Robert Mueller & James Comey Colluded to Defraud the Treasury!

‘Contracts Flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’ at Lockheed Martin
Seamus Bruner, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) researcher and author of Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, explains how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government contacts to enrich themselves.

 They created a cozy  “revolving door” of “cronyism” within the federal government’s national security and intelligence apparatuses, focusing on the monetization of security clearances held by former administration officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper.

Bruner noted the growth of Comey’s net worth between 2003 and 2009, after Comey left the Department of Justice to join Lockheed Martin as senior vice president and lead counsel.

“It doesn’t really make much sense why [Lockheed Martin] would pay [James Comey] upwards of six million dollars in a single year,” assessed Bruner. “But one reason — aside from his security clearance — is that his buddy Robert Mueller is running the FBI. They begin passing 100-million-dollar-plus contracts to Lockheed Martin.”

“One of these contracts was actually worth a billion dollars, and it was protested formally by the other bidder: IBM. … The contracts flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’s private sector employer, Lockheed Martin, and James Comey made many millions over a short period of time.”

Bruner described Comey as “one of the prime examples of this kind of cashing in on government contacts.”

“We followed the money and realized that James Comey made well over ten million dollars from when he left the public sector in 2005 and by the time he returned to serve as FBI director [in 2009],” said Bruner. “He even made over six million dollars in a single year at the top government contracting corporation, Lockheed Martin; they get over $50 billion a year in government contracts.”

Bruner affirmed CNN’s Paris Dennard’s analysis of security clearance commodification among ex-government officials.

Bruner said, “[Paris Dennard] was absolutely right, and everybody knows that top-level intelligence folks leave the public sector and go cash in on their knowledge, experience, [and] security clearances. That’s one of the main reasons Brennan is crying so loudly–because he can’t work at a lot of these contractors without a security clearance.”

Schweizer also explained the value of security clearances held by former government officials: “In the exchange [between Paris Dennard and Phil Mudd], Mr. Mudd is being wholly disingenuous–because what he essentially said was, ‘I, personally, don’t have contracts.’ He may or may not. He may be entirely honest about that, but he knows darn well that his colleagues are neck-deep in these kinds of consulting arrangements.”

Schweizer added, “Consulting firms … all have large amounts of projects in management positions and subcontracting that they engage in, and if you want any of those … you have to have a security clearance.”

Governmental domains of national security and intelligence are vulnerable to “cronyism,” said Schweizer: “[They are] not immune to the exact same forces of cronyism and self-enrichment that we see anywhere else in government. It’s like the executive at Health and Human Services who does favors for the pharmaceutical industry and then goes and works for big pharma. The same thing happens in this space.”

Schweizer continued, “What makes [a top-level security clearance] so valuable for a guy like Brennan is he can be read into all of it, and he has access to all of it. Mark my words … if he was not doing contracting right now, he would be looking to do contracting. That’s no longer available to him [because] he has had his security clearance lost [and] cannot have access to any of that material now.”

Schweizer expanded, “John Brennan can now not get a call from, let’s say, a senior FBI official who wants to ask him a question on counterterrorism. They cannot now call and have a conversation involving anything that includes classified material. It’s going to be a big change in John Brennan’s life, and it also affects him commercially because … he cannot get consulting arrangements with these big intelligence contractors.”

Schweizer went on, “‘Compromised’ follows the money and rips the veil off of the sorts of things that go on at the highest levels of the FBI and the intelligence community.”

Bruner speculated about motivations for news media and political recalcitrance towards removal of security clearances from former government officials: “In theory, they retain their security clearances so they can advise some think tank on matters of nationals security, but I don’t think that’s the reason John Brennan and James Clapper and others are throwing temper tantrums, especially Phil Mudd. … It’s the lure of large dollars.”

Pollak asked about conflicts of interest arising from the employment of former top-level intelligence officials at cable news media outlets.

Schweizer replied, “It does create a really murky [and] conflicted arrangement that is never really discussed or disclosed while they’re on these cable news programs.”

Bruner considered Brennan and Clapper’s leveraging of security clearances to obtain positions with CNN and MSNBC: “This Clapper-CNN relationship is really new territory, where you have the former director of national intelligence sharing information about a dossier which has now been debunked using this kind of politicized piece of opposition research and then sharing it with a news network. Who knows what amount of it was classified at the time? This is beyond your run-of-the-mill cronyism; this is really into uncharted territory and really alarming.”

Schweizer framed Comey’s “veneer” of selfless “public service” as “ridiculous.”

“The American people are very thankful to people that are out on the battlefield fighting terrorist organizations or rank and file FBI who are tracking down terror cells in the United States,” said Schweizer. “There are people that make a lot of sacrifices that never cash in the way that Jim Comey has, but Jim Comey wants to be treated as the rank and file FBI agent who just diligently did his job and performed a public service.”

Schweizer continued, “The research that Seamus has done in this book shows that that’s just simply not the case. It’s a revolving door, and they ought to be seen and recognized as such. The veneer of, ‘I’ve always done things that are just in the national interest’ is ridiculous. What you find in this national security and intelligence space is the same thing you find elsewhere in government, which is, a lot of times, individuals, when they’re in government, they create opportunities for their own services within the private sector so when they leave and go into the private sector, they’re set up very well. It seems pretty clear that some of that has happened with Comey-Mueller.”

Schweizer offered recommendations for curbing corrupt exploitation of security clearances by ex-government employees.

“You’re not entitled to this,” stated Schweizer. “We appreciate their service to the country, but a guy who has been in the U.S. Marine Corps for 20 years [gets] a retirement pension, but they don’t get some special access to government information whenever they want and for as long as they want because of public service. I think the notion of need-to-know is clear.”

Schweizer concluded, “If you are not involved in some important government oversight program, some review board, some internal classified think tank effort [like] war-gaming — if you’re not doing something like that — you don’t have an entitled right to have access to this information. You just don’t. The number of people with top-secret security clearances in the United States is astronomically high. It’s way too high. It numbers into the millions.”

LANNY DAVIS MADE HIS LAZY EYED CLIENT MICHAEL COHEN COP A BOGUS PLEA DEAL!!

Lanny Davis is a Hillary Clinton Hack!


Former FEC Chairman: Trump Paying Stormy Daniels With Own Money is Not Illegal.

Anti-Trump liberals are thrilled that President Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen has turned on his former boss and struck a plea deal with prosecutors, which includes prison time. In this case, the prosecutors are claiming that President Trump and Cohen violated campaign finance laws for the large payment to infamous porn star Stormy Daniels.
But there’s one big problem!
On conservative legend Mark Levin’s radio show, he interviewed Clinton-appointed former Federal Elections Commission chairman Bradley Smith. Smith made it absolutely clear that Trump’s payment to Stormy wasn’t illegal, and details just how difficult this case will be for prosecutors, despite the hopes of the biased mainstream media.
Cohen’s charges are one false statement to a financial institution, five counts of tax evasion, and two counts of campaign finance violations. The left is focused on the campaign finance charges, even though Cohen only pleaded guilty to avoid more charges and likely more prison time.
As Levin opined, “It’s not a precedent… They obviously had more on Michael Cohen, or Michael Cohen wouldn’t have cut a deal.” Levin added that a plea deal doesn’t mean there was an actual violation of the law.
In the interview with Smith, the former FEC chairman repeatedly noted that just because a private expense happens to also help a candidate’s public image or improves the chances of winning an election, does not make every dollar spent by a candidate – as a private citizen – is a violation of the law.
Levin asks, “The argument seems to be and it hasn’t changed is that if I spend money to make myself look better or to take away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life, and use my own money, that somehow that is a campaign contribution, correct?”
Smith agrees, “Right.”
Levin confirms, “Which it is not.”
And Smith agrees again, “That’s right, it’s not.”
Listen to his interview (below) on Mark Levin’s popular radio show:

Smith also published an op-ed in The Washington Post, where he notes that while the payments are unseemly, they are not illegal.
This is an important distinction to make. It would be one thing if Trump used campaign funds for personal matters. But an individual running for public office doesn’t suddenly lose his right to buy and spend money as he sees fit. And Trump, a high-profile billionaire, has faced down accusations his entire career, long before he entered politics. Sometimes, it’s cheaper to pay off accusers than fight them in court.

John Brennan: exposed as the pro Stalinist and Pro Sharia Ideologue who is now the George Soros Anti-Trump attack dog

John Brennan's past exposes his present!

UNDERSTAND THE MAN AND HIS MOTIVES YOU UNDERSTAND HIS ACTIONS!

Five years before the October, 1917 Bolshevik Revolution would begin to impose Communist totalitarianism on Russia, Henry C. Vedder, observed in his 1912 study of Socialism, that the Marxist Social Labor Federation of Britain had adopted Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” [Capital] as their infallible authority, “an article of faith from which they will permit no dissent, on pain of excommunication.” Vedder, a Professor of Church History at the Upland, Pennsylvania Crozer Theological Seminary, added that this British Marxist organization rejected the orthodoxy of its own votaries unless they professed as their creed, “There is no God, and Karl Marx is his prophet” — mirroring the Islamic declaration of faith, or “shahada”. The late doyen of Islamic studies, Bernard Lewis, underscored how this summation of the Communist creed captured the “real affinity” between totalitarian Communism, and Islam, in a 1954 essay.

Both groups [i.e., adherents of Islam or Communism] profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. 
Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs…The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith—a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy…

No one dominating our immediate attention deficit disordered news cycle better epitomizes this totalitarian ideological convergence of Communism and Islam than George Soros who uses his ill gotten wealth to sow discord in Western Sociatey using other Ideological compatriots to do the bidding of his doctrine..

Obama and Hillary and Eric Holder are true believers. So is ex-CIA director, John Brennan. Yes read up!
John Brennan has admitted casting his 1976 POTUS vote for Communist Party (CP) of the USA leader Gus Hall. An ardent, unrepentant Stalin acolyte, who maintained the CPUSA as  “a bastion of Stalinist orthodoxy for four decades,” Gus Hall, circa 1976, was virulently anti-American, and an overt champion of the “liberating” hegemonic Soviet Communist terror state under Communist dictator (and Hall’s “Comrade”) Brezhnev. Hall articulated these views in a 1975 “Report to the 21^st Convention of the Communist Party”:
Détente is not an agreement to accept, or to turn one’s head from oppression by [US] imperialism anywhere. Comrade Leonid Brezhnev made this clear in a public statement here when he stated: ‘The Soviet Union’s support for all national liberation struggles and movements is non-negotiable.’

Consistent with this 1976 vote for American Stalinist Gus Hall as POTUS, John Brennan, in his 1980 University of Texas MS thesis, adopted the moral relativism one associates with the Communist movement. Brennan declared“absolute human rights do not exist,” rendering “[human rights] analysis subject to innumerable conditional criticisms,” rejecting free speech and Western liberty as universal values,  and rationalizing both Soviet Communist, and Egyptian Muslim authoritarian-theocratic totalitarianism. He proffered this unsettling apologetic for the appalling human rights record of the Brezhnev era Soviet Union (although Brennan refrained from labeling the Soviet dictator “Comrade Leonid Brezhnev”):
Can human rights violations in the Soviet Union be as easily justified in terms of the preservation of the communist ideology? Unfortunately (looking at events from a democratic perspective), yes. Since the absolute status of human rights has been denied, the justification for the violation of any of those rights has to be pursued from a particular ideological perspective. Leonid Brezhnev could justify human rights violations in the Soviet Union as a necessary part of the preservation of the communist ideological system.
Regarding Egypt, during the Anwar Sadat era, Brennan asked rhetorically,
[W]ould the ability to demonstrate effectively increase human rights and democracy in Egypt?
He responded to his own query,
In the light of the political environment, probably not. At the present stage of political development in Egypt widespread open opposition to the administration would be beyond the capacity of the system to handle.
Brennan then provided what was tantamount to a mealy mouthed apologetic for Egyptian human rights abuses:
Can the human rights violations in Egypt be justified from a democratic perspective? There can be no objective answer to this question because it depends on what one considers to be a threat to democracy in Egypt. Whether or not public demonstrations in Egypt actually threaten the existence of democracy in Egypt is uncertain.
Ignoring Islam’s antithetical concept of freedom as hurriyya—perfect slavery to Allah’s Sharia—Brennan’s thesis also argued that freedom “cannot be labeled as a Western idea,” and “is very much a part of Islamic culture.”  Hurriyya, “freedom,” is—as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized “Greatest Sufi Master,” expressed it—“perfect slavery.” This conception, moreover, is not merely confined to the Sufis’ perhaps metaphorical understanding of the relationship between Allah the “master” and his human “slaves.” Following Islamic law (Sharia) slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya, “freedom.” This earlier more concrete characterization of hurriyya’s metaphysical meaning, whose essence Ibn Arabi reiterated, was pronounced by the Sufi scholar al-Qushayri (d. 1072/74).

Let it be known to you that the real meaning of freedom lies in the perfection of slavery. If the slavery of a human being in relation to Allah is a true one, his freedom is relieved from the yoke of changes. Anyone who imagines that it may be granted to a human being to give up his slavery for a moment and disregard the commands and prohibitions of the religious law while possessing discretion and responsibility, has divested himself of Islam. Allah said to his Prophet: “Worship until certainty comes to you.” (Koran 15:99). As agreed upon by the [Koranic] commentators, “certainty” here means the end (of life).
 This is John Brennan. The dangerous absurdity —of  his 1980 MS thesis, three decades long tenacity—of Brennan’s uninformed Islamophilia. While then serving as the Obama administration’s chief counterterrorism adviser,  remember how Mr. Brennan,
vociferously advocates an exclusive, bowdlerized definition of jihad in the public discourse as “to purify oneself or one’s community,” lest the tender sensibilities of Muslims be offended. He further claims that, somehow, self-described jihadists “have truly just distorted the whole concept” of jihad.

But it is Mr. Brennan who, irrespective of whatever flimsy, ahistorical rationale he provides, thoroughly misrepresents jihad – a living, bellicose Islamic institution that dates from the advent of the Muslim creed almost 14 centuries ago. The dangerous absurdity of Mr. Brennan’s jihad denial is self-evident…Alexis de Tocqueville, upon returning from America, where he famously analyzed and celebrated America’s nascent democracy, studied Islamic doctrine, which included an 1838 assessment of the Koran, in preparation for his visits to Algeria (in 1841 and 1846) while serving as a French parliamentarian. Tocqueville concluded: “Jihad, Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. … The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels … [T]hese doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran … The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.”
John Brennan’s IS NOT A USEFUL IDIOT for Stalinism and Sharia. He is a Driven paid Ideologue who is being protected in his position and ranting by confidant higher powers who have calculated that in teh long run the Trump and We the People Movement will come and go but their long struggle to Finadmentally Transform America will SUCCEED!.

That is why John Brennan does what he does with the confidence that he will not be eliminated! His central role in helping to orchestrate the manufactured “Trump-Russia collusion” faux narrative, which has evolved into a seditious, full-blown attempted over throw a Duly elected President.

This stick only if we let it!

Violence and Evil should be dealt with Better and Stronger violence and the decapitation of the evil doers!

Face it they have always wanted our Country.  If they get it it will be because we gave it to them.

I FOR ONE WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING BACK IN EVERY WAY I CAN

Silicon Valley Lefftist Oligarchs Facebook and Twitter Censors me again!

Yes Patriots..

TWITTER HAS SUSPENDED MY ACCOUNT COMPLETELY

FACEBOOK HAS BLOCKED ME FOR 30 DAYS!

John Gaultier!

In order to win the culture you need to win the war on words

DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY!
In order to win the culture you need to win the war on words and understand what the Left has done by infiltrating Establishments, filling them up with their people and then slowly changing the bye laws and the Recreating the Establishment with their won ideology behind the curtain of the Original Name.

We will take many of the Establishments one by one and you will see that the names are still the same but the Ideology and philosophy of all of them are remarkably the same.

Lets take some of them:

DEMOCRAT PARTY:
Anyone who actually believes that Today's Democrats are what the Democrat party Originally stood for is a Retard, an Indoctrinated Ideologue or a TRUE BELIEVER of the Leftists plan to takeover America.

It is clearly the electoral strategy of the Democratic Party to divide the nation into angry racialized groups who can be mobilized to the voting booths.  Democrats are betting their future on a loyal hispanic voting bloc, as stated in a recent "Center For American Progress" memo.  The memo called illegal aliens a "critical component of the Democratic Party's future electoral success."

As part of this strategy, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer attacks those deplorable people who think our country should enforce its immigration laws.  He told Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that the "fundamental values" of the right are "anti-immigrant," "horrible ... [and] disgusting."  "That's who they are," he said.

It is instructive to note how recently Democrat leaders were themselves "horrible" and "disgusting."  The quotes below are from Democrat leaders not that long ago.  Between the time of these quotes and now, Democrats decided that open borders are the key to their future power.  The effect that open borders might have on our country is not a matter of concern to them.  It's all about power.

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants, placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools, and social programs.  The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.  Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care, and other benefits, often without paying any taxes.  Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance.  These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.  Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

–Harry Reid, 1993.  Reid stressed that these positions "are not racist."

"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service[s] they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. ... [W]e will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes[.] ... We are a nation of immigrants.  But we are also a nation of laws.  It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

–Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union address.

"The American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration[.] ... A primary goal ... must be to curtail future illegal immigration."  

–Charles Schumer, 2009.

"I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants [sic] by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America and keeping them here; [and] requiring undocumented immigrants [sic] to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation].

–Charles Schumer, 2010.

These are sane comments, thoroughly unlike what we hear from Democrat leaders today.  We are now told that comments like these come from horrible and disgusting racist white supremacists.  

Chuck Schumer is correct that something horrible and disgusting is happening here.  He is just wrong about where those adjectives apply.

For example, just watch how the Left constantly redefines everything and then Conservatives, without fail, automatically assume the defensive position. The political-right falls into this trap EVERY SINGLE TIME. LISTEN FOLKS, you don't need to win intellectual debates to win the culture. You need to appeal to human emotion.

Conservatives are always reacting, they are never attacking. We make the mistake of letting the enemy set the narrative "frame" and then we suicidally walk into it.

That's why I've recommended weaponizing our own brand of unique words. Labeling the opposition "anti-White, "genocidal" and "evil" are all good starts. In fact, you could even go so far as to label mass migration into Western countries a "hate crime" against whites. You need to get creative, but at the same time keep it simple.

Discard saying things like "Democrats are the real racists." Why? Because it does absolutely nothing to shift the narrative -- you are still assuming a defensive posture. You're basically saying, "See, we are not the real racists, the Democrats are." You've already lost when you utter phrases like that. Plus, that specific phrase has been around forever and has done very little to shift minority votes in our favor.

Lastly, if you want to regain institutional power over America's cultural institutions (media, academia, Hollywood, etc), then you need to focus on specific people.

If you go around constantly complaining about "Hollyweird" or "Far-Left college campuses," you do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Institutions are made up of people. You remove the people, you change the institution.

Don't like a particular far-left professor? Find negative things he's said and then slap the worst labels imaginable on him. And when the opposition accuses you of something, never respond. Just keep hammering away at them. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Eventually, they will break.

Today's Democrats are Anti America Socialists hiding inside the exoskeleton of the Name Democrat!

DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY!
In order to win the culture you need to win the war on words and understand what the Left has done by infiltrating Establishments, filling them up with their people and then slowly changing the bye laws and the Recreating the Establishment with their own ANTI AMERICAN ideology behind the curtain of the Original Name.

We will take many of the Establishments one by one and you will see that the names are still the same but the Ideology and philosophy of all of them are remarkably the same.

Lets take some of them:

DEMOCRAT PARTY:
Anyone who actually believes that Today's Democrats are what the Democrat party Originally stood for is a Retard, an Indoctrinated Ideologue or a TRUE BELIEVER of the Leftists plan to takeover America.

It is clearly the electoral strategy of the Democratic Party to divide the nation into angry racialized groups who can be mobilized to the voting booths.  Democrats are betting their future on a loyal hispanic voting bloc, as stated in a recent "Center For American Progress" memo.  The memo called illegal aliens a "critical component of the Democratic Party's future electoral success."

As part of this strategy, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer attacks those deplorable people who think our country should enforce its immigration laws.  He told Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that the "fundamental values" of the right are "anti-immigrant," "horrible ... [and] disgusting."  "That's who they are," he said.

It is instructive to note how recently Democrat leaders were themselves "horrible" and "disgusting."  The quotes below are from Democrat leaders not that long ago.  Between the time of these quotes and now, Democrats decided that open borders are the key to their future power.  The effect that open borders might have on our country is not a matter of concern to them.  It's all about power.

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants, placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools, and social programs.  The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.  Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care, and other benefits, often without paying any taxes.  Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance.  These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.  Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

–Harry Reid, 1993.  Reid stressed that these positions "are not racist."

"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service[s] they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. ... [W]e will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes[.] ... We are a nation of immigrants.  But we are also a nation of laws.  It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

–Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union address.

"The American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration[.] ... A primary goal ... must be to curtail future illegal immigration."  

–Charles Schumer, 2009.

"I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants [sic] by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America and keeping them here; [and] requiring undocumented immigrants [sic] to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation].

–Charles Schumer, 2010.

These are sane comments, thoroughly unlike what we hear from Democrat leaders today.  We are now told that comments like these come from horrible and disgusting racist white supremacists.  

Chuck Schumer is correct that something horrible and disgusting is happening here.  He is just wrong about where those adjectives apply.

For example, just watch how the Left constantly redefines everything and then Conservatives, without fail, automatically assume the defensive position. The political-right falls into this trap EVERY SINGLE TIME.

LISTEN FOLKS, you don't need to win intellectual debates to win the culture. You need to appeal to human emotion.

Conservatives are always reacting, they are never attacking. We make the mistake of letting the enemy set the narrative "frame" and then we suicidally walk into it.

That's why I've recommended weaponizing our own brand of unique words. Labeling the opposition "anti-White, "genocidal" and "evil" are all good starts. In fact, you could even go so far as to label mass migration into Western countries a "hate crime" against whites. You need to get creative, but at the same time keep it simple.

Discard saying things like "Democrats are the real racists." Why? Because it does absolutely nothing to shift the narrative -- you are still assuming a defensive posture. You're basically saying, "See, we are not the real racists, the Democrats are." You've already lost when you utter phrases like that. Plus, that specific phrase has been around forever and has done very little to shift minority votes in our favor.

Lastly, if you want to regain institutional power over America's cultural institutions (media, academia, Hollywood, etc), then you need to focus on specific people.

If you go around constantly complaining about "Hollyweird" or "Far-Left college campuses," you do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Institutions are made up of people. You remove the people, you change the institution.

Don't like a particular far-left professor? Find negative things he's said and then slap the worst labels imaginable on him. And when the opposition accuses you of something, never respond. Just keep hammering away at them. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Eventually, they will break.

Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.