DESPITE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY INVESTIGATOR

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jan. 1, 2018) — An article in The Washington Examiner dated December 24, 2017 reported that Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA15), who is not seeking re-election next fall, attributes his decision in part to the election of President Donald Trump.

In a tweet dated December 18, 2017, former White House national security adviser Sebastian Gorka called Dent a “RINO,” known to stand for “Republican In Name Only,” after Dent opined that Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) should have received “a bit more due process” in the wake of numerous allegations of sexual harassment by women who worked with him prior to his entry into politics in 2008.

On the same date, PJ Media reported Dent’s full statement about Franken’s declared resignation resulting from the allegations in which Dent reasoned that other members of Congress accused of sexual harassment or misconduct were correct to resign because the allegations arose from their service while in that body.  Because the accusations dated to before Franken’s election, Dent said, “The Franken case is more complex. I think he should have been afforded a bit more due process than he was. Having said that, with these cases, and in his case, when I first heard the initial allegation, I said that was before he was a member of the Senate, but then other allegations came out. I’m hesitant to say too much. I don’t know what else there is. But I think he probably should have been afforded a bit more due process than he was.”

Dent was elected to Congress in 2004 and opined in a December 24 interview with ABC News’s “This Week” that after having “run for office 13 times,” he decided to retire because he wanted to maintain his “perfect record,” that he is “young enough and healthy to do something else,” and that the Trump administration “is taking the fun out of dysfunction.”

At the same time, “This Week” interviewed Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who, like Dent, is not seeking re-election and opposes Trump’s style and agenda vociferously.

Early in 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency and demanded that he release his “long-form,” or more detailed, birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii, or more generally, in the United States.  Birth in the country is considered the minimum standard by many Americans as meeting the Founders’ stipulation contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution that the president be a “natural born Citizen.”

Others disagree, claiming that a presidential candidate’s parents must possess U.S. citizenship at the time of his birth and that the birth have taken place on U.S. soil.

When Trump made appearances on “The View” and “The O’Reilly Factor,” among other shows, calling for the White House to release Obama’s original birth record, he was met with ridicule and ordained by the press as the “leader” of “the birthers,” a term assigned by the media to individuals questioning Obama’s birth and life narrative as a result of previous credible reports citing his birthplace as Kenya or Indonesia, not Hawaii, as Obama claims.

After mounting pressure from Trump and perhaps inadvertently by Obama’s longtime friend, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, on April 27, 2011, the White House released what it said was a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate allegedly released by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).

The mainstream media widely reported on the release and press conference Obama gave directly afterward in which he claimed that “carnival barkers” were creating a “distraction” over the questions to which tens of thousands of Americans were desirous of an answer:  “Where was Obama born?” and “Is he a ‘natural born Citizen?’”

In addition to inconsistent reports of Obama’s birthplace dating back to at least 2004, his claimed father, Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya, was never a U.S. citizen.  Just prior to the 2008 presidential election, Atty. Leo Donofrio petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari alleging that Obama was ineligible for the presidency based on that factor alone.

Dent was one of a significant number of congressmen who in 2013 and 2014 received a “Sheriff’s Kit,” a DVD produced by Michael Volin of WheresObamasBirthCertificate.com (WOBC) and founder of the radio show by the same name.  The DVD contained a presentation given by investigator Mike Zullo, who conducted a criminal investigation into the birth certificate image and found it to be a “computer-generated forgery” as divulged in a press conference on March 1, 2012.

The probe, launched in August 2011, officially concluded in December 2016, although Zullo has provided interviews in recent weeks about his investigational findings on radio shows, to Dr. Jerome Corsi of Infowars and this publication.

In September 2013, Volin and CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret) visited Dent’s district office to present the DVD and, in an unprecedented development, conferenced in Zullo by telephone to reveal exclusive evidence.

Dent is Kerchner’s congressman.

Volin, pictured on the left in the photo along with Dent and Kerchner, conceived of the effort to distribute as many Sheriff’s Kits as possible to members of Congress, for which he and others made several trips to Washington, DC at their own expense.  Later, with Kerchner largely funding the project, Volin and a small number of volunteers mailed kits to every county sheriff, attorney general, and governor in the country.

In 2008, Kerchner wrote Dent the first of what would be several letters in which he expressed his concerns about Obama’s eligibility.  Kerchner later urged Dent to support then-Rep. Steve Stockman’s proposal to launch a congressional investigation into Obama’s long-form and short-form birth certificates; his Selective Service registration form, also found fraudulent by Zullo’s investigation; and Obama’s apparent use of a Social Security number whose prefix indicated that it had been issued to someone born or then residing in the state of Connecticut.

At the time, Kerchner told Dent, in part, “There is no greater national security threat to our nation and Constitutional Republic than having a person in the office of the Presidency and Commander in Chief of our military who is of unknown true legal identity who is engaging in crimes to cover up his true legal identity by proffering forged and stolen ID docs.”

Kerchner said he received no response to multiple letters sent to Dent on the issue until after the first of four white papers published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) was released in April 2009 containing apparent talking points for congressmen to provide to their constituents.  At that point, Kerchner recalled, Dent sent him “the canned boiler plate type of response because the CRS memo told all the elected people the canned response to give.”

In a recent email exchange, Kerchner recalled that Dent was named in his 2009 lawsuit, Kerchner, et al v. Obama & Congress, et al, challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, on which Kerchner was represented by Atty. Mario Apuzzo.

In an email on December 26, 2017, Volin told The Post & Email that the fourth man in Dent’s office during the September 2013 visit was Dale Laudenslager, who Volin said also accompanied him to the office of his own congressman, Lou Barletta, to deliver a Sheriff’s Kit.

For a December 28, 2013 summary of the meeting with Dent in which Zullo participated by telephone, Volin told us:

He asked question after question.  It was all talking points.  “Why didn’t John McCain do anything about this?”  I said, “Excuse me, congressman, but this information wasn’t available when McCain was running.”  “Why didn’t Gov. Linda Lingle do anything?”  “Well, she did, but her health department director, Chiyome Fukino, said that it was “half-typed and half-handwritten.” The next governor, Neil Abercrombie, said he couldn’t even find it.   And the congressman just kept coming back with that.

Two months later, Volin and a team of volunteers called on Dent in his Washington, DC office.  Afterward, Volin related that Dent’s chief of staff first put them off, then allowed him to give a 7-10-minute overview of Zullo’s presentation on the birth certificate forgery findings.  Volin quoted Dent’s chief of staff as then having said, “So what’s the problem? He thinks he’s an American.”

Volin reported that the chief of staff “just stood up then and said, ‘He has the final word; it’s over; that’s it. That’s his decision.’”

At the time, Volin’s final thoughts on that statement were:

Don’t forget:  we had Mike Zullo on the telephone [in September]. For 45 minutes, the congressman asked him questions, and Mike Zullo gave him information that nobody has heard before.  It should have opened his eyes.

It took five weeks of almost everyday phone calls to get an answer from him, and this is what we got.

Reprinted with permission from thepostemail.com

Posted By Gabe Zolna zolnareport.com 

www.wheresobamasbirthcertificate.com

570 284 7477

Mike Zullo appeared on my radio show WOBC and spoke with my audience. Critical updates were given.

Click here for the podcast

Posted by mike admin

Mike Volin 570 284 7477

Courtesy of the post email

Homepage new

Can the Obama Birth Certificate Issue Reach the Mainstream?

Reprinted from the Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Think-With-Me/Trump-and-the-Hatchet-Man-Maneuver-504661

By NURIT GREENGER

Trump and the Hatchet Man Maneuver

Share on Facebook Twitter Google Plus

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

 Trump is a master of the Executive Suite and knows how to play the game for keeps. When he took on Reinhold “Reince” Priebus, an establishment figure, it was the proverbial ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer.’ But Anthony Scaramucci was absolutely a brilliant move!

Apparently, Liberals and never-Trumpers are so isolated in their political circles that they have no concept how things work in the real world of business and corporate America. For example, they completely fail to grasp the concept of the “hatchet man.”

Hatchet, explain:

Say you are a business tycoon. You just successfully completed a large-scale acquisition and merger, bringing together multiple smaller companies into one conglomerate. After the merger, you want to put your own people in charge of everything. However, all those smaller companies had their own executives – and, at least for the short term – you need to keep many of them around the keep things running and the blending progresses. So, you keep many of those executives around, letting them retain their own senior staff. You even appoint one of them – the head of the largest of the companies you acquired – to be the CEO of the conglomerate, and he pledges to get all the departments working together harmoniously.

After a well-oiled transition period, some of them are doing fine in the new conglomerate, while others are clearly causing trouble.

In fact, the one you appointed CEO, is clearly a disaster. And the newly merged departments are working against each other. Furthermore, you have good suspicion he is dealing in insider trading – nothing you can take to a prosecutor, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence building up. Worse, he is not only doing his own dirty dealing, but it appears he may even be leaking intellectual property to your competitors, helping them take market share from you.

Clearly, your appointed CEO has to go – and go now.

The problem is, many of the senior employees in your conglomerate are loyal to him. If you just fire him and put in your own chosen CEO, you know you could get a lot of backlash from disgruntled employees. Knowing that in your business there is such a small profit-margin, you really can’t afford anything at all that threatens performance. So, what do you do?

In comes the hatchet man.

The hatchet man is someone you bring in for sole purpose of slashing the problems and shaking things up over a very short period of time – but doing so in such a way that deflects any blame or blowback away from you. As soon as the problems are hacked away, the hatchet man leaves – taking the ire and resentment with him, leaving you free to bring in your new team for a fresh start.

This is what happens all the time in the business world. And Donald Trump is a businessman. He knows how this works. He has lived this time and time again. We’ve seen him do it on “The Apprentice.” We’ve read about it in his books. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Except for liberals and never-Trumpers who live in their own bubble.

Here enters Anthony Scaramucci.

Liberals and never-Trumpers see the past two weeks as proof of a Hitler-clown-circus spectacle, evidencing that Trump is unhinged and our government is in the hands of madmen. Anyone who understands the business world, and Donald Trump fully understands that, is what we have witnessed was a perfectly executed hatchet man maneuver.

When Trump won the election, he essentially performed the political equivalent of an acquisition and merger. He brought together different political factions – establishment Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party, religious right, moderates, independents, cross-overs – into one winning political coup. For some, it was a hostile takeover. So, if they were going to be dragged into it against their will, they would sure as hell resist.

Reince Priebus fired CEO

This is where Reince Priebus [CEO] came in.

Priebus, as the then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, was hired as White House Chief of Staff to be the sort of post-merger CEO. It was his job to bring all these political factions together and get them to work harmoniously. But he failed. Worse, there is ample evidence to suggest he not only failed, but worked against Trump and the Trump agenda. Look at the leaks. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the bureaucracy continuing to work at odds with the president. Priebus – and a number of other people around him – had to go.

Back to Anthony Scaramucci…

Donald Trump has known for some time that Priebus was a disaster. He was going to give him his six-month trial period – that’s a fairly common thing in the private business sector. After that, heads were going to roll. But Trump himself doesn’t want to be the hatchet man. He needs to be able to lead after the bloodbath. So, what does he do? He turns to an old friend he has known for many years – someone with nothing to lose, someone who can step in with a hatchet and hack away, someone who can, after the hacking, just walk away from it all and leave the slate clean. He turned to Scaramucci.

Be the first to know – Join our Facebook page.

Anthony Scaramucci

So what does Scaramucci do? He comes in swinging. He fires a few people to make a quick example. He tells others they can “resign” right now if they want to – but if not, they will be fired. Others see what is going on and quit of their own accord.

That problem CEO, Priebus!? Oh, the new “structure” of the organization puts Scaramucci in direct competition with Priebus – and Priebus throws up his hands and says “fine, I’m out of here.” And Scaramucci does it all in a way that is spectacularly visible to draw all the fire from Trump critics.

So how does it all end up? It ends up with Trump putting in his new CEO – retired Marine general John Kelly – the one he probably wanted from day one, but held back – and the new CEO-White House chief of staff says “OK, Scaramucci – you are no longer needed here.”

General Kelly now has a clean slate to start fresh – and Scaramucci takes all the heat. Where the Left and never-Trumpers see a circus freak-show, realists from the business world see a perfectly executed post-merger hatchet-man job.

The political wonks see General Kelly taking command as the first sane thing to happen in this administration. They don’t realize they’ve been played, and played perfectly. And soon we will likely see some other changes that move the Executive Branch further towards what Trump has wanted it to be from day one. And then watch the real swamp-drainer get to work. It sucks to be Hillary Clinton right now…

Oh, and Scaramucci? He gets a sweet deal out of all this – no doubt, he and his friend Donald Trump talked it all out first.

Scaramucci was already facing a nasty divorce that would result in the liquidation of his business in order to divide assets. A little-known law allows people who are legally required to sell a business as a condition of employment in the Executive Branch (to prevent conflicts of interest) to defer the taxes on their profits from the sale.

Since Scaramucci was going to have to sell his company anyway, due to his pending divorce, now he and his soon-to-be ex-wife just saved $80 million in taxes. And don’t for a moment think that all this was an unplanned mess that went awry. Scaramucci and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

All of this was planned – and foreseen – by all those who understand this game.

Before Trump was inaugurated, Scott Adams wrote that, to his critics, the first year of Trump would be a play in three acts:

Act One – Trump is literally a Hitler.

Act Two – Trump is not literally Hitler, but Trump is incompetent.

Act Three – Trump is not incompetent, but we don’t like his policies.

We’ve seen this play out. From election night up, through the first 100 days, the Left was unhinged, out rioting and acting as though Trump taking office was literally the end of Western Civilization.

But after 100 days presidency, when Trump had ‘failed’ to do evil-dictator things like round up all the brown people, put the gays into camps, force women to stay home and have babies, it became farcical to continue the “Trump is Hitler” narrative.

And so, from that 100 days point and up until now, it has been the “Trump is incompetent” game. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the leaking. Look at all the tweets. Now, we begin Act Three. With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the Left will have to say is “we just don’t like Trump’s policies”. Act Three is in play.

And once that happens, the Left is dead. Because, Trump’s policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. We should put America first. We must build back our economy; create jobs; strengthen the military; protect the borders. Outside a few densely-populated Liberal strongholds, like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and – of course – Washington, D.C., in general Americans agree with all of Trump’s plan. So, when all the Left has to say is “Trump’s policies are wrong,” the Left will literally be telling most of America, “you people are stupid” ‘Deplorable”?

In 2020, running for his second term, President Donald Trump will win 47 states, just like Ronald Reagan did. The Left will be scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened, while some may become Trump’s Democrats. And you’ll be able to look back and say, “hey, some of us told you all this back then, in 2017”.

Remember, the goal is: put America first!

Trump and the Hatchet Man Maneuver

Share on Facebook Twitter Google Plus

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

 Trump is a master of the Executive Suite and knows how to play the game for keeps. When he took on Reinhold “Reince” Priebus, an establishment figure, it was the proverbial ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer.’ But Anthony Scaramucci was absolutely a brilliant move!

Apparently, Liberals and never-Trumpers are so isolated in their political circles that they have no concept how things work in the real world of business and corporate America. For example, they completely fail to grasp the concept of the “hatchet man.”

Hatchet, explain:

Say you are a business tycoon. You just successfully completed a large-scale acquisition and merger, bringing together multiple smaller companies into one conglomerate. After the merger, you want to put your own people in charge of everything. However, all those smaller companies had their own executives – and, at least for the short term – you need to keep many of them around the keep things running and the blending progresses. So, you keep many of those executives around, letting them retain their own senior staff. You even appoint one of them – the head of the largest of the companies you acquired – to be the CEO of the conglomerate, and he pledges to get all the departments working together harmoniously.

After a well-oiled transition period, some of them are doing fine in the new conglomerate, while others are clearly causing trouble.

In fact, the one you appointed CEO, is clearly a disaster. And the newly merged departments are working against each other. Furthermore, you have good suspicion he is dealing in insider trading – nothing you can take to a prosecutor, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence building up. Worse, he is not only doing his own dirty dealing, but it appears he may even be leaking intellectual property to your competitors, helping them take market share from you.

Clearly, your appointed CEO has to go – and go now.

The problem is, many of the senior employees in your conglomerate are loyal to him. If you just fire him and put in your own chosen CEO, you know you could get a lot of backlash from disgruntled employees. Knowing that in your business there is such a small profit-margin, you really can’t afford anything at all that threatens performance. So, what do you do?

In comes the hatchet man.

The hatchet man is someone you bring in for sole purpose of slashing the problems and shaking things up over a very short period of time – but doing so in such a way that deflects any blame or blowback away from you. As soon as the problems are hacked away, the hatchet man leaves – taking the ire and resentment with him, leaving you free to bring in your new team for a fresh start.

This is what happens all the time in the business world. And Donald Trump is a businessman. He knows how this works. He has lived this time and time again. We’ve seen him do it on “The Apprentice.” We’ve read about it in his books. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Except for liberals and never-Trumpers who live in their own bubble.

Here enters Anthony Scaramucci.

Liberals and never-Trumpers see the past two weeks as proof of a Hitler-clown-circus spectacle, evidencing that Trump is unhinged and our government is in the hands of madmen. Anyone who understands the business world, and Donald Trump fully understands that, is what we have witnessed was a perfectly executed hatchet man maneuver.

When Trump won the election, he essentially performed the political equivalent of an acquisition and merger. He brought together different political factions – establishment Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party, religious right, moderates, independents, cross-overs – into one winning political coup. For some, it was a hostile takeover. So, if they were going to be dragged into it against their will, they would sure as hell resist.

Reince Priebus fired CEO

This is where Reince Priebus [CEO] came in.

Priebus, as the then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, was hired as White House Chief of Staff to be the sort of post-merger CEO. It was his job to bring all these political factions together and get them to work harmoniously. But he failed. Worse, there is ample evidence to suggest he not only failed, but worked against Trump and the Trump agenda. Look at the leaks. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the bureaucracy continuing to work at odds with the president. Priebus – and a number of other people around him – had to go.

Back to Anthony Scaramucci…

Donald Trump has known for some time that Priebus was a disaster. He was going to give him his six-month trial period – that’s a fairly common thing in the private business sector. After that, heads were going to roll. But Trump himself doesn’t want to be the hatchet man. He needs to be able to lead after the bloodbath. So, what does he do? He turns to an old friend he has known for many years – someone with nothing to lose, someone who can step in with a hatchet and hack away, someone who can, after the hacking, just walk away from it all and leave the slate clean. He turned to Scaramucci.

Be the first to know – Join our Facebook page.

Anthony Scaramucci

So what does Scaramucci do? He comes in swinging. He fires a few people to make a quick example. He tells others they can “resign” right now if they want to – but if not, they will be fired. Others see what is going on and quit of their own accord.

That problem CEO, Priebus!? Oh, the new “structure” of the organization puts Scaramucci in direct competition with Priebus – and Priebus throws up his hands and says “fine, I’m out of here.” And Scaramucci does it all in a way that is spectacularly visible to draw all the fire from Trump critics.

So how does it all end up? It ends up with Trump putting in his new CEO – retired Marine general John Kelly – the one he probably wanted from day one, but held back – and the new CEO-White House chief of staff says “OK, Scaramucci – you are no longer needed here.”

General Kelly now has a clean slate to start fresh – and Scaramucci takes all the heat. Where the Left and never-Trumpers see a circus freak-show, realists from the business world see a perfectly executed post-merger hatchet-man job.

The political wonks see General Kelly taking command as the first sane thing to happen in this administration. They don’t realize they’ve been played, and played perfectly. And soon we will likely see some other changes that move the Executive Branch further towards what Trump has wanted it to be from day one. And then watch the real swamp-drainer get to work. It sucks to be Hillary Clinton right now…

Oh, and Scaramucci? He gets a sweet deal out of all this – no doubt, he and his friend Donald Trump talked it all out first.

Scaramucci was already facing a nasty divorce that would result in the liquidation of his business in order to divide assets. A little-known law allows people who are legally required to sell a business as a condition of employment in the Executive Branch (to prevent conflicts of interest) to defer the taxes on their profits from the sale.

Since Scaramucci was going to have to sell his company anyway, due to his pending divorce, now he and his soon-to-be ex-wife just saved $80 million in taxes. And don’t for a moment think that all this was an unplanned mess that went awry. Scaramucci and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

All of this was planned – and foreseen – by all those who understand this game.

Before Trump was inaugurated, Scott Adams wrote that, to his critics, the first year of Trump would be a play in three acts:

Act One – Trump is literally a Hitler.

Act Two – Trump is not literally Hitler, but Trump is incompetent.

Act Three – Trump is not incompetent, but we don’t like his policies.

We’ve seen this play out. From election night up, through the first 100 days, the Left was unhinged, out rioting and acting as though Trump taking office was literally the end of Western Civilization.

But after 100 days presidency, when Trump had ‘failed’ to do evil-dictator things like round up all the brown people, put the gays into camps, force women to stay home and have babies, it became farcical to continue the “Trump is Hitler” narrative.

And so, from that 100 days point and up until now, it has been the “Trump is incompetent” game. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the leaking. Look at all the tweets. Now, we begin Act Three. With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the Left will have to say is “we just don’t like Trump’s policies”. Act Three is in play.

And once that happens, the Left is dead. Because, Trump’s policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. We should put America first. We must build back our economy; create jobs; strengthen the military; protect the borders. Outside a few densely-populated Liberal strongholds, like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and – of course – Washington, D.C., in general Americans agree with all of Trump’s plan. So, when all the Left has to say is “Trump’s policies are wrong,” the Left will literally be telling most of America, “you people are stupid” ‘Deplorable”?

In 2020, running for his second term, President Donald Trump will win 47 states, just like Ronald Reagan did. The Left will be scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened, while some may become Trump’s Democrats. And you’ll be able to look back and say, “hey, some of us told you all this back then, in 2017”.

Remember, the goal is: put America first!

Trump and the Hatchet Man Maneuver

 Trump is a master of the Executive Suite and knows how to play the game for keeps. When he took on Reinhold “Reince” Priebus, an establishment figure, it was the proverbial ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer.’ But Anthony Scaramucci was absolutely a brilliant move!

Apparently, Liberals and never-Trumpers are so isolated in their political circles that they have no concept how things work in the real world of business and corporate America. For example, they completely fail to grasp the concept of the “hatchet man.”

Hatchet, explain:

Say you are a business tycoon. You just successfully completed a large-scale acquisition and merger, bringing together multiple smaller companies into one conglomerate. After the merger, you want to put your own people in charge of everything. However, all those smaller companies had their own executives – and, at least for the short term – you need to keep many of them around the keep things running and the blending progresses. So, you keep many of those executives around, letting them retain their own senior staff. You even appoint one of them – the head of the largest of the companies you acquired – to be the CEO of the conglomerate, and he pledges to get all the departments working together harmoniously.

After a well-oiled transition period, some of them are doing fine in the new conglomerate, while others are clearly causing trouble.

In fact, the one you appointed CEO, is clearly a disaster. And the newly merged departments are working against each other. Furthermore, you have good suspicion he is dealing in insider trading – nothing you can take to a prosecutor, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence building up. Worse, he is not only doing his own dirty dealing, but it appears he may even be leaking intellectual property to your competitors, helping them take market share from you.

Clearly, your appointed CEO has to go – and go now.

The problem is, many of the senior employees in your conglomerate are loyal to him. If you just fire him and put in your own chosen CEO, you know you could get a lot of backlash from disgruntled employees. Knowing that in your business there is such a small profit-margin, you really can’t afford anything at all that threatens performance. So, what do you do?

In comes the hatchet man.

The hatchet man is someone you bring in for sole purpose of slashing the problems and shaking things up over a very short period of time – but doing so in such a way that deflects any blame or blowback away from you. As soon as the problems are hacked away, the hatchet man leaves – taking the ire and resentment with him, leaving you free to bring in your new team for a fresh start.

This is what happens all the time in the business world. And Donald Trump is a businessman. He knows how this works. He has lived this time and time again. We’ve seen him do it on “The Apprentice.” We’ve read about it in his books. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Except for liberals and never-Trumpers who live in their own bubble.

Here enters Anthony Scaramucci.

Liberals and never-Trumpers see the past two weeks as proof of a Hitler-clown-circus spectacle, evidencing that Trump is unhinged and our government is in the hands of madmen. Anyone who understands the business world, and Donald Trump fully understands that, is what we have witnessed was a perfectly executed hatchet man maneuver.

When Trump won the election, he essentially performed the political equivalent of an acquisition and merger. He brought together different political factions – establishment Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party, religious right, moderates, independents, cross-overs – into one winning political coup. For some, it was a hostile takeover. So, if they were going to be dragged into it against their will, they would sure as hell resist.

Reince Priebus fired CEO

This is where Reince Priebus [CEO] came in.

Priebus, as the then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, was hired as White House Chief of Staff to be the sort of post-merger CEO. It was his job to bring all these political factions together and get them to work harmoniously. But he failed. Worse, there is ample evidence to suggest he not only failed, but worked against Trump and the Trump agenda. Look at the leaks. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the bureaucracy continuing to work at odds with the president. Priebus – and a number of other people around him – had to go.

Back to Anthony Scaramucci…

Donald Trump has known for some time that Priebus was a disaster. He was going to give him his six-month trial period – that’s a fairly common thing in the private business sector. After that, heads were going to roll. But Trump himself doesn’t want to be the hatchet man. He needs to be able to lead after the bloodbath. So, what does he do? He turns to an old friend he has known for many years – someone with nothing to lose, someone who can step in with a hatchet and hack away, someone who can, after the hacking, just walk away from it all and leave the slate clean. He turned to Scaramucci.

Be the first to know – Join our Facebook page.

Anthony Scaramucci

So what does Scaramucci do? He comes in swinging. He fires a few people to make a quick example. He tells others they can “resign” right now if they want to – but if not, they will be fired. Others see what is going on and quit of their own accord.

That problem CEO, Priebus!? Oh, the new “structure” of the organization puts Scaramucci in direct competition with Priebus – and Priebus throws up his hands and says “fine, I’m out of here.” And Scaramucci does it all in a way that is spectacularly visible to draw all the fire from Trump critics.

So how does it all end up? It ends up with Trump putting in his new CEO – retired Marine general John Kelly – the one he probably wanted from day one, but held back – and the new CEO-White House chief of staff says “OK, Scaramucci – you are no longer needed here.”

General Kelly now has a clean slate to start fresh – and Scaramucci takes all the heat. Where the Left and never-Trumpers see a circus freak-show, realists from the business world see a perfectly executed post-merger hatchet-man job.

The political wonks see General Kelly taking command as the first sane thing to happen in this administration. They don’t realize they’ve been played, and played perfectly. And soon we will likely see some other changes that move the Executive Branch further towards what Trump has wanted it to be from day one. And then watch the real swamp-drainer get to work. It sucks to be Hillary Clinton right now…

Oh, and Scaramucci? He gets a sweet deal out of all this – no doubt, he and his friend Donald Trump talked it all out first.

Scaramucci was already facing a nasty divorce that would result in the liquidation of his business in order to divide assets. A little-known law allows people who are legally required to sell a business as a condition of employment in the Executive Branch (to prevent conflicts of interest) to defer the taxes on their profits from the sale.

Since Scaramucci was going to have to sell his company anyway, due to his pending divorce, now he and his soon-to-be ex-wife just saved $80 million in taxes. And don’t for a moment think that all this was an unplanned mess that went awry. Scaramucci and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

All of this was planned – and foreseen – by all those who understand this game.

Before Trump was inaugurated, Scott Adams wrote that, to his critics, the first year of Trump would be a play in three acts:

Act One – Trump is literally a Hitler.

Act Two – Trump is not literally Hitler, but Trump is incompetent.

Act Three – Trump is not incompetent, but we don’t like his policies.

We’ve seen this play out. From election night up, through the first 100 days, the Left was unhinged, out rioting and acting as though Trump taking office was literally the end of Western Civilization.

But after 100 days presidency, when Trump had ‘failed’ to do evil-dictator things like round up all the brown people, put the gays into camps, force women to stay home and have babies, it became farcical to continue the “Trump is Hitler” narrative.

And so, from that 100 days point and up until now, it has been the “Trump is incompetent” game. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the leaking. Look at all the tweets. Now, we begin Act Three. With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the Left will have to say is “we just don’t like Trump’s policies”. Act Three is in play.

And once that happens, the Left is dead. Because, Trump’s policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. We should put America first. We must build back our economy; create jobs; strengthen the military; protect the borders. Outside a few densely-populated Liberal strongholds, like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and – of course – Washington, D.C., in general Americans agree with all of Trump’s plan. So, when all the Left has to say is “Trump’s policies are wrong,” the Left will literally be telling most of America, “you people are stupid” ‘Deplorable”?

In 2020, running for his second term, President Donald Trump will win 47 states, just like Ronald Reagan did. The Left will be scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened, while some may become Trump’s Democrats. And you’ll be able to look back and say, “hey, some of us told you all this back then, in 2017”.

Remember, the goal is: put America first!

Posted by Mike admin

570-284-7477

An Open Letter to House and Senate Republicans

I am old enough to remember some very good days in America’s past, the days when police officers were treated with respect; when firefighters only had to fight fires and not thugs shooting at them; when teachers could turn their backs to write on the blackboard without wondering if a student would pull a gun on them; when professors taught students how to think rather than what to think; when children grew up with two parents and all their siblings had the same parents; when cars did not have thousands of dollars’ worth of absurd safety equipment because a few idiots do not know how to drive; when a farmer could plow his field without being sued by a federal agency; when U.S. troops could fire at the enemy without first having to get permission from a Defense Department attorney thousands of miles away; when boys were boys and girls were girls; when the only people with tattoos were in the Navy; when popular songs did not contain profanity and references to prostitution and cop-killing; when people were ashamed to be on welfare, rather than eager to collect it; when merely exhaling did not result in criticism for poisoning the atmosphere; when abortion was something to be ashamed of, rather than a gender-selection procedure; when kids spent their summers outdoors rather than at video game consoles; when you did not have any idea of the politics of your favorite performer; and when people generally treated each other with respect.

Yes, I know, there was poverty and racism back then. But we still have poverty, and we have far more people receiving welfare benefits today than in the 1950s. We still have racism, but I often think it has been made worse over the last 10 years or so. I went to an elementary school with white and black children, but every black student I knew had two loving and responsible parents at home—and one of them was a father who had a job. Far too often, those children today have a mother at home, a father nowhere to be seen, and dependence on government that will probably continue through several generations. The collapse of families can be directly linked to leftist programs that, while perhaps well-intentioned, destroyed millions of lives.

As the years progressed, we have seen federal programs grow exponentially, while individual responsibility and accountability seem to have been reduced at that same rate. We have seen a Democrat Party that used to represent working people turn into a socialist-lite party, while the Republican Party has turned into a Democrat-lite party. Millions of Americans now want nothing to do with either of those parties. Those who do not understand that also do not understand how Donald Trump got elected president.

One issue illustrates that there is little difference between the two political parties; the minimum wage. Democrats initially pushed for the national minimum wage to be increased from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Now they demand $15.00 or, if higher, whatever the current activists call a “living wage.” They are oblivious to the fact that where individual states have increased their minimum wage to $10.00 or more, the result has been reduced employment in the restaurant industry and, not surprisingly, a transition to self-order kiosks that do not call in sick, demand vacations, talk-back to their bosses, require time-and-a-half pay for overtime, or refuse to serve police officers.

The reasonable person understands that raising the minimum wage does little but cause unemployment among the low-skilled and unskilled Americans who most need help, while boosting prices nationwide. You can raise the minimum wage all you want, but after a year or two of increased prices, the people who were poor will still be poor, the janitors will still earn less than general managers and CEOs, and everyone will be paying more for goods and services.

In more reasonable times, the Republican response to a call for an increase in the minimum wage was to argue against it and cite the many reasons why it is a bad idea. But we are not in reasonable times. The Republicans have been so bludgeoned by the Democrats and the media that they fear speaking honestly. Afraid to be called racists, anti-poor, or pro-business, the Republicans now cave in on many issues. If pressured just a little more, the Republicans will collapse and raise the minimum wage. Of course, they will agree to an amount that is less than $15.00 per hour, but they will still have given in.

The Republicans need to be reminded that there is a right and a wrong side to every issue. The minimum wage is one of them. If the Republicans agree to increase the minimum wage to, for example, $10.00 per hour, they will have accepted the wrong side of the issue—because the right side is to not raise it at all. How do they think the voters will react? When the voters see that the Republicans have capitulated on the issue, they will think, “What good is a Republican Party if it has no principles?” The voters will say, not without some justification, “Screw it. If the choice is not between sanity and insanity, but between two levels of insanity, I may as well go all in and get my $15.00 per hour! Yes, some people will lose their jobs and prices will go up, but I may as well enjoy the extra few bucks I’ll get in my paycheck before the prices increase.”

Take this same concept and extend it to ObamaCare. Thinking voters want ObamaCare repealed. Most do not want it replaced by more government interference in the economy. They want a free market in health insurance. Yet, when given a chance, the Republicans came up with an ObamaCare-lite proposal! If they are going to replace ObamaCare with another convoluted piece of legislation that does nothing to lower the cost of health insurance and health care and which also costs tens of billions of dollars per year, what is the point? Who can blame Republican voters for being frustrated, disillusioned, and angry?

That, of course, is what Obama and his demo-socialist comrades wanted all along. They knew that ObamaCare would be a disaster, a disaster that the disorganized Republicans would never have the courage to reverse or repeal. The increasing mess would lead Americans to eventually shrug their shoulders, cry uncle, and say, “I give up. Give us Medicare for all.” Just as voters will support a $15.00 Democrat-proposed minimum wage if the Republicans endorse $10.00 per hour, the voters will ultimately endorse socialized health care if the Republicans turn their backs on the free market system that made America the most productive and wealthiest nation in the world. If the politicians on both sides of the political aisle are going to hand out “free stuff,” can you blame anyone for voting for the candidate who offers more of it?

Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid forced down the throats of Americans a Rube Goldberg health insurance system. The Republicans absurdly believe they can remove some of the contraption on one side, add a little more on the other, patch the flimsy parts with duct tape, and then coast to reelection in 2018. No!

Many voters are at the ends of their ropes. I am one of them. If the Republican swamp creatures do not stop with their Democrat-lite proposals and actions, there is no point in voting for them. If they do not repeal ObamaCare, cut taxes, slash spending, and build a border wall to protect us, I will stay home on election day. Do not waste your time telling me, “Oh, but that will only give more power to the Democrats!” Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference between the Democrats and many of the Republicans. (See: Collins, Susan and McCain, John.) House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have proven that they are, at best, incompetent, and, at worst, collaborators with the Democrats. I’d like to think Americans deserve better. But if we do not demand better, then we deserve more of the mediocrity we have been getting for decades.

If the Republicans are unable to remember conservative principles and rely on them to address the nation’s problems, I will not bother voting in 2018. Millions of Americans feel that way. Does that mean the Democrats might recapture the House and the Senate? Yes. Ask me if I care. When the choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, I see no point in standing in line at the voting booth to pick one over the other.

With Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Maxine Waters in charge, this nation will look like Venezuela in a few decades. With Republicans like we have in Congress today, it will take only a few additional years. Spare me your usual “moral imperative” language, Republican candidates. You have long promised and little delivered. Give us results in 2017, or be sent to an early retirement in November 2018.

Don Fredrick
August 22, 2017

thecompleteobamatimeline.com
Author of:
The Complete Obama Timeline
Who Is Donald Trump?
Can It All Be A Coincidence?
Colony 14
What You Don’t Know About Economics Can Hurt You
Proof That Liberals Are Nuts
More Proof That Liberals Are Nuts
Still More Proof That Liberals Are Nuts

The Collapse of the Democrat Party

The last six months have convinced me that the Democrat Party is collapsing. Why? It has run out of groups it can divide. The first major victory in the Democrat Party’s identity politics war was winning the black vote. When discussing upcoming civil rights legislation, President Lyndon Baines Johnson reportedly told two governors, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.” Johnson convinced African-Americans that the Democrats were on their side and the Republicans were not. More than 50 years later, most black voters still believe that—even though their lot in life has generally been made worse by Democrat policies. (See: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore.)

The next major victory for the Democrats came with the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. From that moment forward, a “right to an abortion” became a prominent part of the Democrat Party platform, and “pro-choice” women voters moved in the Democrats’ direction. The gender wage gap issue also moved women to the Democrat Party—which conveniently neglects to mention that gender pay discrimination had been illegal since the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Although Democrat policies destroyed many black families, the tradition of strong Hispanic families continued. That, along with their work ethic and anti-abortion views, led many Hispanics to lean Republican. But because immigrant families often come from countries with socialist policies, many Hispanics were also used to the concept of a big, powerful government. The Democrat Party naturally believed it could increase its share of the Hispanic vote. Over several decades, Democrats (and willing Republicans) have succeeded in shifting immigration policies. The United States government had traditionally favored white European immigrants, but slowly began accepting more immigrants from Mexico, South America, Southeast Asia, and third-world countries. The Democrats knew it was easier to import people who leaned toward socialism than to persuade existing Americans to turn to socialism. The atrocious immigration policies of the 1980s enabled that change, when President Ronald Reagan got snookered by the Democrats—who promised border security in exchange for more immigration. Of course, America got the immigrants but never got the border security.

While the immigration policies were changing, the Democrat Party convinced increasing numbers of Hispanics that the Republicans were racists. By the 2000 election, the Democrat Party had successfully wooed black voters, pro-abortion voters, and Hispanic voters. That was still not enough, however, as George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore. In 2004 the Democrats failed again. (Of course, they did not help themselves by nominating John Kerry—one of the dumbest people ever to have run for president.)

By the time 2008 rolled around, the Democrats had convinced many voters that the Republicans were also anti-woman. That would, they thought, put Hillary Clinton in the White House. She may have been a crook and a liar, but the fact that she was a woman meant instant votes. With leftists in the mainstream media paving her way with fawning glass ceiling stories, Clinton was certain to win the Oval Office.

But Barack Hussein Obama came onto the scene, first propelled to fame by a book ghost-written for him by William Ayers and a 2004 Democrat National Convention speech that, while lackluster, cliché-filled, and sophomoric on paper, was well delivered by an expert con man. Obama entered the race in 2007 because he knew the Republicans would lose in November 2008. They had the economy, the media, and the juggernaut of the Democrat Party working against them. Obama knew the only races he had to win were the primary contests against Clinton. If that meant bringing in busloads of Chicagoans to improperly cast ballots in the Iowa caucuses, so be it. If that meant primary shenanigans in Texas, that was just the cost of doing business. (Obama had no desire to be vice president, and he had no desire to languish in the Senate while Clinton served two terms. It was 2008 or never for Obama.)

The 2008 election results made the Democrat Party believe it was unstoppable. It had divided Americans by race, gender, and abortion positions. The growing Hispanic population was continuing to move further to the political left, and getting non-citizens to illegally vote would not be difficult—especially with the “Motor Voter” legislation that had been enacted. How could the Democrats lose? They had the black vote sewed up, as LBJ had promised. They had the majority of the Hispanic vote, and that population was growing because of higher birth rates and massive immigration. They had the votes of single women because of the abortion issue. They had close to half the votes of married women. The only group they had not fully captured was white men. But the Democrats had even won over many of them in 2008 by playing the “white guilt” race card. What could go wrong?

Well, 2010 went wrong. Obama and the Democrats overreached with ObamaCare. The legislation was meant to be a stepping stone to a fully socialized health care system. But ObamaCare was so disastrous that the Democrats lost the House to the Republicans in a massive upset.

The Democrats did manage to get Obama reelected in 2012. They did so with the help of the media. (See: Crowley, Candy), and a weak Republican candidate who did not know how to fight. ObamaCare, Benghazi, Operation Fast and Furious, and the IRS scandal all gave Mitt Romney policy ammunition to use against Obama. But Romney never even picked up a gun, let alone load it.

Because Obama was not on the ballot in 2014, the Republicans won the Senate. Regrettably, they failed to do anything of substance with their power. They controlled the House and the Senate. That gave them the opportunity to send hundreds of bills to Obama’s desk. Yes, he would have vetoed most of them, but the voters would have seen the unmasking of the Marxist. Like Romney in 2012, the Republicans in Congress choked in 2015 and 2016.

But the Democrats were still busy dividing Americans. They had the support of blacks, Hispanics, young women, leftist university professors, and the mainstream media. They still did not have the white vote, but they could continue to chip away at that. The Democrats did so, continuing to pound away on the issues of abortion, race, gender, immigration, and wealth inequality. Add homosexual rights to the mix, telling the voters that Republicans hate gays because they oppose gay marriage. Toss in transgender rights as well. How could the Democrats lose in 2016?

Then Donald Trump came along to upset the establishment apple cart. The Democrats (and establishment Republicans) hate Trump, but do not yet understand that they created him. They are now throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. “Russian collusion and hacking?” That’s going out the window with the revelation that the DNC data published by WikiLeaks could not have been hacked via the Internet and was copied directly by someone in the organization. (Records show that the data transfer speed could not have been accomplished via an Internet hack. The documents were copied in house, and then given or sold to WikiLeaks.)

If Russian collusion does not help the Democrats destroy Trump, what comes next? Obviously, the tried-and-true Democrat tactic of charging racism. How do they do that? When racists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, they allowed George Soros-funded Antifa and Black Lives Matter counter-protesters to assemble in the same place. The inevitable conflict created headlines, and the confrontation was blamed on Trump. The argument? Republicans and Trump are racists, so any violence committed by anyone is the fault of Trump and the GOP.

The problem now faced by the Democrats is that they have overplayed their hand. Because they have run out of groups to exploit, they have to go back to the same wells in an attempt to get a greater share of those groups. But to do that, they must take positions that are even more extreme. For example, the average American voter is comfortable with the position that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. As a result, many heterosexuals who felt homosexuals were being denied rights voted for Democrat candidates who supported that minority. The Democrats then pushed the envelope by not only endorsing same-sex marriage, they demanded punishment for anyone who opposed it. That backfired on the Democrats. Instead of gaining support, they lost it. Even someone who supports same-sex marriage may draw the line at jailing a county clerk who opposes the practice, or destroying a bakery or photography business because its owners prefer not to provide services for a same-sex wedding.

Similarly, one can be sympathetic toward individuals who believe they were born with the “wrong gender.” A voter might oppose a candidate who argues that transgenders are evil sinners, and endorse a candidate who is more understanding and accepting. But the Democrats pushed that envelope too far as well. A voter who might be sympathetic to transgenders does not necessarily extend that understanding to allowing men to freely use women’s public restrooms. Most Americans tend to have a “live and let live” attitude. If John wants to dress up like Jane, well, that’s his prerogative. But when John demands that the U.S. Army accept him as a recruit and then pay for his hormone treatments and sex-change surgery, a lot of voters move from the “Live and let live” category to the “What are you, nuts?” category.

The average American dislikes abortion but accepts that they are performed and tries to be sympathetic to young women whose poor judgment or abuse by men prompts them to seek to “terminate a pregnancy.” But an abortion in the first month of pregnancy is not the same as an abortion in the ninth month. On this issue the Democrats again overplayed their hand. Their 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, refused to even condemn late-term abortions. How can one possibly support aborting on October 23 a healthy baby whose due date is October 22? Yet that is the extreme position the Democrat Party has now taken. In working to increase support among pro-choice voters, the Democrats have turned away reasonable voters who said, “No, that is simply too extreme a position for me.” The Democrat Party is even reluctant to accept pro-life Democrat candidates; that is a litmus test many Americans reject.

On the issue of immigration, the Democrats oppose a border wall and endorse sanctuary cities. While those positions may boost support among Hispanic voters and those who endorse borderless, global socialism, they turn away millions of Americans who cannot fathom why anyone would not want to imprison or deport someone who has crossed the border illegally and then committed rape, armed robbery, or murder. Perhaps more than any other, that issue cost the Democrats the White House. (It will also cost Republicans some House and Senate seats if they do not fund a border wall.)

When Democrats go so far as to insist on renaming elementary schools because they were named after a man named Lynch who decades ago donated the property, the average American does not respond, “Yes, the Democrats are right. The name Lynch is offensive.” Rather, the average American responds, “The Democrats are nuts!”

With the tragic events in Charlottesville, the Democrats are again falling back on the race card to divide the American electorate. But their efforts to brand whites as racists are generating a result that is the opposite of what they expected. Increasing numbers of whites are saying, “Yes, there are some racists. But I am sick and tired of the Democrats trying to make it look as though all whites are racists. We are not and I am not!” Instead of dividing whites, the Democrats are uniting them.

The Democrats have pitted blacks against whites, blacks and whites against Hispanics, citizens against non-citizens, Muslims against Christians and Jews, atheists against believers, heterosexuals against homosexuals and transgenders, abortion supporters against abortion opponents, taxpayers against welfare recipients, young against old, middle-income earners against the wealthy, and they have intervened in just about every other conflict they could intensify and exaggerate. It worked for the Democrats for decades. But it is the only tactic in the party’s playbook (other than promising something for nothing). Now it has been played so often that almost everyone sees it coming. The Democrats have become the party of real and imagined victims and trumped up outrages. The rest of us have seen enough, had enough, and done enough to compensate those victims.

The Republican Party has become a party of straight white men and women—not because it is bigoted or racist, but because the Democrats have picked off most of the voters who are not straight white men and women. The Democrats have defined its enemy, yet now seem shocked to find that its declared enemy is starting to act in self-defense. The Democrats’ shame-and-blame tactic is collapsing, and the more they use it the more ridiculous they appear. When media pundits declare President Trump “subhuman,” all Republicans racists, and straight white males evil destroyers of the planet, they have moved into the realm of hysteria. When you have done nothing wrong but are continually being lambasted by the Democrats and their media comrades, at some point you demand a stop to it. Just as Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld gets so frustrated with Juan Williams that he is eventually forced to tell him to stop the condescension and pipe down, white Americans are saying to the Democrats, “Enough is enough.” The sleeping bear of conservative America has been awakened after years of aggravating prodding by the Democrats. That bear is bigger and angrier than the Democrats imagined, and they will not escape the bear’s revenge by hiding under Pajama Boy’s blanket.

The Democrat Party is now collapsing. As its leaders move further to the political left, it will transform into a socialist party. It cannot repair itself because that would require a repudiation of everything it has been doing for decades. Where the reasonable Democrats go remains to be seen, but if the nation is to survive the Republican Party must return to its conservative principles. If it chooses not to do so, a third party may emerge, and three major parties are unlikely to result in anything but diminished freedoms.

Don Fredrick
August 15, 2017
thecompleteobamatimeline.com

wheresobamabirthcertificate.com
570-284-7477

Reprinted from Canada Free Press

I know this is old news, however lets go over this one more time.

Thank you J.B. Williams for the great article.

Special Thanks To Gabe Zolna For The Tip (call gabe 570-284-7477)

http://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

Posted by Mike Admin

570 284 7477

Managing editor of this blog and trusted contributor to WOBC radio Gabe Zolna has discovered some startling info we all must read. After viewing this video it will become clear we have been lied to over the past decades about our Nation’s leadership. What we have witnessed over the last two decades has been a fabrication and scripted Government. Think the Bush Presidents have been on the American peoples side? Think again.

https://youtu.be/62Ai4ned3xo

Gabe can be reached @ 570-284-7477

www.zolnareport.com

Posted By Mike admin.