Trump Signals Change in Tone for Police From Obama

President Donald Trump told the nation’s largest police union his administration will “always have your back,” a departure from what many police organizations say they felt about the previous administration.

The Fraternal Order of Police visited the White House Tuesday. Many police organizations criticized the Obama administration for being quick to criticize the officers after a police shooting before knowing all the facts.

Trump met with nine police union officials from across the country, and was joined by Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, where he asserted “there is nobody braver” than law enforcement, and thanked them for their endorsement in last year’s election.

“I made a crucial pledge,” Trump told the police officials. “We will always support the incredible men and women of law enforcement. I will always have your back 100 percent.”

Such words from a president mean a lot, noted Scott Erickson, president of Americans in Support of Law Enforcement.

Erickson wasn’t part of the meeting, but asserted this first formal meeting with Trump and the Fraternal Order of Police marks a change in tone.

“Public perception of police is slowly improving for two reasons,” Erickson, who was a police officer in San Jose, California, for 18 years, told The Daily Signal. “People got burnt out on the negativity, hearing the worst about cops. Two years ago, it hit a new low. Last year, approval for cops spiked. But what top government officials were saying filtered down to public discourse about cops. That is changing.”

During his presidency, Barack Obama verbally criticized several police departments, asserting in July 2009 that the Cambridge Police Department “acted stupidly,” when an officer stopped a Harvard professor outside his home. In December 2012, after winning re-election, Obama said some local police departments “are not trying to root out bias.”

In July 2016, after shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana, Obama said while in Warsaw, Poland, “These are not isolated incidents, they are symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.”

That same month, during a memorial service for five slain police officers in Dallas, Obama talked about racial disparities in law enforcement, saying, “When all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we can’t just simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.”

These were the types of comments that framed the description of police officers, Erickson said. That seems to have changed with a new president, according to Erickson.

“Police no longer feel they are going to have an administration casting a skeptical eye on them before all of the facts are in,” Erickson said.

On Feb. 9, Trump signed three executive orders to back law enforcement. The first stated the federal government is on the side of federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement. The second established a task force for reducing crime, and the third created a separate task force to determine the best way to take on transnational criminal organizations and drug cartels.

During his meeting with police Tuesday, Trump said that police must be empowered to keep the public safe.

“Sadly, our police are often prevented from doing their jobs,” Trump said. “In too many of our communities, violent crime is on the rise. These are painful realities that many in Washington don’t want to talk about. We have seen it all over.”

Trump noted, “I always ask, ‘What’s going on in Chicago?’”

Dean Angelo, president of Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, was among those who met with the president. After the meeting, the Chicago Tribune reported Angelo said, “I just mentioned that the police officers want to work, and that [they] need people to support police officers to go back to work so they can work toward stemming the violence in our city.”

Trump referenced during the meeting that Sessions on Monday talked about withholding Justice Department grants from cities that don’t cooperate with federal law enforcement on immigration, commonly known as sanctuary cities.

Fraternal Order of Police National President Chuck Canterbury said the organization backed the president on cracking down on sanctuary cities.

“We believe in enforcing the laws of the country of the United States,” Canterbury told reporters after the meeting, according to the Tribune. “We believe that sanctuary city status is not a good thing for America. We support the president on his sanctuary city initiative.” (For more from the author of “Trump Signals Change in Tone for Police From Obama” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump Looks to Rebound With Tax Reform

The White House sees the possibility of broad support for tax reform, and an opportunity for President Donald Trump to take up an issue that hasn’t advanced in three decades—fresh off a legislative defeat Friday on replacing Obamacare.

“It’s been 30 years. We have an economy that has evolved, especially in the technology area that has made a lot of things change, and I think our tax code is outdated,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Monday. “Frankly, on the business side, we are uncompetitive. There is a reason companies are leaving America to go to other places.”

The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate of any country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the 34 most industrialized nations in the world.

After 2013 tax increases, small business owners can pay a top federal income tax rate of 39.6 percent, and an additional 3.8 percent investment surtax that became law as part of Obamacare. The 2013 deal also pushes the top federal tax rate on small business income to 43.4 percent.

Large corporations actually pay a lower federal tax rate of 35 percent, according to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation.

Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan had argued that a failure to pass Republican leadership’s American Health Care Act would inhibit achievement of tax reform. As it turned out, conservatives successfully opposed the bill for not fully repealing Obamacare.

“We will probably be going right now for tax reform, which we could have done earlier, but this really would have worked out better if we could have had some Democrat support,” Trump said Friday after the collapse of the health care bill.

After Ryan pulled the GOP health care bill for lack of enough Republican votes, the Trump administration reportedly is looking past conservative Republicans in Congress to try to build a coalition of centrist Democrats to pass tax reform.

Republicans for years have sought to reform a long, complicated tax code, simplifying it both to lower rates and to make compliance cheaper. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission also called for simplifying the code to reduce deductions.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said over the weekend, referring to Republicans and the health care bill: “They’re going to repeat the same mistake they made on Trumpcare with tax reform.”

Bipartisanship isn’t likely, said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

But Norquist said tax reform will have to come without the $1 trillion in tax cuts that were part of the scuttled House GOP’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, which he supported.

A bill would have to be crafted to pass with a simple majority in the 100-member Senate to prevent a Democratic filibuster, he said.

“It is still possible to have some tax reform, but it would have to be with 51 votes in the Senate,” Norquist told The Daily Signal. “There aren’t eight Democratic votes for it.”

Norquist said he sees three likely options at this point: One, though unlikely, would be to redo the health care bill to cut the $1 trillion in taxes.

The second option would be a “watered down” proposal cutting the top corporate tax rate to 28 percent, rather than 20 percent as Republicans in Congress have proposed. The third option would be to go big on tax reform—or push for the entire House GOP proposal—but make the cuts temporary, “sunsetting” in 10 years, to win over moderate votes.

House Republicans’ “Better Way” blueprint for tax reform would produce the lowest marginal tax rates since the 1920s.

The top individual rate would drop from 43.4 percent to 33 percent. The top rate for corporations would drop from 35 percent to 20 percent, and the top rate for small businesses would drop from 43.4 percent to 25 percent.

The Tax Foundation, a conservative-leaning tax research and advocacy group, estimates the House plan would grow the economy by 9.1 percent over 10 years, while reducing revenue by $191 billion.

Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., together have introduced a tax reform proposal, and Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have introduced separate plans.

The Trump proposal most likely would try to follow the House blueprint, said Adam Michel, an economic policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation.

“I hope Republican leadership learned a little bit from the health care bill about building consensus among members,” Michel told The Daily Signal, adding:

It will be about simplifying corporate and individual rates, and simplifying and eliminating some deductions. The Obama administration supported lowering corporate rates and eliminating deductions at one point, so there is at least theoretically some bipartisan support.

Michel, however, said he doesn’t anticipate there will be bipartisan support for the bill in the current political climate.

Congressional Democrats appear ready to oppose Trump on everything except, perhaps, a proposal to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. (For more from the author of “Trump Looks to Rebound With Tax Reform” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Ex-Asst FBI Director: Disgraceful “Fifth Column” at War With Trump, Threatens Rule of Law

A former assistant FBI director during the President Bill Clinton administration lashed out on the felonious intelligence community leaks, saying it is “disgusting” and “disgraceful” a “fifth column” is embedded working against President Donald Trump.

“From time to time there’s been leaks, but nothing like today,” James Kallstrom told Sunday’s “The Cats Roundtable” on 970 AM-N.Y. “We have a fifth column that’s marching strong against our president, marching strong against our culture and the American way. “And it is just disgusting.”

Kallstrom said the surveillance of President Trump’s campaign – whether it was lawful or not – should have been “shut down” when it incidentally captured American citizens, but “political appointments at high levels” have worked to discredit President Trump.

“I hope there is an investigation, and I hope we get to the bottom of it,” Kallstrom told host John Catsimatidis. “How many people had that information? Where was it disseminated? Who made the decision to release the names of American citizens?

“We need to get to the bottom of it and get to the bottom of it quickly. And that’s not a political thing. It doesn’t matter what party you’re from. This is about America and the rule of law.” (Read more from “Ex-Asst FBI Director: Disgraceful “Fifth Column” at War With Trump, Threatens Rule of Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Aerial view of the Pentagon, Arlington, VA

Why the Deep State Is Gunning for President Trump

According to some, the “Deep State” is just another conspiracy theory. It’s hard to prove claims about unelected and unaccountable officials in government and intelligence agencies. They operate in secret. In another sense, however, the Deep State is an obvious — and troubling — fact.

The president and those whom he appoints and we elect are but the tip of a deep iceberg. Below them sits a huge pyramid of bureaucracies and civil servants. The federal government is the largest employer in America.

But whom does this army of civil servants serve? They’re supposed to serve the American people. Too often, it seems, they put party loyalty above that.

Deep State Functionaries Give 90 Percent to Democrats

What party is that? Here’s a clue: federal employees working in 14 agencies donated $2 million to the recent presidential campaign. Of that 95 percent went to Hilary Clinton. No surprise that 99 percent of donations from State Department employees went to Clinton. But Department of Agriculture employee donations also went 99 percent to Clinton. So did gifts from Department of Education employees (99.7 percent) and Department of Labor employees (99.4 percent). Department of Justice workers contributed 97 percent. IRS employees gave 94 percent.

The State Department winked at Clinton’s use of her private server to handle classified information. You don’t need a conspiracy theory to see why. When the Justice Department exonerates Clinton, there’s no mystery there. The people who make these decisions, and the lower-level people who back them up, are all Clintonites. That is to say, left-leaning Democrats. They don’t take their cues from the American people or from the Constitution. They do what the Democratic Party wants.

By any reading of the statute, Clinton clearly violated the Espionage Act. Not once, but thousands of times. Her actions clearly compromised national security. Foreign powers surely could access her communications. Nevertheless, for the Deep State Democrats, party loyalty trumped national security. So she wasn’t prosecuted.

Obama Stuffed the Pentagon with His Followers

But how about the security agencies themselves? If you believe what you see in the movies, military top brass are all rock-ribbed conservatives. Yet Defense Department employees contributed 84 percent to Clinton. Homeland Security workers donated 90 percent. The figures suggest that the people in charge of our nation’s security are mostly rock-ribbed Democrats.

This partisan edge may explain why President Trump is having a tough time with some of his security appointments. General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Advisor, subscribes to the Obama-era fantasy that terror has nothing to do with Islam. General James Mattis, Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense, seems to be picking his own appointees from Hillary’s discarded wishlist.

Mattis’ choice of Anne Patterson for undersecretary of defense for policy is particularly disturbing. This is the fourth most powerful position in the Pentagon. During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Patterson was Ambassador to Egypt. She was also an ardent supporter of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even after General El-Sisi turned the Brotherhood out of power, she lobbied to have them reinstated. According to Raymond Ibrahim, she was widely known in Egypt as the “Brotherhood stooge.” She “was arguably one of the most hated individuals by the millions of Egyptians who took to the streets against Morsi and the Brotherhood.” One senior Republican foreign policy advisor told the Washington Free Beacon:

Anne Patterson is the embodiment of the Obama administration’s failed approach to the Middle East … it’s beyond irresponsible to put her in charge of the Pentagon’s policy apparatus.

Mattis has since withdrawn Patterson’s name under pressure from the White House. But why did he pick her in the first place? Some say that the choice of McMaster and Mattis was just poor judgment. Maybe. Or maybe there aren’t that many good people to choose from. Trump needs candidates who are competent and can be confirmed swiftly by the Senate. Mattis’s quick confirmation suggests that the Democrats weren’t too worried about his policy views.

Could Mattis have been steeped too long in the culture of Obama’s Pentagon? Was he surrounded by people who couldn’t see a problem with the Muslim Brotherhood? During his eight year tenure, Obama replaced several hundred generals and admirals. He put in people who would go along with his anti-win policy. While Obama was gutting the Pentagon’s budget, he was also busy weeding out all those rock-ribbed patriotic types.

Are Iran’s Stooges Setting Our Foreign Policy?

Too many government agencies are top-heavy with liberals. That will make it extremely hard for the new administration to make a fresh start. The Deep State is stuffed with holdovers from the Obama administration who are committed to his failed policies.

A prime example is Sahar Nowrouzzadeh. She formerly worked for the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC). That’s a lobbying group for the Islamic Republic of Iran. She also served as the Iran Director for President Obama’s National Security Council. Experts call her one of the architects of the suicidal Iran nuclear deal. You’d think that the new administration would want to cut her out of the loop.

Yet Nowrouzzadeh is now in charge of Iran policy for the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff. She got this position in 2016. Recently, a high-ranking official of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps boasted about a “guerrilla movement” of Iranian agents who work and live in the United States. But with people like Nowrouzzadeh working at State, they need hardly have bothered.

The Travel Ban Was Nixed by an Obama Crony

And then there are the courts. Federal judges might be expected to keep the Deep State in check. But some of them act more like partisan functionaries. A case in point is Judge Derrick Kahala Watson. He was appointed as a U.S district court judge in Honolulu by fellow Hawaiian and Harvard Law classmate Barack Obama. Judge Watson issued a restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban. He didn’t cite legal grounds. So what was his argument? During the campaign, Trump had used heated rhetoric when speaking of Muslims.

The purpose of the travel ban is to protect Americans from radical Islam. The judiciary, in contrast, seems determined to put Americans at risk. The law itself is solidly on the side of the president. The president is empowered by 8 U.S. Code 1182 to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” whose entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Alas, the lawyer left is not interested in the law. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes, “There is no way of crafting an order restricting immigration from Muslim countries that will satisfy them.” So what then? If the judges will not follow the law? If the bureaucratic holdovers from the Obama administration are more loyal to him than to the Constitution?

We Are Headed for an Ugly Showdown That Trump Might Lose

Then we are headed for a dangerous confrontation. It will be hard to resolve through courts. Will we end up with one law enforcement body following orders from a court, against another following orders from the President?

And then there’s the question of just how much power the President has over the Deep State. Columnist Daniel Greenfield suggests that Obama controls more of the government through his network of embedded loyalists than Trump does. As Mark Steyn puts it, “You don’t need a presidency for life, if you’ve got a bureaucracy for life.”

But why would leftist actors in Deep State risk such a dangerous encounter? Perhaps because they’re fairly confident they would win it. They have plenty of allies in the government and in the courts.

Add to that the support of universities and all those grads whom they’ve trained to believe that they can flout any laws they don’t like. In addition, they can count on a network of leftist nonprofits such as Obama’s Organizing for Action (OFA) which has 33,000 volunteers and 250 offices across the country.

Most of all, the Deep State can count on the “fourth estate” — the media — to cover for it by slanting the news. If, as some contend, we are in the midst of a “quiet coup” by a shadow government, you can be sure that the media will do its best to keep it quiet. Or even to justify it.

Those who think that Trump’s electoral victory will surely result in a safer and more secure America haven’t come to grips with the Deep State’s capacity to stir up deep trouble. (For more from the author of “Why the Deep State Is Gunning for President Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump Calls House Freedom Caucus ‘Friends,’ Predicts ‘What’s Going to Come … Is a Better Bill’

Following House Speaker Paul Ryan’s decision to withdraw a bill repealing and replacing Obamacare, President Donald Trump attempted to mend the factions of the Republican conference and reiterated his support for the House Freedom Caucus.

“This is a hard time for them,” Trump said of the Freedom Caucus. “This is a hard vote.”

Republicans were supposed to vote on the plan partially repealing and replacing Obamacare on Friday. But Ryan notified members this afternoon he decided to pull the health care bill after a number of conservative and centrist Republicans rebelled against it.

During a press conference with reporters, Ryan indicated that it was the House Freedom Caucus, a group of roughly 40 conservatives, who prevented the legislation from passing.

“We were on the cusp of fulfilling a promise that we made. We were on the cusp of achieving an ambition we all had for seven years, and we came a little short,” Ryan said. “We came close, but not quite there.”

Members of the group opposed the bill because they didn’t feel it would lower premiums. The conservative lawmakers wanted to repeal Obamacare’s insurance regulations, but GOP leaders would only commit to giving states authority over one of the regulations, the essential health benefits requirement.

While Ryan pointed to the bloc of conservatives as a reason why the conference failed to come to a consensus, Trump reiterated his support for the group.

“They’re friends of mine,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “I’m disappointed because we could’ve had it. I’m a little surprised, I could tell you. We really had it. It was pretty much there within grasp, but I’ll tell you what’s going to come out of it is a better bill.”

Trump noted that the health care bill didn’t have support from any Democrats and said that “Obamacare is exploding.”

But the president said he hopes now Republicans and Democrats can come together and craft a bipartisan health care reform bill that passes both chambers of Congress.

“I honestly believe the Democrats will come to us and say, ‘Let’s get together and get a great health care bill or plan that’s really great for the people in this country,’” Trump said, “and I think that’s going to happen.” (For more from the author of “Trump Calls House Freedom Caucus ‘Friends,’ Predicts ‘What’s Going to Come … Is a Better Bill'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

29273256122_d39aa27603_b (2)

Last Call: Donald Trump Plans White House Meeting With the Freedom Caucus on Healthcare Bill

President Donald Trump continues to court members the Conservative House Freedom Caucus, pushing them to support the House-led bill to replace Obamacare.

The president has scheduled a meeting with members of the caucus at the White House, just hours before the bill is scheduled for a vote. Trump wants to make a deal, appearing willing to make last minute changes to woo conservatives to support the measure.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) (pictured) said in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity that he and Trump had come to an “agreement in principle,” about the bill, but was still hammering out details.

Meadows explained to reporters on Wednesday that members of the freedom caucus want to repeal Obamacare’s “essential health benefits” and Title I insurance regulations, in order to lower premiums. (Read more from “Last Call: Donald Trump Plans White House Meeting With the Freedom Caucus on Healthcare Bill” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald_J._Trump_at_Marriott_Marquis_NYC_September_7th_2016_04 (1)

Bombshell: Trump Team Surveilled During Obama Admin, Says House Intel Chair

It turns out that President Trump’s transition team may have been surveilled after all.

Politico reports, “Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under surveillance during the Obama administration following November’s election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Wednesday.”

Rep. Nunes, R-Calif., said that “sources” informed him of possible surveillance that appears to have been legal and unrelated to the Trump-Russia collusion theories.

Politico’s Eric Geller provided more details from the Nunes press conference.

The mainstream media initially dismissed their own reporting of Obama administration surveillance, and its “police-state tactics.”

Will we see an apology from the media elites for mockingly dismissing the questions Mark Levin has raised for weeks, as mere “conspiracy theories”? (For more from the author of “Bombshell: Trump Team Surveilled During Obama Admin, Says House Intel Chair” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


As the Media Focuses on Russia, Government’s Own Data Shows US Interfered in 81 Elections

Ask an average American who makes a habit of following government-mouthpiece corporate media about interference in national elections and you’ll likely elicit a nebulous response concerning Russian hackers and a plan to install Donald Trump in the White House — but you probably won’t hear a single syllable pertaining to United States government’s actual attempts to do the same.

On Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed for the first time publicly that the bureau is officially investigating hotly contentious allegations of Russian meddling in the U.S. election — but, even if proven true, such geopolitical escapades better characterize the routine behavior of accuser than of accused.

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence effort, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 president election,” the director announced, adding the bureau would conduct a probe to discern whether Trump’s associates had contact with Russian officials.

Despite that the U.S. has hypocritically exerted influence over foreign elections in all corners of the globe — in fact, it has arrogantly done so a whopping 81 times between 1946 and 2000, alone — with just one-third of those operations undertaken overtly.

For months, mainstream media parroted murky accusations hurled by politicians — keen to point a finger of blame for the apparently stultifying victory of a former reality television host on someone — that The Russians had somehow surreptitiously undermined the election-centric foundation of American Democracy.

While that has yet to prove true, this new Red Scare constitutes a duplicitous attempt by the pot to call the kettle … an election meddler.

Researcher Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Politics and Strategy — an expert on the topic at hand — discussed the lengthy but incomplete list of times the U.S. government has interfered in other nations’ elections with NPR’s Ari Shapiro.

Asked for examples where this tampering tangibly altered results, Levin stated,

One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn’t want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupt the Balkans and his human rights violations.

So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.

Levin reiterated the more blatant methods with which the U.S. asserts dominance — through the overt coups or all-out regime changes branding the nation a notorious interventionist — are not among the list of the 80-plus attempts to manipulate the electoral outcome.

As for the issue of pot versus kettle, Levin explained that — although Russia and other powerful nations indisputably employ similar tactics — the United States has been quite prodigious in its effort.

Well, for my dataset, the United States is the most common user of this technique. Russia or the Soviet Union since 1945 has used it half as much. My estimate has been 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know also that the Chinese have used this technique and the Venezuelans when the late Hugo Chavez was still in power in Venezuela and other countries.

As sanctimoniously as U.S. politicians cry foul about The Russians, it would behoove the new McCarthyites to reflect on the nation’s sticky imperialist fingerprints around the globe — like that time in 1996, when the United States undertook an extensive, secret operation to ensure the presidency of Boris Yeltsin.

That is, of course, former President Boris Yeltsin — of the Russian Federation. (For more from the author of “As the Media Focuses on Russia, Government’s Own Data Shows US Interfered in 81 Elections” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Why the CIA, the MSM, and Other Globalists Are Committed to All out War Against Trump

In a recent article, I described how Trump is up against both the media and the CIA. The CIA started infiltrating media with Operation Mockingbird, soon after Harry Truman created the Agency in 1947— and the infiltration has continued to this day.

The crossover point occurred about five minutes after President Truman launched the Agency. The CIA’s mandate was: collect information about what was going on around the world, so it could advise the president.

But CIA directors, starting especially with Allen Dulles, had a different vision.

Why just collect information?

Since the Agency’s job was digging up secrets, why not invent secrets?

Why not invent entire patterns and platforms of information to support an agenda of US global domination?

Why not invent endless enemies who needed to be conquered?

After all, domination was the objective of the super powerful Council on Foreign Relations, coming out of World War 2. The CFR stood outside and above the government in the shadows. It was a Rockefeller operation. The Rockefeller family was uncrowned royalty. Shouldn’t the CIA align itself with that REAL power?

It took some years for the CIA to fully realize the Rockefeller agenda was global government—not US hegemony. So the CIA adjusted its sights and its motives and its invention of data, to fit the Globalist picture.

Flash forward. Trump, suddenly signaling NATIONALISM NOT GLOBALISM, in 2016, was a distinct threat. That signal could wake up millions of people who hadn’t thought about either Nationalism or Globalism.

The point wasn’t about whether Trump meant what he advocated. The point was: what effect would he have on the American people and other nations around the world, who could revert to Nationalism?

The CIA threw together a bunch of invented data about Russia influencing the election for Trump. Thoroughly in bed with the Washington Post and the NY Times, the Agency put out the word, and within a day the media echo chamber was alive with “Russia hacked the election.”

It was a typical discredit and destroy op. Delegitimize the Trump presidency. Focus on the man, not the message. Wipe out the Nationalism message by defaming the messenger.

“The cat is out of the bag. Now we have to put it back in the bag.”

Not so easy, particularly with thousands of online independent media outlets humming at full force.

Those who exclusively focus on whether Trump is a true Nationalist, a secret Globalist, or a neocon, are missing a key point. Trump woke up millions of people with his Nationalist messages. Those people are now moving outside the CIA-media nexus. They are springing from that trap.

A new sensation and feeling and thought-process is loose in the world. It was there before Trump, but he pumped it up to a full roar.

The CIA invents, every day, a world in which Globalism must win and should win. It turns its out propaganda 24/7. It thus saturates media.

It is Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

JFK and RFK were obstacles to the forward motion of the CIA? Get them out of the way.

Trump is an impediment? At the very least, destroy his persona.

The CIA has no particular interest in who Trump “really is.” They only care about what effect he could have on the population.

After years of compliance from Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush the Elder (a former CIA director), the Agency suddenly saw this swaggering cowboy appear strolling over the horizon. The Donald.

What did he think he was doing? Where did he get this Nationalism? What was going on?

Trump started right in, attacking the media. Did he know something he wasn’t supposed to know? Did he know the media were a branch of the CIA propaganda tree?

Did he know the CIA considered itself the true president of the United States?

Did he know the CIA had been carrying out a monster covert op for 70 years, pretending to be the eyes and ears for the president—but actually consolidating its stranglehold on the Oval Office and the Congress?

Was it possible Trump knew that the CIA, while claiming to forward US interests around the world, was, behind that pose, actually positioning Globalism as the ultimate international victor?

Was Trump aware that all traces of Nationalism, across the planet, were being censored and erased by major media?

Could he see that?

In his cavalier, off-the-cuff, impulsive, egoistic, boastful way, was he waking up a sleeping giant?

Was there a deep tidal wave, gathering force far out in the ocean, a wave of Nationalism, percolating, as if waiting for a signal to proceed toward many shores?

Had decades of routine lying and data-invention at the CIA made the smartest minds there complacent and inattentive?

Was the Agency about to receive a titanic blindsiding blow?

The CIA sent out the word to its many minions in the press, government, think tanks, foundations, and Globalist organizations: say anything and do anything to discredit this crazy president NOW. Don’t wait. It doesn’t matter what you accuse him of. Throw everything you’ve got at him and hope enough of it sticks. If saying he comes from Mars works, say he comes from Mars.

The CIA was caught asleep at the wheel. It had no coordinated plan to take down the fast-talking cowboy in the White House. It had to be all hands on deck and HIT IT HARD RIGHT AWAY.

“If we can take down Trump, we can take down Nationalism and restore Globalism to its rightful place.”


Is that true?

Or are thousands more people all over the world waking up every day, realizing that one global management system for humanity is the covert agenda—and that this plan is about nothing less than complete top-down control, and the decimation of life lived in freedom?

Does Nationalism, as a massive decentralization away from Globalism, come circling back to THE INDIVIDUAL, and his utter refusal to be enslaved?

Is that possible?

Because I’m here to tell you, if it is possible, then the fact of Donald Trump, in the fullness of time, doesn’t matter. What matters is the personal truth that every person knows: HIS OWN LIBERTY.

And trying to dislodge and erase THAT resistance and that hunger for freedom is more than the CIA and all its horses and all its men can achieve.

We are not Humpty-Dumpty.

They are.

And fallen, they won’t be able to put themselves back together again.

Certainly, they’ll get no help from us. (For more from the author of “Why the CIA, the MSM, and Other Globalists Are Committed to All out War Against Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do THIS for Trump

The Secret Service will permanently remove a top special agent from her position after an investigation into her Facebook comments that she would rather not defend President Trump or take “a bullet” for him, but some agents are concerned she will simply be transferred to another government job.

About two weeks ago, the Secret Service placed the agent’s prior post — the special agent in charge of the Denver District, the top job in that office — on a list of agency openings, according to two Secret Service sources.

Kerry O’Grady, the agent in question, is on administrative leave amid an internal Secret Service investigation into her Facebook comments about Trump.

Current and former Secret Service agents and officers are worried that top officials at the agency are working to shield O’Grady from being fired.

They are worried that she will be transferred to another division of the Homeland Security Department and allowed to serve out her time until she can retire with a pension as the agency has done with other officials in the public crosshairs. (For more from the author of “Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do Something Major for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.