Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Uncategorized

NEVERCOHN!!!

Published

on

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering promoting his economic adviser Gary Cohn to the White House chief of staff position.

Cohn, the No. 2 at Goldman Sachs until his entry into the White House last year, represents the globalist wing of the Trump administration that declared war on Trump’s nationalist advisers, some of whom are no longer employed by the president.

Vanity Fair reported the story that Trump is considering tapping Cohn to replace General John Kelly, which Jack Posobiec first reported Tuesday. Vanity Fair writes:

“The situation remains fluid. Last night, for instance, three Republicans told me that Trump had offered the job to Gary Cohn. But in a conversation with Sean Hannity yesterday, Trump said he had not chosen Cohn, a person close to Hannity told me. Another source said Republicans have warned Trump that choosing Cohn, a New York Democrat, would cause a backlash in the party.”

While stock market gains under Trump have been somewhat attributed to Cohn’s presence in the White House — assuaging the fears of institutional investors that Trump is a radical anti-establishmentarian — recent stock market volatility undermines this argument from Cohn’s small base of supporters. Inflation is damaging the stock market as of Wednesday.

Trending: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan’s Envoy To Iranian Regime

Big League Politics reported on Gary Cohn’s Huffington Post editor daughter’s anti-Trump tweets, which she deleted.

I wrote an open letter to President Trump for The American Spectator in April outlining the case against Cohn, and the damage that Cohn’s elevation would pose for Trump with his base:

“Dear Mr. President,

As a supporter of yours since Day One, I feel the need to write to you. Stay true to populist nationalism, sir. I know you believe in it. It carried you over the goal line in the Midwest to victory.

If you stick with it, you can be a once-in-a-lifetime transformational political figure that unifies the Right and Left and saves America. If you don’t stick with it, you will lose your way. You MUST not appoint Gary Cohn to be White House chief of staff.

Your son-in-law Jared seems like a nice guy, but he is wrong about his friend Gary Cohn, the Goldman Sachs guy. I do not support Gary Cohn  in any way, shape, or form. Nobody on either side of the aisle wants Gary Cohn to be your chief of staff.

Most people are intimidated by you and won’t tell you to downgrade Jared’s role or to end the honeymoon with Cohn, because one of those guys is your son-in-law and the other is your economic adviser. That’s all well and good, but at a certain point someone needs to appeal to you not as a political careerist but as a plain old American: Jared is seizing a ton of power in the White House, and I don’t think he cares about the populist issues that carried you to victory. Use him on China, use him on the Middle East, fine. But he doesn’t need to run everything, and he shouldn’t. He’s your son-in-law.

I generally support Steve Bannon — as I worked for him at Breitbart — but this isn’t really about Steve, and he didn’t tell me to write this. This is about populist nationalism and about protecting people on the bottom and in the working classes. Steve happens to be the torchbearer of that movement. It is a movement that would not accept Gary Cohn as your chief of staff.

The Bernie people are disillusioned with the Democratic Party. There is going to be a mass exodus from that party. It’s happening right now, and it’s going to increase throughout this year. You stand to be the beneficiary of that exodus. That is, if you stick to populism. Populism is the ticket to break down the two-party system and unify people on both sides behind you, thus assuring your re-election. If you stick to it.

I know you’re miffed at your staff because you think the Obamacare repeal-and-replace failure was a big disappointment for you, but it wasn’t. Nobody liked that bill. No conservatives liked that bill. Everyone hated it, actually. It was the same thing as Obamacare but actually kind of worse in some ways. Rush Limbaugh told people on the air to rise up against you. That’s not good, Mr. President. You would have lost about a third of your supporters overnight. As a Trump supporter, I’m glad that bill failed. Convene some more meetings with Rand, come up with something better, and you’ll bounce back. Your approval rating went down during that period, because you were supporting a bad bill. That’s why it went down.

The opportunity is there for you to take advantage of populism. Breitbart pretty much let down Steve, by becoming really boring after the election and not providing air cover for the administration. But the rest of conservative media is KILLING it right now, and they love the populist nationalist approach. Look at Infowars, look at Ann Coulter, look at the Drudge Report, look at Rush Limbaugh, look at the many other conservative outlets (and trust me, there will be more popping up). Bannon’s popularity — or, rather, the popularity of the ideology he represents — is evident throughout all of it. And that was a pretty tough thing to pull off, considering that conservative media was not populist nationalist to begin with, and resisted your ideas in the beginning of the primaries.

That media will be there for you, Mr. President. If you stick to populism. But if you pass a new Obamacare and bomb Syria all the time, then your approval rating will go down again.

It is incumbent upon you, sir, to stick with populism and to continue to trust the people in your administration who know what it’s all about: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, Julia Hahn, and Ben Carson. If you abandon populism, then you will not really have any constituency anymore. Will you be an establishment Democrat? Will you be a neocon? How will people even think of you? You will be adrift.

You have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Mr. President, to unify the conservative right and the progressive left behind you, thus changing politics forever and draining the swamp on behalf of the people. That’s why I support you so strongly, apart from the fact that I think you’re a good guy personally. But you must stick to it, Mr. President. For my sake. For the people’s sake. And for your own sake. Stick to it.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Border Security

San Francisco Board of Elections to Allow Non-Citizens to Vote

Published

on

After two failed votes, the San Francisco Board of Elections has finally attained its goal of allowing illegal immigrants to vote in local elections.

“Monday the Department of Elections Issued Voter Registration Forms for non-citizens who are eligible to vote for members of the San Francisco Board of Education in the November 6th 2018 election,” says an ABC San Francisco report. “The measure passed in 2016 with a close vote of 54 percent to 46 percent following two failed previous attempts.”

San Francisco will be the first city in California to allow illegals to vote.

“We want to give immigrants the right to vote,” said Supervisor Norman Yee who represents District 7.

Immigrants already have the right to vote – legal ones, that is. But the political left continues to make a mockery of the American immigration system, spitting in the faces of everyone who comes to this country legally.

“As a parent myself and a former member of the SF Board of Education it is critical that the voices of all parents are at the table particularly those that have historically been denied a voice in the process,” said Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer who represents District 1.

Some sane people disagreed with the vote.

Harmeet Dhillon, Republican National Committeewoman from California voted against the measure in 2016, and spoke out against the latest vote.

“The reason I voted against it is that I think the right to vote is something that goes along with citizenship and should be,” Dhillon said. “I don’t think that people who have otherwise tenuous ties to San Francisco given their lack of legal residence should be making long term decisions about that structure and process.”

Now, the only requirement to vote in the San Francisco Board of Education election is being a resident of the city who is 18 years of age at the time of the election.

The measure allows illegals to vote through 2022, unless the city permanently adopts the ordinance.

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend