Connect with us

National

Revealed: Kay Granger’s Defense Donors – The Jim Jordan Connection!

Published

on

Kay Granger portrait with air craft carrier.

Fort Worth, TX – The Texas Liberty Journal

Kay Granger, a prominent figure in Texas politics, has found herself at the center of a political storm due to her recent vote for House Majority Leader Steve Scalise as Speaker of the House, rather than Tea Party supporter Jim Jordan. Granger, who represents Texas’ 12th Congressional District, is the Chair of the influential House Appropriations Committee. Her claim that her vote was an act of conscience, demonstrating her unwavering commitment to an “honorable man,” has raised eyebrows. But is there more to this story than meets the eye?

Born on January 18, 1943, Kay Granger will be 81 years old upon potential reelection in 2024, a fact that has raised questions about her long-standing political career and her capacity to adapt to the changing political landscape. Granger’s impressive political journey includes roles such as:

  • 1965: Graduated from Texas Wesleyan University with a B.S.
  • 1981-1989: Zoning Commission, Fort Worth, Texas
  • 1989-1991: City Council, Fort Worth, Texas
  • 1991-1995: Mayor of Fort Worth, Texas
  • 1997-Present: U.S. Representative from Texas’ 12th Congressional District

Granger’s entry into the world of national politics occurred in 1996 when Congressman Pete Geren announced his retirement. Both the Democratic and Republican parties actively courted Granger to run for his seat. At the time, Republicans were optimistic about their chances in Texas’s 12th congressional district, which had once been represented by Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright. However, legislative redistricting after the 1990 census had added areas with more Republican residents, changing the district’s political landscape.

Granger ran as a Republican candidate and secured victory with 56% of the vote against Democratic nominee Hugh Parmer, another former Fort Worth mayor. She went on to win reelection in 1998 and faced significant opposition only in 2000. In 2008, Granger defeated Democratic nominee Tracey Smith with a resounding 67% of the vote.

Throughout her political career, Granger has held influential positions, published a book titled What’s Right About America, Celebrating Our Nation’s Values in 2006, and been reelected to her sixth term in Congress. She also achieved the position of Conference Vice Chair, the fourth-ranking position among House Republicans. Granger’s notable roles have included chairing the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations, serving on the United States House Committee on Appropriations’s Subcommittee on Defense (as the first woman to do so), and the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Subcommittee. Additionally, she has served as a House Deputy Whip.

In the realm of national politics, Granger endorsed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary, showcasing her support for candidates who align with her political ideology.

Now, let’s revisit the recent controversy. Granger’s vote for Speaker of the House raised questions about whether her loyalty to donors in the military-industrial complex influenced her decision more than her “conscience.” Her top donors, eight out of the 15, are major players in the defense and aerospace industry, including L3Harris Technologies, Leidos Inc, Elbit Systems, Lockheed Martin, GE Aerospace, Textron Inc., Huntington Ingalls Industries, and Anduril Industries. These companies are no small players:

L3Harris Technologies:

With $17 billion in annual revenue, L3Harris Technologies is a significant player in the defense industry, positioning themselves as a “Trusted Disruptor in defense.”

Leidos Inc:

Based in Reston, Virginia, Leidos Inc specializes in defense, aviation, information technology, and biomedical research, contributing to various aspects of national defense.

Elbit Systems of America, LLC:

A wholly-owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems Ltd., they provide technology-based systems for diverse defense and commercial applications.

General Electric Aerospace:

GE Aerospace is a world-leading provider of jet engines, components, and integrated systems for both commercial and military aircraft.

Huntington Ingalls Industries:

HII is a global, all-domain defense provider, specializing in powerful ships and technologies that safeguard various domains.

Textron Inc:

A well-known multi-industry company, Textron Inc leverages its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial, and finance businesses to provide innovative products and services.

Anduril Industries:

This California-based defense contractor, founded by Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey and Founders Fund partner Trae Stephens, focuses on identifying problems and rapidly delivering solutions.

This controversy underscores the ongoing debate about the role of campaign contributions and the influence of interest groups in shaping the decisions of elected officials. As Granger’s age and extensive political history come under scrutiny in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, citizens of Texas’ 12th Congressional District and political observers across the nation will undoubtedly be watching closely to see how these factors will impact Granger’s future in American politics.

On the other hand …

Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican Representative and Tea Party supporter, has been a vocal advocate for military spending cuts, leaving no stone unturned as he boldly states that “everything” is on the table, including what he terms as ‘woke’ policies. As the chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Jordan has announced a significant probe into nearly a dozen unauthorized record disclosures made by the U.S. Air Force. As a founding member of the hardline conservative Freedom Caucus, Jordan’s approach to military assistance and foreign policy is notably different from Granger’s. He has consistently voted against various bills offering assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in February 2022. However, he did support an early 2022 proposal to send certain equipment to Kyiv as part of a lend-lease deal. Jordan’s positions and actions present a contrasting perspective on critical matters related to defense and foreign policy.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Steve Scalise’s association with certain donors sheds light on his financial ties. His “F” rated Liberty Score from Conservative Review suggests a misalignment with the conservative base. Scalise’s top donors, including The GEO Group, Inc., which invests in private prisons and mental health facilities, healthcare companies like Ochsner Health System, law firms, banking companies, large construction companies, and energy giants such as Valero Energy, highlight the diversity of interests contributing to his campaign funds. These associations offer a glimpse into the financial influences that may have played a role in his political decisions and priorities.

Election

The Deep State’s Endgame: Tuesday, November 5

Published

on

Trump vs Harris - Endgame

Kamala Harris has now been installed as the Democratic candidate for the 2024 presidential election, effectively replacing Joe Biden without a single vote cast by the American people. In normal times, this usurp of democracy would send shockwaves through the political landscape, raising questions about the integrity of the democratic process and the lengths to which the deep state will go to maintain control.

The Quiet Removal of Biden

The signs were there for months, if not years. Joe Biden, already struggling under the weight of his responsibilities as president, had become an increasing liability for the Democratic Party. Whispers about his cognitive decline had grown louder, and public appearances that once showcased a capable leader had turned into fodder for criticism and doubt. But once the decline was presented in full view of the American public at the debate with Donald Trump, the power brokers knew that the people would not accept the delusion of another Biden victory … the gig was up. So the decision was made behind closed doors to remove Biden from the ballot.

The official story presented by the party is one of a natural and necessary transition—a passing of the torch to the next generation of leadership. But the reality is far more concerning. Biden’s removal from the 2024 ticket was not the result of a fair and open democratic process. Instead, it was orchestrated by party elites and deep state operatives who feared that a Biden campaign, in light of his declining health and public perception, would be an insurmountable obstacle to retaining power. Presenting a Trump victory would become more important than maintaining any perception of democracy.

Kamala Harris: The Deep State’s Choice

With Biden out of the picture, Kamala Harris was swiftly installed as the Democratic candidate. This decision was made for a variety of reasons, most importantly, money. They needed a pseudo-legitimate excuse to take the campaign money from Biden. Choosing Harris would make it an easier sell to the public. Harris, who has consistently polled lower than Biden among key demographics, was not chosen by the people but by a select group of power brokers who believe she is the key to continuing their control over the nation’s future.

Harris’s installation as the candidate was the result of months of careful planning and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. The deep state, recognizing the need for a candidate who could be more easily controlled and who would continue to advance its agenda, saw Harris as the perfect figurehead. While the Democrat party needed her to secure the money. With her in place, they could ensure that the policies and strategies implemented during Biden’s presidency would continue unchallenged.

Rigging the Input, Not the Machines

In past elections, they used the real-time analytics from the voting machines to determine the number of fraudulent ballots they would need to bring in. In 2024, they will no longer concern themselves with analytics or trying to beat Trump by a “plausible” number of votes, they will simply flood the system with as many fraudulent votes as they can muster … right from the start. The goal is to preclude the possibility of Trump ever being in the lead. By controlling the flow and distribution of ballots, those behind the scenes can achieve the desired outcome without ever touching a voting machine.

This strategy involves a complex web of tactics, including the use of mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and ballot harvesting. But at the core of this approach lies a critical component: building a vast pool of potential voters whose identities can be exploited to cast fraudulent ballots.

The deep state and its allies have embarked on an aggressive campaign to expand the pool of registered voters, from which they can later draw to manufacture the ballots needed to tip the scales in their favor. This effort is far-reaching, targeting various segments of the population through tailored strategies designed to maximize registration numbers—often without the individual’s full awareness of how their information might be used.

  1. College Campuses: One of the prime targets for this voter registration drive is college campuses. With millions of students scattered across the country, many of whom are first-time voters, college campuses present a fertile ground for expanding the voter rolls. Registration drives on campuses are often presented as civic engagement initiatives, but behind the scenes, they serve a dual purpose. By registering students en masse, many of whom are transient and move frequently, the deep state creates a pool of voters who may be less likely to follow up on their ballots or even be aware that a ballot was cast in their name. When it’s all over, the media will report how remarkable, and exciting, that so many young people are choosing to engage in politics … but it’s all an illusion.
  2. Healthcare Providers and Elderly Patients: Another key tactic involves enlisting the help of doctors and healthcare providers, particularly those who care for elderly patients. These patients, many of whom may be in assisted living facilities or suffering from cognitive decline, become prime targets for voter registration. The HHS now has specific codes that Doctors must use to note that they asked their patients if they wanted to register to vote. Doctors are now encouraged to assist their patients in registering to vote, often under the guise of ensuring their voices are heard. However, once these elderly individuals are registered, their ballots can be easily manipulated or even cast without their knowledge, especially if they are no longer mentally capable of voting on their own.
  3. Targeting Youth Through Digital Platforms: Young people, who are more likely to engage with digital content than traditional forms of media, are another focus of the registration campaign. Through targeted ads on platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, the deep state and its allies run campaigns that encourage young people to register to vote. These ads are often framed as non-partisan get-out-the-vote efforts, but the real goal is to flood the voter rolls with names that can later be used to generate fraudulent ballots. The transient nature of youth voters, many of whom may register in one state and move to another, creates opportunities for multiple ballots to be cast in their names across different states.
  4. Mass Mailings and Door-to-Door Canvassing: In addition to digital and healthcare-focused efforts, there is a concerted push to register voters through mass mailings and door-to-door canvassing. These methods, while seemingly innocuous, have the potential to generate vast numbers of registrations that can later be exploited. Canvassers, often working for non-profit organizations with ties to the deep state, are trained to encourage individuals to register, sometimes using misleading or deceptive tactics. Once registered, these voters’ information is fed into a database that can be accessed to create the ballots needed to sway the election.

Manipulating the Ballot Process

Once the pool of voters has been sufficiently expanded, the next step is sending out ballots in mass. Harvesters will then collect the ballots, fill them out, and then send them in. The result will be what appears to be an organic, legitimate set of ballots fed into the system. For the “dead people” vote, those ballots are likely to be printed and completed already, and sitting in a warehouse, ready to be fed into the system as early voting. On election night, Harris will immediately jump to the top of the results as the mail in ballots will be calculated first.

As the 2024 election approaches, the stakes could not be higher. A second Trump presidency would pose an existential threat to the deep state and its allies. With Trump back in office, the risk of exposure and dismantling of the deep state’s operations becomes all too real. For this reason, every possible measure is being taken to ensure that Kamala Harris not only wins the election but does so convincingly.

But the deep state faces a new challenge: how to secure a Harris victory in a way that doesn’t trigger widespread backlash or expose the methods used to achieve it. The removal of Biden from the ticket was a calculated risk, but it also opened the door to questions and doubts about the legitimacy of Harris’s candidacy. To counter this, the deep state is doubling down on its efforts to control the narrative and suppress any dissenting voices.

Democrats “Contingency Plan”

In the event that all attempts to manipulate the 2024 election fail and Donald Trump wins a second term, the Democrats have prepared a contingency plan that centers around invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the “Insurrection Clause.” This clause disqualifies former government officials from holding office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Democrats argue that Trump’s alleged role in inciting the events of January 6, 2021, which they classify as an insurrection, makes him ineligible to serve as president again. This strategy is viewed as a last-resort effort to prevent Trump from assuming office on January 20, 2025, should he win the election.

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has been a vocal proponent of this plan, warning that the invocation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on January 6, 2025, could potentially lead to civil unrest or even civil war. Raskin suggests that Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, were a direct attempt to undermine democracy and that preventing him from returning to the White House is not only justified but necessary to protect the nation. In anticipation of the potential backlash, Raskin has called for Democratic members of Congress to be given bodyguards, highlighting the seriousness of the situation and the possible violent response from Trump supporters.

For Raskin’s plan to succeed, it would require the support of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This presents a significant challenge, as achieving such a majority would necessitate substantial bipartisan cooperation, particularly from Republican members of Congress. With the current composition of Congress—212 Democrats and 220 Republicans in the House, and 47 Democrats, 4 Independents voting with Democrats, and 49 Republicans in the Senate—Raskin’s plan hinges on whether enough Republicans, particularly those labeled as “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only), would be willing to join Democrats in disqualifying Trump.

This contingency plan has reportedly been in the works for several years, reflecting a broader strategy by some within the Democratic Party to ensure that Trump does not return to the White House under any circumstances. This approach underscores the deep divisions within the country and the lengths to which some are willing to go to prevent Trump’s re-election.

The Implications for American Democracy

As the nation heads into the 2024 election, the American people must ask themselves whether they are willing to accept a candidate chosen for them by elites, or whether they will demand a return to a system where the people’s voice truly matters. The deep state has shown its hand, and now it is up to the citizens of this country to decide what kind of future they want for themselves and for generations to come.

In the end, the 2024 election will not just be a contest between two candidates but a battle between good vs evil. The choice before the American people is not just about who will occupy the White House but whether they are willing to stand up against a system that seeks to control and manipulate them. Kamala Harris may have been installed as the candidate, but the power to determine the future still lies in the hands of the people—if they are willing to take it. The concept of being “too big to rig” is now more critical than ever. By overwhelming the system with a massive turnout of freedom-loving MAGA supporters, the American people can push back against the deep state’s efforts, ensuring that no amount of manipulation or rigging can silence their collective voice. The future of the republic depends on it.

Continue Reading

Election

Kamala Harris’s Record on Marijuana: A Tale of Hypocrisy in the Pursuit of Power

Published

on

Kamala Harris smoking a joint in front of a chain gang

As Vice President Kamala Harris steps into the 2024 presidential race as the Democratic nominee, her record as California’s top prosecutor has once again come under intense scrutiny. The very policies she once enforced, sending nearly 2,000 individuals (mostly black men) to state prisons on marijuana-related charges, starkly contrast with her current position advocating for marijuana legalization. This glaring inconsistency has raised questions about the sincerity of her political evolution and the implications it holds for her potential presidency.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

During her tenure as California’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2016, Kamala Harris oversaw the prosecution of 1,974 individuals for marijuana-related offenses, according to a report by the Washington Free Beacon. These prosecutions were part of a broader enforcement strategy that disproportionately affected minority communities, a reality that Harris herself has acknowledged in more recent years. Yet, despite this acknowledgment, the disconnect between her actions as a prosecutor and her rhetoric as a politician cannot be ignored.

Harris has since positioned herself as a champion of criminal justice reform, aligning with President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign promises to end incarceration for drug use and decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. This pivot, however, raises questions about whether her newfound stance is a genuine change of heart or a calculated move to align with the progressive wing of her party.

A History of Harsh Enforcement

Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General extends beyond marijuana prosecutions. She also defended controversial cases, such as that of prosecutor Robert Murray, who falsified a confession in a 2015 case. Despite the dismissal of the indictment due to this falsification, Harris’s administration appealed the decision, arguing that only physical brutality could justify such a dismissal. This decision was widely criticized, highlighting a troubling aspect of her prosecutorial approach: a steadfast defense of convictions, even when they were tainted by misconduct.

Moreover, while Harris did mandate body cameras for officers working directly with her office, this policy did not extend to all law enforcement officers across the state. This selective application of accountability measures further underscores the inconsistencies in her approach to criminal justice.

The Hypocrisy of Marijuana Prosecutions

The most glaring contradiction in Kamala Harris’s record lies in her personal history with marijuana. In a 2019 interview, she openly admitted to having smoked marijuana in her youth, even laughing about it. This admission, juxtaposed against her role in incarcerating nearly 2,000 people for similar behavior, has not gone unnoticed.

During the 2019 Democratic primary debates, Harris was confronted by then-Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who accused her of hypocrisy. “She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard stated, referencing Harris’s own admission. The exchange was a pivotal moment in the debate, bringing Harris’s prosecutorial record into the spotlight and raising doubts about her commitment to the principles she now espouses.

Harris’s response to the accusation was dismissive, framing the criticism as mere political attacks. “This is the work I’ve done. Am I going to take hits? Of course,” she said. Yet, this response failed to address the core issue: the discrepancy between her past actions and current positions.

The Impact on Minority Communities

The war on drugs, particularly marijuana enforcement, has long been criticized for its disproportionate impact on minority communities. Harris’s record as Attorney General is no exception. The nearly 2,000 marijuana-related incarcerations under her watch were part of a broader pattern of punitive measures that disproportionately targeted African American and Latino communities.

Harris has since acknowledged these disparities, noting that Black Americans are four times more likely than white Americans to be arrested for marijuana possession. However, acknowledging the problem does not erase the impact of her past actions. The individuals who were incarcerated under her watch, many of whom were likely to be young men of color, have had their lives irrevocably altered by the criminal justice system. For these individuals and their families, Harris’s shift in position may seem too little, too late.

A Convenient Evolution?

As Harris positions herself as a progressive leader in the fight for criminal justice reform, it is essential to question the sincerity of this evolution. Her record suggests that her commitment to reform may be more about political expediency than genuine conviction. After all, her shift on marijuana policy only emerged as the political winds changed, particularly as she sought the Democratic nomination in 2020 and now, the presidency in 2024.

Erik Altieri, the Executive Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), described Harris’s stance on marijuana as “problematic,” arguing that her views on the drug would not qualify as progressive. Indeed, while Harris now champions marijuana legalization, her past actions tell a different story—one of a prosecutor who vigorously enforced laws that disproportionately harmed the very communities she now claims to protect.

The Political Ramifications

As the Democratic nominee for president, Kamala Harris faces a significant challenge in reconciling her past with her present. While she has successfully navigated criticism thus far, her record as California’s Attorney General remains a potent issue that could alienate key voter demographics, particularly young voters and minority communities who are increasingly supportive of marijuana legalization and broader criminal justice reform.

Donald Trump and his campaign will likely seize upon this vulnerability, painting Harris as a hypocrite who cannot be trusted to lead on issues of justice and equality. For voters who are disillusioned with the political establishment, Harris’s perceived inconsistency may reinforce their skepticism about her candidacy.

As Harris campaigns for the highest office in the land, these contradictions will undoubtedly continue to be a focal point of discussion. Whether voters will ultimately see her evolution as a sign of growth or a matter of political convenience remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: Kamala Harris’s past will be a central issue in the 2024 presidential race, and the American people deserve a clear and honest accounting of her record before they cast their votes.

Continue Reading

National

Wendy Bell Exposes Busloads of Supporters Hidden from Public View at Kamala Harris’ Campaign Stop

Published

on

Kamala laughs at buses in airplane hanger

On Friday, August 16, 2024, Wendy Bell, a conservative radio talk show host with a growing national audience, dropped a political bombshell on her program. Bell revealed that a source close to her claimed that a major cleanup operation at Pittsburgh International Airport was underway. But this wasn’t just any typical maintenance. According to the source, the airport was making space in an airplane hanger for an influx of tour buses filled with supporters for Vice President Kamala Harris, all in a bid to manufacture the appearance of a local groundswell of support during her upcoming campaign stop in Pittsburgh.

Bell, whose no-holds-barred commentary has made her a favorite among conservative listeners, shared the details with her audience, raising questions about the authenticity of Harris’s public support. The source, described by Bell as a friend who keeps their own plane in the hanger in question, stated that the airport hangar needed to be cleared out, with all aircraft moved outside to make room for the incoming buses.

The Allegation: Smoke and Mirrors in Pittsburgh?

According to Bell’s account, the operation was carefully planned and executed to shield the presence of the tour buses. The idea was to create the impression that Harris had a natural, enthusiastic base of support waiting for her in Pittsburgh. The organizers purportedly feared that if the buses were visible, it would spark questions about whether the crowd was artificially bolstered, rather than genuinely local.

Bell’s broadcast struck a nerve with her audience, many of whom are already skeptical of mainstream narratives and the political establishment. The host, who has earned a reputation for uncovering stories that the mainstream media often ignores, posed a question that resonated with many conservatives: How much of the public support for Kamala Harris is real, and how much of it is staged?

Vice President Harris’s Campaign and Pittsburgh: A Key Stop in 2024

According to the Pennsylvania Star Capital Newspaper, “Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will kick off a bus tour of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh on Sunday… It will be the pair’s first campaign appearance in western Pennsylvania, after Harris introduced Walz at a rally in Philadelphia on Aug. 6. They’ll be joined by their spouses Doug Emhoff and Gwen Walz.

The campaign said the tour would  focus on “meeting voters where they are” in community settings, with stops to include canvassing kick off events and local retail stops.”

A Pattern of Manufactured Support?

This isn’t the first time allegations of manufactured support have surfaced surrounding the Harris campaign. In fact, recent online accusations suggest the campaign may be using artificial intelligence (AI) to alter photos and videos of their rallies, further inflating the perception of her popularity. Several eagle-eyed internet sleuths have pointed out suspicious anomalies in images and footage from Harris’s events.

Experts who have examined these visuals say they display telltale signs of AI-generated artifacts, such as individuals with multiple limbs, cloned figures in the crowd, and unnaturally squished faces – common glitches in AI-manipulated imagery. These findings have fueled speculation that the Harris campaign might be using digital manipulation to bolster its appearance of widespread support, raising even more questions about the authenticity of the campaign’s public image.

Harris Campaign Response: Silence So Far

As of this writing, neither the Harris campaign nor Pittsburgh International Airport has publicly addressed Bell’s allegations. The vice president’s team has remained focused on her Pittsburgh event, emphasizing her message of economic revitalization and equality.

The lack of response from Harris’s camp has only fueled speculation. On social media, the story has already gained traction, with conservative commentators and influencers picking up on Bell’s broadcast and calling for transparency from the Harris campaign.

The Bigger Picture: Media, Trust, and the 2024 Election

Bell’s story is likely to reverberate beyond Pittsburgh. The 2024 election is shaping up to be one of the most contentious in recent memory, with the political landscape more polarized than ever. Allegations like these – whether true or not – have the potential to sway public opinion and deepen existing divides.

In an era where trust in institutions, including the media, is at an all-time low, stories like Bell’s gain traction because they tap into a broader sense of skepticism. Conservatives, in particular, have grown increasingly wary of what they see as a coordinated effort by the mainstream media and political elites to control the narrative.

Wendy Bell, known for her bold and often controversial takes, has positioned herself as a voice for those who feel disenfranchised by the current system. Her latest revelation about the Harris campaign will likely embolden her supporters, while drawing ire from her critics.

One thing is clear: Wendy Bell’s revelation has opened up yet another front in the battle for the 2024 election. As both sides gear up for what promises to be an intense campaign season, stories like these will continue to shape the narrative – and the outcome – of this critical race.

Continue Reading

Trending