Polish Government Set To Force Out Post-Communist Supreme Court Judges

The EU and its propaganda mouthpieces in the legacy media conglomerates around the world are in a state of panic at the prospect of Polands post-communist Supreme Court judges being forced into retirement by a bill granting the nations Law and Justice party, known as the PiS, the power to replace them with judges whose loyalty is to the Polish nation, rather than the EU(SSR).

Predictably CNN is one of those loudly decrying the threat to judicial independence in Poland:

President Andrzej Duda appears likely to sign the controversial bill into law. He has 21 days to sign or veto the legislation, which would also give the justice minister the power to pick the judges’ replacements.

A poll conducted by CNN affiliate TVN found that 55% of Poles said Duda should veto the court laws; 29% said he should not.

Judging by the lack of accuracy and impartiality of CNN polls, we can safely assume that it’s only 29% who think he should veto, while 55% agree with the bill – and that’s being conservative.

The bill’s passage could mark a turning point for the Eastern European country — one of the first former communist nations to join the European Union.
The move by the ruling right-wing Law and Justice party, known as the PiS, to control one of the last remaining independent government institutions has prompted concern in Washington and triggered warnings from the European Union that it is putting judicial independence at risk.

Yes, Poland was the first former communist nation to join the EU, and as a result is well aware of what the EU is turning into, and who the driving force behind it is. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, PiS’s leader, accused Poland’s courts of being “subordinated to foreign forces” and a “stronghold of post-communists”, because of the secret ties between Polish liberals and the former communist regime.

In a sign of the growing concern, a top EU official on Wednesday threatened the use of Article 7 — a mechanism that would allow for sanctions against Poland and possible suspension of its voting rights in the bloc. The measure has never been used before.
European Council President Donald Tusk, a former Polish Prime Minister from the opposition Civic Platform party, warned Thursday of “dangerous consequences” for Poland’s standing on the world stage and said he had asked Duda for an urgent meeting.

Under normal circumstances this type of interference by a democratic government on its judicial branch would be a worrying turn of events, but considering that the EU is itself an undemocratic bureaucracy hellbent on destroying individual European nations – via the importation of millions of non-Europeans under the guise of humanitarianism and offsetting declining birthrates – this is a necessary step to prevent the destruction of Polish society by globalist EU sympathisers.

Poland does have an EU ally — Hungary — and its support could derail attempts to pressure the country in corral the judiciary measures.
“Because of our own national interest, because of Europe’s and Poland’s interest, we must make clear that the inquisition offensive against Poland can never succeed because Hungary will use all legal options” in the European Union to show solidarity with the Poles, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Saturday.

And hopefully others will follow suit. Nationalist governments throughout Europe need to retake control of their nations through determined action such as this. Unfortunately that action will not be spearheaded by Western European nations such as France or Germany, so the responsibility rests with the East. Their example will be an inspiration, much like the election of Donald Trump was an inspiration to nationalists throughout the West.

Another European model is possible. A united Europe which respects its individual member nations – and everything which a nation comprises – recognising and assuming its leading position in the world, while protecting its citizens from predatory globalism and its migrant armies of conquest.

Advertisements

The Hubris Of Carl Bernstein And His Ilk

In truth much could be written about the following 48 second clip, but the most important and ominous part is during the first 17 seconds:

Carl Bernstein – known for his investigative reporting on the Watergate scandal leading to President Richard Nixon’s resignation – begins by claiming that the US is in the midst of a “malignant presidency.”

His choice of words is interesting, because the implication is that Donald Trump’s presidency is a malignant tumour that needs to be removed. He follows by claiming that this malignancy is known to the “military leaders of the country, Republican leadership in congress who recognise it, and intelligence community.”

There’s no doubt that the President has enemies in all three of these groups, but he has many friends and supporters also, if not he would not have survived – politically and physically – this long in the face of so much unwarranted hostility.

Without a doubt Bernstein has sources that have voiced their unjustified complaints to him, and may have even used the adjective “malignant” to describe their twisted view of the Presidents office, and if so this is a veiled threat which he has then decided to voice on CNN.

The fact that CNN employees have been caught admitting on camera by Project Veritas that their coverage of the Trump-Russia story is baseless is serious enough, but to then give airtime to a guest who utters these veiled threats against a President who has tenaciously defended himself against their fake news, is another ominous development.

If the left thinks that President Trump will be removed by a military coup, senile RINO’s like John McCain, or those in the intelligence community who have secretly sworn their allegiance to someone or something other than the American Constitution, then they’re gravely mistaken.

That’s not to say that President Trump is invincible – he’s clearly in danger, but it’s a danger he’s prepared and willing to face, and he does not stand alone. For self preservation, his enemies, and the enemies of the American Republic would do well to take heed of warnings like this one from Alex Jones:

“Be selfish for your own personal lives and back off.” The truth is that the “elites” mentioned in the above video are the real malignancy in America, and throughout the world, and the light of truth needs to be shined on them and their wicked ways.

Comey’s Testimony

There’s no need to go into more details on the Comey hearing here, which has made all the top headlines the past couple of days in the US and been discussed ad nauseam already.

Suffice to say that despite the left’s best efforts to salvage something from it in terms of incriminating Trump in any wrong doing, it was a bit of an anticlimax for those calling for impeachment, and quite an eye opener to see Comey admitting to leaking confidential information to a reporter via a friend.

Two videos worth watching on the subject are from Tucker Carlson and Stefan Molyneux. Enjoy:

MSNBC’s Obsession With Trump

It seems that MSNBC has an obsession with President Trump. That might seem like something obvious considering the constant barrage of negative news coverage he’s been subjected to throughout his first six months in office, but it really hits home visually when you visit their home page and are confronted by the following:

Trump MSNBC

Is it me or is there something strange about this picture…?

As can be seen, all their top stories are a barrage of Comey testimony and Trump related stories which leaves one wondering if there’s anything else going on in the MSNBC studios in terms of reporting on other important US and world news? With pundits like Al Sharpton on their payroll the answer is likely a resounding no.

Of course it’s not just MSNBC but the leftwing media in general, and if Breitbart, Fox News, and others on the right are spending more time than normal covering the President, it’s because there has to be a counterargument against the constant attacks which amount to nothing more than propaganda worthy of countries like Venezuela.

It’s hard to imagine Obama receiving this much negative media from the right during his two terms of office, despite the fact that he was incredibly unpopular among Republicans, and would probably have been with a considerable amount of Democrat’s if it wasn’t for the colour of his skin.

But does this behaviour by the left reveal something about it’s psychology as a group? Are people on the left more prone to whining and constantly playing the victim, as it so often appears to even the most casual observer? Is it any wonder that so called “progressivism” and all the baggage that comes with it – from slut walks to gender fluidity, to whatever other destabilising perversions they thrust into our lives – is an ideology of the left and not the right? Reach your own conclusions.

The Donald Is Back But Stops Short Of Telling London Mayor Sadiq Khan He’s Fired!

It’s a relief to see the Donald Trump of the campaign trail back in full force and triggering the left like never before. For a while there were fears that his daughter Ivanka Trump was having a moderating influence on him, or even that deep state infiltrators had somehow managed to surreptitiously drug him into submission or even replace him with a low-energy body double.

Alas we can begin to put those fears behind us now following his latest Twitter offensive against Mayor of London Sadiq Khan:

According to the London Evening Standard, Theresa May “finally scolds” Trump for this criticism of Sadiq Khan:

Theresa May today finally labelled Donald Trump “wrong” for criticising the Mayor of London in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack.

The Prime Minister said party politics should be “put to one side” after the US president blasted Sadiq Khan in tweets that were widely condemned by politicians of all stripes.

Mrs May had faced calls to distance herself Mr Trump for his incendiary remarks but for two days failed to directly address them. She has also been urged to call off the president’s state visit later this year.

We can hardly call that a scolding, in fact it would be more accurate to say that it was Trump who gave the scolding, and a perfect way of finishing Khan off would have been a third tweet that went something like: “If it was up to me I’d fire him so fast his head would spin like Comey’s!”

It’s also interesting to note the claim that the tweets were “widely condemned,” however in the article they link to, the only person criticising Trump is the victim of his tweets, namely Khan – he can hardly be described in the plural as “politicians of all stripes.”

Finally notice that May withheld commenting on the “incendiary remarks” – if those are considered incendiary then we have a serious case of oversensitivity in the UK which is best cured by a good dose of desensitisation – for two days, but the pressure from “politicians of all stripes” was probably so intense that she had to yield to pressure with a single adjective which said a lot regarding what she actually thought about the whole episode.

The comments intensified public anger at the president for politicising the tragedy as London was grieving.

They also renewed calls for leaders to call off his state visit in October. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has already suggested he would consider suspending the visit if he won, but Theresa May has said it will go ahead.

Public anger from whom exactly? Sadiq “Politicians of all Stripes” Khan? ISIS? The UK branch of the Hillary Clinton Fan Club?

Ditto the above questions as possible answers to who exactly called for Trump’s planned state visit to the UK in October to be cancelled. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn would consider anything if it meant becoming Prime Minister, but even if he does it would be hard for him to do the job while sitting on the proverbial fence.

Either way, the likelihood is that President Trump will make his UK state visit in October as planned, and continue to make headlines with a snub by Mayor of London Khan and Muslim community leaders, and a power handshake and tea with the Queen in Buckingham Palace to wrap up the visit.

What Do President Trump’s Poll Numbers Really Tell Us?

Success in politics is dependent on popularity to get elected, and the best way we have of gauging that – apart from Twitter followers, likes, and other forms of social media tools utilised in modern politics – is via opinion polls. However once a politician is in office the importance of the results of opinion polls tends to diminish somewhat, until the next election approaches and campaigning begins again.

During the election campaign against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump repeatedly stated that the polls were rigged, and even warned about potential voter fraud. Rigging polls is not an occult science, and during the election where there was so much at stake for both sides, it’s clear that the establishment candidate was favoured in more ways than one.

That said, despite the ominous title, there is some truth worth highlighting in the following article from CNN:

On March 11, 45% of Americans approved of the job Donald Trump was doing in Gallup’s daily tracking poll. It’s been all downhill since then.

In the intervening 86 days, Trump’s job approval has never again reached 45% in Gallup’s data. In fact, the last time Trump was even at 43% was on April 28. He’s spent most of the time between then and now mired in the low 40s and high 30s.

And now, Trump finds himself in the midst of his worst extended poll run of his presidency. Starting on May 28 when Gallup put his job approval at 42%, Trump has been sliding downward. The latest Gallup track on June 3 put Trump’s job approval at a dismal 36% — a single percentage point away from the lowest ebb of his time in the White House. (On March 28, Trump’s job approval was at 35%.)

The Gallup numbers are no anomaly. A Quinnipiac University poll released in late May put Trump’s job approval at 37%. A Monmouth poll conducted in mid-May put Trump’s job approval at 39%.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that these poll numbers are correct, and frankly they’re not very encouraging for a man used to winning. That said, what do they really tell us? Specifically, are they low because Trump is an unpopular President due to the policies he’s implemented, or is he unpopular because on the one hand he’s been continually blocked from implementing some of his signature campaign promises such as the Muslim travel ban, and the US border wall with Mexico, and on the other continually attacked by the legacy media with the contrived story regarding collusion with Russia to manipulate the elections?

We’re continually reminded by Hillary Clinton that she won the popular vote, and there’s always going to be a considerable proportion of those voters who would rate President Trump negatively for simply getting out of bed each morning, but these poll numbers indicate that there’s a proportion of those that voted for him who would like to see him to get out of bed in the morning and start winning as he promised during the campaign.

Because of the incredibly hostile opposition Trump’s facing from the majority of Democrats and establishment Republicans, he hasn’t had the support needed to implement some of his signature campaign promises. He also appears to have alienated many of his supporters with the cruise missile attack on a Syrian Army base on 7 April, the reasons for which were dubious to say the least.

Whether or not this was an attempt to deflect attention away from the Trump-Russia collusion media onslaught we can only speculate, the fact is though that it conspicuously came back into the news following the cessation of hostilities against Assad in Syria – much to the chagrin of the never Trump neocons – and the dismissal of former FBI Director James Corey.

However there have been signs that the Russia story is wearing a little thin with many except the most diehard Trump impeachment apologists such as Maxine Waters, but with Comey’s upcoming testimony this week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, anything is possible, and the whole story is likely to be blown out of all proportions again, no matter how mundane his testimony is.

In reality Trump needs to follow through with the promises he made during his campaign, and ensure that his Republican base is placated, or at the very minimum angry enough with those blocking his agenda to ensure that the party isn’t negatively effected in the 2018 midterm elections:

Trump’s poll numbers — if they stay anywhere near as low as they currently are — could have a hugely negative impact on his party’s chances in the 2018 midterms elections. Since 1946, according to Gallup, when a president’s job approval rating is above 50%, the average number of seats his party loses in a midterm election is 14. When a president’s job approval rating is below 50%? Try an average 36-seat loss.

If history holds, Democrats would likely take back control of the House in 2018 — given that they only need a 24-seat gain to do so. (One factor working against Democrats: The House is pretty well sorted out on partisan lines. Only 23 House Republicans currently represent districts Hillary Clinton carried last November.)

A Democratic-controlled House would be a nightmare for Trump as he tried to begin preparing for his re-election bid in 2020. Not only would he struggle to move his main agenda items through a divided Congress but a Democratic majority would almost certainly aggressively pursue its oversight responsibilities on the Trump administration.

The best (only?) thing going for Trump — and Republicans — in terms of the polling is that it’s June 2017, not June 2018. There’s still time for Trump to move his numbers up. But, the last few months suggest that much of the public has made up its mind on how the president is handling his business — and Trump has been found wanting.

This is an accurate analysis of the situation and something Trump is certainly aware of. Never have we seen so much opposition to a President less than six months into his term of office. This tells us a lot about who Donald Trump is and what he stands for, and it should be a warning to some of his wavering supporters and the silent majority, that the man who wants to Make America Great Again, needs the backing of those who voted for that idea.

Trump Versus Merkel’s EU

After meetings of Nato and the G7 group of wealthy nations last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had the following to say according to the Guardian:

“The times in which we could completely depend on others are to a certain extent over,” she told an election rally in Munich on Sunday. “I’ve experienced that in the last few days. We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.”

The chancellor told a 2,500-strong crowd in the Bavarian capital that Germany and Europe would strive to remain on good terms with the US, Britain and other countries, “even with Russia”, but added: “We have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.”

Notice how she says “we Europeans” instead of “we Germans.” It seems evident from Merkel’s past behaviour that she has an aversion to any manifestations of national pride, most probably the result of growing up in Communist East Germany, and the trauma caused by an official history of the country which begins with Hitlers ascent to power, and ends with the Holocaust.

Also, one is left wondering how many of the 2,500-strong crowd were recently settled “refugees,” who she has so enthusiastically welcomed into the country – not her own home of course – to the detriment of the countless victims of violent crimes, which have surged since the migrant crisis was engineered. Considering this it’s hard to believe that 2,500 Germans would still want to listen to her, much less give her their votes.

The leaders did vow to fight protectionism, reiterating “a commitment to keep our markets open”. They also agreed to step up pressure on North Korea, cooperate more closely on terrorism and look into placing tougher sanctions on Russia.

Keep markets open to China and their unfair trade practices? While they flood the EU and the US with their cheap – in both senses of the word – products while our manufacturing industries go out of business and blue-collar workers are left jobless, the effects of which are felt throughout the economy?

So she mentions Russia twice. The first time is to express her wish to remain on good terms with it, then the second mention is a kick in the proverbial balls by suggesting tougher sanctions on a country she would be wise not to provoke considering how badly their last war together ended for Germany.

But while six of the seven present renewed their commitment to the 2015 Paris accord on climate change, Trump said he needed more time to decide.

Merkel said the result of the “six against one” talks was “very difficult, if not to say very unsatisfactory”.

He needs more time to decide if the CO2 we exhale is a toxic armageddon gas?

Yes, the talks were extremely unsatisfactory for a woman used to getting her way, especially when the odds are six against one. Perhaps Trump should send her an autographed copy of The Art of the Deal.

At the Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday, Trump repeated past accusations that other members of the alliance were failing to meet its military spending commitment of 2% of GDP, saying this was “not fair” on US taxpayers.

He also failed to endorse the pact’s article five mutual defence clause – an omission seen as especially striking as he was unveiling a memorial to those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US, the only time it has been triggered.

President Trump gave them a stern telling off, and in typical schoolboy fashion a few of them giggled as his back was turned. If NATO member nations insist on maintaining an organisation whose usefulness ended with the Cold War, then the bare minimum they can do is pay what they agreed on.

Article five may have only been triggered once, but from the sounds of it Merkel and her lackeys were repeatedly triggered by Trump.

Speaking of lackeys:

By contrast, Merkel said she wished the new French president, Emmanuel Macron, every success and promised Germany would do what it could to help France in a bid to revive the ailing Franco-German engine that has long powered Europe.

Macron will certainly have the same success Merkel has had destroying the nation she presides if he has his way. His power handshake with Trump was meant to project the image of a strong leader onto this upstart beta male, establishment stooge, and former Rothschild banker, but he certainly didn’t fool Donald Trump with his act.