Marxist Progs Attempt To Establish Moral Case For Political Violence

Obama/Soros Henchmen Plan For Silent Coup

By WILLIAM MAYER

February 20, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – On November 8, 2016 Donald Trump won an historic election, crushing Hillary Clinton where it counted, in the Electoral College, to become the 45th President of the United States.

Those supporting the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton, had been spoon fed for 18 months the fairy tale that it was 100% certain that she would succeed Barack Obama, so the evening of the 8th was traumatic for these people in a way that is really beyond the comprehension of those who were not on the Hillary bandwagon.

When reality set in and the effects of the drugs, wine and hard liquor finally wore off on November 9, the American left found itself out in the cold politically. Not only had they lost the presidency, they also failed to deliver on a main campaign promise, to take over at least one house of Congress, where the Senate was in their crosshairs.

Across the nation, in flyover country it was far worse; they got slaughtered electorally as state after state tossed the Democrats out and put GOPers in their places. All told the left lost well over a thousand political races, leaving only a handful of largely coastal states under the boot of the Democrat party.

But in order to understand where we are going with this let’s step back a bit, before Trump became the GOP nominee in June of 2016, back when a dozen Republican hopefuls were ripping and clawing at each other like weasels in heat.

From the very moment that Trump launched his epic campaign from the now iconic Trump Tower in downtown Manhattan on June 16, 2015 it very quickly became clear that this run for the presidency would be unique in the history of American politics.

Here was a new type of candidate, even as a Republican outlier - a patriotic billionaire developer, beholding to no one in DC or the I95 corridor [though he knew more of power players there than all the other candidates combined] who spoke the language of America’s much abused traditionally minded middle class.

His emphasis on border security, the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, the need to vastly improve the lethality [and ability to project power] of our Armed Forces, bring American jobs back home and his characterization of DC as a swamp that needed to be drained, had hit a nerve…he wanted to Make America Great Again.

Almost instantly he was filling huge halls, often with 25,000 or more rabid supporters. At these events - that crackled with the electricity of a religious revival - he very often turned away more people than the rest of the field could draw even when their rally totals were combined.

The Trump candidacy quickly became the most genuinely exciting reality show in town. Unable to avoid all of the glitz [and being scooped by the rest of the pack] the cable news networks and even the Big 3 ended up giving the Trump tens of millions of dollars worth of free advertising [in many cases broadcasting the entirety of a 90 minute, freewheeling address] and no one could really blame them. The media quickly found out that the Donald was good copy, a natural showman, capable of delivering stem winding speeches off the cuff at as many as half-a-dozen venues a day.

Trump was indefatigable, ratings soared…

Enter, stage left

This mushroom cloud of smoke, light and heat did not go unnoticed by the American left, who naturally found it alarming that this Trump fellow might actually succeed [however remote that possibility was] and in the process, undo all the great things that Comrade Obama had accomplished.

In order to further contextualize this piece allow us to contrast the domestic right with its leftist antipode.

In American politics being labeled “right wing” is not a good thing since the establishment has manipulated the lexicon to equate it with fascism, a ridiculous proposition but one which is constantly reinforced by the media, where in its most benevolent usage it becomes an epithet denoting extremism. The difference is especially stark when one realizes that the same media never calls anybody or anything “left-wing” since that is the natural clime of those who write and edit the news stories and produce the television programs.

Far or extreme left?

Forget it.

In service of presenting another key point of historical reference necessary to understand the left/right dichotomy, the history of the first half of 20th century comes into play, since during the late 30s  the German Fascists and the Soviet Communists were allies of convenience. Of course, all that changed when two years into World War II, Hitler attacked his former pals. Since the time of that "betrayal" any self-respecting Marxist/prog has had a visceral hate for “the fascists” despite the fact that aside from some doctrinal differences, in the real world both are totalitarian socialists ideologies that are only really good at one thing, creating mountains of bleached skulls and dead meat.

Therefore, as normatively practiced, the two are identical.

There is one major distinction between the American left and what is really an imagined domestic right. Despite the reflexive use of right wing as a pejorative, there really is no national federation of groups or individuals that could be identified as large scale players. The Republican party, which should naturally be the home of conservatism, cum right-wing ideological opposition, is really so similar to the Democrats that the two might be thought of as sometimes warring factions of the same party. Imagine the lunacy of someone with substantial political visibility [fill in the blank] calling on the right to engage in a national day of rage complete with massive demonstrations in major American cities.

The concept itself is risible, there is no there, there.

In reality, though there are certainly genuinely conservative/right wing entities [our clenched fist held high] usually negatively referred to as the alt-right, the mainstream conservative/right is part of the political establishment which goes-along to get-along to provide continued access to the "off the books" perks that are a natural consequence of holding high political office, a class that long ago become the American equivalent of royalty.

Though many would welcome an effort devoted to building a right leaning coalition with balls and claws, there remains nothing that could even be considered a precursor to a critical mass. There are no billionaire funders creating interlocking NGOs, no ability to project political power under a unified theme, no national media [Fox? Don’t make me laugh…Rush? Yes he's the father of the right-wing resistance, but he’s a talk show host - not in the diminutive sense and hence cannot compete on the same plain as the New York Times or CBS News. So the right has neither the infrastructure nor the temperament [yes the right and left are wired differently] to create rent-a-mobs even if it so desired.

What this means is that for all intents and purposes, the threat of an American right capable of "taking to the barricades" as in the Paris Commune, does not now, nor has it ever existed.

Bogie at 12 o’clock

So with this as prologue, as the Trump campaign slowly morphed into a steamroller, the left took further note, made plans and met in war councils, which is entirely true to type.

Unquestionably then, there is a genetic difference between the “right” and the Marxist-progs. Our side talks a good game about the Founding Fathers, Bill of Rights, liberty, freedom and small government, but does nothing.

On the other hand, the left is comprised of professional ideological warriors who are driven by a belief system that functions as a sacralized totalitarian ideology, the left’s secular religion. Reason and experience then dictate that committed leftists are true believers often to the point of being drones. In place of houses of worship, the progs have deified the state and view relativism and abortion as a holy sacraments. It's far from surprising then that the leadership of this contentious movement was forward looking enough to set about creating an ambitious contingency battle plan to “resist” a Trump administration if - in their way of thinking - by some strange alignment of the stars it were to come to pass.

The outline of this strategy was rolled out in the spring of 2016, well before the convention when it became increasingly clear that any expression of public support for Trump, yard signs, bumper stickers, attendance at rallies etc., was starting to become a risky proposition.

Dating it a little more precisely, for all practical purposes the left launched the “resistance” during March of 2016 which is when groups with shady funding like Democracy Spring and 99Rise because active.

The first clash took place at a rally in Chicago where Trump supporters including entire families, even those with small children were attacked as they queued up in multi-block long lines to see the candidate. This is how the American left made their opponents [they think in terms of enemies] “pay the price” for having the temerity to disagree with their political viewpoint [for more detailed, real time coverage please refer to - Leonid Majewsky, Law Enforcement MIA at Rent-a-Mob Trump Protests and The Fire This Summer - Revolution in America , PipeLineNews.org.

Law enforcement at this event was non-existent despite the violence, not surprising given that Chicago’s mayor was the former Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel.

There was really no end to the movement’s inventiveness; wherever possible, leftist lunatics snuck into Trump rallies, succeeded in disrupting a few of them and if anyone in the crowd dispensed a little street justice to the malcontents, that was what became the narrative regarding the event on the evening news.

The game plan got very creative in one instance; during an Arizona appearance , a group of wing-nuts blockaded the access roads to the event, parked their cars on freeways and then chained themselves to their vehicles for good measure, certain that this would dissuade prompt action by law enforcement, a supposition which turned out to be entirely correct.

Since most big city police chiefs are leftist political assholes, those in the revolution seldom feel the crack of the baton or the bite of CS gas.

In another example at a [March 12] Ohio event one whack job [actually a well muscled and very athletic street thug] breached security and got very close to grabbing the candidate from behind. We believe but cannot prove that then president Obama had issued stand down orders to Trump’s Secret Service detail which disgraced itself at this event; this hooligan deserved to taste asphalt.

It was even more startling to behold the type of hard ball tactics that the entirety of what was supposedly our side of the political divide was willing to employ in order to prevent the man who had become the champion of the politically dispossessed from ever officially setting foot in DC. So the organized left had a willing co-conspirator as it rose in opposition to the Trump candidacy. We were witness to the unbelievable spectacle of the “conservative” establishment - largely aging Reagan era “neo-conservative” individuals and ad hoc committees - coming together as “never Trumpers.”

For example, nearly 200 former GOP officials, many from the Bush 43 administration, for example - Michael Chertoff [DHS], Eliot Cohen [State], Michael Hayden [CIA], John Negroponte [DNI], Michael Mukasey [AG], Tom Ridge [DHS], Ken Adelman [Arms Control and Disarmament Agency] - drafted venomous open letters opposing Trump alleging that he was actually dangerous from a national security perspective and thus many tacitly, some openly, started supporting Hillary.

From an outside perspective this was insane, as it was largely these same people who had been locked in mortal combat with the Clintons for the better part of two decades, who had spun on a dime and now supported Her Highness as the heir apparent.

Cognitive dissonance…

But such were the stakes that the contest really became the “hinterlands/proletariat” v. the entire weight of the established power elite, the oligarchs of all colors and stripes.

In a “come to Jesus” moment, upon Trump capturing the nomination, at least most of those who should have naturally been supportive of a candidate who actually might have a chance to win, finally shut up, many having been shamed to have acted so irrationally and still losing. So the little Billy Kristols, Jonah Goldbergs, Jim Geraghty types quietly slunk away, their reputations never again to be the same.

The left turns pro

But, as opposed to the largely fictional American right, the left was already girded for all-out warfare and rather than throwing up their hands as our side did when Obama was elected - twice - they instead embarked upon a very serious campaign to effect a soft coup if necessary in order to preserve and extend their already considerable power.

The attributes of leftist dogma are legion, however only a few need be understood to grasp the nature of the whole.

As an ideology, Marxism-progressivism is utopian in nature and therefore seeks to build the perfect society. Given the nature of this world-view it's understood that only the anointed are fit to govern, since their operational plan is based on Marx’s [assumedly immutable] theoretical predictions regarding how history was destined to unfold - with the reins of society firmly in their hands.

The left is so certain that it alone knows how to create the perfect society, they assume that the government naturally belongs to them as a birthright. Since they are the only ones who know precisely what peg fits in what hole, they then grant themselves the dictatorial authority to force the rest of the nation to conduct its affairs in accord with their beliefs.

Thus, it is this triumphal aspect of Marxism which defines their views regarding dissent. Since they are certain that only they know the truth there can be no reasonable disagreement, so those who take issue with their method of governing become enemies of the state, as opposed to simple opponents.

As previously noted, the left has a remarkable sense of history, still acutely affected by the fascist/Marxist schism that took place in 1941 when Herr Hitler reneged on his nonaggression pact with Stalin and sent a huge expeditionary force into the Soviet Union. This is why within Marx-speak there is a natural progression where political opponents become haters, then finally devolve to the point of being labeled fascists who are definitionally  "enemies of the state."

One marvels at the remarkably short period of time it takes to be labeled as a fascist or hater when arguing with a Marxist-prog on a matter of policy because there is a bedrock theoretical argument at work here, fully accepted by the lefties, that allows them to turn tolerance on its head.

In the modern period it was most notably advanced by Herbert Marcuse, a heavyweight Marxist philosopher from the 50s and 60s who defined freedom of speech within the narrow parameters of that which does not hinder the progress of the revolution.

“However, this tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation…” [source, Herbert Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance: Repressive Tolerance, p. 88]

Such thinking destroys the concept of equality before the law because clearly individuals are not treated in the same manner…everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. In this system the purveyors of counter-revolutionary thought, have no right to freely express it.

A political contest within a democracy modeled on Marcuse’s type of tolerance wouldn’t pit two candidates against each other with the outcome being determined by a vote of the people. It would more closely resemble the type of elections which take place in Iran, where the appointment of approved candidates really negates the necessity of even having the election in the first place, which is merely for show.

It’s easy to see how within the Marxist dialectic, “fascism” [dissent in any concrete form] not only can, but needs to be suppressed, violently if need be and it is from Marcuse that the modern left derives the validation of silencing those with whom they disagree.

With this now fully understood, we come to the present where a controversy involving these principles has found its way into the news media.

On January 21, the New York Times published an important piece as far as advocacy journo goes [see, Liam Stack, Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is It O.K. to Punch a Nazi? , NYT].

First the back-story, which is brief.

The day before the story was published, on Friday January 20, 2017 a “controversial” political activist, Richard Spencer [alleged white power guy, presumed fascist, anti-Semite, hates Blacks his mother and is in general a dick] was sucker punched by a hooded male “protester.” Though the blow apparently caused no lasting damage, in all American jurisdictions such an act is a crime - assault and battery. Depending on the severity of the attack it is can be either a misdemeanor or a felony both of which can land the perp in jail with a hefty fine.

In dealing with this event, Stack’s piece really is nothing but a collection of assertions, Twitter screen grabs, bits of video as well as incendiary images and characterizations indicating that the author finds that “punching a Nazi” is somewhat akin to meritorious public service, demonizing the target of his ire as, “the alt-right a racist, far-right fringe movement that is anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-feminist.”

It was an exercise in name calling by an author too lazy to actually construct his article without the aid of the show and tell insertions possibly because it was a hands-off way of edging very close to justifying violence against the left’s political opponents

It’s really unremarkable that Stack would have this jaunty attitude regarding a physical assault precipitated by a “thoughtcrime” and it’s hardly surprising that the NYT would publish such bilge, however the piece is instructive in that it crystallizes some of the insurgents key attributes - its justification of political violence meted out by masked cowards [many of whom are paid in complex arrangements involving shell organization whose main purpose is to launder money to avoid linking the actual funder with the individual perp] - as well as giving the reader a glimpse of direction in which this movement intends to take the country.

Actually for those of Stack’s ilk, the game is already well underway with the progressive Dems hiring professional gangster types.

“Two top Democratic strategists have exited the presidential campaign after explosive undercover videos showed them discussing voter fraud and their roles in planting paid agitators at campaign events for Republican candidate Donald Trump . Robert Creamer , founder of Democracy Advocates and the husband of Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, stepped down from the campaign Tuesday, a day after Scott Foval was fired from his post as national field director of Americans United for Change.” [source, Valerie Richardson, Democratic heads roll after video shows agitators planted at Trump rallies, Washington Times]

So we have very high level Democrat campaign operatives caught dead to rights advocating violence and organizing rent-a-mobs, something one would think might strike the [self proclaimed] high minded lefties as being un-democratic to the point of undermining the electoral process.

But the issues raised in this piece are more serious.

The left has always engaged in putting together paid-for, little “morality plays,” stunts intended for the sole purpose of influence public opinion simply through deception, but hidden beneath the verbiage of his meandering column, Mr. Stack is feeding a cancer on the American polity.

He is broadly suggesting that the U.S. Constitution and especially the First Amendment - recognizing the right to free political speech - extends only to the left. We must not forget that Stack goes even farther than that, arranging his article in a manner to imply that prog on right violence is both ethically meritorious as well as patriotically American.

This philosophy is of course reprehensible in that it represents an existential threat to what citizens of the United States have always understood to be essential elements to the preservation of liberty and freedom; it’s the same formula for anarchic destabilization of America that this author explored in the recently published, Islamic Jihad Cultural Marxism and the Transformation of the West .

This aspect of cultural Marxism is best seen as a product of the left’s weaponization of the language. It’s not a new concept, control the lexicon, circumscribe the parameters within which dialogue is permissible...dominate the narrative, and therefore define the culture.

For example, though there are myriad examples including those which are media based, we see this everyday now with this or that university or college banning “hate speech,” supposedly words so injurious that their suppression trumps what used to be Constitutional rights. In these formerly hallowed halls, young adults have been turned into cake-eating children whose psyches are so fragile that a mere word can trigger the emotional equivalent of a grand mal seizure.

But what really is the motivation here? Are American institutions of higher learning taking such extreme action to prevent the advocacy of violent revolution, or soliciting murder?

No, actually the policy is reducible to an intent to destroy all political opposition to the totalitarian left whose manifest of thought crimes is constantly expanding and whose strictures which now include physical harm can only "ethically" target the right which is - racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, imperialistic, misogynist including the new “crime” of being born white, the left's version of original sin...all of which falls within the reductionist understanding of what constitutes fascism.

Up from the deep

It’s interesting to see some ink being devoted to exploring what has been labeled “the deep” or “alternative state.” We have been writing about its general outlines, though the idea itself is not new since it has been standard Democrat operating practice since at least the days of the Clinton administration, to seed the bureaucracy with leftist activist moles, who, when activated could conduct 5th column operations..

In order to get a handle on the concept of the extant American “deep state” [the most ambitious and well organized in U.S. history] think of it as having three constituent parts; one led by the ex-president, the proto-state’s titular head, the second represented by rogue intelligence officers and government officials who can leak destabilizing classified information at will to an eager press and third, the building of a genuine leftist army unnervingly reminiscent of the Red Front Fighters League, a gang of communist hooligans who fought [what was an obviously losing battle] against Hitler’s Brown Shirts in the streets of Germany's Weimar Republic.

This also makes sense from a theoretical Marxist perspective as a core tenet is to construct a proto-state [Lenin’s concept of “dual power”] outside of the elected government ready to take advantage of any perceived weakness should the national government falter.

Below from a December 2016 post which develops the Marxist ideology behind the idea of a revolutionary alternative government temporarily in exile. The Gramsci being referred to is Antonio Gramsci, the 1930s era Italian communist theorist who devised the methodology of how to infiltrate institutions and through them influence culture in a way to be more receptive to totalitarian leftism.

“even at this early stage, Gramsci had begun to formulate what was to become one of his most distinctive doctrines - the strategy of preparing for the revolutionary seizure of power by building a counter-state within the structure of civil society via a plethora of Party run organization.” [Cambridge: Gramsci, p. xii-xiii]

Gramsci’s ideas have a high degree of affinity with Lenin’s theory of “ dual power,” defined as a growing revolutionary “proto state” operating outside of the extant governmental power structure. Organizationally, it’s comprised of the ideologically grounded Marxist vanguard leadership and its shock troops [who are to a greater or lesser degree “politically enlightened” workers, i.e., the proletariat]. In outlook this nascent movement is proudly revolutionary, fully intending to come to power by forcibly seizing control:

“What is this dual power? Alongside the Provisional Government, the government of bourgeoisie, another government has arisen, so far weak and incipient, but undoubtedly a government that actually exists and is growing - the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. What is the class composition of this other government? It consists of the proletariat and the peasants (in soldiers’ uniforms). What is the political nature of this government? It is a revolutionary dictatorship, i.e., a power directly based on revolutionary seizure, on the direct initiative of the people from below, and not on a law enacted by a centralized state power. It is an entirely different kind of power from the one that generally exists in the parliamentary bourgeois-democratic republics of the usual type still prevailing in the advanced countries of Europe and America.” [source, Marxist Street Thug Obama Establishes Headquarters For His Counter Presidency , PipeLineNews.org]


A counter-revolution runs on propaganda and dissident insiders who have all sorts of secrets to feed to the MSM can and has resulted in crippled or entirely scuttled GOP administrations of which there have been two:

1. Richard Nixon, who was felled by his Assistant AG [John Dean] who pled out on a single felony count while sinking his boss. Timed to coincide with Nixon's campaign for a second term, the New York Times had in 1971 published excerpts of the "Pentagon Papers" a secret study of the War in Vietnam that was stolen by defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg and passed along to the Old Gray Lady. Nixon was nailed for trying to plug the leaks and discredit Ellsberg.

2. Bush 43 who foolishly refused to even offer token resistance against the withering multi-pronged attack by forces inside and outside the government. There was the Abu-Ghraib "outrage" which was launched upon CBS News publishing pictures of irregular treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Americans. The still smoldering controversy surrounding the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco, the flames of which were intensely fanned by the leftist media [Bush Lied, People Died]. And finally, there was the case of Scooter Libby [an advisor to VP Cheney] who though entirely innocent was destroyed by the State Department’s Colin Powell and his aid Richard Armitage - who withheld exculpatory evidence regarding the outing of the identity of CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame. Libby was convicted as a result of an elaborately planned "perjury trap" sprung by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Things have changed mightily since the days of Bush 43 and the deep state is a vastly more powerful institution that is actually conducting its operation partially within public view.

One aspect has changed dramatically in that the technology that allows interconnectedness [and thus coordination] is light years beyond what existed in 2008, so the tools are really quite powerful for organizing and maintaining a movement.

Oh…and then there is that fellow Barack Obama, you know the ex-Community Organizer in Chief who is recruiting out of a refashioning of the website his side maintained during his presidency “evolving” from Organizing For America into Organizing For Action, which prominently displays the ex-president on the site’s splash page.

The new OFA is about as transparent as a brick, in the site’s “about” section where one would normally see information regarding boards of directors, steering committees and other concrete organizational information, there is nothing…nada.

Even a quick trip through the site makes it evident that the kind of “organizing” Obama’s post presidency represents is straight out of the Marxist/Alinsky playbook, identity politics on steroids where individuals mean nothing but groups mean everything.

“When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators - numbering more than 30,000 - who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House…He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.” [source, Paul Sperry, How Obama is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency , New York Post]

Continuing from our December 2016 post:

“Obama’s new super-luxury digs are located in DC’s Kalorama neighborhood, just north of Georgetown with the two areas bisected by “Embassy Row.” If one were asked to identify the most important political territory in the United States, this would be it…Now freed as it were from the shackles of trying to avoid the appearance of an imperial reign, Mr. Obama will be able to seamlessly transition from CIC to the unchallenged leader of America’s Marxist vanguard.”

The unprecedented nature of an ex-president unashamedly running a full time, multifaceted oppositional coalition against the sitting president certainly gives pause for concern as this was not something that the Founders had ever envisioned. Compounding matters is the fact that along with Obama you also get his Praetorian Guard, the American legacy media, which raises serious questions regarding whether the interests of the press and the responsibilities and benefits that the First Amendment bestows upon it intersect in any meaningful way.

Author Glen Greenwald explores the "government in waiting" in a feature piece, The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer , that despite being a bit thin on sourcing some serious charges, does offer the following snapshot from the campaign, essentially the point in time where - in the author's opinion - the Cold War spooks took to the barricades in service of DC’s political/business/media, etc., elite:

“For months, the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton and went to the Washington Post to warn , in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.” [source, William Mayer, The CIA’s Great Misstep In Its War For Supremacy , PipeLineNews.org]

With the Democrat party stalling important Trump's cabinet selections he was forced to rely on some of the Obama deep staters to fill temporary vacancies. Perhaps key was the selection of former Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates to serve as temporary AG who in what should not have been a surprise to the old hands among the president's staff made the announcement that DOJ would NOT defend the president's executive order on immigration. It is strongly suspected that Yates played a leading role in facilitating the passage of a transcript of secret communication between General Flynn, Trumps National Security Advisor and the Russian ambassador to the United States.

All movements require a money-man and that too is the case with the deep state, which has been driven for decades by billionaire [and convicted felon] George Soros who was recently tied to over 50 of the murky organizations comprising the leftist coalition; in a piece of genuine investigative journo which recently appeared as a column in the unlikely publication, the New York Times, [Asra Q. Nomani [Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington, January 20, 2017] the author produced reams of data primarily by sifting through online resources such as Google documents [for example this spreadsheet detailing Soros' political contributions] to reveal and probe the tendrils between the mega-billionaire currency trader and some of the most radically leftist groups which populate the Democrat party constellation.

In an earlier [November 2015] feature piece, we identified approximately 70 such relationships [see, William Mayer, Hungarian PM Orbán Blames Soros For Muslim Invasion, PipeLineNews.org] between the financier and his coterie of activists and that number was conservative given the fact that Soros also owns or is affiliated in one way or another, with a very large number of media organizations, including those as far away as Eastern Europe. He also sponsors domestic “internships” for promising young leftist journos in organization with which he is affiliated [see for example, Brandon Ducher, Liberal news organizations partner with higher education, Oklahoma Council on Public Affairs, as well as The Soros Revolution? and The Media Research Center's piece, Soros Spends Over $48 Million Funding Media Organizations].

"The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is funded in part by George Soros, a left-wing billionaire who gives generously to more than 180 different media-related organizations. As the Media Research Center reported in 2011: Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $52 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news — journalism schools, investigative journalism, and even industry organizations. And that number is an understatement. It’s not just journalism, of course. Believing America to be a racist, oppressive, sexist society, Soros, an atheist with a self-described messianic impulse to remake the world in his image, uses his philanthropy to facilitate social change on a grand scale. The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is funded in part by George Soros, a left-wing billionaire who gives generously to more than 180 different media-related organizations. As the Media Research Center reported in 2011: Since 2003, Soros has spent more than $52 million funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news — journalism schools, investigative journalism, and even industry organizations. And that number is an understatement. It’s not just journalism, of course. Believing America to be a racist, oppressive, sexist society, Soros, an atheist with a self-described messianic impulse to remake the world in his image, uses his philanthropy to facilitate social change on a grand scale."

 
This brings us to a present in which the array of opposition against the Trump administration is so powerfully configured that it really does pose an existential threat to the republic. Some loons are [favorably] comparing what is increasingly being seen as the preconditions for violent revolutionary activity with the total destabilizing of the Middle East during the [State Department concocted] Arab Spring.

Punches are no longer being pulled as lefties are openly talking mayhem and murder, below in a really unlikely place, the London Review of Books, certainly leftist in orientation but not known for activism::

"Talk of violence, civil war and secession is in the air in the blue states today. Many, perhaps most of us who live in coastal cities have found ourselves having criminal thoughts and violent fantasies since 9 November. Some involve Trump and Steve Bannon; others involve white supremacists like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos; still others involve the fabled white working class that is supposed to have voted for Trump (the reality is more complicated than that, I know), which most of us have found it easier to hate than persuade. (I’m as guilty as the next person.)" [source, Adam Shatz, The Deep State, 14 February 2017, London Review of Books]

Shatz concludes suggesting that though a military coup against Trump [he obviously doesn't get out enough and has no idea what he is talking about regarding the loyalty to this president in particular by this country's warrior class] would be ill advised [not on moral or legal grounds] the subductive resistance we are seeing every day against the now month old Trump administration, the nominally "legal insurrection" is already far past due.

The Democratic Socialists of America, in an hysterical article quoting Shatz, sums up the left's perpetual indictment of Trump:

"Far right parties are on the march across the countries of advanced capitalism. And lo, it happened right here, the richest and most powerful nation in world history. What’s more, this is the worst version of all of them. The farthest right administration in living memory, with nearly every branch of government in hand, helmed by a sociopath, a loon, a man with fascist tendencies (to put it generously)—who has promised, among many things, apartheid, deportation, pogroms, torture, expulsions..." [source, Nikil Saval, What Are We Trying To Figure Out?, DSA]

Finally keep in mind that the left is merely doing what the jihadis do, engage superior forces in asymetrical warfare, knowing that a drop of blood is worth a gallon of propaganda. All told, this administration does indeed face a serious challenge presented by the deep statr. With a genuine state in exile already in existence, though one vastly inferior in power to that of the legitimate political leadership of the nation, despite its 30,000 "soldiers," it's impossible to guess where we will go from here [though it's reasonable to speculate that with law enforcement no longer being kept on a tight leash by an adversarial DOJ, the "revolution's" warriors might quickly grow tired of being treated like the grown-up threats they potentially represent].  Nonetheless, these people play for keeps and they know, as does the right, intuitively that this presidency could easily decide the future of the country.

Eliminating much doubt as to the mothership for the "resistance" is of course the Communist Party USA. In a recent communique CPUSA lays out some methods whereby the leftist pot is stirred, and with the blurring lines between genuine 1st Amendment rights [which we easily acknowledge the left posessses in equal measure with the right] and mob violence it doesn't take a Nostrodamus to see how quickly and quirkily we have gotten out of hand.


"It's week four of the Trump administration and people all over the country are continuing to rise up against the president's agenda. Over the last several days town hall forums in Republican districts have been the site of protests against repealing Obamacare and stepped up raids aimed at deporting immigrants. By all accounts these protests will continue. Congressional recess will take place from February 18 - 26.  During this time members of Congress will be back in their districts. Some have already scheduled town hall forums, others should be asked to. We strongly encourage you to join these efforts where they are taking place and to  initiate them when  they're not.  A great organizing link is available to help organize and locate upcoming events. All you have to do is put in your zip code to get started. When making plans in your clubs and with friends keep in mind Trump's stepped up deportation of immigrants. You can link up with and join local protests here.

On thing is clear:  Important parts of Trump's agenda have been pushed back and stalled including the Muslim ban and Obamacare - it can be defeated.

Let's keep the pressure on.

Sincerely,

John Bachtell"

It's hard to imagine bigger stakes.

©2017 PipeLineNews.org LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.