Associated Press Poll: 65% of Republicans say immigration is the top issue.

An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted shortly before the shutdown began finds that both Republicans and Democrats are far more likely to include immigration in their list of top issues facing the country this year compared with a year ago.

Overall, 49 percent mentioned immigration in an open-ended question as one of the top five problems they hoped the government addresses in 2019. By contrast, 27 percent mentioned immigration in December 2017.

Partisan divides on the best solutions remain deep. Republicans continue to be more likely to cite immigration as a top issue than Democrats, an indication of the GOP’s greater intensity on the issue. But it’s an increasingly important issue to members of both parties.

The poll found that 65 percent of Republicans say immigration is one of the top five problems facing the country, up from 42 percent in 2017. Among Democrats, 37 percent cite immigration as a top issue, compared with just 2 in 10 a year ago.

Roughly two-thirds of those who named immigration as a top priority express little confidence in the government to make progress this year, including a third who say they are “not at all” confident. About a third say they are at least moderately confident in the government to make progress on immigration. This follows a year of intermittent deadlocked negotiations and standoffs between Trump and Democrats in Congress.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE:  https://www.apnews.com/afe8b152156f4b9786832bdf957dbfa8

Will Booker’s presidential ambitions get derailed by Trump investigation?

Yesterday morning, the Washington Post reported the following:  “Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment Monday charging two business associates of Michael T. Flynn with acting as agents of the Turkish government, describing in remarkable detail how the three attempted to persuade the United States to expel a rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Throughout the fall of 2016, while Flynn served publicly as a key surrogate and foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, prosecutors say he and business partner Bijan Kian took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Turkish government to push for the extradition from the United States of dissident cleric Fethullah Gulen. Their efforts, prosecutors said, were directed by Kamil Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish businessman with close ties to the country’s leadership.”

“As the Mueller investigation has moved forward, the Justice Department has seemed to take a more aggressive posture in recent months toward prosecuting those who lobby for foreign interests without registering appropriately. Mueller charged former Trump campaign advisers Paul Manafort and Rick Gates with similar crimes for their work in Ukraine, and the Justice Department recently reached a plea agreement with a Russian woman whom it had accused of acting as a Kremlin agent in the United States.”

Concurrently with the period outlined above, a firm with deep ties to New Jersey Democrats – Mercury Public Affairs, LLC – was also working towards the same goal, on behalf of the Islamist government of Turkey.  Mo Butler, United States Senator Cory Booker's campaign consultant, former chief of staff, and "longtime advisor" and Michael Soliman, United States Senator and former Chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations Robert Menendez's political advisor and former State Director are top operatives at Mercury Public Affairs.

Began in 1999, Mercury handles national and international clients.  Michael Soliman joined Mercury in 2013 and soon after became a partner.  Mo Butler joined as a "managing director" in 2016 and became a partner this year.  Mercury Public Affairs has 10 partners, 160 employees, at 18 offices worldwide. Omnicom, a Russian company, purchased Mercury in 2003.

Last year, Mercury Public Affairs was the subject of a subpoena in the on-going investigation into Russia's meddling in the United States presidential election in 2016.  According to the Washington Post, former FBI Director and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller obtained the subpoena seeking information about work Mercury had done for a pro-Putin political party in the Ukraine:

"The investigators asked Mercury for information about their public relations work at Manafort’s behest for a Brussels-based organization called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, which pushed for improved relations between Ukraine and European countries. The Brussels group primarily advanced the interests of a Russia-friendly Ukrainian political party that had been a client of Manafort’s before he joined the Trump campaign.”

Ross Perot predicted the rise of this type of international consultant-lobbyist in 1992:

"We've shipped millions of jobs overseas and we have a strange situation because we have a process in Washington where after you served for a while you cash in, become a foreign lobbyist, make thirty-thousand-dollars a month, then take a leave (to) work on Presidential campaigns, make sure you've got good contacts, and then go back out."  (Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debate)

In January 2015, Michael Soliman registered with the United States Justice Department, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as a person representing the Embassy of the State of Qatar.  You must have read about Qatar in the news...Amnesty International has accused Qatar of being complicit in human trafficking and modern-day slavery. Yes, slavery. In fact, the United Nations gave Qatar one year "to end migrant worker slavery" or face an international investigation.  

Qatar is just one of freedom's garden spots represented by Mercury.  Remember the controversy in Uganda, when the President of that country decided that homosexuality was a crime that should be punishable by death?  Well, the law he wanted passed was "moderated" in December 2013, substituting life imprisonment for the death penalty. In 2015, Mercury was brought on to provide public relations, lobbying, and media monitoring services with regards to the Office of the President and the Ugandan government in general on subjects beginning with "human rights" and ending with "good governance."  For which the contract calls for Mercury to be compensated at the rate of $50,000 per month, with $150,000 up front.

Mercury also represents individuals.  Folks like Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi, who in 2003 led an anti-American demonstration in which he personally burned an American flag.  For its work, Mercury pocketed a $30,000 monthly retainer, plus expenses.

In January 2016, Mercury Public Affairs partner Morris Reid negotiated a contract with Amsterdam & Partners, an international law firm with offices in London and Washington, DC.  The document is marked "confidential and privileged" but is public information under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. In August of the previous year, Amsterdam & Partners signed a contract with the Turkish Ambassador to the United States to provide legal services related to a "matter of importance" to the embassy.  The government of Turkey pays Amsterdam a retainer of $50,000 a month.

While the contract stipulates that the greatest security and confidentiality be observed, under the terms of the contract between Amsterdam and Turkey, third parties may be hired "as the Firm and the Client agree in writing are necessary to further the Engagement."  And so, in March of 2016, Amsterdam hired Mercury to perform work on behalf of the Turkish government for $20,000 a month -- above and beyond what was being paid to Amsterdam by Turkey. It is in the contract between Amsterdam & Partners and Mercury Public Affairs that we learn what all this cloak and dagger is in aid of:

The Amsterdam-Mercury contract references an "investigation into Fethullah Gulen and his organization in the United States."  So who is Fethullah Gulen?

Gulen has been in the news since the attempted coup in Turkey in 2016.  Gulen is a religious leader from Turkey, and a one-time political ally of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Erdogan is the increasingly authoritarian and Islamist President of Turkey. He has been repeatedly in the news for purging the judiciary, jailing journalists who write unflattering reports, and successfully intimidating the opposition.  Erdogan had a law passed to allow the government to ban websites and he has promised to "rip out the roots" of Twitter. He has even attempted to censor speech in other nations, demanding that Germany prosecute a poet who had written some verse critical of him.

Erdogan and Gulen had a falling out over allegations of political corruption by Erdogan in 2013.  Gulen's books were banned. First, he was indicted on charges that a Turkish judge threw out, but then was indicted a few months later for treasonable offenses that carried the death penalty.  Gulen fled Turkey, came to the United States, and was convicted in absentia. According to Wikipedia, Gulen was one of the first Muslim leaders to condemn the attacks on September 11, 2001, writing a "condemnation article" in the Washington Post, the next day.  He wrote: "A Muslim cannot be a terrorist, nor can a terrorist be a true Muslim."

The government of Turkish President Erdogan has attempted to extradite Gulen back to Turkey in order to execute him for his political and religious beliefs, but the government of the United States hasn't cooperated.  In the hours after the coup attempt, Erdogan was quick to blame Gulen, while Gulen put forward the theory that Erdogan had staged the coup himself in order to consolidate power.

The Associated Press identified Amsterdam & Partners (the firm Mercury is working for) as "lawyer(s) for the Turkish government".  So why are Americans involved in trying to extradite a moderate cleric to satisfy the rage of an Islamist dictator?  

How is Cory Booker going to look when his top guy’s firm is pulled further into the Trump investigation mess?  How is Booker going to explain that this helps the American people? And with all this money from foreign powers floating around, at what point does a political advisor to a United States Senator and a prospective candidate for President find himself in an existential conflict of interest?

Linda Sarsour casts shadow over Murphy speech at Women's March

She's the Steve Bannon of the Left -- an angry, trash-talking Democrat Party political operative with ties to some pretty unsavory people.  But in Linda Sarsour's case, it isn't the Russians we need to worry about, but rather Islamic Jihadists bent on defeating the West and changing America's culture.

Linda Sarsour, the co-founder of the Women's March, was on the front page of many New Jersey newspapers today -- in an Associated Press story, running her mouth about how many allies she intends to get elected to take power in the United States of America.  Her group is being funded so that they can hold a candidate training seminar in Las Vegas. 

Funny thing though, there was no comment from Governor Phil Murphy about the shadow cast by Linda Sarsour over the group he is set to speak before on Saturday.  Democrat congressional candidate Lisa Mandelblatt, an attorney in Westfield, had nothing to say about Sarsour either.  So let's refresh their memories:

Last summer, the New York Times (08/01/17) looked into some of the antics of the Linda Sarsour, co-founder of the Women's March organization:

The Times piece was titled -- "When Progressives Embrace Hate."  Times Editor Bari Weiss noted that the Women's March is connected to some very unsavory people but that groups like the NJEA (the state teachers' union) and Democrats like Governor Phil Murphy and candidate Lisa Mandelblatt don't seem to care.  Weiss wrote:

"The leaders of the Women’s March, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, have some chilling ideas and associations. Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke.

Start with Ms. Sarsour, by far the most visible of the quartet of organizers. It turns out that this 'homegirl in a hijab,' as one of many articles about her put it, has a history of disturbing views, as advertised by . . . Linda Sarsour.

There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: 'Nothing is creepier than Zionism,' she wrote in 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, like this from 2015: 'You’ll know when you’re living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?'  She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is 'not a real woman' and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Ali’s vagina — this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia."

Democrats failed to call out Linda Sarsour, the co-founder of the Women's March, even when she advocated for "jihad" against the democratically elected American government.

Yes, the co-founder of the Women's March actually called for "jihad" against the government of the United States of America.  And Democrats have remained politically-correct silent about it.  Instead, Democrat leaders have praised the Women's March and continue to do so -- lending their support to its leadership while American troops are in the field, engaged in a fight against jihadists.  Why have the Democrats and their candidates refused to comment on these threats of "jihad"?

Last year, Linda Sarsour -- a prominent Democrat Party activist and co-founder of the Women's March -- called for a "jihad" against the American government.  You can catch her act here:

Here's what she said:

"During a speech to the Islamic Society of North America convention in Chicago last weekend, Sarsour, a delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention who is an anti-Israel and pro-Sharia activist, made the startling call and also urged against 'assimilation.' 

'I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad,' she said. 'That we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or in the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.'

'Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate and please any other people and authority,' she said.

'Our obligation is to our young people, is to our women, to make sure our women are protected in our community. Our top priority and even higher than all those other priorities is to please Allah and only Allah,' she said."

Sarsour started off her call for "jihad" by praising Siraj Wahaj, who she described as her "favorite person in the room."  Wahaj is a controversial New York imam who has attracted the attention of American authorities for years.  Federal prosecutors included him on a 3½-page list of people they said "may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged, the Associated Press reported.

Since the election of Donald Trump as President, some Democrats appear to have gone completely loopy.  We believe that dissent is an American right, but "dissent" isn't "jihad".  When did the democratic concept of a "loyal opposition" morph into "jihad" -- a "holy war" to be waged by all means necessary?  And why are Democrats and their candidates too afraid to talk about it?

And here is another thing that they are afraid to comment on.   It was reported extensively in the media last year that the Women's March "honored" cop-killer Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur). 

Referring to the notorious cop-killer, who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in cold blood, as a "revolutionary" whose words "inspire us to keep resisting", the far-left Women' March organization issued a statement "celebrating" Ms. Chesimard's birthday.

The Star-Ledger reported on this:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/womens_march_wishes_nj_cop_killer_a_happy_birthday.html

So did the Save Jersey blog: 

Joanne Chesimard, the Black Liberation Army member hiding in Cuba after murdering New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973, has long eluded American justice and vexed New Jersey public officials as well as the public at large.

Donald Trump made headlines in June by spiking the Obama-era Cuba deal and citing the case of Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur) as one of the reasons.

Eyebrows were therefore raised on Sunday when the far-left Women’s March’s social media accounts CELEBRATED the notorious cop-killing fugitive’s birthday:

 “I think you guys accidentally left out the part where she shot a police officer in the face, escaped from prison, then fled to Cuba in this post,” responded one Facebook user.

Why haven't we heard from Democrats like Governor Phil Murphy and candidate Lisa Mandelblatt or the NJEA about this?  Why have they remained silent?

Why don't some Democrats appear to mind associating with radicals calling for "jihad" and cop-killers?  Do they consider these legitimate forms of "dissent"?  We are very interested in hearing what Democrats like Governor Phil Murphy and candidate Lisa Mandelblatt think about all this.

Trump/Sanders and the two Americas

Look at these two graphs.  They illustrate the two Americas.

The first shows the ratio between employee compensation to gross domestic product in the United States.  It is at its lowest point in history.

The second shows corporate profits.  They are at an all time high.

These graphs mark the end of America's social contract, according to economist Steen Jakobsen.  The agreement between the ruled and the rulers is broken and marks the rise of heretofore "fringe" candidates like populist Donald Trump and socialist Bernie Sanders.

This may be why new polling shows little taste for such measures as increasing the charitable deduction on taxes paid by wealthy individuals and corporations.  In a time when clearly the rich keep getting richer, voters have become skeptical of letting those rich direct how their potential tax dollars are spent instead of leaving it up to "democratically" elected legislative bodies.  New research by writers such as Jeremy Beer and others suggests why this is so -- and we will be examining Beer's findings in depth next week -- but for now, just consider this passage:

"Even though it sits on $42 billion in resources, and despite the fact that homelessness is one of its strategic areas of concern, the Gates Foundation will not provide direct assistance to any of the displaced people sleeping outside its $500 million Seattle headquarters... modern philanthropy is more concerned with problem solving than with people, more invested in 'high modernist ideology' than in particular human beings... contemporary philanthropy seems more enamored of generic anthropos than of the flesh-and-blood poor we encounter face-to-face. Indeed, twenty-first century philanthropy seems allergic to charity."

Many have noticed the deeply undemocratic, narcissistic nature of the twenty-first century rich.  They worship at the altar of a high church peculiar to themselves.  Charity becomes a form of self-worship. 

The celebrity Bono, reportedly worth $600 million, is a world-class tax avoidance artist who off-shores his business enterprises to avoid paying taxes while he operates a charity, called the One Campaign, that lobbies governments to use the tax money of working people to do what Bono wants done.  Meanwhile Bono links his for-profit musical tours with One Campaign initiatives and derives free positive publicity that translates into increased sales.  The One Campaign has been criticized for "using only 1.2% of their funds for charitable causes."  in response, the One Campaign admitted that it "does not provide programs on the ground but instead is an advocacy campaign for their funding."

They left out that they also make Washington, DC insiders rich with consulting fees.  One such insider is Sue McCue, the Rutgers University Governor who runs the Democrat Party SuperPAC that is responsible for collecting the heads of GOP Assemblywomen Donna Simons, Caroline Casagrande, and Mary Pat Angelini; and Assemblyman Sam Fiocchi. 

The One Campaign's latest initiative was the Electrify Africa Act, signed into law by President Obama on February 8, 2016.  Money from the One Campaign created an Astroturf  campaign that collected 360,000 names in support of the Act and a twitter-based lobbying effort aimed at Congress.  One Republican opponent of the legislation noted:  "American taxpayers spend more than $40 billion per year on foreign aid... Given America's out-of-control deficits and accumulated debt that threatened our economic future, I cannot justify American taxpayers building power plants and transmission lines in Africa with money we do not have, will have to borrow to get, and cannot afford to pay back."

It was also attacked from the Left, with one prominent critic writing in the Huffington Post that "the Electrify Africa Act has merely demonstrated that Congressmen neither know much about nor have a plan for Africa's energy industries."

Increasingly, average Americans are noticing how rich corporations devalue the democratic process and how their corporate charitable arms are just an extension of their public relations lobbying.  For example, the elected Legislature of the State of Georgia recently passed legislation designed to protect "religious freedom."  In response, some unelected but very rich Hollywood types protested what the elected Legislature had done.  Hollywood was joined by Big Business, in what has become an almost annual ritual (Arizona, Indiana...) to threaten and bully a Governor and convince average Americans that corporate money is more powerful than citizens' votes.  Reporting on the Georgia Governor's veto of a bill he had formerly supported, the Associated Press wrote: 

"Within days of its passage, Coca-Cola and other big-name Georgia companies joined prominent Hollywood figures urging Deal to reject the proposal. The Walt Disney Co., Marvel Studios and Salesforce.com threatened to take their business elsewhere. The NFL said it would be a factor in choosing whether Atlanta hosts the 2019 or 2020 Super Bowl."

Until last year, this same NFL called itself a tax-exempt non-profit organization and used its charity status as an excuse to get taxpayers to build its stadiums.  If anyone wants to know why people give up and quit voting, this sorry episode is it.

But something has happened and it shows itself in more ways than just Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  People are done putting up with it.  As Mike Griffin of the Georgia Baptist Mission Board said, "We're not going to quit.  We definitely don't want to have Gov. Deal listening to Wall Street and Hollywood over the citizens of the state of Georgia who expect him to support religious liberty."

A conservative Baptist attacking Wall Street?  Looks like the old Republican coalition is starting to break up.  When it does, we can't imagine who is going to support all those business tax breaks.