Connect with us

Democrats

This might not be the Hill to die on for Adam Schiff

Published

on

This may not be the Hill to die on for Adam Schiff

Adam Schiff’s circus rolls on today. It would be far more interesting if the clowns actually wore red noses. However, even a modicum of research will tell you who they are.  Rather than sit through another day of this snooze fest, I read a preview of Fiona Hill’s testimony.

Then I decided to learn more about her background. Given what I have already learned about Ukraine beginning in 2011, digging into Dr. Hill left me with more questions. I am sure Chairman Schiff would not let me ask any of them if I were sitting on the committee. The more I learn the more I distrust some of our fundamental institutions.

Wolves at the Door

President Trump said during the July 25th call that he was concerned that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky still had some wolves at the door in his administration. Mr. President, I am very afraid you do as well. I do not believe there is a huge and well-coordinated “Deep State”, I do, however, believe there are there is a deep network of like-minded people educated and networked through the same schools and organizations. This leads to a groupthink that transcends politcal parties and is shared by people across the political spectrum.

The first thing I have to question is why any Republican president would appoint a Director of anything from the Brookings Institute. The left leaning think tank’s individual members, employees, owners, and those individuals’ immediate family members donated almost exclusively to Democrat candidates in 2018. And despite their “ivory tower” status, their conflicts of interest have been pointed out by multiple sources.

Looking at Dr. Hill’s body of work for Brookings, a few things become obvious. First, she really likes large transnational bureaucracies like the European Union. She called the Brexit vote the biggest catastrophe of the 21st century. Her catalog is also full of hawkish articles on Russia and Putin. I guess it is not surprising she came into the bureaucracy during the Bush administration and left in 2009. After all, until five minutes ago, Barack Obama and Democrats thought worrying about Russia was a foreign policy relegated to the 1980s.

Her resume has other indicators that she was probably not well aligned with the foreign policy goals articulated by President Trump. Her CV indicates she comes from the foreign policy network that emerges from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. From various academic appointments at Centers within the School, she went to the Eurasia Foundation.

When you look at the partners for the Foundation, you find they are very focused on “civil society”. If that phrase does not give you pause, please see my article from yesterday and the background links. Civil Society 2.0 under Secretary Clinton basically meant we showed up, convinced people to be angry through funding in-country NGOs, taught them how to use social media and create new media outlets and when to create mass protests. In many cases, we did this in partnership with a George Soros funded organization. Our ambassadors in Ukraine and Europe even coordinated post revolution activities with his top lieutenants.

Dr. Hill also worked on Council of Foreign Relations. The CFR was formed by the same group that gave us Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and their original purpose was to combat the isolationist views that were prevalent in America. The Fourteen Points may also be the first clear articulation of a global governance structure.

Wolves in the Hen House 

Who could guess a group like this, made up of academics, government officials, media figures and various foundation board members has a neoconservative lean? If you believe that America should not be the world’s police force and want to ensure any military action we take is in America’s national interest, this group would say you are wrong. Hysterically, they seem to characterize former Ambassador and recent National Security Advisor John Bolton as some kind of isolationist. By contrast, here is a simple Google search of John Bolton and warmonger.

I guess it should come as no surprise that Dr. Hill has a Soros connection. She served as a Member of the Central Eurasia Project Advisory Board, Open Society Institute. Perhaps that is why according to Axios, she is warning you about a ‘fictional narrative’ regarding Ukraine testimony. Perhaps in her capacity advising a Soros organization, she contributed to the plan George articulated as a “Self-Appointed Advocate” for Ukraine. But there is nothing to see here.

In a transcript of her opening statement she characterized herself as a “nonpartisan foreign policy expert”. Looking at her CV, she has a party called the Deep State. A clear interventionist with a fondness for cross border bureaucracies, she seems to have a perspective common to many members of both political parties. And pretty much all of the diplomats who have testified to this point.

Going Global

Who in the world recommended this swamp creature to serve in such close proximity to President Trump when it is clear she would be opposed to his non-interventionist foreign policy? Oh. She came in under H.R. McMaster. The same McMaster who recruited the alleged whistleblower, who worked closely with Susan Rice and John Brennan, and at least one member of Adam Schiff’s staff on his team. McMaster himself is now serves on the Board of the Directors of the Atlantic Council.

Here’s a short list of the Atlantic Council’s other weird associations to the ongoing saga in Ukraine:

Glenn Beck called his last special the Democrat’s Hydra. I honestly believe that The Atlantic Council may be Hydra HQ. I can already hear the shrieks of “conspiracy theory eleventy”. It is nonpartisan the same way Dr. Fiona Hill is. Neocons and interventionists exist in both political parties. And sometimes there are just too many coincidences to ignore.

The networks they have built through higher education, board service, and work in the bureaucracy is no match for a single elected Commander in Chief elected in the United States. And we are seeing this groupthink that agrees on transnational governing bodies and a US-European led world order attempt to place a veto on President Trump play out in real time during Adam Schiff’s three-ring circus.

A Natural Coalition

It would seem to me, a natural coalition opposed to this monstrosity may exist between the anti-war Left, Libertarians and Conservatives tired of the endless wars and conflicts. Those of us who want our vote to matter and want U.S. taxpayer dollars spent first and foremost at home. Why is the U.S. Embassy in United Arab Emirates giving the Atlantic Council more than $1M of our money? The arrogant cadre of “experts” would just tell you to shut up. They know better.

However, if we believe Dr. Fiona Hill’s warning of a fictional narrative about Ukraine without asking really difficult questions, it will just be business as usual. And if John Bolton was worried about Rudy Giuliani being a hand grenade that could blow things up, he may have been right. Rudy’s investigation into the 2016 election certainly seemed to shake up the deep state actors and sheep’s clothing is falling off.

This is no longer about Democrat verses Republican. This is about taking our country back from unelected bureaucrats like Dr. Hill who believe they make up the persistent government that does not need to follow the lead of our elected officials. It also about ending the flow of taxpayer cash and borrowed money into the coffers of unaccountable NGOs and think tanks. We are $22 trillion in debt. This seems like an excellent place to start trimming the fat.

And like it or not, Donald J. Trump may be the only person with the intestinal fortitude to do it.

UPDATE:

It looks like Dr. Hill’s perspective on how to deal with Vladimir Putin changes depending on who the Commander in Chief is:


Facebook

Trending