.
Nathan Wade had been expected to be questioned under oath Wednesday morning about his finances — including his income as a special prosecutor in the Trump case and his spending, including his purchase of airline tickets for himself and Willis in October 2022 and April 2023.
There’s always this interesting debate within Republican circles about the State of Texas. The essential question is always about whether Texas is really ‘conservative’, like Ken Paxton, or whether Texas is really more akin to approved Bush type Republicans like Greg Abbott and Chip Roy.
The consistently debated issue surfaced most recently with the attempted impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton; which was, not coincidentally, led by the Bush clan of Republicans within the state.
A recent poll from the University of Houston may provide some data for an answer. [DATA HERE] Approximately 1 out of 5 (20%) of the state Republican electorate would support a nomination of Nikki Haley. The other 80% support Donald Trump.
However, it should be noted that while “Bush Republicans” represent about 20% of the Texas Republican voting base, the “Bush Republicans” represent approximately one-half of all statewide elected Republican officials. This 50/50 Republican split is very similar to the distribution curve we see in Washington DC.
University of Houston – […] In the March 2024 Texas Republican presidential primary election, Donald Trump holds a more than 60 percentage point lead over Nikki Haley, 80% to 19%.
Trump’s vote intention is highest among likely Republican primary voters whose highest level of educational attainment is a high school degree or less (91%) or a two-year degree or some college (87%) and who are a born-again Christian (88%) and who are Latino (86%). (more)
They don’t say it the same way as me, because they are far more articulate and eloquent, but boy howdy have Carlson and Peterson come to the same conclusion.
Four years ago, you heard me say it loud, “Stop Pretending and Live Your Best Life.” The first time I realized this was the best and truest hope for our restoration was after holding years of empirical, undeniable research in my hands and finding nothing but willfully blind, isolated and siloed deaf ears in DC. What Tucker Carlson describes below is the disconnect between the people and those who hold power.
In this joint discussion about the future and possibility within this year 2024, both Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson take the first part of that framework, “stop pretending”, and turn the phrase into “speak truth.” Yes, yes, yes, THIS. When I have been asked for the past several years about what needs to be done, what can we do, my answer to every voice, influential and comfortably invisible alike, has been ‘STOP PRETENDING’ – just stop pretending. WATCH:
Stop pretending the gaslighting narrative is real. Just stop pretending. Stop ignoring the lies, and start confronting the liars directly. Look at the other voice, regardless of who they are, stare boldly directly into their eyes and speak the truth of the thing. Just stop pretending. If we all stop pretending, the narrative engineers will find no one to purchase their bulls**t anymore. At the same time, speak the truest thing as loudly as you can to confront those who use pretense as a shield to retain comfort and influence.
EXAMPLE: Mary McCord sits at the epicenter of every single Lawfare machination deployed against President Trump. This is a demonstrably true and factual reality. Yet, how many allied voices do we see publicly making her known and as a consequence uncomfortable? No one. Why? Why isn’t every person of influence talking about the true thing? Why hide behind “they” and “them” or some bland, undefined, esoteric blame-casting toward an irrelevant institution. We may not know the name of every person, but we know the name of the one single thread that unites all of the effort, Mary McCord. Why is it so hard for allies to factually identify her and the corrupt behavior she is engaged in?
I no longer stare at the absence with a side eye of suspicion, I now glare knowingly and angrily at the face behind the willful omission. “You know, and I know you know,” is what that stare represents. None of those popular and influential allies on our side can ever answer the question about their silence. None of them can. Why?
The leftist-media claim a 5-year sentence was harsh. However, in terms of the violations of privacy and law the sentence was a mere slap on the wrist.
Charles Littlejohn (38) previously pleaded guilty to stealing and leaking the tax returns of Donald Trump and approximately 2,000 other high-profile people. The tax returns were given to The New York Times and ProPublica, who published the contents of 152 individual tax returns.
Charles Littlejohn (right) and his attorney.
WASHINGTON – A former IRS consultant was sentenced to five years in prison for leaking former President Donald Trump’s tax returns as well as the filings of thousands of other wealthy people to the news media.
A district court judge on Monday agreed with the Justice Department that Charles Littlejohn, 38, deserved the maximum statutory sentence for what she called “egregious” crimes.
Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden nominee to the bench, focused on Littlejohn’s decision to release Trump’s filings, which Reyes called “an attack on our constitutional democracy.”
While Turkey is a NATO ally, Recep Erdogan strategically refused to participate in the process to ostracize Russia. True to Erdogan’s strategic political interests of being an influence broker, Turkey is the only NATO country that does not participate in the sanctions regime against Russia. Next month Russian President Vladimir Putin will travel to Turkey for diplomatic discussions.
Turkey represents the literal gateway for most Western travel into and out of Russia. However, first things first. Despite the position of Turkey, notice how Hungary receives all the EU admonitions for not supporting the Ukraine side of the conflict, while NATO/EU never criticize Turkey who never even joined the EU/Western sanctions regime. Inside that hypocritical contrast there is a revealing story.
Turkey established themselves as the neutral entity for future brokering negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Turkey has multiple geopolitical ties to Russia, including the purchase of Russian military equipment. Apparently, despite the severity of the original sanction demand, Western interests -specifically the U.S. government- had no issue with Turkey proactively taking their ‘neutral’ position. Always remember this.
Given all of the domestic headlines in the USA, there is a very good reason for Americans to keep paying attention to all things that happen in the orbit of Russia right now. Many people ponder the issue of a dollar-based central bank digital currency; however, only a few people have paid attention to the self-fulfilling prophecy of the CBDC that was created by the Russian sanctions regime.
Those who ask about the possibility/probability of a dollar-based CBDC, and the possibility of the timeframe therein, should always be referenced back to the Western financial sanctions against Russia. It was that triggering point that put the USA and Western alliance on the irreversible path to the U.S CBDC, and the process is no longer a matter of “if” because the determining issue is no longer (primarily) in U.S. control.
In his own words, Senator James Lankford says if President Trump was president today the border crisis would not exist, because the existing law would be enforced. Simultaneous to this, the same Senator Lankford says the new law he proposes will create significant border enforcement.
If the executive branch can ignore the current border enforcement law (they can and do), what makes Lankford believe new legislation will not be ignored by the same executive branch (they will)? This non-pretending reality frames the essential point: the element of “enforcement” is not within the legislative branch, so the entire effort is a moot exercise. WATCH:
Margaret Brennan is especially annoying in this interview.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Oklahoma Republican James Lankford. He’s in Oklahoma City this morning. Good morning to you, sir, it has taken you two months to get this bipartisan deal. Do you have the support of your fellow Republicans to actually vote this through?
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD: Well, actually, I wish it would have taken only two months. It’s taken about four months to be able to go through this, we started in October. Everyone’s looking to be able to read the bill at this point. That’s the key aspect, we’re working on the final aspects of it to try to be able to get it out. So everyone can get a chance to read it. Right now, they’re all functioning off of internet rumors of what’s in the bill, and many of them are false. So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it. And to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes and how we handle our immigration system, and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That’s been the simple request of Americans, whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or independent, people just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we’re not promoting illegal immigration. And that’s what we’ve seen in the last three years.
