New Guns for the Military in Exchange for the Destruction of the Republic's Future

THE REAL NEWS TODAY COMES FROM THE 18TH CENTURY. Edmund Burke wrote : “Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” • • • THE 2018 BUDGET DEAL. Burke would be as shocked as I am to see how swiftly the Republicna elite in the Swamp have co-opted the Trump administration, selling it a pig sty full of pork and calling it the US budget. We conservatives have not taken on the elites, been excoriated and cast as Deplorables, been stigmatized and cheated by the Deep State and finally elected a leader determined to toss the Swamp Creatures out only to be sold down the river by a bloated, unconscionable budget. • UNCONSCIONABLE. And, the real sting of rejection of all we havestood for nad defended is that this monstrous spend and "devil take the hindmost" budget is that it is being touted as necessary to save our military from further deterioration. • THE QUESTION. What will a strong military be worth if it is in the hands of a federal government that is so cynical that it is right now using the military as an excuse to spend money America does not have for projects and programs Americans do not want? Where is the value in providing the Deep State with a military that they can turn on real Americans whenever we are finally so appalled by deficits and continuing Progressive sellouts of the Constitution and the Republic that we take to the streets? • Mitch McConnell and Pau lRyan and Donald Trump will be gone, in all probabllity, but we will still be here, watching helplessly as our Republic is destroyed by deficit spending that finally explodes into a Venezuela-like fiscal and econolic catastrophe that makes us a socialist outpost in the worldwide Globalist hegemony of the Soros-funded elites. • • • PROGDEMS LOVE THIS SO-CALLED BUDGET? We might start by reminding ourselves that during her 8 hour and 7 minute speech on Wednesday on the House floor, Nancy Pelosi said that the budget agreement of the Senate leadership "does not have my support, nor does it have the support of a large number of members of our caucus" because she wants MORE money for DACA and thanked the illegals who brought the "Dreamers" to America. Meanwhile, Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer called the agreement the "best thing" lawmakers could have done for the middle class. The budget deal doesn’t have everything Democrats want, it doesn’t have everything the Republicans want, but it has a great deal of what the American people want. And now we must finish the job. Later this week, let’s pass this budget into law alongside an extension of government funding. I hope the House will follow suit and President Trump will sign it." • WRONG. Senator Schumer, Americans do not want this budget. We do not agree with your plans for America. As for Pelosi, she is closer to elitist insanity than reason every time she speaks. Thanking illegals for anything is a bridge too far for most of us. • • • WHAT IS IN THIS MONSTROSITY? The Fiscal Times called it a "blockbuster." Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey wrote on Wednesday : "The Senate has reached a budget deal. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday announced a bipartisan agreement on a budget that would boost federal spending by $400 billion or more over two years. Bloomberg reports that the increased spending would be partially offset by cuts to mandatory spending programs, according to the Republican summary. The deal, if it can overcome opposition from both conservatives and liberals in the House, would avert a government shutdown on Friday by funding the government through March 23. That would provide time for lawmakers to flesh out legislation for the longer-term spending framework. The deal would also end -- at least for a while -- the prolonged congressional cycle of fiscal standoffs and short-term spending patches." • This budget is touted becasue it allocates to defense spending an increse over current law by $80 billion in fiscal 2018 and $85 billion in fiscal 2019, pleasing defense hawks who have called for increased funding and stability in the military budget. But, the price paid for the increased defense spending is an increase in non-defense spending by $63 billion this year and $68 billion in fiscal 2019, including $20 billion for infrastructure, $6 billion to fight the opioid epidemic and fund mental health programs, $5.8 billion for the Child Care Development Block Grant program, $4 billion for the VA, $2 billion for the NIH, and between $80 billion and $90 billion for hurricane and wildfire disaster relief. It also extends the reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Program to 10 years and provide funding for community health centers. It repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a Medicare cost-cutting group created by the Affordable Care Act, thus eliminating the one longer-term restraint on Medicare spending. • AND, IT SUSPENDS THE DEBT CEILING -- reportedly for one year, until March 2019. • What have we been fighting for? Balanced budgets? Forget it. Reductions in the National Debt? Forget it. Capping the debt ceiling? Forget it. • • • AND FOR ALL THIS, WE DON'T EVEN GET AN IMMIGRATION DECISION. The divisive immigration issues that Congress has been afraid to tackle for decades remains in the locker room, including the fate of the so-called “Dreamers. Pelosi is threatening to block the budget becasue of this -- she can't really do that, but it is a potential sticking point for many House Democrats. • • • HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS CRIES FOUL. And they are right. House conservatives are objecting to the spending increases, preferring the House stopgap spending bill apssed on Tuesday. Will they reject this deal, unleashing a chaotic scramble to keep the government running? They may try, but the Swamp has its eyes on the midterm elections, undoubtedly causing enough lawmakers from both sides to line up behind the deal and end the prospect of further shutdown blame games. • Alabama Republican Representative Mo Brooks, who voted for the tax cuts, told the media : “This spending bill is a debt junkie’s dream. I’m not only a ‘no.’ I’m a ‘hell no.’” Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican who also voted for the tax cuts, tweeted : “This spending proposal is disgusting and reckless -- the biggest spending increase since 2009. I urge every American to speak out against this fiscal insanity.” Representative Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, warned that the spending increases being cited would disappoint his members. If the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives balk because of the higher non-defense spending in the deal, as many as 100 Democratic votes would be needed to pass it, and that might give PElosi her shot at pushing the budget bottom line even higher. • Strategist Chris Krueger of the Cowen Washington Research Group told the media : “The irony here is palpable. A heavily Tea Party Congress...is going to tack nearly $2,000,000,000,000 onto the government credit card. The sequester relief package combined with the three tranches of disaster relief is more than half the Obama Stimulus, which was the Bunker Hill of the Tea Party movement in 2009. On the Road to Washington, the Tea Partiers experienced a religious conversion to supply siding fiscal doves. We suspect they will re-convert to fiscal hawks once they eventually return to the minority party in Congress.” • G. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center said in a statement : “The deal halts the ham-handed and destructive sequester process, gives predictability and stability to both defense and non-defense accounts, avoids another government shutdown, and holds out at least the promise that Congress can begin to appropriate and budget in an orderly manner in the future. Can policymakers now focus on the true causes of federal deficits or will they continue to cross their collective fingers and hope that the economic impact of unprecedented deficits will occur on some other Congress’ watch?” • • • WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. Congress always crosses its fingers and hopes when it comes to deficit spending and raising the debt ceiling. Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warned that Congress is knowingly ushering in an era of permanent $1 trillion deficits, and doing it at a time when the economy is strong and the national debt is high : “This deal represents budgeting at its worst -- each party is giving the other its wish list with all the bells and whistles included and asking future generations to pick up the tab. It’s one thing to have trillion-dollar deficits during a deep recession, but to create permanent trillion-dollar deficits projected during a time of economic expansion is the definition of irresponsibility. It’s a stunning fiscal picture and an unprecedented reckless path.” EVEN Jason Furman, chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, tweeted : “I consider myself a deficit dove. I'm comfortable with 3% GDP deficits--and higher in downturns. I don't think deficit reduction should be our top priority. But, deliberately sending an essentially full employment economy into deficits of 5% to 7% of GDP is nuts.” • • • WHAT NOW? The national debt hike, in particular, is giving conservatives “heartburn,” said GOP Representative Dennis Ross, a member of the GOP vote-counting team. The swift backlash from fiscal hawks and the Freedom Caucus means that Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team will need dozens of Democratic votes to help get the caps-and-funding deal through the lower chamber to avert a government shutdown set for midnight Thursday. At the same time, some Republicans predicted a majority of the majority would back the package. TheHill reports that former Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Representative Bill Flores said he will probably support the package, estimating that about two-thirds of the lawmakers who spoke at the microphones during the GOP closed-door meeting actually voiced support. It’s also possible more Republicans will back the legislation given opposition from Pelosi. Representative Mark Walker, current RSC chairman, acknowledged in a tweet that the deal is “a struggle for any one with fiscal concerns,” but said he was more inclined to support it “the longer Nancy Pelosi bloviates on the House Floor.” Many of the fiscal hawks who are complaining the loudest were among the lawmakers who rode an anti-spending, anti-debt Tea Party wave to Washington during the 2010 and 2012 cycles. Representative Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, described the atmosphere inside the GOP conference room as “tense,” while Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas said it was “kind of depressing” to think Republicans could be responsible for adding billions of dollars to the deficit when they control all the levers of power in Washington. Represnetative Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, said fiscal hawks might now be an “endangered species.” TheHill also reports that during the GOP conference meeting, retiring House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a close Ryan friend, also railed against lifting the debt ceiling. Jim Jordan, a former Freedom Caucus chairman, said earlier in the day that he was disappointed by the tentative deal and expressed surprise that Ryan -- who has staked his political career on being a fiscal hawk -- would go along with the proposal. “It’s a terrible deal,” Jordan said. “I never thought Speaker Ryan would be supportive of this...I just never thought the Speaker would go here with these high numbers.” Mo Brooks slammed the deal as a “debt junkie’s dream,” saying : “I don’t know if we have enough votes amongst the members to stop this legislation. All I know is that unfortunately those who vote for this bill are betraying our country’s future and they are selling out our kids and our grandkids. I am baffled why the Republican Party has turned into such a big spending party. It is one thing to spend money; it is another thing to spend money you don’t have. No American family can operate that way; no American business can operate that way, and it is folly to believe that the United States of America can operate that way.” TheHill said that part of Ryan’s pitch to the conference, according to lawmakers who attended, was that the budget deal not only delivers a long sought-after spending boost for the military, but it also clears the way for an honest debate over immigration if lawmakers don’t have the debt ceiling, the threat of government shutdown and other unresolved issues looming over their heads. • • • IS THIS JUST ABOUT THE BUDGET, BAD AS IT IS? It is about far more than budgets. It is about who governs the Republic, who the elites do business with internationally, and whether the federal Deep State continues to function an a silent arm of the ProgDem cabal against tRump and all conservatives. • URANIUM ONE. TheHill's John Solomon reported late on Wednesday that ; "An FBI informant connected to the Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees in a written statement that Moscow routed millions of dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton's charitable efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a 'reset' in US-Russian relations." Solomon noted that the informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the statement obtained by TheHill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired "the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton." Democrats have cast doubt on Campbell’s credibility, setting the stage for a battle with Republicans over his testimony. According to Solomon, Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative. The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.“ APCO officials told The Hill that its support for CGI and its work with Russia were not connected in any way, and in fact involved different divisions of the firm. They added their lobbying for Russia did not involve Uranium One but rather focused on regulatory issues aimed at helping Russia better compete for nuclear fuel contracts inside the United States. APCO told TheHill : “APCO Worldwide’s activities involving client work on behalf of Tenex and The Clinton Global Initiative were totally separate and unconnected in any way. All actions on these two unconnected activities were appropriate, publicly documented from the outset and consistent with regulations and the law. Any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.” Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, said Campbell’s account is simply being used to distract from the investigations into President Trump and Russia. In addition to his written statement, Campbell on Wednesday was interviewed for several hours behind closed doors by staff from both parties on the Senate Judiciary, House Intelligence and House Oversight and Government Reform committees. Democrats have asked that a transcript of the interview be released to the public, but a court reporter was not present for the interview and Campbell was not sworn in before talking to staff. Republicans are seeking to use Campbell’s account to expand their investigations beyond the 2016 election and Trump to possible questions about Russian graft during the Obama administration. They note, says TheHill, that the FBI found Campbell’s undercover work valuable enough to reward him with a $50,000 check in 2016. According to the ProgDems, DOJ officials also said that Campbell had at no point made “any allegations of corruption, illegality, or impropriety on Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, President Clinton, the Uranium One deal, or CFIUS. They also confirmed that there were “no allegations of impropriety or illegality” regarding Secretary Clinton in any of the documents they reviewed.” Campbell painted a different picture in his written statement. He accused Obama administration officials of making decisions that ended up benefitting the Russian nuclear industry, which he said was seeking to build a monopoly in the global uranium market to help President Vladimir Putin seek a geopolitical advantage over the United States. • Much of the GOP’s interest in Campbell’s story centers on the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal. That deal at the time gave the Russian mining giant Rosatom control of roughly 20% of America’s capacity to mine uranium. The deal was approved unanimously in 2010 by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a multi-agency board that includes the State Department, the Defense Department and the Justice Department, among other agencies. The board has the power to block deals that threaten national security. Campbell, whose work as an informant was first disclosed in a series of stories published last fall by TheHill, helped the FBI gather evidence as early as 2009 that the Russian nuclear industry was engaged in a kickback, bribery and racketeering scheme in the US. The criminal scheme, among other things, compromised the US trucking firm that had the sensitive job of transporting uranium around America, Campbell testified. The Hill’s stories last fall prompted the Justice Department to take the rare step of freeing Campbell from his nondisclosure agreement as an intelligence asset so he could testify to Congress about what he witnessed inside Russia’s nuclear industry. Campbell gave the congressional committees documents he said he had provided to his FBI handlers in 2010 showing that the Russian and American executives implicated in the Tenex bribery scheme specifically asked him to try to help get the Uranium One deal approved by the Obama administration. • Campbell’s written statement covered a wide array of activities he conducted under the FBI’s direction, ranging from a failed sting effort to lure Putin to the United States to gathering evidence that Russia was “helping Iran build its nuclear capability.” Campbell provided Congress an April 16, 2010, memo he said he wrote and gave to the FBI that spelled out in detail the Russian efforts to aid Iran. “Tenex continues to supply Iran fuel through their Russian company,” Campbell wrote in that 2010 document obtained by TheHill, naming the specific company that was being used to help. “They continue to assist with construction consult [sic] and fabricated assemblies to supply the reactor. Fabricated assemblies require sophisticated engineering and are arranged inside the reactor with the help and consult” of Russians. The final fabricators to Iran are being flown by Russian air transport due to the sensitive nature of the equipment,” his 2010 memo to the FBI added. • Campbell told lawmakers he also gave the FBI “documentary proof that officials in Moscow were obtaining restricted copies of IAEA compliance reports on Iranian nuclear inspections, a discovery that appeared to deeply concern my handlers.” Campbell also was never reimbursed for the hundreds of thousands of dollars he used of his own money to make bribe payments under the FBI’s direction to the Russians to facilitate his cover. But Campbell said he was gratified when the FBI in 2016 gave him a $50,000 reward check celebrating his undercover work, directly answering Democrats criticisms that federal prosecutors didn’t trust him as a witness. • FBI TALKING POINTS FOR COMEY MEETING WITH OBAMA. TheHill also reported about the release of the report by Senator Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, on Tuesday that included the exchange between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page, arguing that the texts raised questions about Obama's involvement in the investigation into Clinton's email use. The report highlights one exchange from September 2016 in which Page wrote, “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.” It is ot surprising that the ProgDem world is rushing in to defend Strzok and Page, who were having an affair at the time, reportedly saying that the two were talking about Obama wanting information on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The explanation is that the exchange occurred days before Obama met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and spoke to him about election tampering, according to the Wall Street Journal. By the time the texts were sent, the FBI had closed its investigation into the Clinton email case. It did not reopen the case until October. The Wall Street Journal report contradicts the claims from Johnson’s report. • THAT IS THE FUTURE. We who defend the American Republic and its constitutional rule of law, as well as its rock-solid position that Americans are capable of and must always govern themselves, will always see our fears of rule by elites and misuse of the Constitution by the Deep State and bureaucracy being "explained" away by the media that is no longer independent or objective but has become a propaganda arm of the Progressive elites and their Deep State foot soldiers. • The budget is not the iceberg -- it is the tip of the iceberg. It will be one more vitally destructive nail in the coffin that shuts Americans forever inside the box created by self-interested ProgDem elites. This budget reeks of treason against the American people. It sells their birthright and that of their heirs forever. It is the tipping point that will create the socialist future Americans loathe. It is one of the final steps in the Progressive-Globalist plan to create a world in which even paper money has no meaning. It leaves us who love America in the grasp of elites who use debt to control us and our future. That is sedition, that is treason against America. • • • DEAR READERS, I saved and often re-read an American Thinker essay that appeared on August 24, 2016. Written by Frank Johnson, it is titled "To Die for Chappaqua." It was written in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, but its message is as cirtically important now as it was then -- even more so. You can access the full essay at < http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/to_die_for_chappaqua.html >. Download it and save it to re-read when you feel our battle is not worth the goal. Here is "To Die for Chappaqua" : "A few days back, Drudge had a link to some pictures of the Clintons' estate in Chappaqua, New York to show the 10-foot-high wall they had built around it (ironic, since Democrats know that walls don't work). The pictures of the impressive estate opened up a question. Where did the money for it come from? We know that both Hillary and Bill have not been gainfully employed in the private sector. It is not an oil estate, or an automobile estate, or a software estate, or a finance estate. So what is it? A government estate! Government is what the Clintons had to sell, and they have sold it. This is a new phenomenon for America. We have heretofore been characterized by the probity of our government institutions. It is a subject of note when officials are caught selling their office, and they end up in prison for doing so. The Clintons have found a way around the law by having Hillary on the inside and Bill as bag man on the outside, hauling in the loot under the guise of fees for speeches. While the numbers are not hard, the press seems comfortable with the Clinton personal fortune being $200 million, so let's use that figure. If it is off, Hillary can give us the precise number. We are talking personal money here. No confusion with the foundation(s). These are Hillary's and Bill's personal funds. Hillary and Bill have made a personal fortune of $200 million since leaving the White House, or, to put it differently, during Hillary's tenure first as Senator and then as Secretary of State. If the Clintons' customers are not buying oil, or automobiles, or software, what are they buying? Influence. Influence over the policies, the actions, of the United States. Foreign oligarchs have paid Hillary as Secretary of State to have the United States do things it would not otherwise do. That is the point of paying her as Secretary of State through her husband. And that is the point of paying her in anticipation of her becoming President and, later, upon the actuality of her being President. If the Clintons were able to sell Hillary's Senate seat and her office as Secretary of State for $200 million, what is the presidency worth? One billion dollars sounds about right, at least as a start. We have to see how things go. What is Hillary selling? She is selling you, dear reader -- your family, your children, your countrymen, the country itself. Lincoln tried to capture what it means to be an American in his First Inaugural : "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." Hillary sees the country in a different way. Rather than "the mystic chords of memory" as the spirit of the country, Hillary sees the mystic chords of money -- for herself. One manifestation of this is the estate at Chappaqua, bought with money gathered from selling out the country. Enriching herself from high government office is her spiritual foundation....Treating the country as a private fief is third-worldism. It is why third-world countries never advance. Their wealth is drained off by their political leadership. If Hillaryism should become the custom of our government, the country as we know it will be destroyed. Selling out her office is not going to be seen as the privilege of Hillary alone. What about the secretary of defense? What about the attorney general? What about the rest of the cabinet? And what about under-secretaries, deputy secretaries, and so on down the line? What about, at the local level, the police and the fire departments? What about having to pay them personally to do their jobs? Want to see the future if government officials join Hillaryism? Brazil. They can't even keep the swimming pools clean. Nothing works. What about the military, which carries out our foreign policy? As we ponder the profaning of the nation and of the mission of the nation, one question we must consider is this: are our soldiers going to be willing to die for Chappaqua? To die for Chappaqua. That is the value proposition Hillary is offering the soldiers at the sharp end of the spear. To die so that she can own her Chappaqua estate. What about military leadership? Will they go the Chappaqua route? A theater commander or a ground commander has an enormous amount of responsibility. Shouldn't he be rewarded for the burdens he bears? Suppose the Army is making an assault up-country. There is Route A, which the general has chosen, using his best judgment, to get to the objective. But now he has a visitor. It turns out that Route A runs right through the operations of Mr. Oligarch. Route B is almost as good, and Mr. Oligarch has always wanted one of the potholders made by the general's wife. In fact, he is so enthralled by the potholder that $12 million is not too high a price to pay for it! The general thinks about it, Route B is likely to lead to, say, only 500 more casualties in a force of 40,000....Acceptable losses (except to the soldiers and their families experiencing them). The potholder is on the way!....it is the Hillary future for America. That estate in Chappaqua. What are our military leaders -- chopped liver? Don't they deserve estates? For soldiers, belief in the mission is critical. If it should become standard practice for the leadership in Washington to sell our policy for payoffs, then belief in the mission will collapse. A soldier commanded to take the hill will wonder whether that mission is for the nation or for Chappaqua. This is why third-world militaries are so weak. Should belief in the mission ever be lost, it will be virtually impossible to get it back. This danger -- wiping out the Republic -- is what Hillary's actions mean....Nobody in Washington seems upset by the Clintons' selling out the country to foreigners to create their personal fortune....What about us, the public? If we let ourselves be sold out, we are going to get more of it. It is going to become chronic, ubiquitous. The United States is a great nation. There is much here to sell. What is each piece, each policy worth? Markets are so complex these days that one cannot be precise. But each amount, each transaction ultimately turns out to be equal to thirty pieces of silver." • Think about that while you listen to pundits and politicians tell you why this budget is critically important because it saves the military. Saves it for what?? There is a very real red line, my friends. It was and is drawn with the blood of patriots and American soldiers. That red line of American blood is now being erased by a Progressive cabal that is offering the military shiny new guns in exchange for kowtowing to the destruction of the Republic. Think about it.