Pro-Globalist College Radicals a Product of IB?

This is how CBS reported the protests over the weekend at Berkeley.

So, these protestors cover their faces, they are in fact recruited and the pool of students highly agree on issues like being anti-American. pro-globalism and anti-war. It was taught to them in public education beginning as early as Kindergarten. (by the way, ‘kindergarten’ is a German word).

Image result for international baccalaureate  IBO

So, what is the point here?  Read this summary as a primer.

Students enrolled in the International Baccalaureate program are taught they are elitists and exceptional over other student programs such at Advanced Placement.

High schoolers who have embraced IB’s global educational philosophy can elect to earn an IB diploma, which is recognized by colleges around the world.

IB is primarily an international program – there are nearly 4,000 IB schools in close to 150 countries, according to the program’s website.  

Notable alumni (per Wikipedia)

***

Related reading: International Baccalaureate Undermines U.S. Founding Principles

It’s time to re-affirm our founding and end the use of taxpayer funds for the IB program.

In the United States, criticism of the IBDP has centered on the vague claim that it is anti-American, according to parents anonymously quoted in The New York Times, who objected to the program’s funding from UNESCO in its early years. The base cost is considered to be higher than other programs.[81] In 2012, the school board in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, voted to eliminate all IB programmes in the district because of low participation and high costs.[83]

UNESCO, a United Nations division is in charge of your child’s education and is that okay with you?

Its declared purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural reforms in order to increase universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.

Although controversial, UNESCO’s aim is “to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information”. Other priorities of the organization include attaining quality Education For All and lifelong learning, addressing emerging social and ethical challenges, fostering cultural diversity, a culture of peace and building inclusive knowledge societies through information and communication.

So, read deeper on this as a summary white paper gives you great help on the topic and further explains just what is happening in education and the genesis of the willing demonstrators we see across college campuses today. Thanks to the ‘Truth about IB’ for all the years of hard work, research and truth.

Obama Hid Climate Change Money in all Agencies

Primer: Even the Pentagon and General Mattis are part of the Climate Change supporters.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.  

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.” More here from ProPublica.

Image result for obama white house climate change

*** Obama’s Climate Change policy is here.

In November 2014, President Obama announced the United States’ intention to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to reduce carbon pollution and strengthen resilience in developing countries. The U.S. contribution builds on a bipartisan history of U.S. leadership to support climate action and will leverage public and private finance to avoid some of the most catastrophic risks of climate change. The strong U.S. pledge helped increase the number and ambition of other countries’ contributions and our leadership helped propel initial capitalization of the fund to over $10 billion, a threshold seen by stakeholders as demonstrating serious donor commitment.

*** Image result for obama white house climate change

To Protect Climate Money, Obama Stashed It Where It’s Hard to Find

Bloomberg: President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.

There is no single list of those programs or their cost, because President Barack Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did. The goal was to get all agencies to take climate into account, and also make those programs hard to disentangle, according to former members of the administration. In some cases, the idea was to make climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.

“Much of the effort in the Obama administration was to mainstream climate change,” said Jesse Keenan, who worked on climate issues with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and now teaches at Harvard University. He said all federal agencies were required to incorporate climate-change plans into their operations.

The Obama administration’s approach will be tested by Trump’s first budget request to Congress, an outline of which is due to be released Thursday. Trump has called climate change a hoax; last November he promised to save $100 billion over eight years by cutting all federal climate spending. His budget will offer an early indication of the seriousness of that pledge — and whether his administration is able to identify programs that may have intentionally been called anything but climate-related.

Read more: Trump Said to Drop Climate Change From Environmental Reviews

The last time the Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies had climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending from fiscal 2008 through 2013 alone.

But that figure could well be too low. The Obama administration didn’t always include “climate” in program names, said Alice Hill, director for resilience policy on Obama’s National Security Council.

“Given the relationship that existed with Congress on the issue of climate change, you will not readily find many programs that are entitled ‘climate change,’” Hill, who is now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said in an interview. At the Department of Defense, for example, anything with the word climate would have been “a target in the budget process,” she said.

The range of climate programs is vast, stretching across the entire government.

The Department of Agriculture created “climate hubs” to help farmers and ranchers cope with extreme weather. The Department of Health and Human Services began analyzing the effects of climate change on occupational safety. The Bureau of Reclamation started a program called “West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments,” measuring changes to water supply and demand. The Bureau of Indian Affairs created the Tribal Climate Resilience Program. The Agency for International Development created a program to help “glacier-dependent mountain areas” deal with the risk of those glaciers melting.

In other cases, agencies expanded existing programs to account for global warming. In 2012, the Federal Highway Administration made climate-adaptation projects eligible for federal aid. Last year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $1 billion through its Community Development Block Grant program to projects protecting against climate change-related natural disasters.

Meanwhile, a handful of lesser-known offices saw their funding increase while Obama was in office. The budget for NASA’s Earth Science program increased 50 percent, to $1.8 billion. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is mandated by Congress to report every four years on the state of climate change, rose 45 percent to $2.6 billion. At the National Science Foundation, the geosciences program almost doubled to $1.3 billion.

Republican Demands

Republicans noticed, and tried to force the administration to offer a tally of climate funding. Last December, senior House Republicans sent a letter to Obama’s budget director, demanding that his office report how much federal money had gone toward climate programs in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

Any cuts may face opposition in Congress, as Democrats and some Republicans support the spending, especially that to help communities withstand floods, hurricanes or droughts associated with climate change. Wednesday, a group of 17 Republicans announced their support for climate science — and policy measures to address it.

“Budget cuts to programs — or elimination of entire agencies — designed to help stem the costs of climate change will only hurt ranchers, agriculture producers, and coastal communities already experiencing the impacts of this global challenge,” Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the Council on Environmental Quality in Obama’s White House, said by email.

‘Gravy Train’

Some in Trump’s party now urge him to use his authority to find those programs, and take them apart.

“The Trump Administration needs to defund the entire apparatus of the climate change federal funding gravy train,” said Marc Morano, a former Republican staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “In order to dismantle the climate establishment, agencies and programs throughout the federal government need to be targeted.”

“The climate funding has spread to almost every aspect of the federal government with sometimes wacky results,” said Morano, who doubts global warming and runs the website climatedepot.com. He cited one example of a Department of Transportation query about the link between climate change and fatal car crashes.

Others argue that the spread of climate programs throughout the federal government simply reflects the evolving nature of the risk.

“It is irresponsible not to examine the possibilities and understand our sensitivity to them,” said Ed Link, a former director of research and development for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who led the forensic analysis of Hurricane Katrina’s effect on New Orleans. If federal agencies stop doing that work, he said by email, “shame on them.”

Opposing Trump Admin, When Documents Matter

Well we have quite an army of Marxists and progressives to watch in the next two years and it will be a full time job.

There are names such as:

Tom Steyer, David Brock, Obama, George Soros, Keith Ellison, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Van Jones, Gara LaMarche, CAIR, John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, Elizabeth Warren, Donald Sussman and Bernie Sanders. There are of course more as one name leads to others and thousands of associated progressive organizations. Don’t be fooled that your job as a ‘Constitutional Originalist’ and conservative is over, that is hardly the case. We have already seen their mission in action.

 

So, why all this as a warning system?

 

For the full document as crafted for meeting in November of 2016: Progressive Orgs vs Trump

For what David Brock has planned, it is called impeachment and the documents are here. Confidential David Brock.

 

As reported by the Huffington Post, the progressives are re-tooling and are in it for the long game.

Here are five key elements of the concerted effort we must undertake to stop President-elect Trump from wreaking havoc on our communities, while building the alternative economic vision and power we need to win in the future.

First, we must wage sustained collective action. Within 24 hours of Trump’s victory, thousands of protestors had taken to the streets. Their statement was powerful and immediate. And it should be clear to every progressive that the next four years will require sustained collective action—and, often, action that means putting our bodies on the line to defend ourselves and others. Social movements from the abolitionists to the suffragettes to the civil rights movement to the immigrant rights movement have time and again changed the course of American history. Now we are called to come together again to demonstrate the moral dimension of the imminent attacks on immigrants, Muslims, women, LGBTQ people, indigenous people, and more.

This collective action will, and should, be led primarily by those who are directly affected by the dangerous rhetoric and proposals of Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell. But it will also require solidarity and engagement from all progressives—when called upon to stand with, and sometimes get arrested with, our brothers and sisters, those with privileges like whiteness, US citizenship, maleness, and economic security must be willing to put ourselves on the line. Hashtag solidarity will not suffice—nor will simply coming to a protest every few months after a particularly horrific event. Progressives need to show up—in person, and with regularity.

Those with financial resources will also need to open their wallets to help support grassroots efforts—whether it be philanthropists writing checks or middle- and working-class people giving monthly contributions to organizations that are building strong memberships to wage strategic campaigns.

Mass action should also be channeled out of, and into, existing social movement organizations as much as possible. Spontaneous “movement moments” like this week are inspiring and important. But to be effective in the medium and long term, they must build engagement and membership in grassroots organizations that can sustain mass action.

Second, we will need expert legislative maneuvering. The scariest ideas of Donald Trump and his alt-right idea factory will quickly become legislative proposals. Progressives will need to ensure that their champions, as well as courageous moderates, are prepared to use every tool at their disposal to prevent these reckless bills from becoming law. Many are rightly pointing to the tool of the filibuster in the Senate, which will be a critical tool for blocking legislation that will put communities in danger. And surely, there is no Democratic figure more critical than Charles Schumer, the leader of the Senate Democrats, right now. But there are myriad other parliamentary procedures at legislators’ disposal to slow down the legislative process—both to provide more time for public scrutiny and debate and to simply block dangerous ideas.

And progressive legislators and progressive organizations must use whatever openings they have to invite our communities into the process. This will, no doubt, include efforts to have constituents make phone calls and send emails to their legislators. But it needs to go further. Resistance on Capitol Hill must be rooted in the lived experiences of the people who Mr. Trump and his acolytes will attack. Progressive organizations and legislators must invite these people to be at the forefront of hearings and targeted actions.

And, where Republicans try to prevent these fora from emerging within the halls of Congress, progressives must create alternative fora outside formal committee hearings to elevate people’s stories. To re-frame the debate on issues like immigration from the toxic terms that Mr. Trump will seek to deploy, progressives must elevate the moving stories of our communities—and let our resistance emanate from there. Similarly, in response to the anti-worker agenda that is surely coming, progressives must put working-class and low-income people’s faces and experiences at the forefront of legislative resistance.
Third, progressives will need to flex our legal muscles and undertake aggressive litigation. The next four years will bring a torrent of attacks on civil liberties and basic rights that progressives hold dear. While mass action will be critical for changing the public conversation on policy debates and confronting lawmakers with the consequences of their votes, and legislative maneuvers (particularly in the Senate) will be critical for blocking the worst of Trump’s agenda, it will not be sufficient to prevent all of his bad ideas from becoming law.
Here, legal tools will be critical. Progressives must use all the tools at our disposal to challenge the legality of clearly unconstitutional proposals that will emerge from President-elect Trump’s White House, including the expansion of the surveillance and national security state that he will seek to deploy. Already, Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union has made this strategy clear, posting a statement titled, “If Donald Trump Implements His Proposed Policies, We’ll See Him in Court.” Other prominent progressive legal organizations are similarly girding themselves up for the fights ahead.
The legal path will, of course, be made more difficult by a Supreme Court that will almost certainly tilt conservative next year. But that does not make litigation less important. In recent years, progressives fought back successfully against the worst attempts by legislatures across the country to attack immigrants, women, and labor unions. Our side has some of the best legal minds in the country, and we need them now more than ever.
Fourth, progressives must play offense at the state and local level. We must avoid being on permanent defense. Particularly in states, cities, and counties controlled by Democrats, progressives must assert ourselves and show the promise of our ideals and the policies that stem from them. Part one of this strategy must be to protect those who are most vulnerable to the effects of Trump’s domestic policy agenda—immigrants, Muslims, women, and the poor. The litmus test of a truly progressive city, county, or state will be whether it develops a comprehensive strategy for protecting its people from an out-of-control immigration and law enforcement infrastructure and attacks on the social safety net that keeps millions of Americans alive.

But, to win the next decade, progressives must also articulate an alternative vision for our country. While we hold the line against an agenda framed as economic populism. This cannot be a Clintonian pitch to the “middle class,” which embraced much of neoliberal ideology and trusted technocrats to solve our economic problems. Instead, it must be rooted in a radical critique of power, a commitment to working-class and low-income people, and the dedication to use government as a vehicle for grassroots democracy.

In practice, that means policies that, for instance, rein in corporate power and the stranglehold of large corporations and the wealthy on our politics while empowering workers to assert their rights and police and criminal justice reform that protects the constitutional rights of all people while dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. And it also means bold policy experimentation that deepens democracy by inviting residents into new participatory spaces with real decision-making that incentivize engagement. In the next four years, our municipalities and states must be vibrant laboratories for democracy and spaces from which we can begin to imagine a more inclusive economy—one that prioritizes the rights and needs of working-class people and offers a strengthened safety net that protects us all.

Fifth, we must build grassroots political power. As we take to the streets and organize, progressives must also plot a path forward to channel all of the incredible grassroots spirit of resistance into actual political power building. Part of that will be achieved through the work of building larger bases of membership in grassroots organizations across the country—particularly those with political arms that can endorse and support candidates who share our values. But it must also include a concerted effort to build the ranks of truly progressive candidates and elected officials—and more progressive party institutions.

Some have reflected in recent days about the need for the Democratic Party to reinvent itself. Surely, the Democrats must learn that part of the enthusiasm gap that plagued the Clinton candidacy stemmed from the failure to articulate a vision that highlighted how our system has failed working people, how we must take on the role of big money, how we must invite people back to democracy at every level instead of relying on a neoliberal technocracy, and how black lives must be at the center of our politics.

Others are reflecting on the need to challenge the two-party system in this country. On this front, the best source of hope is the Working Families Party (WFP), which now operates across ten states and the District of Columbia and lent considerable grassroots muscle to the remarkable candidacy of Bernie Sanders. In states like New York, the WFP has identified, cultivated, and bolstered progressive stars running for office at every level of government—from town councilmembers to county legislators to the Mayor of our nation’s largest city. Growth in the geographic reach, membership, and resources of the WFP will be critical for continuing to build this leadership pipeline and holding Democrats accountable to the truly progressive vision that we need to win the next decade.

One key battleground for this political fight will be the issue of voting rights. On the national level and in red states, we will see concerted efforts to restrict access to the ballot for communities of color, immigrants, and low-income people. We must defend against this wherever it occurs—through all of the tactics mentioned above. But progressives must also go on offense where we can to expand suffrage and make registering to vote and casting a ballot as easy as possible. This is intrinsically the right thing to do. It will also prove instrumentally valuable, as we seek to build progressive political power.

Finally, it bears mention that some of these tactics may bear a resemblance to those that conservatives have deployed over the past decade—after all, litigation and legislative obstructionism have been the hallmark of efforts to block President Obama’s agenda since 2009. But there is a key difference: our way forward will, and must, be rooted in radical empathy—that is, a commitment to try to put ourselves in the shoes of others who are under attack. Put differently, radical empathy in this context means that we understand attacks on the lives and livelihoods of others as attacks on ourselves. It means that we will put our bodies and our professional lives on the line to protect our neighbors and their families.

Such empathy also means listening to and understanding the pain and alienation in communities across the country that tilted towards Donald Trump—especially white working-class people who voted for him because they have seen their livelihoods crumble and come to conclude that the system is rigged against them. Progressives must, of course, forcefully call out hatred and the attacks on our communities that will become a fixture of the next four years, and there is a moral imperative to prioritize the safety and well-being of those communities under imminent threat of attack. But we must also seek to understand those whose votes have endangered us—and, where possible, both listen actively to, and articulate a vision that can build bridges to them.

There are no shortcuts to diffusing the worst of what a Trump presidency could become. The next four years will undoubtedly bring intense fear and pain for people around this country. Many progressives feel right now like they are in the wilderness, and that we may be there for some time. But if we can respond strategically to this moment—and harness our capacity for collective action, legislative maneuvering, and aggressive litigation to block as much of the Trump agenda possible, while identifying opportunities to make local and state progress and building our political muscle—then we can still win the next decade.

Hey Donald, You Ready for these Political Ambushes?

There is historically to be a smooth transition of power. So far that has hardly been the case. While most Democrats say that Donald Trump won the most important seat in the free world, others are out there saying not so much.

Draining the swamp could be a rather easy political mission in DC due to many progressive powerbrokers being so unabashed at revealing who they are. Sure there are a number of them that refuse to attend the inauguration which is shameful. What they plan to do in that time period is in many cases even more shameful. Exactly what are they boycotting anyway?

This is going to be a wild ride and the left is making it worse beginning with cabinet nominees and future legislation.

Related reading: ACLU Demands That Body Cams Are Turned Off During Inauguration While They Intend To Record Police

****

The boycott movement began with Georgia Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon, who said he did not view Trump as a “legitimate president” because of allegations that Russia attempted to sway the election in Trump’s favor. After Trump responded with several highly critical tweets about Lewis, Democrats rallied behind Lewis, and as of Saturday night, 17 members of Congress have announced they will not attend.

None of the Democrats who are boycotting is part of the House leadership for the party. All except one of those who are received at least 64 percent of their district’s vote in the November election.

Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva

 

“My absence is not motivated by disrespect for the office or motivated by disrespect for the government that we have in this great democracy, but as an individual act, yes, of defiance at the disrespect shown to millions and millions of Americans by this incoming administration, and the actions we are taking in this Congress,” Grijalva said on the House floor Friday, per CNN.

California Rep. Barbara Lee

But it will be worse than just boycotting January 20th. Sure there are countless protests planned and protests permits have been approved. So, what else you ask?
****

From the National Law Journal: The day after Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th president the United States, hundreds of attorneys and activists are slated to gather in Washington to strategize on how best to resist “bad government” and coordinate pro bono efforts to protect civil rights.

They will spend two days meeting and discussing issues such as gerrymandering, human rights, better policing and U.S. Supreme Court confirmations during the so-called Rise Above conference. It’s scheduled to coincide with the Jan. 21 Women’s March on Washington.

Rise Above is co-sponsored by two fledging nonprofit groups formed in the wake of Trump’s election: the grassroots government accountability organization RISE When We Fall and the attorney-centric Lawyers for Good Government. They hope to create a “pro bono army to be on the front lines protecting our country and our values,” according to an announcement of the event.

The conference combines networking opportunities, an expo of nonprofit organizations, talks from experienced leaders intended to inspire attendees and a slew of panel discussions of specific legal and activism topics.

“One of the things that’s very important to us is to create a starting point,” said Traci Feit Love, a former DLA Piper associate who is the founder of Lawyers for Good Government. “Some people who are relatively new to activism are trying to figure out, ‘Where do we go from here? How do we approach the issues? What do we prioritize?'”

Some legal heavy hitters are on the agenda. SCOTUSBlog founder Tom Goldstein is scheduled to speak, as are Southern Poverty Law Center co-founder Joe Levin and newly-elected Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, who previously taught Constitutional Law at American University Washington College of Law.

Love got the idea for what would become Lawyers for Good Government the day after the election, following a fruitless search to connect with like-minded lawyers in Facebook. The election results had given her a sense of urgency.

“As I was putting my 8-year-old daughter to bed the night of the election, it hit me what had just happened and what it might mean for the country,” she said. “It was a punch in the gut to me and, I think, a lot of other people.”

Love decided to create her own lawyer activist Facebook group called Lawyers of the Left, thinking that 200 or so might join. Within a week, membership swelled past 100,000. Love quickly concluded that lawyers inspired to fight back against Trump’s agenda needed more than just an online gathering place, and she created Lawyers for Good Government using the online lawyer community that coalesced immediately after the election as the foundation for the new effort.

“Everyone was asking, ‘What can we do?'” she said. “No one wanted to just talk about things. It felt like a responsibility to figure out how to help this group of people make the biggest impact.”

Rise Against will be the group’s first foray into live events, though the nearly $600 full ticket price has generated some criticism. Love said Monday that the group retooled parts of the conference in response to concerns that the high cost would shut out some would-be attendees. Organizers did away with a formal evening gala and priced tickets to the networking event at $20 to $40. But staging a large event during the busy inaugural weekend was expensive, and the two host groups lacked established budgets to subsidize costs. Tickets sales were needed to cover the bulk of event, which is being held at the Lincoln Theatre and the Mayflower Hotel, she said. Love is expecting about 1,000 attendees.

“I think one of the most important things this conference can do for us is create both personal relationships and that sense of connection that can sustain a movement beyond the initial energy,” Love said. “What’s likely to happen, due to human nature, is months go by and everyone starts to refocus on their day-to-day lives. We need to ensure that we can sustain the level of energy required to keep an eye on the new administration and Congress.”

 

Orbis, From the FIFA Scandal to the Trump Intel Dossier

It was not John McCain. It was not the FBI.

Christopher Steele, a former Moscow based MI6 spy has an investigative outside company called Orbis Business Intelligence of which still collaborates with Western leaders and political operatives. Orbis was hired by FusionGPS which in turned is hired by U.S. based political operatives for intelligence which is often packaged into opposition research, an extremely common tactic in DC. Orbis Business Intelligence does have a good history as it broke the corruption scandal on FIFA which was later turned over to the Department of Justice where Loretta Lynch in fact did prosecute those involved.

Gathering intelligence on people, playbooks, legislation is then often repackaged for causes and media is always included. The Trump dossier was crafted last summer and traveled many circles for several months. The dossier was appended to the intelligence briefing(s) given to both Obama and Donald Trump on the matter of Russian penetration into the election cycle.

It could be suggested that the White House had/has media operatives that released the dossier to late comers in media that included other CNN contacts and BuzzFeed.

Christopher Steele dispatched an emissary carrying the report to John McCain. McCain could not validate or substantiate the material contained in the report and turned it over to the FBI for further action. The FBI already had the report.

We cant know all the dates and details leading up to the Trump dossier release, yet there are other suggestions that should be injected including the fact that media had possession of the dossier for many months and some chose not to release it as others did.

Enter two other possible political operatives, Van Jones and David Brock. There is a Trump war room and it is fully functional already.

Hillary Clinton’s allies aren’t done campaigning against Donald Trump. 

Liberal PAC American Bridge, launched by Clinton ally David Brock, on Wednesday announced the leadership team for a new anti-Trump project called the “Trump War Room.” The group tapped Shripal Shah, a former Clinton campaign staffer and alumnus of the Democratic National Committee, to run the outfit. 

“The Trump War Room is set to be the research and communications powerhouse that will fight Trump at every turn,” American Bridge said in a statement. 

“The Trump War Room will continue to put a spotlight on all the different ways that Trump’s decisions are driven not by the national interests of the American people, but by Trump’s own personal self-interests that could put our national security in jeopardy.” More here from FNC.

Last summer too, Van Jones launched yet another political operation called ‘Megaphone Strategies’. He is not bashful by any measure mobilizing anti Trump soldiers for search and destroy objectives of the new Trump administration.

AdWeek’s Fishbowl DC blog reports, quoting Jones:

Everywhere we look, we discover courageous people finding ways to break down barriers and solve tough problems. We need to hear their voices, and we need to elevate their work,” said Van Jones of the reason behind the firm’s creation, which will offer strategy, publicity, media training and event/social justice campaign planning services.

Megaphone’s clients include Vote.org, the ACORN-affiliated Working Families Party, and Demand Progress.

Van Jones was behind much of the mission to challenge the electoral college process. He remains connected to the Obama team even though he resigned as the green czar. One must keep a close eye on progressive/Marxist officials as the Obama administration looks for post presidency jobs.

Obama delivered his farewell speech in Chicago on Tuesday night. He clearly stated he would remain involved in his coded message to his followers. Obama is continuing his climate change agenda, social justice and refugee operations. (selected parts are below)

If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history — (applause) — if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, take out the mastermind of 9/11 — (applause) — if I had told you that we would win marriage equality, and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens –- (applause) — if I had told you all that, you might have said our sights were set a little too high. But that’s what we did. (Applause.) That’s what you did.

You were the change. You answered people’s hopes, and because of you, by almost every measure, America is a better, stronger place than it was when we started.

But for all the real progress that we’ve made, we know it’s not enough. But we’re not where we need to be. And all of us have more work to do. (Applause.) If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are going to be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves. (Applause.) If we’re unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don’t look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children — because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of America’s workforce. (Applause.) And we have shown that our economy doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. Last year, incomes rose for all races, all age groups, for men and for women.

This is going to be a wild ride for the next 4 years. Ensure you can remain securely fastened in your seat belt.