Globalism: Threatening American Exceptionalism

ELDER PATRIOT – When the current nominating process began I outlined the three most important issues facing America and Americans, immigration, the economy, and terrorism.  I was only partially correct. There is only a single issue that threatens us, and it is the root of these and other issues, Globalism.

 

Like the current hubbub about who can or should have access to which restrooms, all of the other issues pale in comparison to the existential threat that Globalism presents to everyday Americans.  In fact, the issues I originally highlighted all stem from the rise of the international mindset.

 

I can assure you that the international financiers and corporate CEO’s couldn’t care less about which restrooms us plebians use or who pays for the next abortion.

 

They sure as heck don’t care about your jobs, your wages, or your family’s safety as evidenced by their embrace of policies that keep our borders open and the lop-sided trade agreements that only serve the bottom lines and stock prices of their corporate partners.

 

Likewise, the threat of terrorism keeps us believing that our government is actually protecting us even as they import hundreds of thousands of people, legally and illegally, without vetting them.  Their purpose is as transparent as a piece of glass.  As long as we are fighting each other we are incapable of rising up against them.

 

Does anyone doubt our ability to wipe out terrorism within a year?  We crushed the major military powers of the Nazis and the Japanese in four years.  Shame on the military industrial complex and shame on our government for extending the threat of terrorism only for profit and to nefariously expand surveillance over the good people of this country.

 

So, while our political leaders divide our attention and emotions over social issues, the banksters, for whom they work, are only focused on Globalization.  Their concern is profits within the narrowly defined international corporate community and it matters not who suffers the consequences of their greed.

 

Any doubts about the glide path towards a new world order should’ve been put to rest this week when President Obama went to Britain and threatened the English with back-of-the-line trade status should they vote to withdraw from the European Union.

 

In his speech to the Brits Obama confirmed his commitment to the diminishment of the nation state when he said, “And in today’s world, even as we all cherish our sovereignty, the nations who wield their influence most effectively are the nations that do it through the collective action that today’s challenges demand.”

 

When thinking of the countries that exert the most influence in their regions, Russia, China and now, thanks to Obama, Iran we see the opposite.  Even as Obama tells the British people that globalization is the future, Cruz, Kasich and Hillary deflect our attentions to unisex sanitary facilities.

 

When the debates began I warned that the participants should be examined with a large degree of skepticism because they were embarking on a year of perception management intended to wipe away Americans’ remembrance of the many times they put the people’s interests behind those of the world financial community in the past.

 

As I predicted at the outset of the debates, the candidates are attempting to divert our attentions over a myriad of issues while avoiding addressing the march towards singular global governance that continues apace with new and more encompassing trade deals.  Hidden in these deals are international tribunals that replace American sovereignty with the decisions of international lawyers.

 

The social justice warriors that seem to be protesting everywhere these days are, for the most part, either scatterbrained college students who are too ignorant of history to understand the greater issues that affect their futures or they are professional disrupters paid and funded by Globalists like George Soros, Paul Singer,and the Koch brothers.

 

Donald Trump has been the only candidate to openly call for putting an end America’s funding of international growth at the expense of working class Americans.  Only Trump has challenged every aspect of the globalist movement.  Only Trump has no history to contradict what how he promises to govern.  And, only Trump has largely ignored or dismissed the social justice warriors sent to turn Americans against him.  Trump has been consistent and undeterred in his positions from the beginning.

 

This disregard for political correctness will be an absolute necessity for anyone endeavoring to challenge the new world order and is something none of his challengers on either side of the aisle has shown us.  They have deliberately embraced the issue of transgendered restrooms as a diversion from the overriding issues that Trump alone brought to the debates.

 

No other candidate can claim they have not been partner to the globalist movement.  Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich have all supported President Obama’s trade deals and his lack of enforcement of our immigration laws in a number of ways.  They are complicit in bringing us to this point of unemployment, wage stagnation and debt.

 

No one can be certain that Donald Trump won’t disappoint us, but we can be absolutely certain that Clinton, Cruz and Kasich will.  Their history tells us as much.

HERE Is WHAT WILL HAPPEN If The DEEP STATE TAKES DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP & It’s NOT PRETTY … FOR THEM “The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson ELDER PATRIOT – Corrupt politicians ignore Jefferson’s directive to their own detriment. It’s no longer political, it’s personal. Americans have had their eyes opened by the ascension of Donald Trump and no amount of leftwing money can put the Freedom Movement genie back in the bottle. Conservative Senator Ted Cruz made that observation after reviewing the results of the 2016 elections and the expectations of the voters. Cruz, who had the most high profile personality clash with Donald Trump during the Republican primary process nevertheless embraced Trump’s America First agenda and said, “If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver, I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets. And I think quite rightly.” Candidate Trump promised many things – border control, lower taxes, fairer trade relations, a balanced budget, healthcare that puts the people first not the government, safer communities, and – to the extent possible – an end to foreign wars. What, among those promises, should any Republican, nay any American, have a problem with? After four months without a single legislative achievement, Congressional and Senatorial Republicans – notably John McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham – have joined the Democrats in investigating President Trump absent a single shred of evidence that an underlying crime has been committed. So, what gives? Well, there was one additional promise that Trump made on his way to the White House that has some Republicans joining with Democrats and quaking in their boots, Trump’s promise to “Drain the Swamp.” As we reported yesterday, “An F.B.I. agent with ‘intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case’ told us that they uncovered evidence of such massive corruption that the agents involved realized that damned near the entire government could be brought down.” The criminal co-conspirators in both parties realized almost immediately that the new sheriff wasn’t interested in joining them in the swamp so they launched, what can only be characterized as, a coup attempt. Democrats are well schooled in such things probably because of their close alliance with Marxist regimes that can only gain power by seizing it through bloody civil wars. It should be noted that the Democratic Party has already done this once before. One Hundred and Fifty-Seven years ago the Democrats waged a war against the First Republican President Abraham Lincoln for giving Blacks their freedom. That war came at a high price, as many as 700,000 Americans died fighting for what they believe in. To put that in perspective, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam. Today, Americans are still prepared to fight and die to protect their children’s God-given freedoms. Despite what you are reading and hearing in the mainstream media, they aren’t the leftwing-funded rioters, the pussy hat-wearing feminists, or the cuck bois that cant handle a micro aggression. No, the Americans that back Donald Trump are well armed. Donald Trump’s presidency will move forward politically lest the sixty million patriots who voted for him, that are comprised of the large majority of military voters, police, and NRA members, move it forward by force. These patriots are armed, trained, prepared, and have proven their discipline. They have grown disgusted by the corruption in Washington and will do whatever is necessary to make sure Trump’s Freedom Agenda moves forward and under the direction of Donald Trump himself. No amount of fake news based on unsubstantiated charges by unnamed sources is going to change that. The battle lines have been drawn and no amount of finger pointing is going to convince these patriots to let anyone overturn the election results. So why are establishment politicians courting a bloodbath on the streets of America that will also threaten them personally when they could be part of Making America Great Again? It’s because they have been caught red-handed and up to their eyeballs in a worldwide criminal conspiracy that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with defrauding the American taxpayers. And, now that they’ve been caught robbing the world’s largest bank – the U.S. treasury – they have chosen to go out in a blaze of glory rather than try to defend the indefensible at trial. Washington’s criminal elites have chosen to go to war to unseat our duly elected president. It’s time to make our voices heard before this turns very ugly. Buckle your chin strap, America is counting on you. EDITORS NOTE: THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ARMS BUT RATHER AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DEEP STATES OVERTURNS A DUELY ELECTED PRESIDENT. HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’