MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
It has been well-known and documented for decades that the push for globalism is a deliberate and focused effort on the part of a select “elite,” international financiers, central bankers, political leaders and the numerous members of exclusive think tanks. They often openly admit their goals for total globalization in their own publications, perhaps believing that the uneducated people would never read them or that no one would expose their secret controlled demolition of sovereign nations.
They believe they are “chosen” either by fate, destiny or genetics to rule as philosopher kings over the rest of us. They believe they are the wisest and most capable that humanity has to offer, and that through evolutionary means, they can create chaos and order out of thin air and mold society at will.
The people behind the effort to enforce globalism are tied together by a particular ideology, perhaps even a cult-like religion that will go to any length to destabilize governments in order to show their flaws. The next phase would then be to erase borders homogenize differences and create a world bank and a world governing body.
This process of destabilizing economies and societies is not directed by the heads of the various central banks. Instead, it is directed by even more central global institutions, like the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.
We also find through the words of globalists that the campaign for a “New World Order” is not meant to be voluntary.
The greater conspiracy has been the “open conditioning and coercion process” that has taken decades to implement and program into the critical mass. Overt criminality by leaders and passive, unclear thinking by the proletariat has become the norm in the United States. The two go together, creating a symbiotic ecosystem of tyranny. Fraud, theft, and murder have become widespread; just as the scale of lies told and believed have reached new heights. Irresponsibility has become socialized while people in the honest pursuit of good get thwarted.
The transition from one form of government to another will be negligible because of forces we cannot and do not know how to fight against.
Globalists have formed the opinion that “There is no alternative.”
“There is no alternative” has been shortened as the T.I.N.A. or the T.I.N.A. doctrine. It was a slogan often used by the Conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In economics, politics, and political economy, it has come to mean that “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism that free markets, free trade, and capitalist globalization are the best or the only way for modern societies to develop. The phrase was used to signify that global capitalism is the only system possible and that debate about this is over.
The reality is that the simplest explanation is that globalism is an outright war waged against the ideal of sovereign peoples and nations. It is a guerrilla war, or fourth generation warfare, waged by a small group of elites against the rest of us.
These small groups have developed a sense of what it means to govern by a mob and in the process will lie, mislead and reinforce their lies with propaganda in order to carry out their mission.
This time we are dealing with Mission Impeachable.
It is too early to tell what will come of House Democrats’ decision to launch an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, but not too early to conclude that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has failed to explain the gravity of this decision in American politics.
Of the four major efforts in U.S. history to impeach presidents, I have vivid, memories for two of them.
Well, one of them really wasn’t an impeachment – Nixon resigned before anything stuck and Clinton’s impeachment was not a good thing for American trust in their leadership – since then, the United States has always felt like a flimsy House of cards.
Of course, Bill Clinton survived his impeachment by the House with a mostly party-line vote acquittal at a Senate trial. The Clinton impeachment if you remember bordered on serious and salacious entertainment because of its subject matter.
Impeaching a president because he lied about getting fellatio from an intern was an embarrassment to our country.
History will tell you that it was not about sex. It was all about lying under oath and the sacred principle that no one is above the law.
“No one is above the law” – the same axiom being said by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, and Elizabeth Warren over Ukraine call that President Trump admitted to and that has been the smoking gun for Trump corruption since Russia gate failed to convict him of wrongdoing.
The significance of this piece of news depends mostly on how it can be used as either weapon or a shield in the ceaseless ideological and cultural war we are in right now. It is either an asset or a liability but as it is applied it may be the weapon that not only can be used for a soft coup but it can also be used as a tool to expose the corruption of a traditional democratic candidate.
This is the conspiracy that no one wants to expose but it certainly is something to consider when you are dealing with a corrupt political matrix.
The transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was read by Democrats as something close to a smoking gun, with Trump pushing his counterpart who is hoping for military aid from Washington to use his influence to revive a closed investigation into former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and the activities of his son, Hunter Biden, who performed highly compensated work for a well-connected Ukrainian natural gas company.
However, when Adam Schiff was asked to read the contents of the transcript to Congress, he did not read it verbatim – he decided to interpret the transcript in what he called the essence of what the president communicates,” not providing “the exact transcribed version of the call.”
Schiff’s remarks did make it easy for viewers to get confused. He did not make clear which words he was taking directly from Trump’s comments in the rough transcript, which words were his own analysis, and which words were meant to be the comedic “parody” he later said he was intending.
At some points, Schiff’s words strayed quite far from what the rough transcript showed Trump saying.
How can this be taken seriously? He lied to confuse and to make the boring transcript and add language that makes Trump look like a mob boss ordering people to do what he says. This alone should destroy the credibility of Mission Impeachable.
When the Constitution’s framers first raised the idea of impeachment, they knew there were risks. Alexander Hamilton warned in the 65th Federalist Paper that “there will always be the greatest danger that the [impeachment] decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
That danger was certainly realized in the impeachment proceedings of both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, which were heavily freighted with politics. In contrast, Richard Nixon’s resignation came after a strongly bipartisan vote on articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee, the full House never voted on the articles, so Nixon was technically not impeached.
What is most disconcerting is that impeachment is literally the bomb that is being used for a civil scorched earth policy.
For those who lived through Watergate or those who can recall it from history, the attempt to impeach Nixon was an enormously wrenching, divisive, difficult experience. As with any attempt at impeachment, there is so much time and effort that is put into the task that we wonder if the government is actually neglecting more pressing issues at the moment.
Impeachments hinder the process of government conducting affairs of security and protection of the country because most agents and investigators are focusing their attention on what comes in our out of the Oval Office.
To the average American, impeachment is nothing more than a spectator sport that is whittled down to threatening sound bites however the repercussions can last decades and as in the Case of both Nixon and Clinton it did all sorts of damage to people’s faith in government.
It sets a precedent for the executive branch to be disposable, it invalidates the vote, it appears to be a coup, and it can stir thoughts of martyrdom among the people. It destroys faith in the political structure of the country.
Taking a look back at history it can be said that the President that decides to drain the swamp, or tries to bring the intelligence agencies under control usually meets a not-so-happy ending.
Kennedy was the first casualty in the quest to control the Deep State. His assassination was an answer to his tough talk against the Deep State and how they control things behind the scenes.
Beneath the orderly façade of the American government, there lies a complex network, only partly structural, linking Wall Street influence, corrupt bureaucracy, and the military-industrial complex. Here lies the true power of the American empire. This behind-the-scenes web is unelected, unaccountable, and immune to popular resistance.
When Nixon came into office he had the aim of bringing the massive executive bureaucracy and in particular the intelligence community and the FBI, much more overtly under White House control.
He saw these big administrative bureaucracies as sprawling, with far too much independence, and he wanted to be able to use them politically in a much more significant way. He was absolutely explicit about this, certainly in conversations with his aides.
J. Edgar Hoover did not like this – he would not stand for it. Even though Hoover and Nixon were friends, there were others in the intelligence cabal that saw Nixon as a threat.
Ironically, Hoover died in 1972, about a month before the Watergate burglary, and so a lot of those very early rumblings around Watergate were really coming out of a discontented intelligence bureaucracy.
Does this sound familiar? History is rhyming and even synching with what is happening with President Trump.
Think of the jobs of James Comey and Robert Mueller — they literally create a paradox in the timeline as we see some sort of multidimensional replay of 1972 and 1973.
The FBI was created and gets a lot of its professional identity from the fact it is supposed to be standing outside of politics. It is supposed to be based on investigation and fact-gathering, no matter the political consequences. And, on the other hand, throughout its history, it has been drawn into some of the most politicized and difficult and partisan investigations, including Watergate, that the country has ever seen. The FBI is supposed to be neutral and non-partisan but all that is nonexistent as President Trump appears to be no friend to the intelligence cabal.
The truth is that while the intelligence agencies want to convince you that they are apolitical – they have not been able to stand outside of the political square.
Comey and Mueller, depending on who you ask, appeared to be partisan for one side or the other. So, whichever side you were cheering for, both men delivered unsatisfying answers regarding Russian meddling and so the conspiracy theory championed by the media and Trump’s enemies became a joke and yet there are many diehards that still believe that somewhere in all of that Russian conspiracy there is obstruction of justice.
As with Watergate, there seems to be a “whistleblower” that exposed a recorded conversation – whoever the Trump whistleblower is, he seems to be a lot like Nixon’s Deep Throat.
Soon after the Ukraine call “whistleblower” complaint was made public, questions about the source’s knowledge and background began to rise, and immediately it was surmised that he came from the CIA.
Now if The New York Times is to be believed, the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.
The New York Times, of course, puts its spin on the news, claiming that the whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint. However, given the current state of affairs, we suspect it will simply remind a deeply divided nation of the bias and prejudice that exists behind the president’s back
It is like the remix of a song – the tune is familiar but the beat and the arrangement are a lot different.
However, things are different now. If you look back to Watergate, which has been our point of reference, the party structures are so different now than they were then. The way that partisan politics work, and the way our elections and our primaries run, are so radically different than the last moment that we were really dealing with a constitutional crisis of this proportion.
Therefore, I can safely conclude that we cannot even fathom the consequences a Trump impeachment would bring.
In a word of warning to all Trump haters that wish to impeach – it may make you feel good to advocate for immediate, sweeping change, but I am sure that many Americans who hate Trump cannot fathom that the costs, the trade-offs, the political fallout, market crashes, the risk of civil war…the list is long and I believe that no one who is hell-bent on impeachment has taken any of this into account.
If we fail to consider the secondary and unseen effects of impeachment, our grand plans can make things much worse.
Making impeachment a habit, especially when it can be seen as a soft coup gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen.
As you can probably already see is that government does not operate in the best interests of the people. Our government is often driven by coercion and corruption rather than by “the will of the people.”
Instead, recognize that there’s no such thing as “the will of the people.” Impeachment has long demonstrated that the will of the people, mainly their vote was better off in the wastepaper basket.
People who voted for Trump are fully aware of why this madness is continuing.
Representative Al Green, a Democrat from Texas, has been more honest about it than most. Green admitted it straight up: “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”
Democratic leaders have decided that impeaching Trump is essential if they’re going to win the election next year. However, there is another underhanded move to all this and that is to sabotage the campaign of Joe Biden.
It is obvious that radical extremist pushing a socialist agenda cannot have a traditional democrat like Biden anywhere near the White House. People like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have accused Biden of being too traditional and too middle of the road when it comes to green deal proposals. Cortez has said that Biden is not progressive enough and that in essence, we have outgrown that ideas that were first presented by Barak Obama.
She is also saying that even Obama is not progressive enough, meaning that they are not all for a socialist democracy which many see as a slippery slope to state socialism.
If impeachment is to be levied to Trump, Biden may be affected as well, and it would be a win-win for the socialists gunning for the Presidency. Biden generally is seen as the safe choice as traditional democrat to run against Trump but the younger democrats see him as too old an irrelevant – they are also beginning to say the same about Bernie Sanders.
However, we are seeing that younger voters are being drawn into the political war within the party using Climate Change as the major issue above all others. They are using whatever weapons in their arsenal to win sympathy for their agenda.
Younger Democrats have now in effect demanded that we spend the next six months talking about Biden and his son’s alleged corruption. That’s what’s at the core of this Ukraine story.
The media is trying to avoid it to focus on Trump only, however, the Biden questions are unavoidable.
Why would a Ukrainian company pay Hunter Biden $50,000 a month? There are no answers yet but if we are going to demand impeachment there also has to be some fallout with Biden and alleged corruption – this can’t possibly help Biden—with him out of the way, a gun-grabbing, universal income promising green deal adherent will definitely be a shoe-in for the presidency – it is a dirty way to ensure a win for socialism.
It will be a matter of impeachment for Trump and sabotage for Biden.
It appears to be a scorched earth policy in order to secure a hot spot in the 2020 election. So Biden like Sanders before him will have to fall on the sword for the extremist upheaval that will entail destroying the foundation of what is America.
It is all too convenient and the people are buying it because of their hatred for the President.
This is no doubt a mess, and no matter how you lean on these ugly issues, we in the United States should be thinking about the grand dame of conspiracy theories and that is the feared globalist coup is afoot and that we seriously have to consider that the 2020 election may make us low lying fruit for a globalist take over.