After years of promising a replacement for ObamaCare, President Donald Trump unveiled his “America First Healthcare Plan” Thursday at an appearance in Charlotte, North Carolina. But far from replacing ObamaCare, the plan seeks to retain its most popular feature, the ban on denying health insurance to individuals with preexisting conditions, while making only modest changes to existing policies.
“Under the America First Healthcare Plan,” Trump said, “we will ensure the highest standard of care anywhere in the world, cutting-edge treatments, state-of-the-art medicine, groundbreaking cures, and true health security for you and your loved ones.”
Much of Trump’s speech, like the executive order he signed afterward, consisted of recounting his accomplishments with regard to healthcare. Some, such as repealing the individual mandate, are constitutional; others, such as grants for HIV treatment, are not.
Moreover, while Trump ran on repealing ObamaCare and supports a lawsuit to overturn it, his remarks seemed to suggest he had made peace with it. “ObamaCare,” he declared, “is no longer ObamaCare” because his administration has “managed it very well.” In fact, he said the American people can’t lose regardless of the outcome of the suit: A win would mean the end of ObamaCare, but a loss would mean the continuation of the new, improved ObamaCare.
Trump’s executive order states, “It has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States to give Americans seeking healthcare more choice, lower costs, and better care and to ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.” Few would disagree with those objectives. The arguments concern how to attain them, and on those matters, the order is silent.
Trump claimed the order was necessary because Democrats, whom he likened to “radical socialists and communists,” give lip service to protecting people with preexisting conditions, “yet preexisting conditions are much safer with us than they are with them.” Similarly, he asserted that he had “made Social Security stronger, better,” and that “as long as I’m President, no one will lay a hand on your Medicare.” In other words, vote Republican if you want efficient, well-managed socialism.
The rest of the order is similarly light on details. It directs executive branch departments to “maintain and build upon existing actions to” expand affordable healthcare options; accelerate drug approvals; facilitate importation of drugs from foreign countries; end “surprise billing” from healthcare providers; “reduce waste, fraud, and abuse”; and “promote medical innovations.”
The one directive that does offer some specifics — ending surprise billing — takes a dim view of the separation of powers. It directs the secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to develop legislation to accomplish this end by December 31. If, however, no bill is passed by that date, the secretary is simply to “take administrative action” to make it happen.
The president did not waste time on details in his speech, either. His plan, he said, will “revolutionize access to telehealth,” force hospitals and insurers “to post all of their prices online,” require pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs in the United States for the lowest price they sell them in other countries, give Medicare beneficiaries $200 to buy prescription drugs, and mandate that doctors maintain electronic records for their patients. How the government will accomplish all this, let alone do so while keeping its budget under control and staying within its constitutional bounds, Trump did not say.
Trump acknowledged few possible downsides to his proposals. He did note that requiring drugs to be sold at their lowest worldwide costs could cause companies to increase their lowest prices, though he thought they would only “come up a little bit.” Meanwhile, the electronic health records he wants to force on people, also a component of ObamaCare, are driving doctors out of the profession, and they help the government control the people far more than they help people control their healthcare.
It would appear, then, that with an election looming, Trump felt the need to finally make good on his many promises to present an ObamaCare replacement. Unfortunately, his alternative consisted of a wish list of good and bad ideas with no particular plan for implementing them and little consideration of their possible consequences.
There seems to be no end to disrespect for the clear wording of the Constitution among far too many members of the modern Democratic Party. Now, despite the U.S. Constitution providing for a life term for members of the federal judiciary, some Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are calling for limiting the tenure of Supreme Court justices to 18 years, with a bill announced this week.
Article III of the Constitution states, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their office during good behavior.”
The “Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act,” sponsored by Representatives Ro Khanna of California, Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Don Beyer of Virginia, would allow the president to nominate two justices to the Supreme Court during each four-year term and would limit the tenure of a justice to 18 years. The three House members have “Freedom Index” scores of 24 percent, 22 percent, and 15 percent, respectively. The Freedom Index rates members of Congress on how their votes demonstrate fidelity to the U.S. Constitution.
This proposed law is a reflection of those low scores. Regardless of the merits of the proposal, it is not what the Constitution provides. And because of that, simple legislation such as this proposal by these three House Democrats cannot change the Constitution. Particularly egregious is the idea that every president will be allowed to nominate two justices to the Supreme Court during each four-year term. While one may argue that this would be a good policy (or not), such a proposal would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Representative Khanna said that his proposal “would save the country a lot of agony and help lower the temperature over fights for the court that go to the fault lines of cultural issues and is one of the primary things tearing at our social fabric.” Perhaps so, but again, this cannot be accomplished by mere legislation — it requires a constitutional amendment.
Many would argue that limiting the president to two terms in office is good, considering the potential concentration of power in that office. A good example would be the growth of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected four times. Before FDR, two terms for presidents was a tradition, established by Thomas Jefferson, who explicitly followed the example set by the first president, George Washington, who retired to his Mount Vernon home in 1797, following two terms in office.
When Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress following the 1946 elections, they proposed an amendment to the Constitution to limit the president to two terms in office. They did not simply argue that they could do it through legislation, like these Democrats are saying they can do so with Supreme Court tenure.
Then there is the example of Congress. Interestingly, the Democrats are not proposing term limits on Congress, just the Supreme Court. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, that states could not impose term limits on their own U.S. representatives and senators. Their reasoning was that the Constitution did not provide for congressional term limits, and the only way to add qualifications for election to the House or the Senate would be through a constitutional amendment. States had no constitutional authority to add qualifications beyond what are found in the Constitution. Term limits for members of Congress were discussed at the constitutional convention, and explicitly rejected. Delegate Rufus King said that a person who has “proved himself to be most fit for an office, ought not to be excluded by the Constitution from holding it.”
Circumventing the wording of the Constitution is not uncommon, as can be seen with the National Popular Vote (NPV) proposal, popular with Democrats, which would essentially make the Electoral College irrelevant. As it stands now, presidential candidates receive electoral votes by carrying a state’s popular vote. NPV would change that through a compact of states to determine a state’s electoral votes by who carried the national popular vote. The reason for this proposal is clear. Enemies of the Electoral College have concluded that they are not able to abolish it through an amendment to the Constitution, so they are just going to make an end-run around it.
The same thinking is at play with this proposal to limit the terms of members of the Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds vote of each house of Congress, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states, and there is little likelihood of that happening with this proposal.
The Founders intentionally made changes in the Constitution — the fundamental and supreme law — difficult, but not impossible. After all, it can be done, if there is enough support for such an amendment, as evidenced by the fact that the Constitution has been amended 27 times.
But this effort by these three very liberal House Democrats does provide us with another lesson, which is the dangers posed by another constitutional convention. The Constitution provides for the possibility of amendments by such a convention, if asked for by two-thirds of the states. Some conservatives have been duped into supporting what is sometimes called a “convention of states.” Leftists who hate our present Constitution are no doubt salivating at the thought of being able to change it at a national convention. After all, we could anticipate liberals like these three House members being present at such a convention, proposing all sorts of left-wing ideas, like repealing the Electoral College, the Second Amendment, and the like. They might even propose scuttling our present Constitution in favor of one more to leftist liking.
As was said earlier, regardless of the merits of their proposal to limit terms of office of Supreme Court members, such proposals require amending the Constitution. Changing our political structure through legislation is not what the Founders intended. George Washington made this very point, when he said, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
I think Washington had more wisdom than these three members of the House of Representatives.
Do you want your tax money supporting programs teaching that “hard work” reflects a destructive “white male culture” — programs that, essentially, amount to a war on whites and blacks? If not, you’ll be happy to know that President Trump is banning companies, people, and schools doing business with the federal government from spreading such propaganda.
The move follows a similar order from earlier this month banning such indoctrination — known as “Critical Race Theory” (CRT) training — from the federal bureaucracy.
Trump had earlier called CRT an intolerable “sickness,” and for good reason. Consider a report last month by visiting Heritage Foundation fellow Christopher Rufo about indoctrination exposed at Sandia National Laboratories. Rufo tells us that the trainers (indoctrinators) insisted “that white males must ‘work hard to understand’ their ‘white privilege,’ ‘male privilege,’ and ‘heterosexual privilege.’”
Moreover, participants were told they must expose the “roots of white male culture,” which consist “of ‘rugged individualism,’ ‘a can-do attitude,’ ‘hard work,’ and ‘striving towards success’ — which sound good, but are in fact ‘devastating’ to women and POCs,” Rufo further informs.
Then there’s what children are accosted with in schools. As EAG News’ Ben Velderman wrote in 2012, reporting on the CRT-peddling Pacific Educational Group:
PEG says concepts like hard work and planning for the future are traits of “white culture,” and implies that minority students cannot be expected to respond to a curriculum based on those values. They say black culture is more in tune with “collectivism,” presumably the type applied in Cuba or North Korea.
… The Pacific Educational Group makes no secret that its prescription for closing the achievement gap is based on the Critical Race Theory, which argues that … things must be made unequal in order to compensate for the nation’s innate racism.
… The minority cultures, according to PEG, value “color group collectivism.” This entails “fostering interdependence” and group success, shared property, learning through social relationships, and making life choices based on “what will be best for the family” or the group.
In 2007, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader wrote regarding the Seattle schools, referencing PEG’s founder, Glenn Singleton:
Singleton promotes the basest racial stereotypes, such as claiming that “‘white talk’ is ‘verbal, impersonal, intellectual’ and ‘task-oriented,’ while ‘color commentary’ is ‘nonverbal, personal, emotional’ and ‘process-oriented.’” He also blathers about “the ubiquity of white privilege and racism,” and depicts Asian students as being “majority students” just like whites because they have the temerity to succeed academically in a predominantly white society. But although he views minority culture as not being “intellectual” and “task-oriented,” it is white teachers whom he blames for the underperformance of many minority students, since he claims it would be a “racist statement” to place any responsibility for minority underperformance on minorities themselves.
(Now maybe we have a little more insight into why Seattle has become a hotbed of anarchy and insurrection.)
Note that many millions of dollars of your tax money have been funneled to PEG, Singleton, and other CRT-disgorging race hustlers, making them wealthy at your expense.
This CRT teaching’s toxicity speaks for itself. Yet there’s a deeper problem here, one expressed beautifully by philosopher G.K. Chesterton in 1910.
“Obviously, it ought to be the oldest things that are taught to the youngest people; the assured and experienced truths that are put first to the baby,” he wrote. “But in a school today the baby has to submit to a system that is younger than himself. The flopping infant of four actually has more experience and has weathered the world longer than the dogma to which he is made to submit.”
Yet the even deeper problem is that moderns view “the oldest things” as just that, old, and not eternal. Our rampant relativism breeds people who make everything relative to themselves and their time; this engenders a chronological chauvinism — attended by nebulous blather about undefined “progress” — that assumes “new” is better because the new is of the now. But even the latter is usually an errant assumption, as new ideas are often just forgotten old mistakes.
What should be instilled in the young, as I often point out, are the virtues. These are good moral habits, such as hope, honesty, charity, fortitude, justice, temperance, love, and diligence. Yet CRT activists, in essence, characterize virtues and related qualities — success-breeding habits — as “white norms.” This hurts blacks especially, but also whites and everyone else.
CRT is a divisive and destructive money-maker for malevolent people. Anyone supporting it is to be despised.
Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The New American for more than a decade. He has also written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, and many other print and online publications. In addition, he has contributed to college textbooks published by Gale-Cengage Learning, has appeared on television, and is a frequent guest on radio.
FBI agents were so worried about the legality of their activities during the Trump-Russia “collusion” probe that some purchased liability insurance to protect themselves if the pro-Clinton conspiracy were revealed, newly-released court documents show.
Filed in the federal government’s malicious prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, the documents reveal texts between agents that show where the real “collusion” was: among top government agents who, with the Crossfire Hurricane probe, tried to interfere nullify the 2016 election because they didn’t like the winner.
That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
Serious trouble was ahead if they were caught, the agents apparently thought.
“Holy crap,” an agent responded about agents who purchased insurance. “All the analysts too?”
“Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.”
“While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing … states that the latest document production included handwritten notes and texts from Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and FBI analysts who worked on the FBI’s investigation of Flynn,” Davis and Hemingway wrote.
Amazingly, the agents were also terrified of what Attorney General Jeff Sessions might do: “[T]he new AG might have some questions….then yada yada yada…we all get screwed,” an agent fretted.
The agents worried about someone using the Freedom of Information Act to uncover their activities, and that they were chasing what the media would call “debunked conspiracy theories:”
“I’m tellying [sic] man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked,” one agent wrote. “[A]nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic[.]”
“[REDACTED] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories,” an agent texted. “This guy traveled with that guy, who put down 3rd guy as his visa sponsor. 3rd guy lives near a navy base, therefore…[.]”
Clinton Torpedoes Even worse, it appears that Clinton torpedoes at the agency ran the conspiracy to undermine a free and fair election.
“The explosive new text messages also show agents believed the investigation was being run by FBI officials who were in the tank for Hillary Clinton,” Davis and Hemingway reported.
“[D]oing all this election research — I think some of these guys want a [C]linton presidency,” an agent wrote in August 2016.
As well, another agent wrote, “‘Trump was right’ when he tweeted that the FBI was delaying his briefings as incoming president so they could cook up evidence against him,” Davis and Heminway reported. “Why do we do this to ourselves?” the agent asked.
The “Intelligence” briefing on so-called “Russian hacking” was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!
The agents also suspected “the illegal leak of top secret information about Flynn’s phone calls with Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak to the news media came directly from the White House,” David and Hemingway reported. Those calls became the basis of the FBI entrapment scheme to take out Flynn:
“FYI — someone leaked the Flynn calls with Kislyak to the WSJ,” the agent wrote.
“I’m sorry to hear that,” another FBI agent responded sarcastically. “I’ll resume my duties as Chief Morale Officer and rectify that.”
“Published this morning by Ignatius,” an agent said, referencing the Jan. 12 column from Washington Post writer David Ignatius that included leaked top-secret information about Flynn’s calls with Kislyak.
“It’s got to be someone on staff,” an agent wrote. “[Presidential Daily Briefing] staff. Or WH seniors.”
“To date, not a single person has been charged with illegally leaking that information to the Washington Post as a way of damaging Flynn and the incoming Trump administration,” Davis and Hemingway reported.
The two closed their report by observing that the Obama administration targeted Flynn with false charges of wrongdoing and that “the FBI later hid exculpatory documents from Flynn’s defense team.”
Yet federal judge Emmett Sullivan won’t dismiss the case against Flynn despite a request from the Justice Department. Sullivan even tried to block the department from producing and “filing exculpatory evidence for Flynn or evidence of FBI misbehavior during its investigation of Flynn.”
Image: Duncan_Andison/iStock/Getty Images Plus
R. Cort Kirkwood is a long-time contributor to The New American and a former newspaper editor.
At a hearing on Thursday before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff, attorneys for Pastor John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church persuaded the judge to delay implementation of fines and possible imprisonment of MacArthur for violating his previous ruling.
They successfully persuaded the judge that he got the cart before the horse. Before those fines and imprisonment could be implemented, the constitutionality of the rule the church and its pastor allegedly violated had to be determined first. And that would require a full trial.
The press release from the Thomas More Society whose attorneys have been defending the church against the Los Angeles health director’s edicts explained:
[Our] attorneys argu[ed] that MacArthur and the Church are entitled to a full trial on the merits of their challenge to the constitutionality of the government shut-down orders and [Beckloff’s] preliminary injunction.
Los Angeles County has sought to shut down the church and hold MacArthur in contempt, but [our] attorneys argued that a final determination on the constitutionality of [Los Angeles County’s] orders must occur before the county could seek contempt against MacArthur for merely holding church….
Beckloff agreed that MacArthur and Grace Community Church are entitled to constitutional protections at [the] trial.
Thomas More attorney Jenna Ellis said, “This is significant because no person can or should be held in contempt of a constitutionally invalid order.… This case goes to the heart of what our founders designed for the purpose of legitimate government: not to be above the rule of law. Pastor MacArthur is simply holding church, which is clearly his constitutionally protected right.”
Upon learning of the decision, Pastor MacArthur was relieved. Earlier he had suggested that if he were incarcerated he would consider it an opportunity to begin a jail ministry. Said MacArthur:
I’m very grateful to Judge Beckloff for providing full due process and recognizing the importance of these constitutional protections.… I’ll continue to stand firm and we will continue to fight to protect religious freedom for the church.
It’s ironic that the very edicts that MacArthur and his church are fighting are preventing that trial from being held promptly. The earliest the court can hear the case would be after the first of the year.
In the meantime MacArthur will continue to hold indoor in-person services. Back in August he expressed the wish that his strong stand against government overreach would generate more support: “I earnestly hope that our stance will encourage other pastors, churches, and the general public across America and the world to stand firm for Biblical Truth.”
Photo: Chris Ryan / OJO Images / Getty Images Plus
On Thursday, the Joe Biden Campaign again “called a lid” on campaign activities early in the morning, meaning that the 77-year-old candidate would not be doing any campaign events and would be unavailable for reporters. Yesterday’s “lid” marks the ninth time in September that Biden has taken a full day off from campaigning or seeing reporters.
The AP’s Zeke Miller announced yesterday’s halt to campaign activities on Twitter.
Biden had hinted on Wednesday that he would be beginning serious debate preparation on Thursday, with the first presidential debate scheduled for Tuesday, September 29. “I’ve started to prepare, but I haven’t gotten into it really heavily,” Biden told reporters. “I will beginning tomorrow.”
That may or may not explain Thursday’s absence from the campaign trail — but what about the other eight days in the month of September? The Biden Campaign has been silent on September 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19 , 22, and yesterday.
Perhaps the most telling date was Saturday, September 19, the day after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Biden gave a short, disjointed speech on the Friday night, remarking that Ginsburg had died. But shouldn’t he have been giving impassioned speeches about the justice and firing up his base about the coming nomination that entire weekend?
As Steven Miller, the host of the Vs Media Podcast, pointed out, “This is where the Democrat nominee goes out. Gives a speech on her legacy and the need to push forward etc.etc, etc…. No nominee until after the election etc…. Every network would carry it. Instead … nothing. Again, bizarre.”
President Trump — Biden’s debate opponent — is seemingly not at all worried by the coming debate on Tuesday, as he continues to hold nearly daily campaign events as well as managing his presidential duties. Trump couldn’t resist a dig at Biden’s decision to stay off the campaign trail for yet another day, tweeting: “Sleepy Joe Biden just closed down his campaign for the day (Again). Wants to rest! He is a very LOW ENERGY INDIVIDUAL and our Country cannot make it in these exciting, but complex and competitive times, with a Low Energy President!!!”
It’s far from the first time the president has criticized his opponent’s propensity to lay low. At his Tuesday rally in Pennsylvania, the president also called out Biden’s lack of availability and his campaign’s practice of calling a “lid” on activities early in the morning. “Lid means he’s not going anywhere today. I’m working my a*s off. I’m in Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin,” Trump said.
Typically, the press is only notified of these “lids” on the morning which they occur. As Dilbert creator and cartoonist Scott Adams points out, “I’m no political campaign expert, but wouldn’t a presidential candidate generally know tomorrow’s schedule a day in advance? Calling a lid first thing in the morning seems … unplanned. Almost as if you need to see how the candidate is doing that day.”
Indeed. And since the mainstream press is essentially an ally for the Biden campaign, wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to keep them informed of his plans at least a day ahead?
When questioned about the former vice-president’s seemingly increasing need for days off, a senior aide for Biden has been reported as saying, “We’ve been through some high pressure times before and we’re always deliberate about how we respond…. People will question our tactics and we’ll do our thing.”
Biden has always been gaffe-prone. The decision to limit his appearances could be connected to that, as he has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he speaks. But in the past, he’s always been an effective campaigner — his four decades in the Senate and his eight years as Barack Obama’s vice-president are a testament to that.
This year seems different. Instead of randomly spouting something offensive off the cuff, Biden seems to be struggling to say anything at all. Without his teleprompter, Biden seems lost. While campaign surrogates and the media do their best to prop him up, Biden seems unable to stay on message, at times unable to remember words or even complete a sentence.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Biden has maintained an extremely low profile for a presidential candidate, often going for days without speaking to the public. If it’s a strategy, it seems to be working, as apparently less Joe is best Joe from a polling standpoint, at least. But it calls into serious question Biden’s stamina. If he can’t face the rigors of the campaign season, how will he be able to face his daily presidential duties should he win in November?
Photo: AP Images
Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) explains his common sense amendments to the “Nonpartisan Postmaster General Act” (H.R. 8109), sponsored by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). Rep. Massie offered three amendments to: 1) Apply the Democrats’ proposal to limit the political activities to all postmasters across the U.S., not just the Postmaster General; 2) ensure the timely delivery of ballots by preventing postal workers from going on strike during an election; and 3) increase penalties for forging and tampering with a postmarks. Ironically, despite the bill’s name, every single Democrat on the House Oversight and Reform Committee rejected Massie’s amendments. In the second segment, Rep. Massie (R-Ky.) shares his thoughts about President Trump’s potential nominees to fill the vacancy following the passing of JA the U.S. Rep. Massie also offers his take on the Democrat’s suggestion to pack the Supreme Court with more judges, should they keep the House and regain both the Senate and Presidency in this upcoming election. When asked as to who he would nominate to the Supreme Court, Massie suggests either Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) or Judge Andrew Napolitano for their fidelity to the Constitution.
President Donald Trump appears to be the target of a “Color Revolution”-style coup attempt by powerful actors within and outside of the U.S. government and even in the Armed Forces, according to experts in the field and a growing list of prominent analysts. Indeed, many of the same individuals and organizations involved in other “revolutions” around the world are helping lay the groundwork for a similar operation in the United States. The same strategies are being used, too. The chaotic 2020 election will be the focal point.
Biden expressed confidence that the military would “escort [Trump] from the White House with great dispatch” if called upon to do so. Whether the “Color Revolution” plot will succeed, though, remains to be seen at this point.
Between massive levels of expected voter fraud, open insubordination among senior military leaders, escalating riots in the streets, the much-hyped “siege” of the White House by revolutionaries, and a powerful media machine dedicated to overthrowing the administration, the chaos is likely to keep growing as November 3 approaches. Individuals close to Trump and outside his network have all warned the nation about what is brewing. Outrageously fake polls are conditioning Americans to view any Trump victory as fraudulent. The pieces of the planned coup are falling into place.
At the center of the effort to overthrow Trump and potentially even America’s constitutional republic is a shadowy George Soros-backed group known as the Transition Integrity Project (TIP). This “bipartisan” establishment network of mostly secret NeverTrump “RINO” Republicans and Democrats founded by a key Soros operative has been war-gaming various scenarios involving the upcoming 2020 election. The goal: ensuring Trump leaves the White House no matter what, even if it means a “street fight” or military involvement to secure a Biden victory.
TIP and its operatives such as disgraced former Obama and Clinton bigwig John Podesta (of “spirit cooking” fame) are already laying the groundwork to try to overthrow Trump and secure major institutional changes even if the president wins in a clear victory, the group’s leaked report revealed. Among other strategies, the outfit has floated the idea of states ignoring voters to send Biden electors to the Electoral College. It has also called for Big Tech social-media companies to censor information it disagrees with. And it is not-so-subtly encouraging revolutionary Marxist groups such as Black Lives Matter funded by Soros and other powerful figures to unleash hell.
Already, the true colors of these alleged coup plotters are showing. The founder of the TIP group, Nils Gilman, vice president of the Communist Chinese Party-linked Berggruen Institute, made headlines recently for calling for the actual execution of Trump national security official Michael Anton as a Nazi criminal. Yes, seriously. Analysts said this sort of incendiary rhetoric and calls for killing political opponents provide a sneak preview of what is to come if the alleged color revolutionaries get their way amid the 2020 election.
The Democratic Party and many of its leading luminaries appear to be fully on board. In fact, more than a few have already made clear that they will not accept a Trump victory no matter what happens. Former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, for example, even urged 2020’s Democrat contender, Joe Biden, not to concede defeat in the election under any circumstances. The establishment media is peddling the dangerous narrative, too. And top current and former military officials associated with Deep State are already openly speaking about intervention by the Armed Forces.
The TIP ran four scenarios involving the election. Considering that there were literally no Trump supporters involved in the scheme, it should not be surprising that there are no scenarios where Trump wins and simply remains president. Only the first option was relatively smooth. Basically, under the first scenario, Biden won a clear victory in both the popular vote and Electoral College, and so Trump leaves the White House after his allegations of vote fraud by Democrats go nowhere.
In the second scenario, Biden secures a narrow victory in the election, and Trump points out that there was massive voter fraud by Democrats through mail-in voting. In this scenario, protests and violence break out on the streets across America. Still, Trump is ultimately “escorted” from the White House by the Secret Service after his term expires so Biden can take office.
The third scenario gets significantly more complicated. This one envisioned a close election in which Trump wins. However, the entire election hinges on the state of Michigan, where apparently some ballots were destroyed. This leads Michigan’s governor to send a rival slate of electors supporting Biden. Both Biden and Trump send supporters out into the streets, and there is no clear president by January 20. It was not clear what would happen next.
The fourth and final scenario gives Trump a clear victory in the Electoral College, but Biden supposedly wins the popular vote, leading to unrest. Using the alleged popular-vote win as leverage, Biden and his Deep State backers demand “concessions” including eliminating the Electoral College, making Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico into (Democrat-controlled) states, turning California into multiple states, and thereby packing the U.S. Senate with a new Democrat senators. West Coast states threaten secession if Trump and America do not give in. There is no clear president on January 20, and the TIP report cryptically concludes that it was not clear what the military would do.
Key TIP individuals are already psychologically conditioning the public to accept their subversive coup attempt. Writing in the radical anti-Trump Washington Post, owned by Deep State billionaire Jeff Bezos of Amazon, TIP bigwig Rosa Brooks lays it out in plain English. In the piece, headlined “What’s the Worst that Could Happen: The Election Will Likely Spark Violence and a Constitutional Crisis,” Brooks argues, “If things go as badly as our exercises suggest they might, a sustained, nonviolent protest movement may be America’s best and final hope.”
Brooks is also warning that the Department of Justice may try to investigate massive mail-in-voting fraud in certain key states. This, she hopes readers will agree, must be viewed as evidence of Trump seeking to stay in power against the will of the voters as some sort of dictator. In other words, if the administration seeks to prevent fraud by coup plotters, it will provide the justification for more extreme measures by the coup plotters. Cracking down on violence and crime by the coup plotters’ useful idiots in the streets will similarly justify the coup plotters’ machinations.
Alongside all of the above, plans to deploy the military against President Trump are also being openly discussed amid the expected chaos of mail-in-voting and the lack of a clear winner. Biden, former Vice President Al Gore, and other key individuals have already floated the idea. Retired Lieutenant Colonels John Nagl and Paul Yingling even wrote an open letter to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark Milley urging him to be ready to give the order to use the military to remove Trump from the White House by force if supposedly needed. Talk of civil war is getting louder, too.
Unfortunately for Trump, even at the highest levels of his administration, Deep State swamp creatures surround him. For instance, like many of the coup plotters openly preparing the Color Revolution-style operation, Trump’s current Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, is actually member of the anti-Trump globalist Deep State organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations. A defector from the CFR, U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, warned that there was no term of revulsion more hated by CFR members than “America First.” Esper has also already publicly suggested he would defy orders to put down an insurrection in America if the president were to do what many others have done many times before and invoke the Insurrection Act.
Along with the military, the intelligence community and especially the Central Intelligence Agency are also involved, according to former high-ranking U.S. officials such as Reagan Treasury leader Paul Craig Roberts. He argued that the CIA, which is “very experienced at color revolutions,” is helping this plot along, as is the establishment media in the United States and worldwide. Massive violence from Antifa and Black Lives Matter should be expected, along with an unprecedented propaganda campaign against Trump. “The CIA will be certain that the violence is well funded,” Roberts said. Former CIA chief John McLaughlin has publicly thanked his “god” for the Deep State’s efforts to take down Trump.
The term “Color Revolution,” which is now being used all over the place, refers to various efforts to overthrow existing governments in recent decades, primarily in Eastern Europe but also in Asia and the Middle East. These regime-change operations have often been orchestrated by Western Deep State elites acting through “intelligence” agencies and “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs). While some have been portrayed as “anti-communist,” KGB defectors such as Anatoly Golitsyn revealed Communist plans for these phony “revolutions” years before they happened. The tax-funded National Endowment for Democracy has been key in helping these along.
The Obama administration’s ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, another member of the global-government promoting Deep State group Council on Foreign Relations, has written extensively on these “color” revolutions, which he now seeks to re-brand as “democratic breakthroughs.” He identified a number of traits they have in common, including an “unpopular incumbent,” an organized effort to discredit election results by the media, mobilization of large numbers of protesters, and “divisions” among supporters of the target. All of that is happening now in America.
McFaul and his CFR cohorts appear to be right at the center of it. Consider that McFaul recently wrote on social media that Trump had “lost” the “intelligence community,” the State Department, and the military. “How can he continue to serve as our commander in chief?” he wondered. The CFR operative promptly deleted the Tweet, but analysts said it offered important evidence of what the coup plotters were up to.
One of the key individuals involved in the Color Revolution is said to be George Kent, a longtime U.S. State Department bureaucrat who loathes Trump and worked hard to have him impeached on the now-discredited charges. After testifying against the president as a key impeachment witness, Kent was not fired for his betrayal, like most of the other anti-Trump activists. Instead, he was actually promoted to a more powerful position.
Kent is one of the State Department’s key “Color Revolution” experts, with extensive experience aiding and abetting Deep State-backed regime-change operations across Eurasia. He was serving in various senior roles with the U.S. government mission in Ukraine, for instance, during that nation’s so-called “revolution” a few years ago. That revolution, of course, was waged with massive assistance from the Obama administration and billionaire globalist George Soros — the same man helping to bankroll the revolutionaries wreaking havoc across America.
Former Trump speech writer Darren Beattie has been at the forefront of exposing these machinations at Revolver.news, a relatively new but immensely popular conservative alternative to the increasingly left-wing Drudge Report. “What is relevant [in Ukriane’s example] is that the State Department’s preferred candidate did not win, and the State Department, with the help of its constellation of friendly NGOs, helped to facilitate the overthrow of [Ukrainian President Viktor] Yanukovych,” Beattie explained in the series, noting that the same organizations and NGOs were involved.
This State Department-backed regime-change operation was carried out “by contesting the legitimacy of the election, organizing mass protests and acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to their agenda in the Western press — all tactics eerily similar to those used against President Trump beginning the day after he was elected,” Trump’s former speech writer continued, adding that the “very same people” behind those revolutions in Eastern Europe are using the “very same playbook” to bring down Trump.
“The people most viciously and effectively targeting Trump today are regime change professionals of the Color Revolution variety, whose preferred playbook involves a combination of attacking the legitimacy and electoral integrity of their target, mobilizing mass demonstrations of ‘mostly peaceful protesters,’ and using any effort to crack down on said protests to further escalate the offensive against the target regime,” Beattie said in another piece of the series, this one focusing on the TIP.
Another key operative in TIP and the effort to unseat Trump using any means necessary is former Obama “Ethics” Czar Norm Eisen, who has been foaming at the mouth to remove the president for years. Interestingly, Eisen actually wrote the go-to manual on Color Revolution, known as “The Playbook,” and is now working to unleash it in America. Eisen’s strategies, by his own admission, are merely a continuation of those pioneered by the “originator and Godfather of the Color Revolution model.”
“It would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as Eisen simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless times when foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don’t like and want to remove via extra-democratic means,” explained Dr. Beattie, a former Duke University professor, adding that the operation against Trump has nothing to do with “democracy” but everything to do with ensuring the people never “meddle in their own elections again.”
Concluding, Dr. Beattie said the facts have become clear. “By now the Color Revolution agenda against Trump should be as plain as day. Regime change professionals like McFaul, Eisen, George Kent, and others, who have refined their craft conducting color revolutions overseas, have taken it upon themselves to use the same tools, the same tactics — quite literally, the same playbook — to overthrow President Trump,” he wrote. “Yet again, same people, same playbook.”
Of course, the Deep State effort to overthrow Trump has been ongoing since he was elected. In a 2017 interview with The New American, longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone warned that the Deep State’s “Plan C,” to be implemented if the other schemes failed, was to simply kill the president. Plan A was the “Russia collusion hoax,” and Plan B was to try to declare Trump incompetent under the 25th Amendment to have him removed, Stone explained.
Numerous analysts have pointed to a 1980s interview of Soviet KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov by the John Birch Society’s G. Edward Griffin. In it, Bezmenov warned of the four stages of the takeover of the United States. It begins with demoralization and brainwashing the youth, followed by destabilizing the nation as society and civilization begin collapsing. That is followed by a major crisis. And finally, “normalization” of the new order begins, as the victims are told they must adapt to the “new normal.”
America and its liberties are in mortal danger amid the 2020 election. It has become clear that subversive forces are working to overthrow not just President Trump, but the entire constitutional order and the broader remnants of Western civilization. Foreign powers appear to be involved, too. Those who value liberty and the United States as a bastion of freedom must get involved now, or risk losing it all.
Image: Johnnyfrs/iStock/Getty Images Plus
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.