As we watch the socialist democrats get crazier and crazier, we need to be prepared. Over the next several days I will post various ideas to protect yourself and family. Subjects, water, food, and a list of the minimum you need to handle a disaster.
In the meantime, take a few moments to go to my Ready Network store and see that we can supply most of what you need to purchase that you might not already have in your home. Our prices, even at retail, beat all the competition. If you join my Ready Network team I can show you how to save even more, and steer you into creating your own side-income. Check out www.prepstore.com/battista
Ready Network can supply everything but guns, and on a very limited basis, we can refer you to a gunsmith with the legal steps to acquire weapons. However, I do not recommend buying guns unless you will take the time to learn how to use them properly!
“…mainstream right is a bit different. It’s not as well organized, for a start. The vast majority of right-of-center Americans aren’t actually very interested in politics, because they’re focused on work and family. When right-wingers do get annoyed about a political issue they’re less likely to do anything about it, for the same reason – they’re busy getting on with their lives. On the other hand, if they do get pushed hard enough that they decide to take action, they’re a lot more capable of creating some serious unrest. A lot of that is down to the simple fact that the right has more guns than the left, and tend to know how to use them.”
Editor’s Note: This article is written by Giurgi C. and does not necessarily reflect this website’s options and beliefs, but it portrays some scenarios that are likely to happen.
Prepping is a safeguard against a whole range of possible scenarios, and everyone has their own opinions about what’s most likely to happen and what would be the biggest threat. There’s one thing pretty much everyone can agree on, though, and that’s that widespread civil unrest is going to bring on a social collapse, at least in the affected areas and maybe right across the country.
Who’s likely to cause this civil unrest, though? Does anyone have the ability to throw large parts of the USA into chaos? We’ve all seen often enough how local issues can spark unrest in a neighborhood or even a small city, but could the same happen on the scale of a county, a state, the whole Midwest or Atlantic seaboard?
Yes it could, and the most likely way it’s going to happen is that some incident upsets politically active people – not just in the town where it happens, but across the state or the country – so much they decide enough is enough, and try to bring about a radical change. That’s happened hundreds of times throughout history, in all sorts of countries – and while the USA is unique in many ways, it’s not unique enough to be immune from the threat of mass civil unrest.
Experts don’t argue about whether unrest could happen in the USA. It could; that’s a done deal. What they do argue about is where it’s most likely to come from. Any part of the political spectrum can be pushed into rebellion but for that to happen to the majority who’re pretty much in the center, things really have to be bad. More usually, when unrest happens it comes from either the right or left. It doesn’t always come from people who could be labeled as extremists either – often it’s people who’re identifiable to one side of center, but not particularly hard line.
Left or Right: Who Wants to Fight?
Listen to anyone on the left and they’ll tell you that the biggest threat of civil unrest comes from heavily armed groups on the “far right” or “alt-right”. On the other hand, speak to anyone on the right and they will say that the real danger is the organized and violent flash mobs of Antifa and other “far-left” groups. Are they both correct, or is one – even both – wrong?
There’s no doubt that left and right both have extremes who’re more than willing to use violence. There aren’t a lot of them on either side though, so it’s unlikely they could directly cause widespread civil unrest. What they might be able to do is cause enough trouble to provoke a backlash from the mainstream on the other side, and that really could become civil unrest.
Thanks to the media it’s right-wing extremists who get the most attention, but in fact, their numbers are very small. There are neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups in the USA, but most of them are tiny and too disorganized to cause any serious trouble. There have been lone wolf terrorists on the American far right, with Timothy McVeigh being the most notorious. They’re sometimes capable of committing serious atrocities, but mass civil unrest is beyond them.
Left-wing extremists are more numerous, unfortunately. The largest extreme left group in the USA right now is Antifa – but, with an estimated 15,000 hardcore members, even Antifa isn’t big enough to create civil unrest at a national level. Law enforcement could put down an Antifa uprising inside a couple of days. The far left might not like that, but it’s still a fact.
The mainstream menace?
But what about the mainstream left – the tens of millions of Americans who see themselves as on the left of the spectrum, but reject extremist positions like Marxism? Could they reduce the country to chaos? Yes, they could.
Mainstream leftists don’t have the enthusiasm for violence that groups like Antifa are notorious for, but they do have an endless appetite for getting involved in causes. Any perceived “injustice”, from border control to employment policies, is likely to attract a horde of protesting lefties. Usually, nothing much happens beyond legitimate political protest, but sometimes things can get out of control.
If there’s a large protest movement, and its members feel they’re not being taken seriously, tempers can rise. If the people who’re getting angry are well enough organized this is where civil unrest can break out – and the problem is that large parts of the left are very well organized. This end of the political spectrum is closely linked to labor unions and a large, interlocking network of pressure groups; they’re very good at spreading messages, exploiting social media and getting people mobilized.
Many on the left also don’t have a lot of respect for the society we live in. They would like to see it “reformed” into something that fits their ideas better, and this attitude makes it easy for them to justify breaking the law. That’s why left-wing protests are prone to violence and looting; if everything you see around you is a symbol of oppression and inequality, it’s tempting to lash out.
The mainstream right is a bit different. It’s nothing like as well organized, for a start. The vast majority of right-of-center Americans aren’t actually very interested in politics, because they’re focused on work and family. When right-wingers do get annoyed about a political issue they’re less likely to do anything about it, for the same reason – they’re busy getting on with their lives.
On the other hand, if the right does get pushed hard enough that they decide to take action, they’re a lot more capable of creating some serious unrest. A lot of that is down to the simple fact that the right has more guns than the left, and tend to know how to use them. Any large, heavily armed, combat-effective insurgency in the USA would pretty much have to come from the right; the left just doesn’t have many people with those sort of skills.
Where’s the danger?
Both liberals and conservatives have the potential to create mass civil unrest if they decide they want to. That shouldn’t be a surprise; people are people, whatever they believe, and while some belief systems seem to encourage violence in their followers any of us can be pushed to rebellion by the right factors.
If conservatives rose up that would be more disruptive, and more dangerous to the government. Firstly, conservatives are more heavily armed; secondly, they have an inbuilt respect for law and order, so for them to start overthrowing society they have to be very angry.
Realistically, though, the political left is the main threat when it comes to civil unrest. They’re organized, they get upset easily and there are a lot of them. Most unrest in western countries is caused by leftist groups, and the USA Is just as vulnerable as anywhere else. Our citizens might be better armed to protect themselves, but mass action by the left could still tear society apart in a hurry. If that happens, all the systems we rely on in everyday life will soon fall apart across the whole area affected by the disorder – and, unless you’re prepared for that, you’re in for a pretty hard time.
You may also like:
9 Embarrassing Pics Show What’s Left After Obama Legacy Met Trump:
After Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, race relations seemed to be moving in an harmonious manner. SUDDENLY, the Obama ‘administration takes over and race relations seem to slide back more than 50 years.
9 Embarrassing Pics Show What’s Left After Obama Legacy Met Trump
What a difference an administration makes.
When President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he is pulling out of the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal, he delivered another forceful reminder of how much the American electorate changed the course of history with the results of the 2016 election.
Once the result of the election became clear, then-President Barack Obama put on a show of trying to manage a peaceful transition of power, but as the country has learned since, was engaged in a furious effort behind the scenes to undermine the Trump presidency.
That effort, in the form of special counsel Robert Mueller and the jackals of the mainstream media, has continued to this day.
Trump has already taken huge steps toward getting rid of Obama’s legacy by drastically cutting government regulations (his work on the Environmental Protection Agency alone would justify his election). His appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court has given conservatives at least a chance to save the Constitution from liberal lawfare.
And while he might not have been able to keep the promise of getting rid of Obamacare yet, the Republican tax bill he signed into law in December gutted it of its most despised feature — the individual mandate — and all but guaranteed the program will someday die an administrative death.
Still, the Obama legacy lingers. Here, with some help from the Gateway Pundit, is a look at some of the low points of the Obama administration. Some are simply forgotten, but others will be reverberating in this country for a long time to come.
The selfie stick
For all the liberals who love to accuse Trump of being self-centered, few could match the self-absorption of President Selfie Stick himself. Can anyone forget how Obama demeaned himself and his office in a BuzzFeed video that showed him mugging in a mirror and playing with a selfie stick in the Oval Office? Thanks, Obama.
Sailors captured by Iran
On a more serious note, the image of American sailors forced to their knees after being captured by Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf in January 2016 is a reminder of how shamefully weak the Obama years were.
Disgracefully, Obama actually delivered his State of the Union address for 2016 shortly after the sailors were captured — and he didn’t say a word about the incident for fear of upsetting the same precious nuclear deal that Trump shattered on Tuesday.
It’s a legacy of weakness that will take more than one Trump term to dig the country out of.
The “Beer Summit”
This July 2009 incident might well have been the beginning of the Obama administration’s eight-year attack on American law enforcement.
When Obama friend and former professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts by a white police sergeant who thought Gates was trying to break into the home, Obama wasted no time in declaring that police had “acted stupidly,” as Politico reported at the time.
While subsequent independent studies said both Gates and the officer missed opportunities to ratchet down the situation, Obama used the opportunity to put the spotlight on bad actors within in the police force.
Then there was the 2014 shooting of a black street thug named Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Extended rioting followed and spread across the country, with seemingly every violent interaction between a police officer and a black suspect being blamed on police racism.
The lie of “hands up, don’t shoot” was born in Ferguson, along with a lingering distrust between blacks and law enforcement that’s likely to be with the country for the foreseeable future.
Again, it will take more than one Trump term to erase that stain from the Obama years. But has anyone else noticed Black Lives Matter thugs have been relatively quiet since Trump took office?
One of the most disgraceful elements of Obama’s legacy will be how elements of the media covered for him to the point of actually deceiving the American public.
In 2005, when he was still the junior senator from Illinois, Obama was part of a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with Louis Farrakhan, the racist, anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam.
Although a picture was taken of the incident, Obama was never called out on it because the image itself was suppressedfor more than a decade.
When that kind of secrecy is combined with the pass Obama got on his relations with another controversial clergyman, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it doesn’t look good for the American media.
The mainstream might despise Trump, but he’s at least given the media a way not to be the boot-licking lapdogs of the party in power they had become under Obama. Today, they’re the boot-licking lapdogs of the party out of power.
NFL anthem protests
In yet another legacy of Obama’s last year in office, NFL players protesting what they consider to be injustice brought racial division to one of the last great places in American society where fans of all races could just relax and enjoy a game.
The protests started in 2016 with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and kept spreading. They nearly ruined the NFL season of 2017, and might well reappear this season.. Regardless, racial division in the sports world is another Obama legacy that will take some time to undo.
Not content with stirring up the pot of racism in the country, or even pushing homosexual marriage, the Obama administration tried to force transgender bathrooms into the country at every level, starting with its schools.
Those fights are still playing out in courtrooms across the country, and commercial businesses have learned the hard waythat millions of customers don’t like the idea of little girls and women being vulnerable to any man who wants to try to pretend he’s female just to gain entry into a women’s restroom.
But the controversy is likely to continue for presidential adminsitrations to come.
America had presidents who tried drugs before getting into politics. Bill Clinton famously “didn’t inhale” (he lied about that, too.) George W. Bush admitted having had to deal with a potential drinking problem and, according to CNN, appeared to at least coyly admit having tried marijuana and cocaine as a young man.
But Obama’s iconic “choom gang” picture from his high school years set a new standard for low-life presidential behavior.
No matter what Trump critics say about him, he’s never been in a picture as low-life as this one.
Democrats like Obama might give grudging lip service to the idea of American capitalism. Except for some embarrassing “you didn’t build that” lines, they love to talk about American small businesses.
But what they really care about, cater to and will blow taxpayer dollars on are the crony capitalist businesses their friends and donors support.
Is Trump making progress taking apart Obama’s legacy?
America learned that lesson the hard way during the first year of Obama’s presidency, when his administration guaranteed more than a half billion dollars in loans to Solyndra, a company that manufactured solar battery panels in California.Obama himself toured the plant in May 2010. By September of 2011, the company was in bankruptcy, and a half-billion dollars of taxpayer money was gone. It was one of the earliest scandals of his scandal-ridden presidency, not one of which was ever fully covered by the media.
That’s another of Obama’s legacies.
Still, whatever liberals want to say about Trump, it’s a solid bet you won’t find him squandering a half-billion taxpayer dollars, or making a photo-op out of touring a business that was little more than a sham operation getting ready to fold.
That takes a combination of corruption and ignorance that liberals specialize in. Corruption is possible in any political party. Ignorance of business is a Democrat calling card.
As Tuesday’s White House announcement showed, when the American people elected Trump, they elected a change in the direction of the country.
Some of the legacies of Obama’s wretched eight years in power are gone, others will take ages to get rid of, but the process is well and truly begun.
And what a difference and administration makes.
What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!
Ready Network/ Prep Store
Subject: The day that Albert Einstein feared has arrived!
RUSH: Oh! You know, we’ve played the sound bites here a couple or three times here, Carol — Carol — whatever. The Obama tech wizardette who claims that she succeeded in getting every Facebook user for the Obama campaign in 2012. And the New York Times wrote two or three stories about the geniuses in the Obama high-tech team that did this. And she is now adding to it. She said, “Yeah, not only did we get users, we got the entire social graph.” Do you know what the social graph is? (interruption)
You don’t. Okay, well, let me tell you what the social graph is, ’cause I guarantee you there isn’t a senator up there that knows what it is, either. When you say, as this Carol whatever her last name is… Robertson? That’s not what it is, but whenever you hear her say that they got the social graph, the whole social graph, that means they got every user and every user’s known friends. That’s what the social graph is.
The social graph is not just Hoovering up the data of every user. It’s also Hoovering up the data of every friend that every user has. And she’s out there bragging that they pulled this off. Well, yesterday I think Zuckerberg denied this. You know, she’s saying that Facebook found out about it, because, after the election, Facebook came to the Obama high-tech team and started recruiting. They wanted to find people they could hire, ’cause the Obama tech team was filled with a bunch of geniuses. The New York Times said so.
And the Facebook team shows up and this Obama high-tech babe, Carol, says, “Yeah, they came in and they tried to hire and they marveled at what we had done — and they didn’t stop us because they said they were ‘on our side,’” meaning Facebook was for Obama in 2012. Of course, no mystery about that. I think Zuckerberg tried to deny this yesterday. “Nah-nah-nah-nah. That didn’t happen. We’re not on anybody’s side,” and so forth and so on. I think it…
Maybe it was Steve Scalise had brought it up, but it took two days for this example to even be brought up and asked of Zuckerberg. To me, it’s question No. 1. You got the Obama tech team wizardette bragging that they were able to suck up every user’s data in the 2012 campaign and utilize it for targeted advertising and voter outreach and what have you. The New York Times is writing stories on what a bunch of geniuses these people are and what a genius Obama is for hiring them.
To me, that’s question No. 1. But we’re talking about user privacy and user agreements and so forth. And it’s rooted, I think, in a lack of understanding on the part of elected officials about the tech itself. I’m not talking about Facebook policy but rather just the technological things that make it all possible. For example, Zuckerberg was repeatedly asked why Facebook cannot prevent hate speech and why can’t Facebook identify and deny service to hate groups. Now, you want to talk about bizarre.
You know, hate speech and hate groups to me are as specious as the concept of a hate crime. Let’s say you go out there and you murder somebody. Okay. We’ve got laws saying you can’t do it — and if you do it with premeditation, you’re going to jail, probably for life. You might even get the electric chair. But now we’ve added to it, that if you hated the person you killed because you’re a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe then we can really lower the boom on you.
Purely politics. Hate crime? That’s nothing more than the left taking control of the language and trying to structure degrees of crime based on prejudice that they want to stamp out. Same with hate speech. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are somehow supposed to stop hate speech? And you have members of Congress asking why Facebook cannot prevent hate speech and hate groups?
There are billions of users on Facebook, and these senators want to know why Zuckerberg can’t prevent that kind of stuff? Okay. Turn it around. Why can’t the government prevent crime and hate in a country of a few hundred million people? I mean, why can’t you guys write laws that get rid of hate? If you want Zuckerberg or social media to get rid of it, why don’t you write laws yourselves and get rid of it? It can’t be done.
Because it’s a manufactured state of mind that is entirely subjective based on what a bunch of screwball liberals thinks. Hate crime, hate groups. It’s nothing more than a new form of censorship. Here come these members of Congress asking about it because they think that this is what the American people’s genuine concerns are because they think that the Drive-By Media is representing a majority of people’s opinions in this country, which isn’t the case, as you know.
RUSH: Here’s Steve Scalise yesterday talking to Zuckerberg about Carol Davidsen bragging about all the stuff they got from Facebook for Obama.
SCALISE: In 2008 and 2012, there was also a lot of this done. One of the lead digital — or heads of the Obama campaign said recently, “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. They came to office in the days following election recruiting and were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.” That’s a direct quote from one of the heads of the Obama digital team. What would she mean by “they,” Facebook, “were on our side”?
ZUCKERBERG: Congressman, we didn’t allow the Obama campaign to do anything that any developer on the platform wouldn’t have otherwise been able to do.
SCALISE: So she was making an inaccurate statement, in your point of view?
RUSH: Special treatment’s not what this is! He obfuscated the answer there. Hang on.
RUSH: Now, Steve Scalise is the member of Congress who just asked Zuckerberg the question about Carol Davidsen bragging that they were able to get everybody, everybody and their friends on the Obama campaign for data mining to pair up advertising and other manipulative suggestive things to get people to vote for Obama, just like the so-called Russians did for Trump. Everybody does. The Russians were pikers at it, by the way, but I don’t want to distract myself here.
Steve Scalise is the Republican who was shot by a deranged leftist during baseball practice for an upcoming game between Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives. The guy who pulled the trigger, the guy who was trying to kill Republican members of Congress had a long list of leftist hate groups on his Facebook page that he was recommending, that he was suggesting, that he was liking. And they are still there.
All of these hate groups that this clown that tried to kill Scalise and others, this deranged Democrat from Illinois, the hate groups, they’re still there. But we’re told there isn’t any hate on the left. No, no, no, no. The hate, the hate exists only on the right. The hate exists only in the Alt-Right. The hate only exists on Fox News. But on the left, there is nothing more than utopian love.
I’m sorry here, but I’ve gotta contradict Zuckerberg. These guys doing the questioning, I don’t think they are sufficiently informed on all of this. ‘Cause here, ladies and gentlemen is what happened. Zuckerberg said in this sound bite, “Congressman, we didn’t allow the Obama campaign to do anything that any developer on the platform wouldn’t have otherwise been able to do. No special treatment.”
Zuckerberg said, “The Obama campaign didn’t get anything that anybody else could get.” Well, that is the exact opposite of what Carol Davidsen said. She’s the Obama tech wizardette. She said the GOP did not have the access that Obama’s campaign did. And you know what else? She said that ultimately she didn’t think that was fair, but she did it anyway because all’s fair in love and politics.
But she pointed out — and we’ve played that aspect of her sound bite on previous programs — she says the GOP didn’t have the access that Obama’s campaign did. She said back in 2015 (paraphrasing), “The Republicans do not have that information and will not get that information. I’m a Democrat, so maybe I could argue that’s a great thing, but really it’s not in the overall process. That wasn’t thought all the way through and now there’s a disadvantage of information that to me seems unfair. But I’m not Facebook. And if the advantage extends to me in politics, I’m gonna take it.”
She’s making it perfectly clear that Facebook did facilitate what they were doing and that Facebook was on their side. And if she’s saying the Republicans didn’t get anything, didn’t have the access that Obama’s campaign did, what does that mean? If the Republicans didn’t have the access the Obama campaign did, then somebody at Facebook had to know it and okay the access for the Democrats, but to deny it elsewhere.
But Zuckerberg said (imitating Zuckerberg), “Oh, no, no, no. Congressman, we didn’t allow the Obama campaign to do anything.” The Obama campaign was heavily recruited. These wizards of smart in the Obama tech team were recruited. Facebook went and met with them at Obama campaign headquarters after the election.
So I thought that was probably one of the most important areas to explore with Zuckerberg. Rather than go at it generically with hate speech and fairness here and there, you’ve got an actual real-world example where the Obama high-tech titan is bragging about the advantage they had because Facebook knew what they were doing and was on their side. And, by the way, why deny that? Because everybody knows Facebook’s a bunch of leftists. Because everybody knows that Silicon Valley is a bunch of leftists.
RUSH: I need to get back to the phones here. We’ve got somebody who thinks that I was wrong. That’s so rare, we put these guys to the top of the call roster. This one is Greg. He’s in Newport Beach, California. I’m so glad you called. How are you?
CALLER: Good. Thank you, Rush. Mark Zuckerberg’s answer to Steve Scalise about the access that Facebook gave the Republicans versus the Democrats? He actually answered correctly because what he had done… In Mark Zuckerberg’s answer, he compared the access that they gave to the Democrats as access that they gave to not Republicans, but to developers. As we all know, if you know anything about this, the developers have a completely different access level than, say, a third party, as in the Republicans. So they did give the Democrats and developers the exact same access. So he didn’t answer correctly… He didn’t answer untruthful, but he completely miscalculated or obfuscated and made it sound like they were giving exactly the same access, and his answer was, they did not. That’s all.
RUSH: Well, I must say the caller here is mostly correct, and the reason that he’s right is precisely because of his comments on the developer side, and I misread — therefore misinterpreted — what Carol Davidsen’s comments were. Let me… Greg, thanks for the call. You can listen to my ‘splanation here on the radio. She’s talking about the fact that they Hoovered up all of the Facebook user data and the social graph, and they do it as developers. She said, “That freaks Facebook out, right?”
She’s admitting Facebook was freaked out by what the Obama campaign did, but they didn’t shut it down while they were doing it. After they finished, after the campaign Facebook shuts off the feature, and she says that. So they shut off the feature. “Well, the Republicans never built an app to do what we did,” meaning the Republican developers did not write an app like the Obama developers wrote an app to Hoover all the data.
And her point is, she goes on to say that it wasn’t… She at times didn’t think it was fair, but so what? The Republicans could have written an app, but they didn’t. The Obama team did, and she said, “The Republicans do not have that information, and they won’t get that information,” and she says, “Now that’s a disadvantage of information that to me seems unfair, but I’m not Facebook, so this is the reality.”
And Zuckerberg was asked by Scalise if Facebook had favored the Obama campaign in this, and Zuckerberg said no special treatment. “We didn’t allow the Obama campaign to do anything that any developer on the platform wouldn’t have otherwise been able to do.” And technically, that is correct. His answer still makes it look like that they were siding with the Democrats. But I guess here the bottom line here is that Democrats had developers that wrote the app that Hoovered the data.
Facebook found out about it and didn’t stop them while they were doing it, which is why Carol Davidsen said the Facebook people showed up and said, “We didn’t stop you because you’re on our side.” Zuckerberg is denying that. But Carol Davidsen says, “No, the Facebook people showed up to recruit some of us after the campaign and they told us they didn’t shut us down because they were on our side.” The Republicans didn’t develop an app to soak up that data, and they weren’t told that the Democrats were doing it.
Zuckerberg’s point is, had the Republicans written an app, they could have. If they had a developer who wanted to write the app, suck data out of Facebook, they could have done it too. So we’re left here with the idea that the Obama campaign was simply smarter and once the Facebook people found out about it, they didn’t stop it. They shut off this ability of developers to write apps to Hoover Facebook data after the election, which mean they found out about it and let the Obama team do it.
And of course, they weren’t gonna tell the Republicans, “Hey, look what the Democrats are doing over here,” because they were on the Democrat side in all of it.
“FBI Probe Into Clinton Emails Prompted Offer of Cash, Citizenship for Confession, Russian Hacker Claims,” by Tom O’Connor, Newsweek, May 11, 2017:
“A Russian citizen accused of being a hacker by both Russia and the U.S. has claimed U.S. officials offered to cut him a deal if he admitted to interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
“Yevgeniy Nikulin, 29, has found himself in the middle of an international dispute between Washington and Moscow, at the very center of which lies U.S. allegations that Russia sponsored a series of hacks targeting Democratic Party candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in favor of Republican candidate and current President Donald Trump. On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an infiltration of Democratic Party officials’ emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried to pin the email scandal on him.”
THE COMEY AND MCCABE CAPER! by Al Battista
Their bribary and sedition is worthy of prison! There maybe a few other scum sucking, reptilian DEEP STATE SWAMP DWELLERS at the FBI, but my gut tells me most agents are decent, honorable men and women!
The decent agents need to step up and tell what they know, and if their knowledge doesn’t quite bring the criminals to justice, a little investigating will do it! After all, they don’t have to travel! The criminals are working in the same buildings, with offices next door to the decent agent! IF we find out the entire FBI is corrupt, we are in for a MAJOR BATTLE! I can’t believe they are all swamp scum!
Regardless, you DEEP STATE Reptiles better realize we will not let you take down our CONSTITUTIONALLY ELECTED president! Like you, we are well armed, and the majority of active duty and reservists are on the side of President Trump and his followers. We old veterans stand with our younger brothers and sisters in arms. We might not be able to move like we used to, but we are capable of doing a lot of damage if you do not reconsider your stupid seditious actions!
IT IS TIME FOR THE HONEST PEOPLE AT THE FBI, CIA AND OTHER AGENCIES TO STEP FORWARD AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP!
HERE IS THE FULL ARTICLE:
While the criminal witch hunt against our President continues apace over the nonexistent collusion between Trump with Russia, here’s a blockbuster front page news story virtually ignored by the elite media. The FBI offered a Russian hacker cash and citizenship if he would confess to hacking Hillary Clinton’s email for Trump. There was just one problem: he hadn’t.
These rogue Obama plants within the FBI and other agencies, who are even trying to fabricate evidence to frame Trump, must be removed and prosecuted, or they could be the death of the American republic.
A Russian citizen accused of being a hacker by both Russia and the U.S. has claimed U.S. officials offered to cut him a deal if he admitted to interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
Yevgeniy Nikulin, 29, has found himself in the middle of an international dispute between Washington and Moscow, at the very center of which lies U.S. allegations that Russia sponsored a series of hacks targeting Democratic Party candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in favor of Republican candidate and current President Donald Trump. On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an infiltration of Democratic Party officials’ emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried to pin the email scandal on him.
Nikulin was detained in the Czech Republic for allegedly hacking the servers of major sites LinkedIn, Dropbox and Formspring between 2012 and 2013. While awaiting trial, he claims in an undated letter reportedly given to U.S. Russian-language news site Nastoyashchoe Vremya by Nikulin’s lawyer, Martin Sadilek, that the FBI visited him at least a couple of times, offering to drop the charges and grant him U.S. citizenship as well as cash and an apartment in the U.S. if the Russian national confessed to participating in the 2016 hacks of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta’s emails in July.
Trump initially dismissed allegations of Russian involvement in the election, but has since reversed his position, while denying any personal connection to the hacks. Moscow has vehemently denied interfering in the 2016 election.
“[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Nikulin wrote, according to The Moscow Times.
Nikulin said he refused the deal, but U.S. officials threatened to return. He claims the visits occurred in mid-November 2016 and on February 7 of this year. Czech television has reported at least one FBI visit earlier this year, according to The Guardian, which cited an FBI spokesperson as saying the agency was “aware of the situation,” but declining further comment. The FBI is seeking to extradite Nikulin to face trial in the U.S., something he and his lawyers are trying to fight.
While the U.S. has not publicly acknowledged any connection between Nikulin and the Russian election hacking controversy, Nikulin’s arrest did attract the attention of Moscow. Nikulin is accused by Russia of hacking into and stealing from online WebMoney accounts. The Moscow-based online money transfer system claims 31 million users around the world and Nikulin is charged with stealing $3,450 in 2009, according to the state-owned Tass Russian News Agency. Moscow has also filed an extradition request.
Nikulin, a self-described used car salesman who claims he does not work with computers, denies the charges raised against him by both the U.S. and Moscow. His Czech lawyer, Adam Kopecky, said in January he and Nikulin believed the Russian national was being used as a “political pawn” amid an international feud between Washington and Moscow, according to The Guardian….
Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller
WHAT IF THEY LEFT
Considering the Denver Post is a very liberal paper I’m surprised they published this. This really shows how the hiring of illegal’s is a false economic practice.
Tina Griego is a Free-Lance reporter for the Denver Post. She writes some really good stuff and she is a strong advocate for LEGAL Immigration homework on issues is part of her make-up and fabric ..
What if they left?
Somebody really did their homework on this one. Best on the subject to date. It does not have a political slant to it, it’s just the facts: Not Democratic, not Republican, not liberal and not conservative.
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?
I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, “Mexican Visitor’s Lament.”
I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, “Illegal aliens pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes. What happens to your country’s economy if 20 million people go away?”
Hmmm, I thought, what would happen?
So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below.
It’s a good question… it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!
In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.
In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grandchildren would move back “home,” mostly to Mexico. That would save Colorado an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs.
It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver’s 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.
In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned ‘home,’ the U.S. economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn’t be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.
No more push ‘1’ for Spanish or ‘2’ for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.
In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the ‘ 18th Street Gang’ would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!
America ‘s economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn’t return to the aliens’ home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America’s economy which currently suffers a $20 trillion debt. $20 trillion debt!!!
At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Flo rida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
Americans wouldn’t suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country – brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the ‘progressives’ on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of our greenhouse gases.
Over one million of Mexico’s poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, in what the New York Times called, ‘colonias’ or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta w here grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads, electricity, or any kind of sanitation.
The New York Times reported them to be America’s new ‘ Third World ‘ inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I’ve seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it’s sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)
By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally annually, more than all other countries combined. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.
It’s time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life. Interesting Statistics!
Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:
1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens (that’s Billion with a ‘B’)
3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English
5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars ‘PER DAY’ is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That’s $1.2 Billion a year.
7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S from the southern border.
12. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.
14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States!
Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! $46 billion is 8.5% of $538 billion!!!!!
PLEASE CHECK OUT OUR ADS:
- A great investment for HARD TIMES or Camping- https://readynetwork.com/battista
2. Get your free Gold account: http://www.abundantgoldmine.com
Reagan inherited a terrible economy from Jimmy Carter. Bush left a terrible economy for Obama, even thought Bush warned Congress multiple times to fix it, and the democrats in congress refused to heed the warnings! So what, old news! True, but let’s look at the terrible things Obama left for Trump to clear up (including an economy that still hasn’t reached the level prior to the 2008 Housing Bubble Crash)!
As President Obama’s term ends, what are the results of his eight years in the White House?
- Chinese, Russian, Iranian aggression increased
- In response to President Obama’s policies of reducing American military spending, and pulling back on military deployments overseas (he unilaterally withdrew all U.S. tanks from Europe, a move he was later to force to partially rescind due to the Kremlin’s aggression) China, Russia, Iran, and terrorists became more militant and active. In the largest military effort on European soil since the end of World War 2, Moscow invaded the Ukraine. There was no significant American response. Now Russia has adopted a more threatening posture towards other European nations.
- Similarly, when China invaded the Philippine economic zone, the White House didn’t even lodge a diplomatic protest.
China now regularly engages in lawless activities.
- After eliminating sanctions on Iran in return for its limited and unverifiable promise not to develop nuclear weapons for the next few years, Tehran has become far more belligerent at sea and in its development of missile technology.
- Following the President’s premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, ISIS was able to grow to enormous size.
2. Nuclear proliferation spreading
Using similar logic and tactics that failed to rein in North Korea’s nuclear program, the results of the fatally flawed Iran nuclear agreement have resulted in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In Asia, America’s decreased position has made regional nations seriously consider the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
- Relations with allies deteriorated
Washington’s relations with the United Kingdom were intentionally downgraded almost immediately after Mr. Obama took office. Antimissile agreements with Poland were pulled back. American support for Israel was reversed. The White House encouraged the ouster of a pro-western regime in Egypt in favor of Islamic extremists. The Anti-Islamic extremist government in Libya was overthrown with American assistance, for reasons that remain unclear. The Philippines were abandoned to their fate with the Chinese Navy.
- Loss of US nuclear supremacy
The New START Treaty gave Moscow, for the first time in history, a lead in nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama failed to support urgently needed modernization of America’s nuclear deterrent.
- US armed forces demoralized and diminished
In addition to reducing the budget for the U.S. military, the outgoing president initiated personnel moves, including the forced retirement of key personnel both in command and enlisted positions, diminishing and demoralizing the armed forces.
- Afghanistan about to be lost
In a rejection of common-sense military strategy, Mr. Obama announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan. Rejecting long-standing U.S. policy, he opened up negotiations with the Taliban terrorists, who stand poised to retake control.
- Middle East descent into chaos
The President’s premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq created a vacuum that allowed ISIS and other terrorists groups to gain power. The resulting chaos has allowed both Iran and Russia to become the major power brokers in the region.
- Integrity of key branches of government seriously compromised
Both the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service became involved in partisan political squabbles, essentially serving as enforcers for leftist causes. Significant control of the Environmental Protection Agency was given to nonelected, non-appointed partisans.
- Race relations at lowest point in half a century
Mr. Obama, as America’s first black president, had a unique opportunity to bring the nation together. Instead, he fanned the flames of racial tension.
- Middle class devastated
The Pew Research Center reveals that “The American middle class is losing ground in metropolitan areas across the country, affecting communities from Boston to Seattle and from Dallas to Milwaukee. From 2000 to 2014 the share of adults living in middle-income households fell in 203 of the 229 U.S. metropolitan areas examined in a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data. The decrease in the middle-class share was often substantial, measuring 6 percentage points or more in 53 metropolitan areas, compared with a 4-point drop nationally. The shrinking of the middle class at the national level, to the point where it may no longer be the economic majority in the U.S., was documented in an earlier analysis by the Pew Research Center. The changes at the metropolitan level, the subject of this in-depth look at the American middle class, demonstrate that the national trend is the result of widespread declines in localities all around the country.” The reason for the recent decline of the U.S. middle class and the general weakness in the U.S. economy is not the result of a cyclical downturn in business, or the bursting of a bubble. It is not a reflection of the 2007—2009 recession. It is the specific result of federal tax and spending practices which ignore the needs of the private sector, and redirects federal dollars away from essential needs such as economic growth, defense and infrastructure and towards entitlements (but NOT Social Security of Medicare.)
- Decent paying jobs slashed
The president’s policies served to discourage the private sector from hiring or retaining full time employees. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which excluded employees working under 30 hours a week from employer coverage was a major factor.
- Health care system damaged
The financial structure of Obamacare never was realistic, a fact that even its architect, Jonathon Gruber, subsequently admitted. Now the nation must undo the damage done.
- Vast increase in national debt with nothing to show for it
The national debt has nearly doubled since the President took office. There is, unfortunately, almost nothing to show for all that spending. America’s infrastructure needs remain unaddressed, the military is underfunded, poverty rates haven’t dropped, the middle class is struggling, and more businesses are closing than opening.
- Constitution damaged
Mr. Obama famously announced that he “Couldn’t wait for Congress to act,” even though he was legally required to work with them. He violated provisions of the Constitution mandating Senate approval of key international moves, using the technique of labelling international deals as “agreements” instead of “treaties.”
- Contagious diseases reintroduced through lax border control
The President clearly remained disinterested in limiting illegal immigration. One result of Lax controls on the border was the re-introduction of contagious diseases that had long ago been eradicated in the U.S. A Breitbart report noted: “A February 2015 report of the Southern Medical Association cautioned that, since none of the 700,000 illegal entries have been screened for infectious diseases, “Illegal immigration may expose Americans to diseases that have been virtually eradicated but are highly contagious, as in the case of TB.” The association concluded that despite the efforts of the CDC, “There’s a growing health concern over illegal immigrants bringing infectious diseases into the United States.”
- Black poverty at epidemic levels
A Townhall and Gateway Pundit analysis reveals: What about poverty? In 2009, when Obama took office, the black poverty rate was 25.8 percent. As of 2014, according to Pew Research Center, the black poverty rate was 27.2 percent. What about income? CNNMoney says, “Minority households’ median income fell 9 percent between 2010 and 2013, compared to a drop of only 1 percent for whites.” The Financial Times wrote last October: “Since 2009, median non-white household income has dropped by almost a 10th to $33,000 a year, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances. As a whole, median incomes fell by 5 percent. But by the more telling measure of net wealth — assets minus liabilities — the numbers offer a more troubling story.” What about net worth and the black-white “wealth gap”? The Financial Times said: “The median non-white family today has a net worth of just $18,100 — almost a fifth lower than it was when Mr. Obama took office.”
- Internet oversight passed to nations that believe in censorship
For reasons that have yet to be made public, President Obama transferred control of a key portion of the internet out of American hands and into those of an international body comprised of many members who believe in censorship. He did so in clear defiance of Congress, which had prohibited the use of any funds being spent for the purpose.
- law enforcement discredited
In unprecedented fashion, President Obama has consistently criticized police officers every time a potentially racially-tinged event occurred. He has done so even before all the facts are clear. In a FOX interview, Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clark Jr., who is black, stated: “war had been declared on the American police officer led by some high profile people, one of them coming out of the White House, and one coming out of the United States Department of Justice…”
- Nation more divided than at any time since the civil war
In July, the Washington Post noted “The sense that America is more divided than it used to be is backed by hard data. There’s been a sharp spike in the contempt that partisans express for their opponents, according to Pew Research Center polling. More than 4 in 10 Democrats and Republicans say the other party’s policies are so misguided that they pose a threat to the nation.” During his time in office, the President engaged in the rough and tumble “Chicago Way” politics, using government facilities for partisan purposes and ignoring the considerations and ideas of those he disagreed with.
- Manned space program in hibernation
President Obama prematurely ended the Space Shuttle program, then eliminated what had been scheduled to replace it as America’s manned space effort. He changed NASA’s budgetary focus from human exploration to endeavors mean.t to bolster his climate change beliefs.
Originally published on New York Analysis of Policy and Government.