• The shocking incident unfolded on August 16 and left the unnamed woman with severe injuries
• It serves as an example of the growing violence that's erupting across the city
• Like its sister city across the river - San Francisco - Oakland has recorded numbers of assaults, carjackings, and robberies not seen since the 1990s

Shocking video has emerged of a woman being pistol-whipped and dragged across gravel by two thugs in Democrat-led Oakland as the city grapples with a surging crime wave. 

The attack happened on Wednesday August 16, 6.15pm on International Boulevard, and left the unidentified woman with severe injuries, police investigating in the East Bay city said.

Footage shows the woman being confronted by two men who try to grab several items from her, including her purse, before she's violently struck with the gun.

She is then seen falling to the ground before being pulled along by her purse as both men rifle through her pockets.  The attackers are both on the run and the woman's condition as of Tuesday is unknown. 

This latest incident is an example of violent crime running rampant across the Dem-led city, with business owners now comparing the area to a 'battleground' akin to wartime Vietnam. It's become so severe that the city's police force are also warning residents to secure their homes while they're inside.

Oakland has been hit by increasing incidents of violence - with assaults, carjackings, and robberies all reaching record highs not seen since the 90s.

As scared business owners liken the area to something out of a war flick, leaders of the NAACP’s Oakland branch have called on officials to declare a state of emergency - as incidents of auto burglary and motor vehicle theft have nearly doubled since 2021.

Speaking with several local news outlets over the weekend, Bruce Vuong, a Vietnamese national who owns an autoshop blocks from where the woman was brutalized, compared the area to his country during its infamous war. Ironically, the neighborhood is already named Little Saigon.

'Oakland has become a warzone,' Vuong, who has owned and operated Quality Tech Automotive Shop on International for 35 years, told ABC's local affiliate Tuesday.

'It feels like a battleground to go to work,' he said, remarking how even with all his years of experience - which stems back to the city's infamous gang violence in the 1990s - the crime seen over the past two or so years has been unprecedented.

This past weekend, Oakland was hit by 15 different robberies and two carjackings - most of which are still being investigated.

Days before, another incident remarkably similar to the one seen in the August 16 footage occurred in Vuong's neighborhood - spurring him and 30 other fed-up shop owners and residents to call a closed-door meeting Friday to discuss the conditions.

Media was not invited to the event, but reportedly among those in attendance was local Councilmember Nikki Fortunato-Bas, and a captain with the Oakland Police Department - which saw two of its deputies injured in two attacks by incarcerated inmates Saturday.

Vuong told NBC Bay Area that nearly everyone in attendance, including the storeowner himself, had recently found themselves a target of thieves or incidents of violence. 

'I seen crime that I thought when I left Vietnam I wouldn’t see anymore,' he told the station Friday, hours after Democrat Mayor Sheng Thao, who inherited the city's crime woes from predecessor Libby Schaaf in November, again vowed to make addressing illegal acts her top priority.

'But now, we get the same thing here', Vuong said, not mentioning if there had been any headway at the conference.

Of the encounter the day earlier, where the woman was dragged, Vuong remarked:  'She didn’t deserve this - [to be dragged] like a dog or something, I mean.'

Speaking to ABC7, he added: 'That's life in Oakland now.'

The owner of 11 businesses across the city, Vuong went on to describe his own firsthand experience with the city's current crime epidemic, which, despite being more than a year removed from Covid-related lockdowns, seems to have reached a tipping point this year.

As homicides have also surge by some 37 percent compared with 2019, reported robberies are up by about 30 percent - and Vuong says that each of his stores are robbed almost once a week.

Last week - amid this particularly pronounced string of robberies that caused Shen to once again address the crisis in a matter of months - after being targeted for what he said was the umpteenth time, he got fed up and fought back.

'I was helping my employees pick up stranded Triple A drivers and within seconds my tow truck was gone,' he said, recalling how one of the robbers in this case entered his tow truck before destroying cameras that had been inside and taking off. 

Still inside the car, though, was Vuong's phone - which unbeknownst to the robber possessed software that enabled the storeowner to track it, and then give chase. 

'We chased him for at least 45 minutes from West Oakland to East Oakland to Berkeley and we finally stop him at Telegraph and 30th,' he recalled of how he got his tow truck back, adding that it needed $20,000 worth of repairs.

That said, perhaps the most troubling part of Vuong's account was local police's response to the incident - which he said was nonexistent. Instead, the call had to be handled by officers from the state's highway patrol.

'We asked for help but there's no authority to help out,' he said. 'We tried calling OPD - no answer - so CHP showed up. 

'It's just ridiculous Oakland is no longer Oakland anymore,' he said of the city's dire straits.

It comes as North Oakland has seen a a 22 percent increase in robberies and 18 percent increase in violent crime this year.

Murder levels abruptly spiked from the 78 seen in 2019 to 109 in 2020 - the same years calls for defunding the police, spurred by the Black Lives Matter movement, were introduced in earnest. 

Last month, Oakland cops urged residents to secure their homes - including by trimming hedges and shrubs so thieves have nowhere to hide - amid a rise in brazen burglaries while residents are inside.

Police warned about an 'uptick in home invasion robberies' including cases of robbers armed with guns kicking down doors before threatening homeowners and stealing their belongings.

Oakland Police Department (OPD) said some of the worst-hit areas have been Laurel, North Hills, Joaquin Miller, and the Greater San Antonio area.

Oakland's left-leaning mayor Sheng Thao, who has been in office since November 2022, promised to create a 'comprehensive' public safety plan that will 'double down' on violence prevention programs when she was voted in. 

Last year, her predecessor Libby Schaaf admitted efforts to defund her city's police department went 'too far' after it saw violent crime surge to levels not seen in 15 years following the movement's introduction in the summer of 2020.

Her comments came after the city council passed a resolution in 2021 to defund its police department by $17 million despite a 90 per cent increase in murders - a move criticized by Oakland Police Chief LeRonne Armstrong, who said at the time that 'crime is out of control' in the city.

'When we saw this surge come up during the pandemic - and, let's also be honest, after George Floyd, after this country just saw its faith in government justice compromised - we were just heartbroken,' Schaaf added. 

Despite this, a 2022 investigation by ABC 7 found that the Oakland Police Department's budget increased nearly 18 percent from 2019 to 2022.

But the city's crime crisis has only worsened.

Last week, a British maritime security guard, 49, was shot dead near an Oakland park as he returned to his ship after a night out.

Satyan Dave, from London, had only hours earlier arrived in the city aboard a container ship that had travelled close to Somalia.

Police in the violence plagued city said he was shot dead at 5.15am close to International Boulevard, one of East Oakland's main thoroughfares.

The department has been sued over claims they let an abusive squatter inflict a campaign of terror on his neighbor, which culminated in the victim being shot dead as he fled his home with his pregnant wife and three children.

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of the family of slain Miles Armstead, who had been moving his family out of their Ney Avenue home in May 2020 when he was shot in the back of the head by now-jailed Jamal Thomas.

On the day of his murder, Amstead and his wife Melina had decided to cut their losses on the home they'd saved hard to buy, only for Thomas to ambush them and kill Amstead as they tried to flee.

They'd previously called Oakland Police Department 23 times begging for help, only for cops there to turn a blind eye. Officers also allegedly mocked Amstead's plight by dismissing him and Thomas as being 'like two twelve year-old girls.'

The fatal act of aggression, cops said at time, served as the culmination of a monthlong faceoff between the two men, which allegedly began after 46-year-old Thomas illegally occupied the house next door after being evicted months earlier.

Oakland has also seen an uptick in car thefts over the last months in typically quire areas.

So far this year there have been 369 carjackings in the city, per officials. That's up 24 percent when compared to the same time two years ago, when there were 298.

NeighborhoodScout does an annual report on the most dangerous cities US per capita. Let’s see what cities are on the list for 2023.

Please consider NeighborhoodScout’s Most Dangerous Cities – 2023

Our research reveals the 100 most dangerous cities in America with 25,000 or more people, based on the number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents.  Violent crimes include rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.  The data used for this research are the number of violent crimes reported to have occurred in each city, and the population of each city.  Based on the latest national data available at the time of publication, representing calendar year 2021 and released in October 2022, this report reveals interesting patterns about safety from crime in America.

This year, Monroe, LA was replaced by Bessemer, AL, dropping from its two-year ranking as the number one most violent city in America to the ranking of third.  Bessemer has 33.18 violent crimes per 1,000 population, and the chance of being a violent crime victim is 1 in 30.

Many of the dangerous cities on the list this year have appeared on past lists.  For those who live in these cities, NeighborhoodScout can help you find the safest neighborhoods nearby any city using our Create feature.  For example, by searching for the lowest crime rate within 15 miles of the number one most dangerous city, Bessemer, AL you can find the neighborhood of New Hope in Birmingham, AL is safer than 99% of neighborhoods nationwide. 

Top 22

1. Bessemer, AL
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 33.1
   Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 30
2. Mobile, AL
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 27.9
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 35
3. Monroe, LA
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 26.3
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 38
4. Saginaw, MI
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 25.1
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 39
5. Memphis, TN
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 25.1
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 39
6. Detroit, MI
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 23.0
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 43
7. Birmingham, AL
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 20.6
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 49
8. Pine Bluff, AR
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 20.5
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 48
9. Little Rock, AR
   Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 20.2
   Chance of being a victim: 1 in 49
10. Alexandria, LA
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.8
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
11. Cleveland, OH
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.1
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 58
12. Kalamazoo, MI
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.8
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 59
13. Milwaukee, WI
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.6
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 59
14. Albany, GA
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.1
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 61
15. Gadsden, AL
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
16. Danville, IL
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
17. Lansing, MI
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
18. Baltimore, MD
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.6
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
19. Springfield, MO
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.6
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 64
20. Spartanburg, SC
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.2
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 65
21. Rockford, IL
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.0
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 66
22. Wilmington, DE
    Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.0
    Chance of being a victim: 1 in 66

Prominent conservative attorney Andrew McCarthy, a typical Trump-basher, wrote an article last week completely blowing up corrupt Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ garbage indictment of President Trump. It turns out there is a “giant hole” in the indictment that should be grounds for immediate dismissal.

As Cristina Laila and Jim Hoft previously reported, Trump and 18 other Republicans were indicted by corrupt Fulton Country District attorney Fani Willis late Monday night on 41 total charges. These include RICO and Conspiracy.

Why has DA Willis invoked Georgia’s version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which is typically applied to mobsters engaged in the familiar rackets of murder, extortion, trafficking in narcotics and stolen goods, gambling, prostitution and so on? Because there’s a giant hole in her case: the lack of a clear crime to which Trump and his co-defendants can plausibly be said to have agreed.

McCarthy briefly puts aside RICO and explains in full detail what a conspiracy means. A conspiracy, McCarthy notes, is an agreement to violate a criminal statute. This takes at least two people.

Moreover, McCarthy explains that “there must be a meeting of the minds about the crime that is the objective of the conspiracy.” If there does not exist an agreement regarding the crime, a conspiracy does not exist.

The constitutional process dictates that Americans cannot be charged with a crime and forced to stand trial unless probable cause exists that a crime has been committed.

McCarthy in his article next emphasizes the importance of Americans understanding why defendants have been charged in a particular case. He then points out that Willis is charging Trump with a crime for engaging in a completely legal action (trying to reverse the 2020 election results). McCarthy calls this “strange.”

Even though prosecutors bear the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a conviction, we can easily understand why the defendants have been charged. If they are charged with conspiracy, the indictment will clearly state the crime they allegedly agreed to commit — e.g., drug trafficking, bank robbery, murder, extortion.

That is what’s so strange about DA Willis’s indictment. She alleges that the 19 people named in her indictment are guilty of conspiracy because they agreed to try to keep Donald Trump in power as president — specifically, to “change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”

Trying to change an election outcome is legal; the end doesn’t become illegal if pursued by illegal means — instead, those illegal means can be charged as crimes. But there is no conspiracy unless the objective itself is clearly a crime. You don’t see prosecutors alleging, say, that defendants were in a “conspiracy to unlawfully” commit murder or robbery. Murder and robbery are crimes.

If two or more people agree to commit murder or robbery, that is an agreement to commit a crime — a conspiracy. To the contrary, an agreement to try to reverse the result of an election is not an agreement to commit a crime.

McCarthy goes back to the RICO conspiracy charges which Willis laid out against Trump and the 18 other defendants. As he notes, a RICO conspiracy is an agreement to participate in such an enterprise — to belong to the group and sustain the group so that it continues to generate power and profits.

There was no organized effort and no crime. The fact is that Trump is getting charged by a partisan prosecutor for exercising his constitutional rights. (read more)

Establishment politicians and mainstream media have fought harder than on any other issue to convince the public that voter fraud is a conspiracy theory.  But unconstitutional changes to state election laws, unsupervised ballot drop boxes, voting machine errors, mathematically improbable voter turnout, and other examples of outright voter fraud that were denied a chance to be presented in court between the 2020 election and Biden's [illegitimate] inauguration can't simply be chalked up as coincidental.  All those things occurring simultaneously make the fraud seem coordinated.  

In response to the most recent indictments, Trump's attorneys indicated they finally have a platform to "fully re-litigate every single issue that occurred during the 2020 election," of which there were many.  The most important issue in America may finally get its due.  

Trump's 2016 victory was fueled by flipping the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania from blue to red.  Pennsylvania and Michigan had not voted for a Republican in a general election since 1988, while Wisconsin hadn't voted for one since 1984.  Those three states delivered Trump the necessary electoral votes to become president.  It also sent a signal that blue strongholds were no longer a "given" after the people of those states were fed up with delivering victories for politicians who never went on to deliver results for them.

In addition to "Hillary Clinton's blue wall," Arizona and Georgia were also viewed as potential swing states that Trump needed to retain as previous Republican nominees did to have any chance at victory.  Twenty sixteen made it clear that those states would again decide the 2020 election.  Suspiciously, after America was forced to anxiously await the results for days following election night, those five states all "flipped" to Biden despite Trump outpacing his record 2016 turnout by even greater margins.

Even as mathematically improbable-without-being-previously-counted percentages of ballots favoring Biden continued pouring in on November 4, Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger concluded that with voter turnout already exceeding the 2016 total by 400 thousand votes, and Trump leading by over 105 thousand votes with just 2% of the vote left to count, there simply were not enough outstanding votes for Biden to win the state.

Coincidentally, as Raffensperger began stating this on live television, his connection to the program was disconnected.  But when he returned, Raffensperger doubled down.  Questioned by NBC News panelists, he said, "Even if one of the candidates got the remaining 100%, it wouldn't be enough to change the result."

Despite this determinative revelation, Raffensperger later switched gears when he told the January 6 committee, "If you looked at all the numbers, it never added up to anywhere near what could throw the election in doubt," completely contradicting his previous claim in the process.

In Michigan, a recent report exposed the scheme that delivered Biden with unprecedented amounts of ballots in the early morning hours of November 4, which included an excess of 800 thousand ballots being sent to non-qualified voters.  Michigan was allegedly decided by 154,188 votes, making the results more than questionable.

In March of 2022, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Michael Gabelman's investigation unearthed a nursing home exploitation scheme so egregious that his suggested remedy was decertifying Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes.  Even Assembly speaker Robin Vos, previously an election fraud denier, conceded that "widespread fraud" had occurred.  Later, the state Supreme Court determined that the absentee ballot drop boxes through which 2 million votes were submitted during the election were actually illegal.  The majority opinion described the outcome as "obtained by unlawful procedures," as Wisconsin was decided by just 20 thousand votes.

There were concerns regarding Pennsylvania's voting procedure long before any votes were even cast.  The Keystone State's Senate Republican Caucus and the Republican Party strongly argued that the state Supreme Court extending the deadline to count ballots violated the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause by taking away the Legislature's authority to "set the times, places and manner of federal elections."  This was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court just prior to Justice Barrett's confirmation.  This led to a 4-4 decision, which results in a "stay."  Had this been heard after her confirmation, it is likely Barrett would have ruled against the extensions that led to Biden's constitutionally questionable "comeback."

But of all the suspected fraud in 2020, Arizona was the first state that raised suspicions in real time.  Despite not voting Democrat in a two-candidate presidential election since 1948, Fox News shockingly called the state for Biden after just 27% of the vote was reported.  This sparked a forensic audit that concluded that the number of illegal votes exceeded Biden's alleged 11-thousand-vote victory fivefold.

When vote-counting was inexplicably halted on Election Night, Trump led all these states by six figures.  A combination of any three of these states holding would have secured him a second term, which is why Democrats fought so hard to steal them.

But even putting state-specific statistics aside, a basic analysis of election history signals the improbability of Biden receiving the number of votes he allegedly did.

Every general election since 2004 has seen between 120–130 million total votes.  The 2020 election reportedly saw 155 million votes.  There were roughly 168 million registered voters in 2020, which means that voter turnout in 2020 was an astonishing 92%.  This is statistically improbable when you consider that countries such as Australia institute compulsory voting, which mandates that citizens vote or pay a fine.  Yet its most recent turnout rate was in the high 80s.  America voluntarily outpacing a nation that financially penalizes non-voters does not pass the smell test.

Though transformational candidates can generate an uptick in voter turnout, a previously failed, two-time-primary-losing candidate such as Joe Biden is not likely to be the one who does this.  He ran in 1988 and 2008 and never won the hearts of voters.  He dropped out of the 1988 race after he was caught plagiarizing, and twenty years later was rejected by the party base again before being plucked off the scrap heap by Obama.  After serving as vice president, his public image only worsened as it became clear he was the same old Joe Biden, except he now exhibited cognitive limitations.  He won just one bellwether county and fewer than 500 total counties compared to Trump and Obama, who won roughly 2,500 and 900, respectively.  Yet as it stands, it is said Joe Biden received the most votes in American history.

President Trump did not try to "subvert" the election, nor did he secretly know he lost.  Any beyond-surface-level inspection of the 2020 election reveals its fraudulency.  Trump was not only allowed to dispute an election he felt was fraudulent, but as president was constitutionally obligated to do so.  That is the opposite of criminal.  In fact, he is one of the only public officials willing to uphold the oath he swore.  Trying to imprison him for this not only is a tall task, but also puts them at risk of allowing him to publicly prove that "The Big Lie" is the real "Big Lie."

The evidence exists for Trump to finally prove that his over two-year-old claims are valid.  All he must do now is present it. (read more)

In America, we have an oligarch problem, and it’s much bigger than the oligarch problem that Putin faced when he became president in 2000. The entire West is now in the grips of billionaire elites who have a stranglehold on the media, the political establishment and all of our important institutions. In recent years we have seen these oligarchs expand their influence from markets, finance and trade to politics, social issues and even public health. The impact this group has had on these other areas of interest, has been nothing short of breathtaking. Establishment elites and their media not only stood foursquare behind Russiagate, the Trump impeachment, the BLM riots and the January 6 fiasco, they also had a hand in the Covid hysteria and the host of repressive measures that were imposed in the name of public health. What we’d like to know is to what extent this group is actively involved in the shaping of other events that are aimed at transforming the American Republic into a more authoritarian system?

In other words, are the mandated injections, the forced lockdowns, the aggressive government-implemented censorship, the dubious presidential elections, the burning of food processing plants, the derailing of trains, the attacks on the power grid, the BLM-Antifa riots, the drag queen shows for schoolchildren, the maniacal focus on gender issues, and glitzy public show-trials merely random incidents occurring spontaneously during a period of great social change or are they, in fact, evidence of a stealthily orchestrated operation conducted by agents of the state acting on behalf of their elite benefactors? We already know that the FBI, the DOJ and the intel agencies were directly involved in Russiagate –which was a covert attack on the sitting president of the United States. So, the question is not “whether” these agencies are actively involved in other acts of treachery but, rather, to what extent these acts impact the lives or ordinary Americans, our politics and the country? But before we answer that question, take a look at this quote from from a recent interview by Colonel Douglas MacGregor:

I was reading a document that was authored by George Soros over 10 years ago in which he talks specifically about this all-out war that would ultimately come against Russia because he said this ‘was the last nationalist state that rests on a foundation of orthodox christian culture with Russian identity at its core. That has to be removed. So I think that the people who are in charge in the west and the people in charge in Washington think they have successfully destroyed the identities of the European and American peoples, that we have no sense of ourselves, our borders are undefended, we present no resistance to the incoming migrants from the developing world who essentially roll over us as though we owe them a living and that our laws do not count. Thus, far I would say that is an accurate evaluation of what we’ve been doing. And I think that’s a great victory for George Soros and the globalists, the anti-nationalists; those who want open borders what they call it an “Open Society” because you end up with nothing, an amorphous mass of people struggling to survive who are reduced to the lowest levels of subsistence … (Soros) even goes so far as to talk about how useful it would be if it was east Europeans whose lives were expended in this process and not west Europeans who simply won’t take the casualties. This is not a minor matter. This is the kind of thinking that is so destructive and so evil, in my judgement, that that’s what we’re really dealing with in our own countries and I think Putin recognizes that.” (Douglas Macgregor – A Huge Offensive”, You Tube;, 11:20 minute)

The reason I transcribed this comment from MacGregor was because it sums up the perceptions of a great many people who see things the same way. It expresses the hatred that globalist billionaires have toward Christians and patriots, both of which they see as obstacles to their goal of a borderless one-world government. MacGregor discusses this phenom in relation to Russia which Soros sees as “the last nationalist state that rests on a foundation of orthodox Christian culture with Russian identity at its core.” But the same rule could be applied to the January 6 protestors, could it not? Isn’t that the real reason the protestors were rounded up and thrown into the Washington gulag. After all, everyone knows there was no “insurrection” nor were there any “white supremacists”. The protestors were locked up because they’re nationalists (patriots) which are the natural enemy of the globalists. The MacGregor quote lays it out in black and white. Elites don’t believe that nationalists can be persuaded by propaganda,. They must be eradicated through incarceration or worse. Isn’t that the underlying message of January 6?

The other underlying message of January 6, is that ordinary people are no longer allowed to challenge the authority of the people in power. Again, political legitimacy in the US has always been determined by elections. What January 6 indicates, is that legitimacy no longer matters. What matters is power, and the person who can have you arrested for questioning his authority, has all the power he needs. Check out this excerpt from a post on Substack by political analyst Kurt Nimmo:

“Klaus Schwab, a student of the war criminal Henry Kissinger, is a mentor to power-hungry and narcissistic sociopaths. The WEF “Great Reset” is designed to turn the world into an impoverished social concentration camp, where destitute serfs “own nothing” and this, in true Orwellian fashion, will set them free…

I challenge people to investigate the WEF’s Global Redesign Initiative. According to the Transnational Institute in the Netherlands, this “initiative” proposes

a transition away from intergovernmental decision-making towards a system of multi-stakeholder governance. In other words, by stealth, they are marginalizing a recognized model where we vote in governments who then negotiate treaties which are then ratified by our elected representatives with a model where a self-selected group of ‘stakeholders’ make decisions on our behalf. (Emphasis added.)

In other words, large transnational corporate “stakeholders” will be deciding where you live, what you eat (insects and weeds), how you reproduce (or not reproduce; children produce carbon emissions), and what you can “rent” from them, or not be allowed to rent if you complain about an unelected globalist “economic” cartel driving humanity into serfdom, worldwide poverty, and depopulation.” (“WEF Calls for Destruction of America’s Middle Class“, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics)

What Nimmo is saying is that these billionaire elites are now so powerful, that they can openly say they’re going to “transition away from intergovernmental decision-making” (ie– representative government”) to a system of “multi-stakeholder governance.” If I’m not mistaken, that is a pretty unambiguous declaration of a new form of supra-national government, in which only the billionaire stakeholders have a vote in what policies are implemented. But isn’t that the way things work already? On any number of topics from ESG, to digital currencies, to vaccine passports, to AI, to gain-of-function research, to 15-minute cities, to transhumanism, to war with Russia; the decisions are all being made by a handful of people of whom we know every little and who were never voted into office.

And that brings us back to our original question: How many of these oddball events (in recent years) were conjured up and implemented by agents of the deep state to advance the elitist agenda?

This seem like an impossible question since it’s hard to find a link between these dramatically divers events. For example, what is the link between a Drag Queen Children’s Hour and, let’s say, firebombing a food processing plant in Oklahoma? Or the relentless political exploitation of gender issues and the January 6 public show trials? If there was a connection, we’d see it, right?

Not necessarily, because the link might not have anything to do with the incident itself, but instead, with its impact on the people who experience it. In other words, all of these events could be aimed at generating fear, uncertainty, anxiety, alienation and even terror. Have the intelligence agencies launched such destabilizing operations before?

Indeed, they have, many times. Here’s an excerpt from an article that will help you to see where I’m going with this. It’s from a piece at The Saker titled Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret War for International Fascism.” See if you notice any similarities with the way things have been unfolding in America for the last few years:

Yves Guerin-Serac: the Black Ops Grandmaster behind Operation Gladio…. wrote the basic training and propaganda manuals which can be fairly described as the Gladio order of battle.”…

Guerin-Serac was a war hero, agent provocateur, assassin, bomber, intelligence agent, Messianic Catholic, and the intellectual grandmaster behind the ‘Strategy of Tension’ essential to the success of Operation Gladio. Guerin-Serac published via Aginter Press the Gladio manual, including Our Political Activity in what can aptly be described as Gladio’s First Commandment:

“Our belief is that the first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favoring the installation of chaos in all of the regime’s structures…In our view the first move we should make is to destroy the structure of the democratic state under the cover of Communist and pro-Soviet activities…Moreover, we have people who have infiltrated these groups.”

Guerin-Serac continues:

“Two forms of terrorism can provoke such a situation [breakdown of the state]: blind terrorism (committing massacres indiscriminately which cause a large number of victims), and selective terrorism (eliminate chosen persons)…

This destruction of the state must be carried out under the cover of ‘communist activities.’ After that, we must intervene at the heart of the military, the juridical power and the church, in order to influence popular opinion, suggest a solution, and clearly demonstrate the weakness of the present legal apparatus. Popular opinion must be polarized in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.”

Anarchic random violence was to be the solution to bring about such a state of instability thus allowing for a completely new system, a global authoritarian order. Yves Guerin-Serac, who was an open fascist, would not be the first to use false-flag tactics that were blamed on communists and used to justify more stringent police and military control from the state….” (“Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret War for International Facism”, The Saker)

Repeat: the first phase of political activity ought to be to create the conditions favoring the installation of chaos in all of the regime’s structures… This destruction of the state must be carried out under the cover of (communist) activities…. Popular opinion must be polarized in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.”

In other words, the objective of the operation is to completely disrupt all social relations and interaction, cultivate feelings of uncertainty, polarization and terror, find a group that can be scapegoated for the wide societal collapse, and, then, present yourself (elites) as the best choice for restoring order.

Is this what’s going on?

It’s very possible. It could all be part of a Grand Strategy aimed at “wiping the slate clean” in order to “transition away from intergovernmental decision-making” to a system of “multi-stakeholder governance.”

That could explain why there has been such a vicious and sustained attack on our history, culture, traditions, religious beliefs, monuments, heroes, and founders. They want to replace our idealism with feelings of shame, humiliation and guilt. They want to erase our past, our collective values, our heritage, our commitment to personal freedom, and the very idea of America itself. They want to raze everything to the ground and start over. That is their basic Gameplan writ large.

The destruction of the state is being carried out behind the cover of seemingly random events that are spreading chaos, exacerbating political divisions, increasing the incidents of public mayhem, and clearing the way for a violent restructuring of the government.

They can’t build a new world order until the old one is destroyed. (read more)

I have to admit that in my efforts to analyze and dissect far-left/globalist ideologies and agendas I have come to a point where I am just as fascinated as I am horrified. Consider for a moment the progressive “intersectional” narrative which we often refer to as “woke”: It’s not an activist movement because they already have equal rights under the law. It’s partially a political movement but their goals go far beyond putting candidates in government – A large part of the government is already on their side. They claim to stand against “capitalism” and corporate power, yet their movement is primarily funded by the very money elites they say they despise.

No, this movement is something different – It’s a system of blind belief and the invasion of a cult that worships itself, that worships power and seeks to undermine the truth whenever possible as a means to an end. We are witnessing history in the making; the birth of a monstrous religion of moral relativism.

To understand the political left and their tactics you have to understand their relationship with the globalists. Woke groups are a creation of the corporate/globalist regime. For decades think-tanks like the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation have been grooming universities to produce a steady supply of cult members, all of them indoctrinated into a carefully crafted narrative that clings to socialism and uses victim status as a currency.

They abhor meritocracy and have delusions of equity. They demand an impossible Utopia that guarantees equal outcomes. They see self sufficiency as criminality; an attempt to escape from collective oversight. And they are more than willing to rationalize dishonesty, disinformation, deconstruction, chaos and murder as a means to get what they want.

As I’ve noted in the past, it’s difficult to combat a movement with no morals and no shame. If your purpose is to convince them to stop what they are doing using logic, data, common sense and appeals to conscience, you will fail. They don’t care about any of these things. The leftist obsession with power is absolute – It’s all they talk about. It’s the root of every one of their arguments.

That said, their concept of power is rather limited and childish.

For the woke, power is in cancel culture. Power is in the mob. Power is in displays of collective destruction and control. They ask themselves “What can we take from others, and how can we instill fear?” They believe the more they can take, the more power they have.

Globalists view power in a similar manner to leftists, but they expand on the manifesto with the question “How can we convince others to give us control willingly?”

Woke useful idiots see power as something that must be stolen through intimidation or force. Globalists see power as something that is handed to them by useful idiots. In order to get that power, globalists spend the vast majority of their energy and wealth on the manufacturing of consent. It’s not enough to control the population, you have to make them believe that your oligarchy is THEIR IDEA. That way, they never try to fight back.

While woke activists are running around like monkeys with matches trying to burn down the world, globalists are looking at the activists and saying “How can I make those monkeys burn down the things I want them to burn down?”

Manufacturing consent from half the population of a nation requires a massive disinfo apparatus. I doubt that most leftists even realize their entire philosophy was funded and fabricated by corporate interests. And if you educate them on the fact that they are now allied with the same ultra-rich corporate vampires they say they hate, you’ll soon discover they don’t mind. They’ll happily embrace the devil’s contract because they see it as a means of “winning.” In this way political leftists and the globalists are indelibly intertwined.

This is why I don’t take arguments over the “false left/right paradigm” very seriously anymore. Sure, there are still Neo-Cons in the Republican Party that claim to be conservative when they are actually globalists and leftists. That’s not the point. The point is, millions upon millions of regular people on the left have willfully chosen to side with the globalists and have specifically targeted conservative and patriot culture for destruction.

They are the enemy, just as much as the globalists are the enemy. Without the leftist mob the globalists have no power. It’s time to accept this reality instead of falling back on the same old lazy argument: “But both sides are the problem…” No, only one side is the problem. They have always been the problem regardless of the political masks they wear.

If you look at the pyramid from the bottom-up, there is no such thing as the “false left/right paradigm” anymore. There is a VERY REAL left/right paradigm. The division is a fact of life. The lines have been drawn by the establishment; either you’re with them or you’re against them. There is no in-between.

In the film ‘The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari’ an elite member of society turns a man into a monster through hypnosis, sending him to stalk the countryside to kill people the elite wants out of his way.  The globalists have also used mesmerism to summon their own leftist monster whenever they need some dirty work done.  There are two key pillars that they want leftists to tear down – People’s perceptions of freedom and people’s perceptions of objective fact.

For example, look at the recent covid “crisis” and the draconian response that the majority of leftists supported. Also look at the hysterical climate change narratives and the calls for carbon restrictions that would inevitably lead to mass depopulation; once again largely supported by the political left.

Both agendas rely on the notion of an existential threat that requires people to sacrifice their freedoms on a micro-level. Yet, covid mandates suggest that we need to save the population from death while climate change mandates suggest that we need to kill most of the population to protect the environment. It doesn’t make sense unless you understand that diminishing freedom is the ultimate point. Covid was never about saving lives and climate controls have nothing to do with saving the planet.

As for perceptions of objective fact, one need only look at the transgender movement to see that the very foundations of truth are under siege. If biology is subjective, if identity is subjective, if the genetic details we use to define and categorize our species are “social constructs” instead of facts, then almost any truth could be targeted. I believe that this attempt to make biological truth a matter of prerogative is done with the intent of making moral truth mutable.

If civilization is convinced to accept the surgical/chemical mutilation and sterilization of our youth, if we can be convinced to accept the sexualization of children from an early age, then we can easily be convinced to accept just about anything else. Pedophilia? Slavery? Murder? All in the name of hedonism posing as freedom.

By extension, the abandonment of universal truths will invariably lead to the rebuke of freedom itself. What is freedom really? Is it a legitimate concern for the future? We “live in a society” after all, and according to leftists everything we do “affects everyone else.” Therefore, freedom can be dangerous; it might hurt or upset others. It might ruin the planet. Best to get rid of it entirely for the good of the collective…

It is an eternal dichotomy – Without truth there can be no freedom – Without freedom there can be no truth. On the dark side of that coin is the globalist/leftist dichotomy – Without the globalists there is no leftist mob, without the leftist mob the globalists will be erased.

Globalists are seeking to subjugate the world, and to do that they need to undermine the basic tenets of human interaction and understanding. They have allied with the political left in order to blitz the populace with chaos, keeping people distracted and off balance while the powers-that-be wrap their tentacles around every last vestige of private liberty.

Our greatest hope is for the citizenry to adopt a hostile posture and refuse to compromise another inch. We have to start calling the political left out for what they really are – The striking hand of the globalist cabal. There can be no give-and-take when it comes to our core principles. No more tolerance of deconstruction, no more slack given to saboteurs. If a subversive group is trying to tear down the moral fabric that makes the west functional and free, if they desire to eradicate the heritage that our founders fought to establish, then we must do as the founders did and remove the threat. (read more)

And on Analyzing My Own Indoctrination

Today is a new low for an America that is being dragged through every humiliation, in its re-christening as a thoroughgoing Banana Republic.

I’ve long argued that symbolic degradation of the US is part of the psychological war being waged against us. No President checks his watch multiple times at a military funeral without that act being scripted. No Vice President organically departs from talking points to repeat herself randomly, and to create the trademark “word salads”, devoid of linear meaning, that Vice President Harris produces. That public, symbolic demonstration of meaninglessness at the highest levels of our government, is itself central to the script.

And the abuse of our grand jury process, in the effort underway now to imprison the leading opposition candidate for the Presidency of the United States, is not about the actual grand jury process.

A Georgia Grand Jury handed down an indictment on August 14, 2023, presenting President Trump and his colleagues with felony racketeering and conspiracy charges, among other charges. This drama of President Trump’s indictment now — the fact that he must detour from the campaign trail for appearances before prosecutors, or must divert energy from speech preparation and consulting with campaign staff, to spend time with lawyers to prepare their responses to these charges — is itself the symbolic drama.

Again, speaking as someone who was in the background when both Vice President Gore’s and George Bush Jr’s lawyers were instructed to find ways to locate the votes to get their Principal over the top, and when both campaigns sought to coordinate their efforts closely with grassroots get-out-the-vote organizations and with state level leadership figures on both sides — I am appalled that one accusation presented in the indictment, was that President Trump — essentially tried to do a similar thing.

The description of what is requested for the months ahead should resonate with anyone who has studied the history of show trials: there will be a trial requested for within the next six months — that is, during peak campaign season — and the goal is for all of the defendants to be tried together.

That’s how Premier Stalin and Chairman Mao presented their show trials and public confessions, in 1936-1938 and in the 1950s, respectively, as well:

“Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis said that all 19 defendants would be tried at the same time and that she would be asking for a trial within the next six months.”

What this is about is not criminality but about the timing of a targeting that demonstrates the subversion of our democracy. The opposition leader, fewer than five months before the Iowa caucuses, is drained of the time, focus and resources to make his case to the American public. He must worry about trying to stay out of jail, even as precious dates are cancelled from the campaign calendar. This is exactly what happens in banana republics. The opposition leader is imprisoned or indicted under inflated charges while he or she is on the campaign trail.

Whatever becomes of this indictment, no future opposition leader will dare to challenge a contested election, as I noted earlier. With the indictment on August 14 2023 of many of President Trump’s colleagues as well (also as in the 1930s and 1950s in the Soviet Union and in China), a precedent has been established that non-legacy, that is, non-”anointed” candidates, will not be able to find help for their campaigns, as speechwriters, lawyers, fundraisers and campaign staffers will fear future lawfare.

Here I disclose that I actually went to hear President Trump in person — last month, at an event in his private Trump National Bedminster Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. I was given the opportunity to attend by a friend, and, while I hesitated, it was only for a moment. No real journalist should give up the chance to hear a former President, and current candidate for that job, in person.

So I agreed, and Brian and I set out.

That experience took me aback as it made me rethink many of my reflexes — reflexes that even I recognize have been engineered by propaganda and repetition, as I too am only human; reflexes engineered in me to make me “hate Donald Trump.”

First of all, the physical setting, to which we arrived a day before the speech, as we were hosted overnight, led me to question some preconceptions. I’d been conditioned to believe that the Trump Inc empire was about poor taste. As I reflected on my cultivated aversion to the man and the brand, I realized that a huge part of the animosity directed at him was a class-based dog whistle system. People “with taste” — that is, the global elite, the liberal elite — “us” — were asked to hate and disdain someone who had been labelled as a “vulgarian” (indeed, a “short-fingered vulgarian”) since the days of Spy magazine.

All of the coverage with which I had been familiar, showcased the apparent crimes of Donald Trump’s bad aesthetic taste. He was a parvenu, was the implication. Not “our kind.”

As a student of Edith Wharton, though, and of New York City social history, I had always been skeptical of this line of attack. For a hundred and fifty years, the New York elite who are already established have been fighting tooth and nail against the generational ascendancy of “new money.” They always revile it.

The old Dutch families fought off the ascendancy of the robber barons, as Wharton documented in her New York Stories, which spanned the years 1891-1934; and then the children of the robber barons, a generation later, sought to fight off the newly minted heirs and heiresses who were the children of sewing machine fortunes and retail and film fortunes — the children of immigrants. That class-driven battle raged right up into the pages of Tom Wolfe’s 1987 Bonfire of the Vanities. Was Donald Trump’s purported bad taste, an actual moral crime? I was never fully persuaded.

But at Bedminster, I was moved, before I even heard the man, by the decisions made by his team, about the physical surroundings. This elegant private club — and you can have your legitimate questions about the very existence of elegant private clubs — was not a monument to ostentation or showy excess. It was, rather, built to remember and celebrate a moment in America in which America was perfect to some people. Everywhere you looked — the rolling lawns edged with untouched wilderness, in the heart of New Jersey; the spacious blue swimming pool, ringed with quiet guest rooms; the fountains in classical shapes, and the plantings that provided old-school decoration around them; the clocks that looked straight out of 1915, that studded the outdoors gathering areas; the architecture that invoked a 1920s American vernacular — white clapboard and grey stone; clocktowers overlooking campus-type quads; ivy and tennis courts, and a soft wind blowing — all of it gave me a pang.

I recognized this landscape, these buildings, this moment in the American dream.

This was America between the wars, before the Depression. It was Jay Gatsby’s Long Island — it was F. Scott Fitzgerald’s vision; it was the life for which that writer had always longed. It was the green light at the end of the dock, the future toward which Gatsby was always racing and for which Fitzgerald himself was always longing; it was the imaginatively perfected, if not real, America that Fitzgerald initially saw: affluent, gorgeous, dreaming, unspoiled.

Now, you can deconstruct that vision all you want. You can point out the lynchings and segregations of the the 1920s; you can point out any number of flaws in our nation at that time. But I recognized this vision — many Ivy League universities were built up at this same time period, using this same romantic iconography — and there are not only crimes in our past, though the crimes are real; there were hope and innocence and idealism for our nation, and for all of our people, in our past too.

Trump’s choices in this miniature world he had created — were not vulgar. They were aspirational, and they encapsulated a memory of an aspirational America. I felt that the physical surroundings, whoever had actually drafted and executed them, helped me to understand his thinking a bit better.

We found ourselves, the following day, at the event itself. This event too was a surprise. It was a small, fairly private gathering, hosted and attended by leaders of the Jewish community, in a well-appointed but not over-the-top dining room.

These were not the Jewish readers of The New York Times, or the inhabitants of the Upper West Side. These were not the liberal Jews from whom I descend.

These were stalwarts of the few Zionist organizations left in America; and they were representatives of the orthodox communities, including one of the most orthodox. The women around me were not dressed in showy, revealing cocktail gowns, as in Las Vegas. Rather they were modestly dressed, as Orthodox Jewish women choose to be; with long sleeves and ankle-length gowns, their hair covered by wigs or scarves. The secular men wore suits, but those from the ultra-orthodox community wore the traditional black suits and hats, and were bearded.

I was surprised to see that it was this ultra-Jewish community that so passionately welcomed this President — a man so often depicted as racist, a white supremacist, and so on.

There appeared the man himself. He was welcomed, and he took his place at a low, informal podium. For a moment I had an eerie experience: this man — the target of white-hot hatred from everyone in my former life — was standing about ten feet away from where we were seated.

There was his height, more notable in person than on camera; the characteristic slight swagger in his body language; there was his dark blue suit, his signature red tie, and his face, itself so familiar from the media that it all felt a bit surreal. His formerly orange hair was more muted and more silvery, and a less unusual shape. His formerly orange complexion was also toned down. He did look more statesmanlike than previously, and more appropriately his age. Whoever was advising him, those were effective choices.

I was surprised to see how beloved he was by the ultra-orthodox rabbi who welcomed him, and who gave the blessing - in Hebrew and in English, as I recall. I was surprised too to see how comfortable President Trump seemed, surrounded by Hebrew prayers, by rabbis in felt hats, by an award that evoked the decorations around Torah scrolls. He seemed extremely familiar with this community, and very much at home.

I heard from their remarks, why they so loved him. He had, in their view, staunchly defended the State of Israel. These were people who remembered how we had been run out of Europe, and had been massacred. While I did not share their politics regarding Israel’s policies, I too was moved at my coreligionists bearing the bloody history of Europe so vividly in mind as they enumerated the ways in which Team Trump had, in their view, “stood with Israel.”

Then President Trump himself spoke. I did not record his remarks so my summary here is impressionistic.

First, he struck me as being much smarter in person, than he appeared to be in public events, as they were filtered through the national media. For over an hour, he spoke, departing from notes, often in long, detailed, extemporaneous riffs. His intelligence struck me as being strongest in perceptiveness and intuition, as many successful businessmen’s and women’s intelligences are, as opposed to being detail-oriented, or theoretically analytical. In other words, like other effective business leaders, he grasped both the essence of, and the leverage points in, a conflict or a predicament, quickly and accurately, and acted accordingly with decisiveness.

This set of reflexes and habits was mocked in legacy media as stupidity — I recalled that news outlets had made fun of him for asking for a one-pager from his staffers, rather than a massive briefing book.

But as I listened to him, I explored those stories within another context. In business, and in media, if someone can’t explain a pitch in a one-page summary, it is just not actionable. I understood why his leadership style would demand this kind of executive summary, and given the list of achievements that he also shared with us, I could see how my liberal policy-wonk “tribe’s” tendency (against which we all struggled in the Clinton era) to theorize, to pontificate, and to exhaust a reader with policy details, could actually lead to a weaker performance from, and could even generate more confusion for, any Commander-in-Chief.

President Trump segued into a long list of his achievements. There was a certain pathos when he did so, as it was clear that he used speeches to list achievements that he felt the legacy media had elided altogether.

In his list of accomplishments from his prior tenure as President, he impressed me as being extremely street-smart about geopolitics. In anecdote after anecdote, he described a geopolitical conflict that threatened the United States, and then, his quick action to give our country the upper hand. For instance, he described Mexico’s reluctance to keep mentally ill or criminal people from crossing our borders. He told the story of how he threatened to withdraw aid from Mexico, and then described the fact that he immediately obtained the outcome he had sought. Similar stories recounted his pushing back on what he saw as irrational, excessive demands for money or military help from Europe, or his resisting global treaties that he thought weakened the US.

He described moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, for instance, and recognizing that city, against international opposition, as the capital of Israel — as well as his administration’s recognizing as part of Israel, the long-contested Golan Heights.

In each case, I recalled how the media had portrayed what he had done: he was a bully, a unilateralist, a child, a thrower of tantrums.

But while I did not agree with all of the outcomes in his list - the Golan Heights recognition as being part of the State of Israel, for instance, arguably violated international law — I felt, to be frank, again, a pang.

He was a bully. But I saw, I’ll confess, as he spoke, that he had been our bully — menacing, intimidating and threatening others on the world stage, with financial or military carrots and sticks, on behalf of what he saw as the wellbeing of the United States of America, and her inhabitants.

As I listened, I realized that I missed having someone in that role on the world stage.

You can dislike such a figure personally. But when I reflected on where we were now — with more accommodating and “gentlemanly” figures, such as Anthony Blinken (whom I knew in the Clinton era — “one of us”) trotting, hat in hand, head bowed, to supplicate at the feet of tyrants around the world, who all enjoy abusing the United States in their pronouncements; now, with our prestige, power and global reputation in tatters, endangering us all existentially — I felt a certain nostalgia for a President who — okay, I’ll say it: Put America First.

I thought, as he spoke, about how I had been trained to “hate” him. He pointed out that he was a rare US President in that he had not started any war. And he said that he had brought our men and women in uniform, home.

I remember thinking — Wow, so he did. Aren’t we - meaning we, the Left, or Independents, or Americans in general — supposed to like that? To want that?

Same with his mention of the Abraham Accords. Like bringing our men and women in uniform home — this was, objectively, a Big Deal. Remember the unattainable goal of “peace in the Middle East”? Well, this accord was truly an achievement, no matter what personal animosity anyone might hold.

I realized that my “hatred” was based on conditioning, repetition and propaganda. It was also a fact that this guy remained in many ways — to me personally — unlikable.

But I also know perfectly well that Presidents who present as very likable, can be total sociopaths (that is how they get so good at that presentation of being charming). I know too that anyone who is that close to power, is going to become at some point obsessive, or aggressive, or a bully, or a seducer, or will find him or herself in some way damaged, distorted, or flawed in character.

Liberals, and legacy media, I realized, who since 2016 have focussed my attention on the “toxic narcissism” or “psychopathology” of President Trump, or on his other supposed character or “mental health” flaws, really have not hung around with a lot of leaders of nations. There is not one of them who cannot be diagnosed with some personality disorder, or some severe moral failing.

I realized that I had been told that President Trump was unlikable, indeed hateful, for so long that aversion was my conditioned reflex; almost Pavlovian.

There were two issues, though, on which President Trump misjudged, in my opinion, if he wishes to be reelected by a wide enough margin to overcome electronic voting machines’ hostile or unverifiable algorithms. One issue is the “woman issue.” When President Trump mentioned Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he said something offhandedly, and without presenting evidence, such as, “She doesn’t know anything.” This got a huge wave of laughter and applause from the friendly audience; but it reminded me of my “issues” with President Trump that will not go away if he does not take certain steps to repair the damage caused by the past.

In his dismissive tone, he sounded to many women, no doubt, including me, like that 70-something guy in the most senior role at your firm at your first job, or the guy running your college or your graduate school, who will never ever ever treat women, and especially not young women, meritocratically. It felt old-school, and not in a good way.

This of course echoes other appalling earlier mis-steps from President Trump related to gender, from “blood coming out of her wherever” to the infamous “grab them by the p—y.”

I found later, though, that in many cases, President Trump’s worst moments are actually phrases taken out of context by the press. The full Megyn Kelly quote is:

‘“Certainly, I don’t have a lot of respect for Megyn Kelly. She’s a lightweight and y’know, she came out there reading her little script and trying to be tough and be sharp. And when you meet her you realize she’s not very tough and she’s not very sharp.” Then, came the kicker: “She gets out there and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions, and you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever.”’

President Trump asserted later, after a media firestorm saying that he was referring to menstruation, that he did not mean to refer to menstruation. “Trump himself has insisted that he did not, in using the word “wherever,” actually mean to suggest that Kelly was on her period. Rather, as he later told the Today Show and CNN’s Jake Tapper, he meant that she was so angry that she seemed to be bleeding from some other orifice—like, say, a nose, or an ear.” And arguably, his quote was indeed not directly saying what the media universally claimed it said.

I myself had a similar experience of systematic distortion from the media and from the opposition - I advised Vice President Gore during his own campaign to showcase his policies as a potential Presidential candidate, rather than acting most prominently in the supportive Vice Presidential role. This common-sense advice was distorted everywhere in the media as my allegedly giving him “lessons in being an Alpha male,” whatever that means.

The same decontextualizing by the media was in play in the horrible “grab them by the p—-y” video from 2005, that surfaced during the 2016 campaign. Most of the media I read implied that Trump stated that his fame allowed him to “grab women by the p—y”. As I have explained at other times to his supporters, this alleged quote was the reason that I, a rape survivor, could not bring myself to vote for him.

Not until I took another look recently, though, did I see that the full quote was: “[T]hey let you do it […]. Grab them by the p—-y.”

‘“Trump: […] And when you’re a star, they let you do it. [Italics mine] You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”’

Now, this is still not a nice thing at all for a man to say; it is not what any self-respecting woman wants to hear from any man.

It’s gross and vulgar and demeaning and offensive — it is all of the things.

But — if I am being scrupulously honest — the actual quote is not exactly the same quote as the one that was presented to the world as being that of an unrepentant and violent sexual predator.

Why do I bring these uncomfortable subjects up? Because candidates are surrounded by yes-men and yes-women, who want to pretend to the Principal that there is no problem with that person’s persona or with the public perception of that person. And I am pointing out that the Trump campaign and the candidate himself, have to face real damage done, through accurate reporting or not, when it comes to women voters. This damage must be addressed if he is to win over the female suburban swing voters in battleground states, without which no candidate can win the Presidency of the United States. There are lots of constructive, positive ways to do so.

The second issue on which President Trump needs a better message than the one I heard, is regarding the environment. He made a disparaging joke about liberals buying up oceanfront properties, and implied that, hence, global warming is not a serious concern. Again, his audience roared with approval, but I knew that this message would not do well outside of private walls. The second reason I could in the past never vote for President Trump (or for Republicans in general), was due to this sort of casual disregard for the real trouble, however you may define that trouble, in which our planet finds itself. Even if President Trump offers a mixed portfolio of fossil fuels and renewable energies, or provides a different set of policies than the reviled “Green Agenda,” with which he proposes to protect our planet, he needs to signal that he is actually serious about fighting environmental degradation, if he is to, first of all, sound consistently like a serious person, and second, to bring over the independents and even Democrats whom he needs in order to win.

And why am I bothering to point out these two shortcomings in his otherwise disturbingly impressive presentation?

I will just say it (I have to, as you recall, since I promised the Universe that I would write what I most feared to write, if I might only survive my recent illness).

I am bothering because, while I must remain nonpartisan, as an objective observer of the terrible crisis in which the United States finds itself, I believe that a ticket of two reviled outsiders — okay, I will go there: a Trump-RFK Jr ticket (again, I promised to write what I am most afraid to write) — is the one chance we have at this historical moment, at circumventing the murderous plans that the WEF and The WHO have for us.

Some leadership pairings solve existential personality problems. When Al Gore and his wife joined Bill Clinton and his wife on the campaign trail, many voters sighed with relief. Bill Clinton was all Id, and here was a grown-up to balance him out — a Superego. Together they made a comprehensive leadership team.

The same sigh of relief was experienced by many voters when the adolescent-seeming George Bush Jr was joined by VP prospect Dick Cheney. I personally think Mr Cheney is an appalling character, but at the time he was presented as the VP pick, I saw the genius of placing someone whom voters read as being mature and steadying, next to the mouthy Texan boy wonder.

I hope both candidates’ teams will consider, for the good of the country, what I am recommending, with nonpartisan concern for our very survival as a free nation, here.

I hope everyone will reflect in general on whom they are being asked reflexively to hate, or to dismiss, or to disdain; and reflect deeply on why that might be.

****

President Trump accepted his award, and thanked the black-clad men and modestly-dressed women around him, and left.

I went to take a picture with Brian. We stood against a beautiful formal fountain; against the profusion of dahlias and ivy that clustered around it; as a reddish-gold sun set over the pristine, elegiac landscape.

I mused, as we went back to our room, amid the crickets’ voices that sounded and the velvety night that deepened — on President Trump’s life choices. He was leaving one beautiful, profitable property, to go, no doubt, to another; he had a beautiful wife and young family at home.

He was 77 years old.

And yet he was running for re-election, with all of the rigors that that entailed; with the risk, now a certainty, of legal challenges, if not worse. If he had just faded into obscurity as a private citizen, for sure he would not be facing a Grand Jury indictment, as he is right now.

So I wondered a month ago, as wind soughed softly on on that warm New Jersey evening: why is he doing this?

As he often notes himself — he has a great life, and he does not need to run again.

And I could not help, though it was against every conditioned reflex of many years, considering:

Maybe he is doing this because he loves his country.