Thursday, November 29, 2018

Does The Next Generation Think Socialism Is Great?


Tucker versus socialist college student
Fox News
Published on Dec 13, 2016

What is Democratic Socialism? (Democratic Socialism / Fabian Socialism / Social Democracy)
Published on Apr 4, 2016

Why "Democratic" Socialism Doesn't Work
Published on Mar 31, 2016

Why are so many millennials socialists?
Published on Feb 17, 2016
Image result for socialism and communism
The Crisis Of (Nordic) Social Democracy
by Asbjørn Wahl on 09/02/2018
(Left: Asbjørn Wahl)
The once-dominant role and current crisis of social democracy in much of Europe in the last century can hardly be understood without analysing the shift from confrontation to compromise in the relationship between the trade union and labour movement and the employers/right-wing forces. This historical compromise between labour and capital was the result of comprehensive class struggles that shifted the balance of power in favour of labour. Employers viewed such a compromise as a tactical step in order to dampen and counteract the radicalism of a strong and growing trade union movement. In Norway it was formalized through the first Collective Basic Agreement between the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO in Norwegian) and the Norwegian Employers’ Association in 1935. That same year the Labour Party, with support from the Peasants’ Party, won government power for the first time.
Based on this compromise, the foundation was laid for the golden age of social democracy. It was a real compromise, where employers eventually had to give a number of concessions to the trade union and labour movement – including the acceptance of major political interventions in the market. Thus, the basis was laid for great social progress for workers. The welfare state developed. The Norwegian, or Nordic, model came into being.
From its foundation in 1887 to the class compromise in 1935, the Labour Party had emerged as a party of social justice – with socialism as the long-term goal. Put aside perennial disagreement on the left about social democracy’s strategy and tactics: Labour emerged as a real mass organization for workers. The class compromise, however, did not only contribute to social progress, it also proved to have unforeseen effects. The Labour Party’s central role in implementing the compromise transformed the party’s organization as well as its politics. This brought a deradicalization of the party – among other things via adopting a social partnership ideology. In short, the party changed from being a mass organization for working people into an administrator of the class compromise. Here we find the seeds of today’s crisis of social democracy.
Social Partnership
The so-called Norwegian model is the true-born child of social partnership ideology. For the employers, the class compromise was a tactical move to undermine a strong and socialistic orientated labour movement. For social democracy, however, it appeared as a higher form of reason – a collective sense based on the fact that “employers also understood that cooperation, rather than struggle, was in their interest” (as Norwegian social democrats reiterate).
Based on this ideology, social democracy then developed a comprehensive understanding of society where the economy (capitalism) could be governed by political regulation and market interventions (Keynesianism). In this way, a regulated, crisis-free capitalism could be created, while mass unemployment, poverty and misery, as in the 1930s, were relegated to history. The class struggle itself was tamed, and in many ways reduced to an institutionalised, collegial rivalry such as the biannual collective agreement negotiations.
This entire understanding was put to the test when capitalism again went into a crisis in the 1970s. Oil crisis, currency crisis, commodity crisis – and finally a full-scale economic crisis – displaced the post-war period of economic growth and stability. The social democratic policy of intervention in and regulation of the markets no longer worked. Stagnation and inflation arose in parallel (stagflation) and unemployment increased. Such a crisis was in many ways contrary to the prevailing social theory and ideology of the Labour Party. So were also the reactions of the employers and the political right, as “collective reason” gave way to an ever-increasing offensive against trade unions and the welfare state. Neoliberalism became the answer to the crisis from the employers and the right-wing – and the consensus-oriented labour movement was taken by surprise by this offensive and unable to respond in kind.
Supping With The Devil
Compliance towards the neoliberal offensive became the answer. Gradually, social democratic parties adopted more and more of the neoliberal agenda – with privatization, deregulation and restructuring of the public sector to market-oriented New Public Management-inspired organizational and management models. This contributed further to strengthening neoliberalism within the Labour Party, as many state bureaucrats, who carried out this transformation, and ended up as well-paid directors, belonged to the party. Thus, the party’s social basis was changed, something which makes it very difficult to turn or change its direction.
However, it is not just social democracy that struggles today. Both of the two main forces in the European post-war political landscape are experiencing formidable problems and major political turbulence. In a number of western European countries, the struggle between social democrats and so-called socially responsible conservative parties was dominant, and they often swapped positions. Both were linked to class compromises in different forms, and these characterised their policies. Now, however, that historical compromise has largely broken down, although the process is slower in the Nordic countries.
It is therefore not only the crisis of social democracy we are experiencing but that of the compromise-based post-war political model in Europe. In the first phase of this political crisis, new far right parties emerged – viz. Front National in France, the so-called freedom parties in Austria and the Netherlands, and the Progress Party in Norway. The lack of any alternative policy from social democratic and left-wing parties means they must take their share of responsibility for this development. They had no policy to take on the neoliberalist attacks on the social gains that had been won through the welfare state. In recent years, however, we have seen that new political alternatives have started to grow also on the left (Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, Momentum in the UK, and the newly established 
Power to the People in Italy). These are young and incomplete initiatives, which can fail (like Syriza) or succeed, but in any case will further develop through struggles and experiences, victories and defeats.
There is little evidence that the Labour Party will be able to transform itself into what we need as a liberating force in the current situation. The social basis for radical renewal is too weak and organizational barriers too strong. As social problems are increasing and ever more people are feeling insecure and unsafe, any party of the left will need to have more radical alternatives, visions and solutions – very different from the political centre or the right.
In the absence of real alternatives, parties of the existing social democratic order will probably still win elections without any deeper transformation – when frustrated voters move from one political option to another as they realize that election promises are broken. This should hardly lead to any relief among leaders of contemporary, crisis-ridden social democratic parties. A growing number of workers and young people in particular, have started to demand more radical solutions.
Or, as Gramsci famously said: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
Asbjørn Wahl is Director of the broad Campaign for the Welfare State in Norway and Adviser to the Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees. He is also Chair of the ITF Working Group on Climate Change.
Difference Between Communism and Socialism
By Surbhi S
November 13, 2015
Communism Vs Socialism
Communism Vs Socialism
There are a number of political systems prevalent in different countries of the world. Communism and socialism are two such economic system, which are commonly juxtaposed by the people. While communism is described as a social organization system where the community owns the property and each individual contributes and receives wealth as per their needs and ability.
On the other hand, Socialism is an economic theory wherein the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned and controlled by the society as a whole. Wealth distribution in socialism is done as per the efforts and contribution. Here you should know that Communism is a subset of socialism. Just take a read of this article to know the important differences between communism and socialism.

Just take a read of this article to know the important differences between communism and socialism.

Content: Communism Vs Socialism
  1. Comparison Chart
  2. Definition
  3. Key Differences
  4. Conclusion
Comparison Chart
MeaningSocial organization system, that focuses on communal ownership and eliminating class distinction.Theory of social organization where there is public or cooperative ownership of the means of production.
IdeologyPolitical and economicEconomic
Proposed byKarl Marx and Friedrich EngelsRobert Owen
Main ideaTo achieve equality among members of society and promoting classless society.To achieve equality and fairness among the society members.
Basis of wealth distributionAccording to the needs.According to the efforts or contribution.
Means of productionEqually owned by the members of the state.Owned by the citizens.
Management of resourcesLies on few people belonging to a particular authoritarian party.Done by the people
Ownership of propertyPrivate Property cannot be owned, but personal property can be owned.Yes
CapitalismIt removes capitalism.Can exist in socialism.
Definition of Communism
Communism refers to the political and economic system which is based on the ideas of common ownership on the factors of production and there is no presence of class, state and money. It aims at establishing a communist society.
The word ‘communism’ is a Latin origin, which means ‘common’. In communism, the factors of production are owned by the people commonly. Here the wealth is distributed among people on the basis of their needs. It is based on the principle of economic equality.
China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Laos are some of the countries where communism still exists.

Definition of Socialism
The economic system in which the factors of production are commonly owned, managed and controlled by the society. It is based on the principle of equality where all the people have similar rights.
In this form of social organisation wealth is distributed among people as per the efforts made by them. In socialism, there is an equal distribution of income which aims at filling the gap between rich and poor.
A Central Planning Authority exists in this system that sets the socioeconomic objectives. In this economy, people have the right to work, but they cannot select the occupation of their choice. Occupation of people is decided only by the authority.
Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Canada are some countries where socialism exists.

Key Differences Between Communism and Socialism

The paramount differences between communism and socialism are discussed in the given points:
  1. Communism is defined as the system of social organisation where the focus is made on communal ownership and a classless society. Socialism refers to the social organisation in which there is public or cooperative ownership of the means of production.
  2. Communism is both political as well as economic theory while socialism is an economic theory.
  3. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the German Philosophers, propounded the concept of communism whereas Robert Owen propounded Socialism.
  4. The theme of communism is to achieve equality among members of society and advocates a society free from class. On the other hand, achieving equality and fairness among the society members is the main idea of socialism.
  5. In communism, the wealth is distributed among the people according to their needs. Conversely, in socialism, the distribution of wealth is based on the contribution made by them.
  6. The members of the state collectively own the means of production in communism. As opposed to socialism where the means of production are owned by the citizens.
  7. In communism, the management of resources lies in the hands of few people belonging to a particular authoritarian party. In the case of socialism, the management of resources is done by the people.
  8. In socialism, people are free to own property. However, ownership of public property is permitted, but private property is not permitted, as it makes a distinction between public property and the private one.
  9. Communism tries to remove capitalism, whereas, in socialism, somehow capitalism exists.
Both the ideologies promote secularism (i.e. Rejects religion). Communism has lost its existence with the passage of time. The only reason for the non-existence of communism in most of the countries is that it removes the incentives that inspire people to work harder. The man who works hard will receive the same amount of money as an idle man gets. However, Socialism still exists in many countries.

The David Wilcock and Corey Goode Video That Will Knock Your Socks Off!

"The Video The Internet Doesn't Want You To See!" David Wilcock and Corey Goode 
Published on Nov 3, 2018

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Don Lemon Says The Craziest Things!

On-line dictionary

globalism: noun
the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
Don Lemon: The Term 'Globalist' Is Racist, Anti-Semitic
Posted By Ian Schwartz
March 10, 2018
CNN host Don Lemon addressed what he called the "ugly history" of the term 'globalist' "and how far-right extremists use it to suggest racial and anti-Semitic ideas" on the Thursday edition of CNN Tonight.
Lemon argued because people like Steve Bannon and Alex Jones use the term that a dog whistle is automatically attached to it. He said it is popular with the 'alt-right' and anti-Semites.
"That word globalist keeps popping up, it sounds like a pretty mainstream term, a description of an economic and political ideology," Lemon said. "But it's more than that. It's also become a dog whistle to right-wing conspiracy theorist."
"The Anti-Defamation League tells The New York Times the far right uses globalism as shorthand for world view based on racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. He points out that after the cold war, the far right develop an obsession with prominent Jews like philanthropist George Soros," the CNN host said. "The President's old frenemy Steve Bannon frequently targeted globalism at Breitbart news with headlines like by Paul Sanger and George Soros billionaire book ends globalist opposition to Trump agenda."
"But there is more, from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones who outrageously claims include calling the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax and 911 is an inside job. Quote, the globalist plan to divide America is intensifying. Quote, Bernie Sanders is another globalist scammers who let Hillary rob the nomination, but the victim class loves to get robbed. Go to Venezuela," he said.
"This quote, globalist elites are now evacuating western countries to recursive islands, bunkers and terrorists who escape the rising tide of nationalist pride sweeping the world," Lemon said. "So what does it mean when the President of the United States freely uses a term like globalist, a term that is also used in the darkest corners of the far right?"
Former Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) argued that globalism means giving up U.S. rights to an international body type of governing rather than a nation governing themselves. He said a globalist would put America's interest second compared to a nationalist putting it first.
DON LEMON, CNN: When we come back the President saying he likes the outgoing economic adviser Gary Cohn even though he is a globalist. We are going to look at the ugly history of that term and how far right extremist use it to suggest racial and anti-Semitic ideas. When we come back.
LEMON: Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn final cabinet meeting was today, not at all coincidentally the same day President Trump announced tariffs. 25 percent on steel imports, 10 percent on aluminum. The very policies that prompted Cohn to resign this week. But in the Trumpiest way possible the President tried to make it clear today there were no hard feelings.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is Gary Cohn's last meeting in the cabinet and of the cabinet. And he has been terrific. He may be a globalist, but I still like him. He is seriously a globalist. There is no question. But you know what, in his own way he is a nationalist, because he loves our country.
LEMON: Ok, so globalist. Now where have we heard that before? Well the one thing for one thing in a statement Tuesday to the office of management and budget Director Mick Mulvaney quote, as a right-wing conservative and founding member of the freedom caucus I never expected the coworker I worked closest and best with at the White House would be a globalist. That word globalist keeps popping up, it sounds like a pretty mainstream term, a description of an economic and political ideology. But it's more than that. It's also become a dog whistle to right-wing conspiracy theorist. Mark (inaudible) of the anti-defamation league tells "The New York Times" the far right uses globalism as shorthand for world view based on racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. He points out that after the cold war, the far right develop an obsession with prominent Jews like philanthropist George Soros.
The President's old frenemy Steve Bannon frequently targeted globalism at Breitbart news with headlines like by Paul Sanger and George Soros billionaire book ends globalist opposition to Trump agenda. But there is more, from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones who outrageously claims include calling the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax and 911 is an inside job. Quote, the globalist plan to divide America is intensifying. Quote, Bernie Sanders is another globalist scammers who let Hillary rob the nomination, but the victim class loves to get robbed. Go to Venezuela.
This quote, globalist elites are now evacuating western countries to recursive islands, bunkers and terrorists who escape the rising tide of nationalist pride sweeping the world. So what does it mean when the President of the United States freely uses a term like globalist, a term that is also used in the darkest corners of the far right? Here to discuss CNN political commentator Peter Beinart, contributing editor of the Atlantic and senior columnist for the "Forward." Also CNN political commentator Jack Kingston, a former congressman and a senior adviser to the Trump campaign. Good evening, gentleman.
LEMON: What does it mean to you to call someone a globalist? Jack?
KINGSTON: None of the sinister things that the article has described. I think somebody who a globalist is somebody who is free trade at any cost and maybe favors more giving up sovereignty in exchange for oversight laws. I can tell you this, that when we voted on NAFTA, our GAD, and our most favored nation status for China. There was always this suspicion we were giving up our rights to globally elected international boards who decide how we can -- what our labor standards or environmental standards would be, and so generally speaking a globalist would be somebody who kind of sides on the international body side of governing as opposed to one government and your own country. And let me say this, Don, it's a very loose term. I don't think there is any specific you know two people probably would have a different connotation of it.
LEMON: So Peter let's talk about that, for many people the term globalist is an anti-Semitic undertone. I went to some of the history right there also popular with the alt-right with Breitbart and the Bannon wing. How does it made its way to the White House?
PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is a very old stereotype about Jews.
The Jews are not loyal to the country in which they live, but they are loyal to some global conspiracy, like a global capitalist conspiracy. Jewish conspiracy are communist conspiracy. And that is why you disproportionally find the people who are called globalist like George Soros are Jew. It is sort of like the term thug, right? The term thug is always seems often to be applied to African- Americans. That is not to say every person who uses the term globalist is anti-Semitic. I'm not saying that. But the question is, are we going to give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt? This is a guy who said, I want only one guy with yarmulke counting my money. A guy who said to the Republican Jewish coalition, you won't support me, because I don't want your money, but your great deal makers. A guy in the final ad closing out of the campaign ran this ad showing three Jews, only Hillary Clinton and three Jews, Soros, Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs and Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve, and talk about the global power structure and the global lead which is destroying the American economy. I don't think he get the benefit of the doubt anymore. We got too many incidents.
LEMON: Jack, I mean there are some on the far right who promote this idea that Jews control banking, that Jews control the media and economy. Do you see how some people do use the word globalism as code for the anti-Semitic stereotypes?
KINGSTON: Well I don't agree with that. Let me say this. For example if you look back at this kind of one world government suspicion, things like the Club of Rome that was founded by David Rockefeller that had people in it for like the King of Spain, the Queen of Spain, Henry Kissinger, you know, they have people from the right, they had people from the left. And there is the great suspicion these people are going to run our nation. I will point out Michelle Bachman even introduced a resolution once that said the President of the United States could not enter into a treaty that would allow us to forgo the dollar in exchange for some international legal tender.
BEINART: Jack this is looney tunes. This is.
KINGSTON: You know what --
BEINART: This doesn't exist as a threat to the United States.
KINGSTON: Peter, you know what, I'm just saying that it's out there. And it's a black helicopter -- it's a black helicopter.
BEINART: No you shouldn't participate in it.
LEMON: That is my question by continuing to use the word is the President main streaming a far right term.
BEINART: Yes, Gary Cohn.
KINGSTON: No. I think we can get too excited and too anti-Trump on this. If you look at those steel workers, those aluminum workers who were in the White House today at that announcement, those are the people who want to have America look out for America. That is why America first is so important to the voters back home. Because they get it. There is.
LEMON: What does is have to do with the term globalism or globalist?
KINGSTON: Because the idea, let me say, having been in congress and vote the on a lot of trade agreements and other kind of U.N. related foreign operation type issues, that people feel like we get beat at the bargaining table and need to look out for America more.
LEMON: What does that have to do with the term globalist?
KINGSTON: A globalist would put America interest second whereas a nationalist.
BEINART: Are you really suggesting Gary Cohn disagreed with Trump's position on tariffs, we could have the debate. Are you suggesting that Gary Cohn doesn't put America's interests first?
KINGSTON: Peter I can't feign excitement over this that you seem to be able to do.
BEINART: We have a different life experience. I get more excited about things, because I actually happen to be whom from the people that have actually been on the down side of this kind of anti-Semitic theories.
KINGSTON: You're absolutely wrong. I know -- you're absolutely wrong on that. You know I know that it is kind of catchy to say, we're being labeled, but I'm telling you David Rockefeller and the Club of Rome, the trilateral council on foreign relations all these international boards.
BEINART: You're spewing.
KINGSTON: This are the international board that when people think about globalism they think about these groups putting America in second.
LEMON: Just because someone is ignorant of the term doesn't make it right. Just because -- maybe you should explain to people who think it's ok to say that. That is not the term that you use or there are other terms that you can use for that.
KINGSTON: I don't -- I think that you are putting on a little more into this term than there really is. I say that.
LEMON: I'm just asking as someone who has been called the N word, some people like to use it, I don't like the term and if I'm offended by it you should be cognizes of the fact that I am offended by, whatever way you used it don't use that word around me and it's offensive to some people.
KINGSTON: Let me say this. Having been raised in an integrated society and having gone to schools where I had people of all religion my daughter's god father for example Peter is Jewish, he has been my best friend. I was at his bar mitzvah. He was in my wedding. I spoke in his synagogue.
LEMON: Do you use the term globalist around him?
KINGSTON: I would not and I can tell you, Jonathan Matthew Harvey of South Carolina would not vetted him out because neither he nor I ever put that term in context of being anti-Semitic.
Let me say this, you know what, I'm listening to you, Peter. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think that -- I see your point of view. But you should be able to say that understand that it's a different.
BEINART: If it were somebody else I would --
LEMON: Let's give Peter the last word.
KINGSTON: I just want to know what.
BEINART: I am not someone who thinks that you should throw around the time and I submit lightly. I think lots of people who could use the term globalist, but the question -- the problem is why does Trump keep doing this? Why does he keep referring to Jews in the context of people who are only concerned about money and are part of shadowy power structures? Stop using this term of word.

Why Isn't Don Lemon In Jail? Shut Down CNN!

10 November 2018

Migrant Caravans At The US Border!

U.S. Border Patrol Uses Tear Gas to Disperse Migrant Caravan

BREAKING: Border Agent BREAKS SILENCE, Reveals EXACTLY What’s Happening, Then Name Drops TRUMP
The Next News Network
Published on Nov 27, 2018

Border War EXPLODES as Mexican Nationalists Go Head To Head with Migrant Invaders
The Next News Network
Published on Nov 20, 2018

Tucker: Tijuana residents wary of caravan
Fox News
Published on Nov 19, 2018

Inside the migrant caravan camp in Tijuana, Mexico
ABC13 Houston
Published on Nov 19, 2018

Meet The First Caravan Group Seeking Asylum In San Diego
Black Conservative Patriot
Published on Nov 13, 2018
Trump vs the Globalist Invasion
Published on Nov 12, 2018
‘The View’ co-host loses it when confronted with Obama history on gassing migrants: ‘I don’t care!’
Sarah Taylor
29 November 2018
"The View" co-host Sunny Hostin gets visibly angry when confronted with former President Obama's past of using tear gas on migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014. (Image source: ABC video screenshot)
A co-host on “The View” became visibly angry Thursday during a discussion after two of her fellow co-hosts pointed out that former President Barack Obama — like current President Donald Trump — used tear gas on migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Admitting that she doesn’t care what Obama did, co-host Sunny Hostin adamantly announced that she wants to focus on what Trump is doing instead.
What was the exchange all about?
During a segment on the Trump administration’s decision to use tear gas on migrant caravan members who threw rocks at U.S. Border Patrol agents, co-hosts Meghan McCain and Abby Huntsman pointed out the hypocrisy in being angry about Trump’s decision when Obama did the same thing during his administration.
Co-host Whoopi Goldberg began the segment by pointing to a National Review article, which noted that when Obama used tear gas on migrants who attempted to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, few media outlets criticized him for the move — behavior entirely contrary to how many of the media are treating Trump’s decision to exercise the same practice.
Co-host Joy Behar interjected and asked, “Do they have a photo like that when Obama was in office?” pointing to the now-viral photo of Maria Meza fleeing from the border with her two children in tow.
McCain responded, “Homeland Security data does validate that, that it happened multiple times — more than once a month, in fact — during the Obama years.”
Huntsman added, “In that piece, it said over a period of four months in 2014 under the Obama years, HHS allegedly placed a number of unaccompanied children into the hands of a ring of human traffickers, who forced [the children] to work on egg farms in and around Ohio, leading to a federal and criminal indictment.”
“According to the indictment,” Huntsman continued, “the minor victims were forced to work six and seven days a week, 12 hours per day. These are the things we don’t talk about.”
What happened next?
That’s when Hostin lost her patience.
“The last I checked, President Obama is no longer in office!” she said. “This ‘but Obama’ defense doesn’t work for me. … President Trump is in office! … I don’t care what Obama did! I care what Trump is doing right here, right now!”
McCain shot back, “[I]f you’re infuriated now, you should’ve been infuriated then.”

Caravan Chaos Trump Impeachment in the Making
November 27, 2018
Even with the iconic picture ‘Honduran migrant flees tear gas with her children’ going viral as ‘The Defining Moment of Migrant Caravan 2018’, activists working overtime to advance the invasion of the U.S. southern border, are playing a ‘There’s No Caravan’ game.
The prog-left and their running dog establishment media like to play the game two ways.
‘There is no Caravan,  it’s all in the imagination of Donald Trump’.  ‘But just in case we get caught up in our manufactured lies, here’s proof that the USA uses tear gas against helpless women and children’.
The real message should be: “Move Over Maxine Waters, the Caravan is the Impeachment of President Trump—BIG-TIME!’
It’s the Christmas season everywhere, save for along the route where the Caravan is travelling.
While the masses get ready to celebrate the Birthday of Christ, the Caravan-media mantra is, “There is no Santa Claus”, “There is no Caravan”.
“They’re not coming,” screamed Joe Scarborough, everyday joker and Mika bridegroom of only four days.
Other full-throttle deniers are in on the act too.
Before the Democrats stole the midterm election, there was water-boy of the left Shepard Smith:
“On Fox News, less than a month ago, Shepard Smith misled his viewers by telling them the caravan was “more than two months away” and suggested it was unlikely “any of them [would] actually come here.” (Breitbart, Nov. 26, 2018)
“There is no invasion,” he said. “There’s nothing at all to worry about.”
Thanks, Shep.
“On November 7, less than three weeks ago, during the presidential news conference where he got physically aggressive with a White House intern and heckled Trump, CNN’s Jim Acosta lectured the president about the caravan: “As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion.” (Breitbart)“Acosta also said these migrants would never try to break in. “Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that,” Acosta said.”
Thanks to a federal judge, Acosta still has the mic.
Not only is the Caravan on its defiant way, and gathering steam, some of its ‘migrants’ are already hurling projectiles at border guards.
“Yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and officers effectively and professionally managed an extremely dangerous situation involving more than 1,000 individuals who sought to enter the United States illegally. (White House—1600 Daily, Npv. 26, 2018)
“As they dispersed a violent crowd, CBP made more than 60 arrests. Of the thousand or so protestors involved, only a handful of minors were present. The vast majority of participants were single male adults.”“Both American and Mexican officials say these actions are not consistent with peaceful asylum seekers. On Friday, Tijuana Mayor Juan Manuel Gastelum declared a humanitarian crisis in his city, which he said was struggling to accommodate the influx. “No city in the world is prepared to receive this,” he said.”
Wrong!  Washington, D.C. is and Democrats are drooling at the prospect.
“After the media repeatedly assured us it would never happen, hundreds and hundreds of migrants tried to invade our country Sunday by storming the American border. Some threw rocks and other projectiles at U.S. Border Patrol. Others proved just how political all of this is by chanting, “Yes, we can” and flying the flag of their home country. (Breitbart)“Thankfully, President Trump had prepared for this well in advance. Early last month, as thousands gathered in Central America to form caravans headed for the U.S. with the explicit intent of entering our country illegally, Trump deployed thousands of American troops to reinforce our border fencing and aid border personnel with other logistics.“Over and over and over again, we heard the same talking point throughout all of the media: “The caravan is 1,000 miles away!” And now we know this was simply propaganda, a deliberate attempt on the part of the media to gaslight us into believing that the President of the United States planning and preparing in advance was somehow a bad thing, that getting the country and border hardened while there was still plenty of time was somehow foolish.“And because Trump dared to prepare in advance, again and again and again, all across the media spectrum — including the increasingly dishonest Fox News — Trump was slammed as a racist and fear-monger who was  using our troops as “props.”  And now, here we are, less than three weeks later, and everything Trump (thankfully) prepared for, did happen.”
Back to the iconic picture ‘The Defining Moment’ of ‘Migrant Caravan 2018’:
Some claim the picture was a staged hoax:
“Yesterday’s Headline is today’s hoax. The illegal alien mother ‘fleeing’ from the border wall was all a lie. It was a setup. (Gateway Pundit, Nov. 26, 2018)
“After further review, yesterday’s ‘horrific’ picture of a woman with barefoot children running from the US border wall was a hoax. In the background of the picture a group of men are posing for one camera man and another is running towards another camera man. In other areas, people are just standing around. The woman with the children was just a photo-op:”
Perhaps readers can judge for themselves by reading photographer Kim Kyung-Hoon’s self description on the Reuters/The Wider Image page: “I always try to shoot something different and find creative images in routine daily life.  That is what I am aiming for every day”.
Kyung-Hoon’s photo gallery includes ‘Families Around the World Join War On Plastic; ‘Japan’s Women Sailors on Frontline of Gender Equality’ and ‘Summit Brings Hope to Japan’s Pro-North Ethnic Koreans’.
Meanwhile, a Central American Caravan,  whose mostly adult male ‘migrants’ are well rehearsed, is real, some say aiming to swell its numbers to 20,000, due to arrive at the American border sometime between now and when the Democrats come out fighting as America’s superior political force on January 3.
Call it what it is: Backup Proof for the Democrats’ obsessive need to impeach President Donald Trump. 
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,
Also See:

What a Coincidence! The Migrant Invasion and Midterm Election Occur at the Same Time!

05 November 2018

More Migrant Caravans Joining Together For The Protest of the Century!

03 November 2018

Are Terrorists In The Migrant Caravan From Central America?

(Part 1)
20 October 2018
(Part 2)
22 October 2018

(Part 3)
27 October 2018

President Trump, "We're Going To Build A Wall"

29 December 2017
08 July 2008