Please Pay very close attention to Maria as she interviews U.S. Senator Ron John from WI.
When ODNI James Clapper walked into the oval office on January 4, 2017, with “tech cuts” (transcript excerpts) from the Flynn/Kislyak phone call, essentially Clapper infected the White House with a paper record that the Obama administration was aware of the FBI investigating the incoming administration.
As in what did he know and when did he know it?
For those who have small businesses and reject the PPP, Payment Protection Program, send their checks to me.
I’ll get the economy going so quickly people won’t even remember Joe Biden and that includes members of his family.
None of the individuals can be considered credible as they are all, on the record perjurers.
Why is it important to understand the duality of purpose for the appointment of the special counsel run by the figure-head (in name only) of Robert Mueller?…
Because from the outset the seventeen Lawfare lawyers who formed the resistance unit operation took control over the DOJ.
That was a large purpose of their installation.
The Mueller resistance unit controlled everything, including every impediment to congress.
Despite the fact they should have been aware of this, many individual Senators and congressional representatives now claim they had no idea of this purpose. Setting aside their willful blindness; all that stuff is in the rear-view and only leads to anger in a debate that needs to look forward; the issue now becomes putting indisputable evidence, an actionable trigger, in front of them and forcing a public confrontation.
Action. Nothing else matters; drive action.
At the same time, USAG John Durham [and S.P. XXXXX ] are facing ‘irrefutable’ evidence that holds two purposes: (1) undeniable evidence of a very specific cover-up operation that came, purposefully, from the agenda of the resistance unit to throw a blanket over the most serious abuse of power in modern history; and (2) evidence that ‘we the people’ know.
It might seem odd at first, but the knowledge that we know, and possess the evidence to prove beyond doubt, is an insurance policy in the quest for truth and justice.
This includes evidence that cannot be ignored even if they disappear the delivery mechanism. The truth has no agenda, and in this case the truth is a weapon.
Judges tossed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence, saying jurors weren’t adequately screened for bias.
August 3rd, 2020
President Trump announced Sunday that the U.S. government “must” again pursue the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, after a federal appeals court Friday threw out the death sentence because the judge who oversaw the case did not adequately screen jurors for potential biases.
A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a new penalty-phase trial on whether 27-year-old Tsarnaev should be executed for the 2013 attack that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others.
“Rarely has anybody deserved the death penalty more than the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,” Trump wrote on Twitter Sunday.
“The court agreed that this ‘was one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks since the 9/11 atrocities.’
Yet the appellate court tossed out the death sentence.
So many lives lost and ruined.
The Federal Government must again seek the Death Penalty in a do-over of that chapter of the original trial.
Our Country cannot let the appellate decision stand.
Also, it is ridiculous that this process is taking so long!
An attorney for Tsarnaev said after his sentence was tossed that they are grateful for the court’s “straightforward and fair decision: if the government wishes to put someone to death, it must make its case to a fairly selected jury that is provided all relevant information.”
“But make no mistake: Dzhokhar will spend his remaining days locked up in prison, with the only matter remaining being whether he will die by execution,” Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson wrote in the ruling, more than six months after arguments were heard in the case.
The Justice Department (DOJ) had been expected to appeal even before Trump’s tweet. Legal observers predict prosecutors will turn straight to the U.S. Supreme Court without asking for a hearing before the full 1st Circuit.
The U.S. government recently resumed federal executions following a 17-year pause and, under Trump, has pursued capital punishment in an increasing numbers.
Runners continue to run towards the finish line of the Boston Marathon as an explosion erupts near the finish line of the race on April 15. (REUTERS)
The suspected Boston Marathon bombers wanted to attack New York — and specifically planned to blow up Times Square before they were captured, authorities said today.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, hatched their Gotham-bombing plans on the fly, shortly after carjacking a Mercedes SUV from motorist in Cambridge a week ago tonight, according to Mayor Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly.
“In the [stolen] car they made the decision to go to New York with the remaining explosive devices,” Kelly said.
The younger brother allegedly told investigators of their Big Apple plans this weekend from his hospital bed in Boston. FBI interrogators passed on the information to New York officials last night, officials said.
The Tsarnaev brothers had one explosive, fashioned from a pressure cooker, and five pipe bombs, officials said.
An army of cops and vast network of security cameras would have greeted the brothers in Times Square had they made it to New York, Bloomberg said.
“We don’t know if we would have been able to stop the terrorists,” Bloomberg said. “We’re just thankful we didn’t have to find out the answer.”
Had the bombers escaped from Boston late Thursday night and arrived in New York for a middle-of-the-night attack, the carnage could have still been horrific, officials said.
“There’s a significant number of people in Times Square at that hour,” Kelly said. “There are clubs, bars that are operating.”
This isn’t the first time Times Square has been in the cross-hairs of terrorists. Pakistani immigrant Faisal Shahzad planted a car bomb on 45th Street on May 1, 2010 but a street vendor saw smoke and the explosive was disabled.
Shahzad was arrested as he tried to leave the country and he’s been sentenced to life in prison.
“Clearly you saw the power of the bombs in Boston,” Kelly said. “You take that and you can just use your [imagination], you can give a guesstimate of what the damage would be in New York City,”
Dzhokhar had visited Times Square on April 18 last year and again in November, 2012, Kelly said.
“We don’t know if those visits were related in any way to the brothers’ spontaneous decision to target Times Square,” said Kelly, adding that NYPD investigators are still piecing together details of Dzhokhar’s recent trips here.
Thankfully, the suspected bomber brothers never got out of greater Boston last week.
After carjacked a motorist, that victim escaped and left his cell phone in the stolen car.
Cops hunted them down in Watertown, Mass., leading a to massive firefight with the brothers hurling bombs at officers.
In the confrontation with police, Tamerlan was wounded and then killed when a fleeing Dzhokhar ran over him.
The younger Tsarnaev was captured Friday night hiding in a dry-docked boat in the backyard of a Watertown resident.
The brothers’ deadly plans for New York City apparently didn’t run counter to having some fun here.
In an earlier interview with FBI agents, late Saturday night, Dzhokhar said the pair planned to come to New York and have a good time, officials said..
Then in a second interrogation of late Sunday night, the wounded alleged terrorist spilled bears on the planned New York assault, according to Kelly.
“He was a lot more lucid and much more detailed [in giving] information in the second questioning period,” Kelly said.
The Tsarnaev brothers allegedly unleashed two bombs at the Boston Marathon a week ago Monday, killing three spectators and maiming hundreds more.
They’re suspected of murdering a campus police officer at MIT on Thursday after their pictures were released to the public.
The only major malfunction was when those charged with removing the astronauts , the problem, the exit hatch would not open.
The joint SpaceX-NASA historic mission which brought human spaceflight back to U.S. soil after nearly a decade returned from Earth orbit on August 1, 2020, per NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine’s announcement Friday afternoon. Capsule splashdown is scheduled for August 2nd.
The mission’s return will mark a long-duration stay in space of just over two months for American astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley. After launching aboard a Falcon 9 rocket on May 30th, the crew arrived at the International Space Station (ISS) several hours later and docked their Dragon Endeavour capsule to the orbiting habitat.
The mission will represent a huge success for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) which provided funding and guided the developments involving the Dragon capsule. NASA is further expected to certify the craft to regularly carry humans to and from the ISS.
A astronauts undock SpaceX’s Crew Dragon ship from space station
NASA astronauts undock SpaceX’s Crew Dragon ship from space station
Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley are on their way home.
The two NASA astronauts departed the International Space Station on Saturday evening, beginning a roughly day-long voyage back to their families on Earth.
Behnken and Hurley left in a vehicle called Crew Dragon “Endeavour,” a spaceship designed, built, and operated by SpaceX with about $2.7 billion in government funding. It’s SpaceX’s second experimental flight of the vehicle, a mission called Demo-2, and the aerospace company’s first time putting people on board.
The Demo-2 mission’s departure makes SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk in 2002, the first company in NASA’s Commercial Crew Program to successfully pull off a visit to the $150 billion, football field-size laboratory.
But Behnken and Hurley’s return trip has just begun. Now that they’ve flown away from the ISS, they must perform a risky descent through Earth’s atmosphere — the phase of the flight that Musk has called his “biggest concern.”
If the flight successfully lands on Sunday afternoon, it would be the first crewed American spaceship to leave and return to Earth since July 2011, when NASA retired its space shuttle program.
The beginning of the end to an historic 63-day mission
But all good things must come to an end, and the crew began loading supplies, experiments, and personal effects — including an historic American flag — into Endeavour early Saturday morning.
Once they were packed up, they said goodbye to the ISS crew members they lived and worked with for two months: NASA astronaut and station commander Chris Cassidy, and Russian cosmonauts Anatoly Ivanishin and Ivan Vagner.
Behnken and Hurley then climbed into Endeavour, donned their spacesuits, closed the hatch, and began preparing to depart. At 7:35 p.m. ET, the spaceship gently shoved off the ISS with a series of small burps of propellant, right on schedule.
“Dragon departing,” Hurley said as Endeavour glided away.
“Dragon, SpaceX: Separation confirmed,” a mission controller responded on the ground.
The crew then fired departure burns to build up a protective “keep-out sphere” around the space station, to begin their journey in earnest.
“Safe travels, and have a successful landing. Endeavour’s a great ship. Godspeed,” a mission controller told the crew.
Hurley later tweeted his thanks to the space station crew, called Expedition 63.
“It was an honor and privilege to be part of Expedition 63,” Hurley said. “Now it’s time to finish our DM-2 test flight in order to pave the way for future Dragon crews. Go Endeavour!”
If all goes well — the path of Hurricane Isaias has allayed early concerns about the safety of landing near Florida — the astronauts will splash down in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday at 2:48 p.m. ET.
The first steps Behnken and Hurley will take include firing the spaceship’s thrusters to slip into the correct orbit, which are ongoing now.
Next they’ll shed Endeavour’s cylindrical trunk.
The heavy piece of hardware powered and helped navigate the ship in orbit, but isn’t needed (and is actually dangerous) during landing. Dumping the trunk is essential to exposing the heat shield of the aerodynamic crew capsule for the next stage of the flight.
After getting some sleep, Behnken and Hurley will wake up on Sunday morning to prepare for landing. They’ll need to fire Endeavour’s built-in thrusters for about 11 minutes to dramatically slow down the capsule, helping it fall from orbit and back to Earth. At this point, the heat shield must absorb blistering 3,500-degree-Fahrenheit heat that’s generated by plowing through the planet’s atmosphere at about 25 times the speed of sound.
It’s this phase that concerns Musk, SpaceX’s CEO and chief designer, more than any other.
The spaceship capsule has an asymmetric design to accommodate its emergency launch-escape system thruster pods. And the imbalance caused by those pods — though very unlikely to cause a problem — is the core of Musk’s concern.
“If you rotate too much, then you could potentially catch the plasma in the super Draco escape thruster pods,” Musk said, adding that this could overheat parts of the ship or cause it to lose control due to wobbling. “We’ve looked at this six ways to Sunday, so it’s not that I think this will fail. It’s just that I worry a bit that it is asymmetric on the backshell.”
When it’s about 18,000 feet above the water, Endeavour should automatically deploy a set of drogue parachutes and slow to about 350 mph. Around 6,500 feet, four large main parachutes should pop out and slow Behnken and Hurley’s capsule to less than 120 mph before they splash into the ocean.
NASA and SpaceX are hoping to land Endeavour at a site off the coast of Pensacola, Florida, and immediately greet them with recovery boats and a helicopter that will whisk them back to land. If weather conditions turn poor near Pensacola, the astronauts will try to land at a backup site about 100 miles east, near Panama City.
SpaceX has five other potential landing sites, though Hurricane Isaias has knocked some out of contention. NASA’s landing conditions include wind speeds under 11 mph, no rain or lighting, and clear skies.
An August 1 map shows NASA and SpaceX’s landing zones for the Crew Dragon Demo-2 mission amid the estimated path and conditions of Hurricane Isaias. Pensacola (left) and Panama City (right) are indicated with a red arrow. The outer-edge green shows a 5-10% chance of sustained tropical storm-force winds.
Along with trying to get home, Behnken and Hurley are performing an essential step in proving that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon ship is safe to fly people in the future, including private citizens. NASA and SpaceX plan to finish reviewing data from the experimental mission over the following six weeks, likely resulting in its crucial human-rated certification from the space agency.
In a future mission that NASA recently announced, astronaut Megan McArthur (who is married to Behnken) will ride the same Crew Dragon ship to orbit for a roughly six-month stay.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s (D) Chicago witnessed a 139 percent increase in murder during July 2020 when compared to July 2019.
ABC7 reported there were 105 murders in July 2020, up from “the 44 reported in July 2019.”
Moreover, there were 406 “shooting incidents” in Chicago during the month of July 2020, an increase of 75 percent “from the 232 last July,” the Chicago Sun-Timesreported.
Over a longer span of time, murders were up 51 percent from January 1, 2020, through July 31, 2020, compared to murders for the same period of time in 2019, according to the Sun-Times.
Lightfoot blamed Chicago mayhem and bloodshed on gun-friendly states during a July 26, 2020, appearance on CNN’s State of the Union.
According to The Hill, Lightfoot told CNN, “Our gun problem is related to the fact that we have too many illegal guns on our streets, 60 percent of which come from states outside of Illinois.”
She added, “We are being inundated with guns from states that have virtually no gun control, no background checks, no ban on assault weapons — that is hurting cities like Chicago.”
Lightfoot did not mention that the Chicago area already has an “assault weapons” ban via a Cook County ordinance. Nor did she mention background checks are a federal requirement, mandated for all retail gun sales in every state of the Union, whether that is Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, or California.
The mayor also failed to noted that her state, Illinois, requires everyone to obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card before being allowed to possess a gun, and the process for obtaining that card includes a background check.
Think you know the facts about gun control?
The CATO Institute
If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.
1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media.
In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642.
More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often-repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang‐related violence.
2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.
False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.”
All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non‐commercial sellers.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.
3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.
False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy.
The two shotguns and rifles used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.
4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.
True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons.
In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right‐to‐carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self‐defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.
5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.
False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even the University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”
6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures.
In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on-demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations.
Both countries also allow the widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates.
Woman in the Israeli Defense Force
The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history, and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on.
“A revolution is not a dinner party or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined,so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.
A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” (“Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung,” Peking, 1967)
The Chinese Cultural Revolution was “mass murder of a country’s heritage”. (Enemies of the People, Anne F. Thurston, 1987, p. 105).
This is the third article in a series (links to 1 & 2) that compares today’s American Cancel Culture Revolution to China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1962-1976).
In the mid-1960’s, teaching the history of Communism in America’s public schools generally went from seldom to hardly ever. It declined further after the official collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on 31 December 1991.
Today’s BLM/Antifa street “protesters” likely know nothing about the combined body count of Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China.
An interesting piece follows in which the “Poor Young Black men were gun down by the police.
Until the BLM movement makes a conscious decision, they will always be involved in police shooting.
Forget the alleged proportionality, black shot blacks and white shoot whites.
The selection of those killed was random, were neighborhood thugs.
Late-night comedian Bill Maher argued Friday that Michael Brown wasn’t the “gentle giant” his sympathizers made him out to be and that demonstrators on both sides of the issue in Ferguson, Missouri, are reacting emotionally without getting all their facts straight.
“I’m sorry, but Michael Brown’s people say he is a gentle giant,” he said. “Well, we saw that video of when he was in that 7-Eleven.
Should he have been shot? I believe God made his decision on that already
He was committing a robbery, and he pushed that guy.
He was acting like a thug, not like a gentle giant.
He certainly didn’t deserve to be shot for it.”
Hum, only 12 whites were carrying guns. Let that sink in a moment.
The CLAYTON, Mo. (AP) – St. Louis County’s prosecutor announced Thursday that he will not charge the former police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, a dramatic decision that could reopen old wounds amid a renewed and intense national conversation about racial injustice and the police treatment of people of color.
He committed armed the penalty is 50 years in prison.
Alicia Garza, from left, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement, arrive at the Glamour Women of the Year Awards at NeueHouse Hollywood on Monday, Nov. 14, 2016, in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)
There’s Black Lives Matter the concept and Black Lives Matter the institution. Most people who sign onto the BLM movement believe they are backing the concept, but it should be understood very clearly that the institution is reaping all the benefits.
And the institution has absolutely no concern for the well-being of black lives or equality in this country.
In fact, by their own admission, their purpose isn’t to heal this country, it’s to rip it apart and remake it into a more Marxist kind of society.
For more on that, I highly recommend you read my previous article on the matter.
A 2015 video has resurfaced proving that the entire intent of the Black Lives Matter movement is marxism.
As you can see during the interview with the Real News Network, BLM founder Patrisse Cullors admits she and her cohorts are “trained Marxists.”
“We actually do have an ideological frame.
Myself and Alicia [Garza] in particular, we’re trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.
We are super versed on ideological theories,” said Cullors. Trending
You know what else I find disturbing is that everybody in America just sides with their own people and doesn’t look at the facts,” he said. “The cops, I saw on the news a couple of weeks ago, were wearing bracelets or something that said, ‘
I am Darren Wilson.’ Why do you want to throw your lot in with this plain murderer?”
Black Lives Matter the institution isn’t trying to hide their Marxism either. As I list in my previous article, in their “what we believe” section, they list their goals and all of them are extreme leftist stances concerned with destroying the very fabric of America in favor of the implementation of radical marxist ideals:
We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.
We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.
We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).
Anything permeated with Marxism doesn’t have the interest of the people in mind. It often uses people or causes as an avenue to dismantle and rebuild political systems. Communism and socialism are not a solid system to replace anything with as it deteriorates and degrades anything it touches and that includes the lives of the people. These two systems alone have claimed the lives of millions over the span of its implementation in various countries.
The black community isn’t really a concern for BLM the institution. If it was, it would be looking into studies on what policies affect the black community on a fundamental level, improving relations between law enforcement and the black community, and putting money toward the institutions that do see marked improvements for the black population’s way of life.
They have no interest in that, however. They maintain themselves to be a reactive organization that has no interest in fixing the problem. This is evidenced by Cullors’ reaction to the Wichita “first steps” barbeque event in 2016 where a black community and the law enforcement community got together to have real conversations to provoke better understanding. Cullors immediately distanced BLM from this event and said this:
“We don’t sit on panels with law enforcement, and we don’t have BBQ’s or cookouts with law enforcement. We feel the best method at this point in history is by holding police accountable by organizing and advocating for police accountability.”
In other words, BLM’s purpose isn’t to bridge gaps, it’s to criticize and react. This is textbook Marxism meant to bring down organizations, not help improve them.
Supporting the concept of Black Lives Matter (ensuring the equal opportunity and well being of the black community) is what many believe they are doing, and if that’s the case, then be sure to only support the concept and distance yourself from the institution, which is putting black lives in harm’s way for political and monetary gain.
“I sometimes say that in my last life maybe I was Chinese.”—Sen. Dianne Feinstein WTF?
As media, intelligence agency, and political scrutiny of foreign meddling is seemingly at its apex, a story with big national security implications involving a high-ranking senator with access to America’s most sensitive intelligence information has been hiding in plain sight.
The story involves China and the senior U.S. senator from California, and former chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Democrat Dianne Feinstein. It was buried eight paragraphs into a recent Politico exposé on foreign efforts to infiltrate Silicon Valley, as a passing example of political espionage:
Former intelligence officials…[said] Chinese intelligence once recruited a staff member at a California office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the source reported back to China about local politics. (A spokesperson for Feinstein said the office doesn’t comment on personnel matters or investigations, but noted that no Feinstein staffer in California has ever had a security clearance.)
Later comes additional detail:
According to four former intelligence officials, in the 2000s, a staffer in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s San Francisco field office was reporting back to the MSS [China’s Ministry of State Security, its intelligence and security apparatus]. While this person, who was a liaison to the local Chinese community, was fired, charges were never filed against him. (One former official reasoned this was because the staffer was providing political intelligence and not classified information—making prosecution far more difficult.) The suspected informant was ‘run’ by officials based at China’s San Francisco Consulate, said another former intelligence official. The spy’s handler ‘probably got an award back in China’ for his work, noted this former official, dryly.
This anecdote provides significantly more questions than answers. For starters: Who was the spy? For how long was the spy under surveillance? What information about “local politics” was the spy passing back to China? Just how close was the spy to the senator? Did law enforcement officials sweep vehicles and other areas for listening devices? Was there an investigation into whether others in the senator’s circle may have been coordinating with Beijing?
Did the senator expose herself to potential blackmail, or the public to danger through leakage of sensitive, highly classified information? Is firing really the proper punishment for providing political intelligence to a foreign power?
The Details Right Now Are Few and Blurry
We now know only the most basic of additional details about what occurred in Feinstein’s office. Five years ago, the FBI approached the senator to apprise her that a San Francisco-based staffer was being investigated under suspicion of spying for China.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Feinstein’s hometown paper, this staffer, who had worked with Feinstein for almost 20 years, drove her around in San Francisco and “served as gofer in her San Francisco office and as a liaison to the Asian American community, even attending Chinese Consulate functions for the senator.”
An unnamed source added that a Chinese MSS official first approached the staffer during a visit to Asia several years prior.
Given his proximity to Feinstein, we have no idea what information he could have gleaned in her employ. We do have a presumed identity.
The Daily Caller discovered that a Feinstein staffer named Russell Lowe, listed on the senator’s payroll as an “office director” as of 2013 before he was let go, matches the description of the Chinese asset.
It appears Lowe continues to operate freely in the United States. A year after he was removed from Feinstein’s staff, Lowe spoke at a conference on Chinese investment in California.
In October 2017 he visited a South Korean publication’s office with former Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), indicating he still had access to political figures.
Lowe presently serves as secretary general of the Education for Social Justice Foundation, which seeks to “educate the public on unresolved historical conflicts, human rights, and crimes against humanity.”
The Chinese government likely views its present focus favorably: Japanese abuses during the World War II era via its “comfort women” system whereby 200,000 girls from 13 or more Asian countries were forced into sexual slavery.
It took a tweet from President Trump implying hypocrisy, given Feinstein’s role investigating “Russian collusion” as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, while a Chinese spy had infiltrated her own office, to force the senator to address the issue.
(1/2) The FBI told me 5 years ago it had concerns that China was seeking to recruit an administrative member of my Calif staff (despite no access to sensitive information). I took those concerns seriously, learned the facts and made sure the employee left my office immediately. pic.twitter.com/qpVyPanpJk
Feinstein’s account conflicts with what has been reported regarding the recruitment and activities of the Chinese spy. She conveniently omits that her office employed this individual for almost 20 years in a close capacity, while he represented the senator in interactions with Chinese officials.
A Short History of Dianne Feinstein’s Love for China
For the last 40 years, no politician in America has arguably maintained a deeper, more longstanding and friendlier relationship with China, at the highest levels of its ruling Communist Party, than Feinstein. It dates back to the opening of U.S.-Chinese diplomatic relations in 1979.
Shortly thereafter, Feinstein, then mayor of San Francisco, established a “sister city” relationship with Shanghai, one of the earliest and most robust such relationships in U.S.-China history. Soon after, Feinstein led a mayoral delegation to China joined by her husband, investor Richard Blum, a trip they took together many times over the ensuing years as the relationship between both Feinsteins and China grew.
During the 1980s, as mayor of San Francisco, Feinstein developed a close friendship with Shanghai Mayor Jiang Zemin. This substantially enhanced Feinstein’s foreign policy profile, and created an important linkage to the U.S. government for China’s Communist Party (CCP).
Just as Feinstein rose to a prominent position in foreign affairs and national security in the U.S. Senate, first on the Foreign Relations Committee and later as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Jiang rose to the top of Chinese leadership, serving as chairman of the Central Military Commission, general secretary of the CCP, and president of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Under Jiang’s leadership, the PRC initiated a brutal crackdown against practitioners of Falun Gong, including mass imprisonments, beatings, torture, rape, organ harvesting, and murder, and engaging in alleged human rights atrocities against Tibetans. Feinstein never renounced her friendship with Jiang, in spite of these acts.
In 1986, Feinstein and Jiang designated several corporate entities for fostering commercial relations, one named Shanghai Pacific Partners. Feinstein’s husband served as a director. His financial position was relatively small, less than $500,000 on one project, the only such position in China the Feinstein family held when Feinstein entered the Senate in 1992. ‘They said that Feinstein’s consistent support for China’s interests cannot help but benefit her husband’s efforts to earn profits there.’
That project, however, which Blum’s firm participated in alongside PRC state-run Shanghai Investment Trust Corp., was one of the first joint ventures between San Francisco and Chinese investors, reportedly “cited by Chinese officials as a testament to the friendly business ties between Shanghai and San Francisco that Feinstein had initiated.” Subsequently Blum’s investments in the Middle Kingdom mushroomed.
In May 1993, Feinstein expressed her strong support on the Senate floor for continued trading with China. Contemporaneously, her husband was seeking to raise up to $150 million from investors, including himself, for a variety of Chinese enterprises.
In August 1993, Feinstein and her husband visited Beijing for extensive meetings with Chinese leaders at President Jiang’s invitation. As the Los Angeles Times reported in a 1994 exposé on Feinstein’s husband’s business ties and the potential conflict of interests they presented: “Such encounters are fondly remembered when deals are clinched back in China, according to American experts in Chinese business practices. They said that Feinstein’s consistent support for China’s interests cannot help but benefit her husband’s efforts to earn profits there.”
The historical record suggests these American experts were right. Blum successfully raised $160 million for the aforementioned Asia fund under his Newbridge Capital investment company, including investing $1-2 million himself. The fund invested in several state-owned and Chinese government-linked businesses.
Why, We Love Trading with China
Blum’s firm’s largest holding—at the time his China investments began to draw scrutiny in 1997—was its stake in Northwest Airlines. The then-estimated $300 million position was poised to significantly appreciate in value, as Northwest happened to be the sole airline operator providing nonstop service from the United States to any city in China. On one such visit in January 1996, Feinstein and Blum enjoyed a meal with President Jiang.
When questioned on his China investments, Blum pledged to donate future profits from the holdings to his nonprofit foundation to help Tibetan refugees, thereby “remov[ing] any perception that I, in any way, shape or form benefit from or influence my wife’s position on China as a U.S. senator.”
But these conflict of interest issues persisted.
In January 1995, Feinstein was appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Subsequently, she made several visits to China, accompanied by her husband, where she met with senior government officials.
During these trips it the couple was wined and dined. On one such visit in January 1996, Feinstein and Blum enjoyed a meal with President Jiang in Zhongnanhai, the exclusive leadership compound for China’s Communist Party, where according to Feinstein they ate in Mao Zedong’s residence in the room where he died.
Feinstein kept up her dogged support for increased trade with China. In May 1996, she penned an editorial in the Los Angeles Times calling for the United States to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China “on a permanent basis and get past the annual dance that is proving to be extraordinarily divisive and not at all helpful toward reaching the oft-stated goal: improvement in human rights.”
Campaign Contributions from Foreign Sources
While Feinstein maintained her pro-China positions, in March 1997, the senator revealed that the FBI had warned her the Chinese government might seek to funnel illegal contributions to her campaign fund.
She was one of only six members of Congress to receive such a warning. As the New York Times noted at the time, Feinstein had returned $12,000 in 1994 contributions from people with connections to Lippo Bank, an arm of a multi-billion dollar conglomerate owned by the Riady family, with investments and operations throughout Asia. It employed a senior American executive named John Huang.
At the time Feinstein disclosed returning the Lippo-tied contributions, Huang was under Justice Department investigation.
The Riadys had been friends and supporters of the Clintons since Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Clinton named Huang, a top fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), his deputy assistant secretary of commerce.
At the time Feinstein disclosed returning the Lippo-tied contributions, Huang was under Justice Department investigation for making potentially illegal contributions to the Democratic Party from foreign sources.
What is the connection to Feinstein? In June 1996, the senator held a fundraiser at her home attended by President Clinton, Huang, and Xiaoming Dia, chairman of a Hong Kong-based investment company in which Lippo Group had owned a controlling stake until 1994.
The Chinese Get Feinstein’s Lucrative Political Support
In May 2000, Feinstein lobbied for making permanent normal trading relations with China, a measure that ultimately passed, and helped pave the way for its entrance into the World Trade Organization, which Feinstein also supported.
At the time, a spokesperson for Feinstein indicated that her husband had divested of his last holdings in mainland China in 1999.
But Blum’s stake in another Newbridge Capital Asia fund, which contained investments in China, belied that assertion.
Meanwhile, in the years leading to the passage of that legislation, Blum’s Newbridge Capital reportedly invested more than $400 million into East Asian businesses, at least $90 million of which was “invested in companies whose profits are pegged to the burgeoning mainland China market, according to the companies themselves,” and several of which were partly owned or founded by the Chinese government.
If nothing else, Blum still stood to profit handsomely from management fees for these portfolios.
Defense companies in which Blum’s firms were invested signed billions of dollars in military contracts approved by Feinstein’s committee.
This suggests a parallel pattern in the Feinstein family’s political and business dealings that adversaries like China surely could have sought to exploit.
When pressed on conflicts of interest, however, on multipleoccasions Feinstein has flippantly responded by rhetorically asking what she could do to satisfy those raising the issue, short of getting divorced.
Feinstein’s husband has stressed that his ties to the Dalai Lama and criticism of Chinese human rights violations would never have helped him curry favor with the Chinese, and maintained no conflict of interest between his wife’s position and his investments.
The senator recently co-sponsored the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), incorporated into the pending National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which gives the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States greater oversight over foreign transactions, geared in part towards China’s malign efforts to gain valuable technology and steal intellectual property. But provisions penalizing sanctions-violating Chinese telecommunications company ZTE were stripped from the NDAA at the Trump administration’s urging.
Feinstein’s Related Apologism for the Chinese Government
Feinstein’s economic positions frequently downplayed the PRC’s rampant human rights violations.
The senator has fashioned herself a peacemaker, often urging appeasement of the Chinese regime in both apologism for such abuses and urging restraint.
Feinstein also argued against tying China’s most-favored-nation trading status to human rights improvements.
These efforts date back to the early 1980s. Until that time, participants in San Francisco’s Chinese New Year Parade displayed the flag of the Nationalist Chinese government, which had ruled in exile on Taiwan after 1949.
According to San Francisco Gate, then-mayor Feinstein “asked organizers to stop the partisan practice because she wanted to encourage trade with China.”
During this period, Feinstein took an uncharacteristically aggressive stance towards China’s hostile actions, conducting missile tests near Taiwan, presumably in line with the Clinton administration: “We view the missile exercises…as provocative and unnecessary.”
She took an arguably harsher line towards then-Taiwanese President Lee Teng-Hui, stating: “What is really necessary is for [the leaders of] Taiwan to make a statement in word and in deed that they will adhere to a one-China policy.”
In a June 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal covering a trip to China in which she met with old pals Jiang and former premier Zhu Rongji, Feinstein seemed to further downplay and even alibi the Tiananmen Square massacre:
I think that was a great setback for China in the view of the world. And I think China has also – as we would – learned lessons from it.
It just so happens I was here after that and talked to Jiang Zemin and learned that at the time China had no local police. It was just the PLA [People’s Liberation Army]. And no local police that had crowd control. So, hence the tanks.
Clearly none of that made good sense. But that’s the past. One learns from the past. You don’t repeat it. I think China has learned a lesson.
That year, Feinstein also challenged the Obama administration’s $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, calling it a “substantial irritant” to U.S.-China relations.
Similarly, in late 2015, Feinstein effectively sought to defend the CCP from criticism, on a purportedly pragmatic basis, in fighting legislation from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) that would have named the street running in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington DC “Liu Xiaobo Plaza.” Xiaobo, a Nobel Prize-winning anti-Communist writer and human rights activist, had at the time been held in jail for seven years by the Chinese government for criticizing the regime.
When Cruz sought unanimous consent for the bill on the occasion of President Xi Jinping’s U.S. visit, Feinstein blocked it.
A month later, when Cruz reintroduced the measure, citing a statement co-authored by Feinstein and her Democrat colleague Pat Leahy calling for Xiaobo’s release, Feinstein again blocked the legislation.
Finally, in February 2016, the bill cleared the Senate in a unanimous voice vote, though it died in the House amid a veto threat from the Obama administration. Later, Feinstein did co-sponsor a resolution honoring Xiaobo’s freedom-fighting efforts—shortly after his death, in state custody, in July 2017..
Feinstein has uniformly taken political positions supporting greater ties with China while taking a relatively dovish and strictly apologist line on its human rights atrocities.
Feinstein’s husband has profited handsomely during Feinstein’s career from the greatly expanded China trade she supported. It is of course possible that the Feinstein family’s privileged position with the Chinese regime improved his investment opportunities.
Feinstein has served as a key intermediary between China and the U.S. government while serving on committees whose work would be of keen interest to the PRC.A staffer of almost two decades in close proximity to Feinstein was allegedly successfully recruited by China’s MSS and fed China “political intelligence.”
Imagine for a second how a motivated and empowered prosecutor would operate in this situation if tasked with exploring “any links and/or coordination” between the Chinese government, Feinstein, and individuals associated with her office.
Few American officials could have been as potentially exposed to the PRC’s skilled intelligence service as Feinstein. Here we have not only proof of a spy, but real evidence of consistently pro-Chinese policy that at very best created the appearance of a financial conflict of interest.
“We hold China as a potential trading partner, as a country that has pulled tens of millions of people out of poverty in a short period of time, and as a country growing into a respectable nation amongst other nations. I deeply believe that” Feinstein said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
The senator’s comments fly in the face of numerousreports indicating that the Chinese Communist Party engaged in a cover-up of the origins and dangers of the coronavirus in the crucial early days and weeks of the outbreak, often silencing doctors and journalists attempting to get the truth out.
A study released earlier this year found that if interventions in China has been “conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier, cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent and 95 percent respectively” and significantly limited the disease’s spread around the world.
Also, Feinstein’s comments come amid a flood of damning reports that portray human rights abuses carried out by the communist government, namely the mass detention and forced sterilization of Uighurs, a Muslim ethnic minority in China’s Xinjiang region.
Disturbing drone footage originally posted last year on YouTube showed large groups Uighurs blindfolded, bound, and with shaved heads being forced onto trains.
The Washington Free Beacon reported that Feinstein made the remarks in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing during which representatives debated a bill that would strip sovereign immunity from China.
The bill, called the “Civil Justice for Victims of COVID Act,” was sponsored by a group of Republican senators and would allow individuals to sue the Chinese government over its “reckless actions or omissions causing the COVID-19 global pandemic in the United States.”
The outlet also noted that Feinstein has “benefited from her husband’s relationship with China.”
“She pushed for expanded trade relations with China as her husband’s company was partnering with business ventures in the country,” the Free Beacon reported, adding that Feinstein has “said that a ‘firewall’ existed between her political career and her husband’s business interests.”
Come on, can we get much more racist than urging Joe Biden to pick a female of color?
Have you ever heard the phrase, “shuck and jive?” You are going to see it in action in the video below.
Karen Bass had the hots for Castro a vicious totalitarian dictator.
Do we need another communist in the White House?
By color they don’t mean, pink, yellow or purple, they mean a black woman so let’s cut the nonsense here and now negroes, who make make their living and are financially well off as long as they can keep us labeling us.
Follow the money.
Of course, when it’s important for her to do so, California Rep. Karen Bass retracts years-old comments made in a statement on Fidel Castro’s death.
The Democrat’s presumptive nominee Joe Biden will name his running mate as early as next week, and Congressional Black Caucus chair Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) is reportedly a top contender for job.
The California Democrat has emerged as the favorite pick of former Sen. Chris Dodd, who serves on Biden’s vice presidential search committee. According a source who spoke with Politico, Dodd has urged Biden to choose Bass because “she’s a loyal No. 2. And that’s what Biden really wants.”
On the surface, Bass’s background as a former medical professional and South Los Angeles community organizer make her an attractive candidate to serve at a time when public health and racial inequality are on the top of voters’ minds.
Her resume bears the hallmarks of a rising political star, starting with her first foray into elected office 16 years ago, when she won a seat in the California State Assembly and later became the first Black woman in the country to serve as the speaker of a state legislature when she assumed the Speakership in 2008. Prior to this, Bass worked as a physician assistant and a left-wing community activist who founded a non-profit in the 1990s called the Community Coalition. She made headlines after the 1992 L.A. riots for her fight to prevent liquor stores from being rebuilt in the neighborhoods destroyed by the uprising.
In 2010, Bass won her U.S. House seat, where her voting record has been typical of a progressive member of a Democratic Party increasingly embracing socialism.
However, a deep dive into Bass’s background reveals that her influences were not just socialist, but hardcore communist.
The VP vetting process brought renewed scrutiny to comments Bass made about Cuba’s communist dictator Fidel Castro. In a statement following Castro’s death in 2016, Bass referred to him as “Comandante en Jefe” and described his death as “a great loss to the people of Cuba.”
The honorific “Commandante en Jefe”—which translates to “commander in chief”—was criticized by Florida Democrats for being excessively deferential to a dictator with a long history of human rights abuses.
In an interview with MSNBC on Sunday, Bass attempted to walk back her use of the term. “I have talked to my colleagues in the House about that, and it’s certainly something that I would not say again,” Bass said. “I have always supported the Cuban people, and the relationship that Barack Obama and Biden had in their administration in terms of opening up relations.”
President Barack Obama and Cuban dictator Raul Castro do the wave at a Major League baseball exhibition game in Havana on March 22, 2016. (Gramna)
When the interviewer asked her how she would “characterize the Castro regime and its legacy,” Bass said: “I think the Castro regime and its legacy is very troubling.” However, a moment later, she appeared to dismiss the significance of Castro’s crimes by saying: “But you know what? I mean, we could talk all evening. I could tell you about a number of regimes that I think are very troubling in a variety of different ways.”
Bass’s walk back has not quieted questions about her electability in the battleground state of Florida with its large population of Cuban Americans whose families fled Castro’s murderous regime.
But these comments are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Bass’s long and troubling association with communism and the communist regime in Cuba.
GROWING UP WITH ‘RED DIAPER BABIES’
Bass discussed her earliest political influences growing up on the Westside of Los Angeles and attending Alexander Hamilton High School in a 2008 interview with progressive authors Darnell Hunt and Ana-Christina Ramon for their book Black Los Angeles: American Dreams and Racial Realities.
“Many of Karen Bass’s early influences, as she notes, were among the city’s most prominent white and Jewish leftists,” the authors write.
Bass told them:
It [the white Left] played a huge role for me. In Hamilton [High School] for example, a lot of the Jewish parents were activists and some of them were in the Communist Party. And so I grew up with a lot of red diaper babies. And there were some African American parents who were in the Communist Party. There were teachers who were in the Communist Party. So, white radicals were very influential. And at the same time you have the Panthers and the whole black movement.
“Red diaper babies” is a slang term used to describe children of members of the Communist Party USA during the Cold War.
This 2008 interview would not be the first or last time that Bass talked about her communist influences. On January 30, 2017, Bass took to the floor of the U.S. House to eulogize her “friend and mentor” Oneil Cannon, who was a leading member of the Communist Party USA. In its obituary for Cannon, the communist website People’s Worldnoted his work as the Communist Party USA’s education director in the Southern California District and as a member of the Party’s Southern California and National Central Committees.
“These are not accidental or incidental connections whatsoever,” author and 1960s historian David Horowitz told Breitbart News.
Horowitz, a “red diaper baby” and self-described former radical, was the intellectual founder of the New Left movement in the 1960s and co-editor of the leading radical magazine of the era, Ramparts.
Horowitz said Bass’s praise of communists “doesn’t happen by accident” and was not a default position for idealistic leftists of Bass’s generation. “There was a New Left movement which distanced itself from the Communist Party. We despised the communists. You could be a radical, and you didn’t have to be connected to the Communist Party. She’s obviously deeply into it.”
Those connections run especially deep when it comes to Bass’s involvement with the Venceremos Brigade.
LEADER OF A COMMUNIST FRONT GROUP
Over the years, Bass has spoken frequently about her decades-long involvement with the Venceramos Brigade (VB), starting from the time she was 19-years-old in 1973. She would make eight trips to Cuba as a “brigandista” in the 1970s. Articles about her work with the Venceremos Brigade make it sound like the Cuban equivalent of Habitat for Humanity or any other praiseworthy volunteer organization providing humanitarian assistance in poor countries.
In fact, the Venceremos Brigade was a Cuban communist front groupfounded in 1969 by Fidel Castro and the radical members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The Brigade was run by the Cuban intelligence service, the General Directorate for Intelligence (DGI).
Horowitz and his fellow Ramparts editor, Peter Collier, explained the origins of the Venceremos Brigade in their 1989 book Destructive Generation:
In 1969, a group of radicals including SDS leader Bernadine Dohrn and Castro apologist Saul Landau traveled to Cuba to meet with the Vietnamese and launch the Venceremos Brigade. The ostensible reason for this effort was to provide help for the Cuban sugar harvest. The real reason was to meet Cuban and Vietnamese officials in Havana to map out strategies for the war in America, the “other war,” which would ultimately defeat the United States in a way that the battlefield situation in Vietnam never could have.
The public rationale for the Venceremos Brigade was to organize six-week work trips for American volunteers to assist Cubans in harvesting Castro’s sugar cane crop. “The first thing Castro did when he came to power was ruin Cuba’s economy,” Horowitz told Breitbart News. “The big propaganda was that the imperialists had made Cuba a one crop country, which was sugar cane. And under Castro the production of sugar cane went down dramatically. And so they called on American volunteers to help them harvest sugar cane. But they also trained them politically.”
Fidel Castro cutting sugar cane on February 13, 1961. (AP Photo)
A 400-page FBI report from 1976, based on information obtained from former Cuban intelligence officers, explained that the Venceremos Brigade was used as a recruitment tool to co-opt American radicals as assets for the communist regime by fostering revolutionary fervor, which sometimes included guerrilla training.
“A very limited number of [Venceremos Brigade] members have been trained in guerrilla warfare techniques, including use of arms and explosives,” the report stated. “This type of training is given only to individuals who specifically request it and only then to persons whom the Cubans feel sure are not penetration agents of American intelligence.”
The Venceremos Brigade was not just a harmless volunteer organization helping the Cuban victims of American “imperialism.” It was a communist front group controlled and organized by the Cuban intelligence service, which was itself an extension of the Soviet intelligence service at a time when Americans were engaged in a hot war with the communists in Vietnam.
“Sympathy for America’s alleged victims developed into an identification with America’s real enemies,” Collier and Horowitz explained in Destructive Generation.
Cuba dictator Fidel Castro and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev clasp hands at the Lenin mausoleum in Moscow’s Red Square on May Day 1963. (TASS via AP)
The relationship between the Cuban DGI, the Soviet KGB, and the Venceremos Brigade was explained in a 1982 Senate Subcommittee hearing on “Security and Terrorism” convened by Sen. Jeremiah Denton (R-AL). In sworn testimony before the subcommittee, Gerardo Peraza, a former high-ranking Cuban official in the DGI who defected to the United States in 1971, said that the Cuban intelligence service was a direct subsidiary of the Soviet Union’s vast intelligence organization.
“The Cuban intelligence service’s structure was placed under the KGB,” Peraza stated. The Cuban branch, however, had a very specific aim.
“The principal function of the Directorate of Intelligence was penetration and recruitment in the United States of America,” Peraza said. With America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) primarily focused on its Soviet counterpart, the smaller Cuban intelligence service could operate with greater impunity, Peraza explained.
The greatest service Cuban intelligence officials provided for their Soviet masters was to entice Americans into betraying their country by helping America’s enemies. The DGI had an easier time recruiting American assets because American radicals felt more affinity for Cuban communists than for Russians. All of this made Cuba’s intelligence apparatus a major asset to the Soviets in their Cold War efforts to defeat the United States.
“The Soviet Union utilizes Cuba because of its great potential in the intelligence field against the United States,” Peraza said. “The Soviet intelligence officers always saw in the Cuban intelligence service a great potential of penetration in the United States, because Cuba is a small country, not a great power, and many people in the United States feel a certain sympathy toward a small country.”
This sympathy coincided with the rise of the New Left movement following the death of Josef Stalin and the revelations about his murderous crimes. Many American radicals sought to distance themselves from the Soviet Union and its atrocities while still maintaining their revolutionary beliefs. This presented a challenge to Soviet intelligence gathering, which in the past could always rely on American leftists to assist the communist cause.
As Collier and Horowitz explained in Destructive Generation, “Castro saw that the American Left, still wary of the U.S.S.R., could be made to support Soviet aims indirectly because if its ties—affective even more than political—with him and his revolution… At the same time he was making Cuba’s economy a satellite of Russia’s, and Cuba’s intelligence services and military forces instruments of the Soviet state, Castro began the creation of what amounted to a new Communist international. …[T]he anti-Soviet attitudes of the New Left and the isolation of the Communist Party had frustrated the penetration efforts of the Soviet intelligence services. But in 1969, Castro worked with American radicals to create the Venceremos Brigades, placing them under the control of Cuban intelligence operatives.”
This arrangement allowed the Cuban officials to get from the Venceremos Brigade members “the first great quantity of information through American citizens that was obtained in the United States,” according to Peraza.
The Brigade also allowed the Cubans to co-opt American radicals as “useful idiots” in planting the communist regime’s propaganda. Collier and Horowitz illustrated this point in an anecdote about Brigade members in the ’70s who were used to promote Castro’s propaganda:
One almost amusing struggle session occurred with members of the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), a church-funded group with pro-Castro loyalties, which described its purpose as providing an “intelligence-gathering arm” for the Left and which had helped set up the Venceremos Brigade. A delegation from NACLA came to our editorial offices [at Ramparts magazine] with an article they wanted printed. The piece proposed itself as a report on the progress of “socialist democracy” in Cuba, focusing on the passage of a recently enacted “anti-laziness” law as evidence of the “people’s rule.” The article claimed that more than three million Cubans—a third of the population—had actively participated in the making of the law. We asked the obvious question: If the people’s civic involvement was as high as this, why was the law necessary at all? In the confrontation that followed, the NACLA members told us that because of our “white skin privileges” we had “no right to judge” anything that third world revolutionaries did. In the words of one of the NACLA spokesmen: “Your revolutionary responsibility is to print the piece and shut up about it.”
David Horowitz (right) holding a press conference with Peter Collier and Perry Fellwock at the office of Ramparts magazine in San Francisco, 1973. (Courtesy of David Horowitz)
SEEDS FOR A FUTURE POLITICAL HARVEST
The Venceremos Brigade was much more than just an intelligence gathering tool. Its ultimate value was in planting the seeds of a political influencing harvest that Castro’s regime would reap decades later. The Brigade was a mechanism to train future political operatives in the United States who would one day be in a position to assist the communist regime.
Indeed, the 1976 FBI report revealed that the ultimate objective of the Cuban intelligence officials in running the Venceremos Brigade “is the recruitment of individuals who are politically oriented and who someday may obtain a position, elective or appointive, somewhere in the U.S. Government, which would provide the Cuban Government with access to political, economic and military intelligence.”
In the case of Karen Bass, it would seem the Cuban intelligence service’s recruitment has proven successful beyond their wildest dreams, as Bass continues to scale the summits of American political influence.
An event blurb in an October 1975 issue of the communist Daily World newspaper describes Bass, then 22, as “leader of the Venceremos Brigade in southern California.” Bass herself explained her work for the brigade to a doctoral candidate working on a 1996 Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Fielding Institute, titled “Women Activists of Diverse Backgrounds: A Qualitative Study of Perceived Influences and Values.” “Another critical influence for Bass began, at age 19, and spanned the next five years: Cuba,” reads the document, written by Dawn Noggle, who is currently the director of mental health services for the Maricopa County correctional system. “As a ‘brigadista’ and then organizer for the Venceremos Brigades, Karen visited Cuba every 6 months.”
When Tablet magazine reached out to Bass’s office on Monday for comment about her involvement with the Venceremos Brigade, the Congresswoman’s spokesman stressed that Bass “wasn’t a leader” of the Brigade but merely “went with other volunteers to build houses.”
There is a reason why Bass would want to deny all the contemporaneous reports that identified her as the leader of the Los Angeles Brigade.
Former DGI official Peraza explained in his Senate testimony that among the duties of Cuban intelligence officers stationed in Cuba’s diplomatic offices in New York and Washington, DC, was to control the Brigade and select its participants.
This fact was also confirmed in testimony during a 1972 House Subcommittee. An undercover police deputy from New Orleans testified about the vetting process he endured when he applied to join the Venceremos Brigade. “To be a member of the brigade, you had to be confirmed as a Marxist‐Leninist,” he said.
He said getting into the Brigade “required filling out a detailed application, undergoing interviews concerning his political beliefs and three‐and‐a‐half months of twice‐a‐week indoctrination sessions,” the New York Timesreported.
This vetting process was especially true for Brigade leaders.
“You don’t get to be the leader of the L.A. Venceremos Brigade unless the Cuban Intelligence trusts you,” Horowitz told Breitbart News. “They were run by Cuban Intelligence, and you don’t get to have a position of authority in an organization like that without them trusting you. This is not an innocent person. You know, I had acquaintances who were communists. This is a dedicated communist.”
“These people were prepared to do things for Cuban Intelligence – attack and spy on the United States. That’s how committed [Bass] was, and I just draw that from her having this official position,” Horowitz said.
Nearly fifty years ago, the Los Angeles Police Department drew the same conclusion about Bass’s eight trips to Cuba in the 1970s for this communist front group.
SURVEILLED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
In 1978, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and 12 undercover officers with the LAPD’s Public Disorder and Intelligence Division (PDID) for spying on left-wing organizations and activists. In the lead up to the 1983 trial, the ACLU released thousands of pages of police intelligence reports and depositions of the subpoenaed officers to cast the LAPD in a negative light.
In November 1983, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates decided to turn the tables on the ACLU by releasing information about the left-wing plaintiffs the LAPD had been surveilling. Karen Bass was among the plaintiffs revealed in the police’s document dump.
A Los Angeles Times’ article from November 28, 1983, described the revelations about “plaintiff” Bass:
Plaintiff Karen Bass, according to a 1973 intelligence document provided to The Times, “traveled to Cuba with the 6th Contingent of the Venceremos Brigade.
The brigade trains revolutionary-prone Americans in terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare while claiming to harvest sugar cane.”
Bass, characterized as a brigade leader, “returned from Cuba to the USA bringing back propaganda literature,” the document noted without citing the source of this information.
A surprised Bass, now 30 and a physician’s assistant, said her eight trips to Cuba were educational and had nothing to do with terrorism.
“I’m angry and I’m shocked that they would use (this allegation) to try to attempt to smear me personally and the brigade,” Bass said in an interview. She described the Venceremos Brigade as “an educational project” that provided members with an opportunity to gain “closer knowledge of the Cuban people and Cuban society” by helping them with construction projects.
“No one ever came in contact with the Cuban military,” Bass insisted, “or received any type of military training.” She said she learned how to use a gun in the United States from “Los Angeles’ finest.” “The person who taught me how to shoot was Officer Jon Dial,” Bass said. “He encouraged many different folks who had leadership responsibilities in the LA progressive community to learn how to use weapons.” Dial, one of 12 former undercover officers being sued, infiltrated a host of left-wing organizations during the 1970s.
The LAPD eventually settled the lawsuit in 1984 and agreed to disband the unit and destroy many of its records.
In a statement to Tablet magazine Bass’s office dismissed the significance of the LAPD investigation, saying “[t]he Chief of Police fancied himself to be the Los Angeles version of J. Edgar Hoover. He kept files on activists and elected officials including the mayor and members of the city council. Rep. Bass was spied on and harassed by LAPD as were the more than 100 activists that were plaintiffs in lawsuit and that’s why they won.”
Tablet notes that Bass’s decades-long association with the Venceremos Brigade and her surveillance by the LAPD is conspicuously absent from biographical accounts of her activities after the mid-1990s, which is precisely when Bass began to chart a public political career. These omissions are particularly glaring in articles where her history could provide necessary context for her current activities. For example, a New York Timesarticle in June about Bass’s push for police reforms fails to mention that she was once a target of police harassment.
Similarly, a 2016 Los Angeles Timesarticle mentioning Bass’s participation in President Obama’s historic trip to Cuba only vaguely alludes to her time with the Brigade. The article merely notes that Bass “first visited Cuba as a 19-year-old in 1973. She and the group of anti-war civil rights activists she traveled with stayed two months to construct homes, and she returned repeatedly.”
The Times article quotes Bass as saying, “I was young, and Cuba was really hated at that time. To then go 43 years later with the U.S. government and the president of the United States, oh my God. You can only imagine what that will feel like.”
Describing Cuba as “really hated at the time” is an interesting euphemism for a regime assisting America’s enemies at a time when thousands of American men were coming home in body bags from Vietnam. And calling the Brigade a “group of anti-war civil rights activists” is an anodyne description for members of a communist front group controlled by the Cuban intelligence service during one of the hottest years of the Cold War.
Cuban dictator Fidel Castro posing with communist Viet Cong combatants and waving their flag during a visit to the communist-controlled area of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, September 1973. (AFP via Getty Images)
“These are people who worked for the Cuban intelligence and the Cuban Communist Party,” Horowitz said of the Venceremos Brigade.
Bass’s eight trips to Cuba in the 1970s spanned much more than just two months and likely involved much more than constructing homes.
It is worth noting that the LAPD police reports on Bass came from an undercover officer embedded with the L.A. Venceremos Brigade which he identified Bass as the leader of. The court may have ruled that this officer’s surveillance of Bass was illegal, but that does not negate the veracity of the information he observed while undercover.
“She had to have been acting as a political agent of the communist regime,” Horowitz said about Bass’s eight trips to Cuba in the 1970s.
It is still unclear what exactly she did in Cuba during all those trips, what training she received there, what propaganda literature she returned with, and what assistance the Cuban regime may have requested of her.
Bass insists that knew no one in the Brigade who was involved in violence or espionage. “Let me say: Hell no. No, I did not know anybody like that,” she told the TheAtlantic in a recent interview, insisting that she “never, ever, ever came near a gun in Cuba, period. Never.”
FEASTING WITH CASTRO WHILE CUBANS STARVED
Bass’s L.A. Venceremos Brigade was part of the sixth contingent (each expedition is numbered as a contingent. Currently, the Brigade is on its 50th contingent.) In a 2015 article in Dissent magazine, Michael Kazin described his experience as a member of the first contingent in 1969.
Kazin notes that the sugar cane harvest was never what this was all about: “[O]ur real reason for being there was to make a political point, as the almost daily coverage we received in Granma, the Communist Party organ, made clear.”
The Americans were serenaded with rock music every morning, and their hosts “treated us to a regimen far more luxurious than that endured by native macheteros. They broke up the workday by bringing us jars of frozen Bulgarian fruit yogurt at mid-morning and then served us a three-course meal at lunch.” In the evenings, the American radicals enjoyed “an excellent dinner (and all the cigars we could smoke),” and they were even joined by “Commandante en Jefe” himself who engaged in one of his infamous hours-long speeches at dinner, according to Kazin.
The young radicals also broke bread with members of the Viet Cong who were in Cuba at the same time. The American leftists were meeting with these enemy combatants just one year after the Tet Offensive, at the height of the Vietnam War.
“One evening, our guests were uniformed soldiers from the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam—better known stateside as the Viet Cong,” Kazin writes. “Through a French interpreter, I had a halting, although pleasant conversation, with one of them—a young man about my age. But the conversation ended shortly after I asked him what the large tricolor medal on his chest signified. The soldier beamed and then responded, in English: ‘Twenty Yankees killed!’”
Bass’s sixth Venceremos contingent was also wined and dined by the communist regime. “We built houses during the day,” she told The Atlantic, “and then we had what they called cultural activities and we called parties. There was great music, rum, dancing. And we toured the country.”
Of course, the “Brigadistas” would claim that they were serving the Cuban people, not their dictator. But how would these American radicals being feted by a communist dictator appear to the people bearing the brunt of that dictatorship?
Breitbart News’ International Editor Frances Martel, herself a Cuban American whose family fled Castro’s regime, described what Castro’s policies meant for average Cuban citizens in the 1970s when Bass and her associates were being lavishly entertained by the regime:
The brutality of the 1960s – the internment of Christians and gays in labor camps, “voluntary” labor for anyone considered insufficiently “revolutionary,” hundreds of firing squad murders – had left Cuba significantly devastated by 1970. When Castro announced that year that his promised 10 million tons of sugar cane never grew (because he imprisoned or forced into exile anyone who knew anything about growing crops), what that meant for the average Cuban was increased rationing, little access to basic goods, and no chance of improving their personal conditions, since jobs and companies no longer existed. Children were forcibly indoctrinated into Marxism in schools (with phonetics and math classes based on worship of mass murderers like Che Guevara) and weaponized to spy on their parents. Protein was nearly impossible to come by; the ration card was only good for some eggs and Soviet mystery meat. Many Cubans ate their pets or assorted street animals. There was no freedom of expression, assembly, or travel.
While these American radicals were being feasted by Castro, the Cubans they were purportedly there to help were starving.
A Cuban man stirs a pot heating over an outdoor fire, as he cooks food procured through black market connections due to severe food shortages after Castro assumed power, Sept. 24, 1963. (AP Photo/George Arfeld)
“I didn’t have any illusions that the people in Cuba had the same freedoms I did,” Bass told The Atlantic. “I came home and was protesting everything; I knew that the Cuban people didn’t have the ability to do that.”
And yet she would continue to return to Cuba eight times during the 1970s.
WORKING ‘ARDUOUSLY’ TO BRING THE U.S. ‘CLOSER’ TO COMMUNIST CUBA
In her interview Sunday on MSNBC, Bass again affirmed her fondness for the Cuban people.
“I happen to believe that sometimes the best way to change a regime is through having relations versus not,” she said. “For a country that is 90 miles away, for a policy that we’ve had decades [and] hasn’t worked, I think opening up relationships is the best way to go.”
Whether normalizing relations with Cuba is “the best way to go” is debatable, but what is certain is that Castro’s regime has sought normalization for decades. His courtship of American leftists like Bass eventually paid off when they were in political positions to press for changes in U.S. policy towards the communist regime.
“What they want to do is prop up a communist dictatorship without demanding that they dismantle the dictatorship,” Horowitz said of Bass and the American left’s decades-long push to normalize relations with Castro’s Cuba. “There is a reason why we isolated Cuba. It’s a monster regime.”
A September 25, 2015, article in the official Cuban Communist Party newspaper Gramna described a contingent of U.S. politicians, including Bass, meeting with Cuba’s communist dictator Raul Castro while he was in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly, nearly a year after President Obama began the process of normalizing relations with Cuba.
The caption on a photo showing Bass and other Democrat lawmakers posing with Castro describes them as a “bipartisan group of American lawmakers who have maintained favorable positions regarding a change to the American policy towards Cuba and work arduously to bring both countries closer.”
PANTHERS AND CLANDESTINE MAOISTS
The Venceremos Brigade was not the only–or even the most extreme–communist group Bass has been associated with.
In her 2008 book, progressive author Laura Flanders identifies Bass as “a former Black Panther who founded the Community Coalition in L.A. in 1990, ran for office and was elected to the state assembly in 2004.”
“If she’s an L.A. Black Panther – that was Geronimo Pratt territory,” Horowitz told Breitbart. “They were a street gang – the L.A. Panthers. And they were led by a lunatic named Geronimo Pratt, who Huey Newton told me, he said, ‘[Pratt] could only get an erection if he had a knife in his hand’ or something like that. I don’t believe everything Huey said either.”
But even more troubling is Bass’s connection to a loose organization of radical Marxist-Leninists who aligned with the Maoist New Communist Movement. A document surfaced online linking Bass to the Line of March, an “anti-revisionist” Maoist organization founded in Oakland, CA, in 1980 by Irwin Silber. Members of the Line of March operated their network in a deliberately clandestine manner, believing that this type of activism and party organizing needed to be done in secret without formal names or titles. They called themselves “rectificationists.”
Bass’s name and some of her associates are included in a document from the 1980s listing “Consolidated rectification forces.”
When Tablet magazine asked Bass’s office about this document associating her with the Line of March’s “rectification forces,” her spokesperson did not deny the association or the document’s authenticity. The spokesperson’s response was that Bass had simply “attended events.”
Line of March document, circa 1980s
“Rectificationists is like reeducation camps in Maoist China,” Horowitz told Breitbart News.
In the 1940s, China’s communist leader Mao Zedong waged a “rectification” campaign to solidify his power and enforce obedience and loyalty to his commands. Among the rectification tactics he used was “thought reform” via “study groups” where dissenters were isolated and attacked into submission.
“Irwin Silber is the founder of Line of March. He came out of the Communist Party and went further left,” Horowitz explained. “He is an anti-revisionist, which means the Communist Party wasn’t radical or anti-American enough [for him].”
Anti-revisionism was a faction of Marxist-Leninists who rejected the revisionist reforms of the Communist Party enacted by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev following the death of Stalin. Anti-revisionists aligned with the Stalinist legacy of international communism, though some anti-revisionists, like Silber, identified more with Maoist thought.
“If [Bass] was part of a rectification movement, she’s a Maoist,” Horowitz said. “So she’s swallowing the deaths of 70 million people [who died under Mao]. When America is in a Cold War with China, we don’t want a vice president who is a Maoist.”
In a July 2008 interview, left-wing activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz recalled that Line of March was among the groups that “got radicals into key local positions, which has had a permanent effect on local politics.” In a statement to Tablet magazine, Dunbar-Ortiz noted that “quite a few Line of March activists did go on and work in civic organizations. It became pretty standard.”
“Most of them have blended in relatively smoothly to a kind of left wing of the Democratic Party,” Paul Saba, an archivist of the anti-revisionist movement, told Tablet. “They came out of the wilderness of ultra-leftism and found a place in the political system where they thought they could really make a difference and stayed there ever since.”
Bass’s movement into the political mainstream would also coincide with the omission of her associations with the Venceremos Brigade and communist organizations like Line of March. From the mid-1990s on, the public would come to know Karen Bass as a community organizer fighting a temperance crusade against liquor stores in South Los Angeles.
An Associated Press article from Nov. 16, 1992, about Bass’s anti-liquor store campaign in South Los Angeles.
FROM COMMUNIST FRINGE TO MAINSTREAM PROGRESSIVE ‘AGENDA’
Progressive authors Darnell Hunt and Ana-Christina Ramon wrote approvingly of Bass’s ability to move from being an “outsider” on the radical fringes of leftist activism to an “insider” in mainstream political leadership “with ties to the outside.”
They explained how Bass in the 1990s “was moving from a more leftist, internationalist frame to a progressive one. It was an approach that still sought to make demands of the system but worked to be more strategic in its attempt to move forward particular agendas through policy work.”
During the late 1980s-’90s, Bass increased her community organizing profile in South Los Angeles, speaking regularly to various far-left organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America, organizing a memorial service for South African Communist Party leader (and Stalin admirer) Joe Slovo, campaigning against Apartheid in South Africa, and continuing her fight against liquor stores — all of which laid the ground-work for her successful run for the State Assembly in 2004.
Karen Bass is sworn in as Speaker of the California State Assembly by her predecessor, Assemblyman Fabian Nunez, left, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger applauds during ceremonies at the Capitol in Sacramento, CA, May 13, 2008. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Bass told the authors that her activist background formed the governing “agenda” she brought with her to Sacramento.
“One of the things that I try to do in my job is insert my politics every chance I get and I also try to look for some area where I can bring about change and push the envelope,” Bass said. “One thing that a progressive can do is go in with an agenda, recognizing that there are a whole lot of folks that have no agenda and have no concern about having an agenda.”
“My agenda in Sacramento totally meshes more [with my] former life,” Bass said in 2008.
That political identity, Bass explained, has always been firmly rooted in the Left and leftist movements, not in the more mainstream politics of the Black political establishment, which Bass viewed as too moderate.
“I was never a part of the black establishment,” Bass told the authors. “I guess I am now, but the black organizations, the black leadership, whether you are talking about elected or just community, I was never connected to it and didn’t know half of them until 1990 when I started the Coalition.”
“I defined myself as to the Left and I saw all that as being mainstream and I didn’t really have an interest in being there,” she said.
A REFORMED RADICAL’S SINCERE REMORSE
It is certainly possible—and even laudable—to change your mind about a destructive political ideology that you embraced in your youth. America is, after all, a land of second chances, including second political chances. But sincere remorse requires recognition of the wrong, not concealment and deflection.
Last Sunday, Bass was given the opportunity to denounce Cuba’s murderous regime and walk back her praise for Castro, but instead of condemning his atrocities and acknowledging her role—knowingly or unknowingly—in acting as a tool for Castro’s intelligence service, Bass equivocated.
She conceded that Castro’s legacy was “very troubling” and then breezily acknowledged the “sensitivity” over her use of the term “Commandante en Jefe” because “the translation in Spanish communicated something completely different.”
“She’s never denounced this ruthless sadistic dictatorship in Cuba. She never denounced it. How could you not?” Horowitz, now 81-years-old, asked with weary dismay.
That question is a deeply personal one for the former Ramparts editor. He believes there can be no moral rectitude for former radicals unless they break with Marxist-Leninism and acknowledge the suffering wrought by this destructive ideology.
That is what Horowitz did.
His memoir Radical Son recounts his painful journey from an idealistic New Left leader championing the downtrodden and fighting for civil rights to a disillusioned radical publicly breaking with the left and dedicating his life to exposing its pernicious history.
“What if you belong to a movement and you realize it’s malicious and evil and destructive? The first thing you want to do is warn other people about it…which is what I did,” Horowitz said. “Karen Bass never did. So mentally, [she is] still part of this. It would cost her nothing to denounce the Marxist-Leninist parties that she was a part of. Politically, it would be advantageous.”
It is possible that Bass was influenced by communists like Oneil Cannon because of their admirable work in the civil rights movement, but that is unlikely the full picture when one considers her other communist associations that have nothing to do with human rights or racial equality.
Horowitz sees the anarchists burning and rioting in cities across the country as heirs to the same destructive Marxist-Leninist ideology that animated radicals in the 1960s and ‘70s.
“I thought about this when I was transitioning out [of being a radical],” he said. “If you are a revolutionary, you’re a criminal. I mean, what does a revolutionary mean? It means you reject the whole system – which is also the legal system. That’s why these guys don’t give a damn about burning court houses and things – because in their own minds they’re revolutionaries. These are very dangerous people. They don’t recognize the structures of the society as they exist. If they did, they wouldn’t be revolutionaries. They’d be reformers.”
Whether Bass now thinks of herself as a revolutionary or a reformer remains to be seen, especially if Biden choses her as his running mate.
Rebecca Mansour is a Senior Editor-at-Large for Breitbart News. Follow her on Twitter at @RAMansour.
Fow chart of scientific method: Flow chart depicting the scientific method.
The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories, which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner.
In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments.
The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes.
In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data.
Don’t listen to the experts, they have already lied to us.
Listen to kids who think,”Goggles are Cool.”
From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations or scientific theories.
Since virtually none of the findings meet these criteria it would make more sense to use only the scientific method to ignore them and direct scientists to put forth their hypotheses on the back burner and.
WEASEL ALERT IMMEDIATELY BELOW.
Of course,, this will not play well with the leftist media bias nor the ultra-left who are trying to completely destroy our country from an economic.
Love,Relationships,marriages,committed,long-term,comittment, mental health awareness, self love, self care,positive,enjoyment,happiness,romantic,real love, relationship warning signs, red flags to watch out for, quotes, inspiration, kindness, date night ideas, psychology facts, quotes, positive affirmations, help build others up instead of tearing them down spreading love n kindness back into our world in our daily lives instead of all the hatred and cruel, meanest we have going on in our world today etc etc
“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.