Donald Trump Deserves a Chance and Our Support

November 11, 2016

Writer

After a hard-fought presidential election, Donald Trump has emerged victorious. There now exists a renewed opportunity for him to unite America and lead in a constitutional way. Based on recent tweets from Trump, Glenn believes our new President-elect is evolving into a man worthy of the presidency.

"I want to read a tweet that shows he is becoming presidential, and he is trying to do the right thing," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

Six months ago, Trump would have stirred the pot in response to the protests taking place on America's streets. Instead, he tweeted a unifying message for the country.

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 11, 2016

With the slate already wiped clean, Glenn reasserted his support for Donald Trump.

“I’m for the office of the president of the United States, and I will stand with Donald Trump as long as I can. I’ll stand with him until he starts to say crazy, divisive things and suggest policies that are not conservative or constitutional. But until he does that, I stand with him,” Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• How many retweets did Trump's tweet get?

• Why must we stop labeling people as groups?

• On what will Glenn not budge?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Okay. So I want to show you the evolution of a man. What did Donald Trump -- what would have Donald Trump said, you know, six months ago, if protests were there. He would have -- he would have been the showman that he is. He would have been the P.T. Barnum, and he would have whipped it up.

Yesterday morning -- now, I'm going to assume that he is making these tweets. And if not, then somebody else around him is making these tweets, and that's good because he is relinquishing his power and saying, "You're more eloquent than I am, go ahead, tweet." Because you know Donald Trump has always said, "No one will corral me." So even if he didn't do it himself, no one is corralling him. We have to take him at his word, that he agrees with this. This is what he did 11 hours ago: Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters incited by the media are protesting. Very unfair.

This was 54,000 retweets.

Then this: Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have a passion for our great country. We will come together and be proud.

That is a presidential tweet. That is what we should be saying to one another. Look, it's a small group. They might look big, but it's a small group.

I saw a -- I saw an ad, if you will, for a broadcaster that said the Democrats hate us. That -- in bold red, "The Democrats hate us. Don't doubt me." And I thought to myself, "No, they don't. Some do." As Riaz said yesterday -- the gay Muslim immigrant -- what else? I mean, he's got -- Pakistani. He's got -- this guy, everybody is against.

I can't imagine this guy's life. But he came down, and he wanted to understand the right. So we spent the day together. And then he went and did something about it.

And last weekend, he went up to Alaska to sit and talk to Trump supporters. And he wrote the best defense of Trump supporters I've read.

And as he said in that, "Look, are there some people that are racist that voted for Trump?" Yes. But that's not all of the Trump supporters.

And? He followed it up. He's a Muslim Pakistani. Are some Muslims terrorists? Yes. But not all Muslims.

The same can be said -- are you a racist? You voted for Trump, are you a racist? No. Are you a Nazi? No.

Do you believe in white supremacy? No. Do you believe that there are those that believe that whites are extreme? Of course. Do you believe that there are some that voted for Trump that are Nazis? Of course. Do you believe that there are some that voted for Barack Obama that are Marxists that want to destroy the United States of America? Yes.

Do you believe there are some that voted for Barack Obama that want to see your rights taken away?

Yes. But do you also believe that the Democrats that you personally know are those people?

No. No. We have to separate and stop labeling people as groups. Or we are going to make this worse.

We are at a crossroads America. And I know this is going to become increasingly unpopular. But I will stand by any man until he loses his principles. The principles of Donald Trump right now, he is being presidential. He is saying I'm going to bring people together. And he is saying, I will do these things through Congress, through the vote.

If Donald Trump would have lost and he would have flamed the fans of these -- of riots, which he could have done, if he had lost, I would be standing against him. But he won fair and square. He is doing things the right way and constitutionally. I don't agree with everything that he wants to do, but that's America. This is who we are.

We don't -- boy, am I going to quote the song that he played at the end? You don't always get what you want. But you just might find that you get what you need. And we have to believe in that. And we have to put our sword and, quite frankly, our shield down against the average person.

When you are in -- let me tell you a story: Fordham University, I believe, turned my daughter against me. My daughter was so angry with me while she was going to Fordham University, she couldn't even speak to me at times. She -- she was convinced that I was a homophobic bigot. And I kept saying to her, "Honey, what in my life has ever given you that perspective?"

You're against gay marriage.

No. I'm against the government being involved in marriage.

I don't want to talk to you, Dad.

And she would cry and walk away. She believed that of her own father. What do you think the people going to NYU, these kids who have been raised, even by Democratic families, what do you think they believe after sitting in those universities with those professors who are tell them -- and you have to understand, New York City, especially, is an echo chamber of biblical proportions. Everything in New York points to the people who would vote for Donald Trump are nothing, but toothless hicks who hate women, who hate blacks, who just want to set the world on fire.

There's a lot of people that are afraid. And, quite honestly, if you're a Republican and you're like me, I understand that. You have -- you have to admit to yourself, even those who reluctantly voted for Donald Trump, there is a part of you that said, "I don't know what we're getting here." But you give your side the benefit of the doubt. I'm giving our side the benefit of the doubt. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the office will temper and make the man. Because, quite honestly, I don't have any other choice, other than to get into the streets and be an idiot.

He won fair and square. This is the system. Now, how do we come together?

I will tell you, we won't come together -- and I'm not talking about come together and compromise our principles.

I read another story today from the right: The last thing we can do is come together. I'm sick and tired of hearing people say we need to come together with these people.

No. What are you talking about? We get together with our family every Thanksgiving, don't we? I got together -- I got together with the in-laws that -- that Tim's family, my son-in-law's family, who are wonderful people, I love them. I really do love them. We disagreed on who should be president. They were staunch Trump supporters. I obviously am not. But I know who they are. And I know they're not haters. I know they're not idiots. They live in New Jersey, and he's a cop. He's tired of everybody saying that the cops, you know, should die and being okay with it.

Did I say when they came down to visit, "You're not coming into my house?" No. And we had a great time together. We just didn't talk about the things where we knew we disagreed, because we knew where each other stood. And we're not going to do anything, but get pissed at each other. But we're family.

I don't think ill of them. And I hope they don't think ill of me. And I'm certainly not saying, "They hate America." And I hope they're not saying that either -- they're not.

Glenn is just a bad person and he hates us. No, they're not saying that.

This, I've told you for so long: A, there are going to be people -- and you're going to feel justified -- that want to tear us apart. Now, we just went through a horrible, horrible election. We have the opportunity to start all over again. We have the opportunity to not repeat the past, no matter what your enemy does to you, no matter what the person who is calling you names does to you. That has no affect on you, unless you choose to let that have an affect on you.

We are -- we have a chance to start over. We have a chance to be better people. Now, we can go down this road, and we can repeat what happened to us in 2000, which is division and name-calling and eight years of hating the other side.

Or we can do what we did in 2008. Be divided. Don't talk to each other. Hate each other. Call each other names. And make things worse.

Or we can try something new. Because this is something we haven't tried, well, since I've been voting for president. We haven't tried, "Hey, let's assume the best of our neighbor. Let's assume that the voices that are calling today in the streets, around the country for awful things, for revolution, for literally bloody revolution -- let's just assume that they are the minority, and let's politely ask -- politely ask the media to stop excusing this.

Let's not us excuse the violent behavior, but also know that there is a reason that people are afraid. It's been a tough fight.

Those people who are setting things on fire, breaking windows, those are anarchists. Those are anarchists. And if we lump anarchists into the same bed with Hillary Clinton, we would be wrong.

This is going to be hard, guys. This is really going to be hard. But this is our chance. This is the time -- you are blessed to live in this time, because we can be better. We can be leaders. This is the time where giants will come to the forefront. And you have to choose.

Are you going to be one of the 20 percent? That's what it's going to take. And that's typically only -- that's all you get, is about 20 percent. Are you going to be the 20 percent of this society that stands up and says, "I'm not going there. I'm not going there. I will not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity." Will you take the lead from your president? Your president and your president-elect.

Now, this. When you're at work, you can see that your home is safe, right? But when you're on vacation, your home and your family deserve to be protected.

[break]

GLENN: We were just talking in the break. This is really going to be hard, guys. This is really going to be hard. And we all have a choice to make because there's -- there's very few people, I think, that want to feel like we should come together.

But -- and it doesn't mean that we -- I mean, I think we just proved this. If your principles are at stake, we do not budge. But right now, the principles of peace and getting together -- Hillary Clinton -- Hillary Clinton has said he's legitimately our president, we need to support him and give him the opportunity to be successful.

Barack Obama has said the same thing. They have made the gesture of let's come together because this is the way our democracy or our republic works. The vote happens, you accept the vote.

We may not agree with it, and that doesn't mean you stop fighting. Look, if right now -- I'm having a lot of people saying, "Oh, look at Glenn, now he's for Trump." No, no. I'm for the office of the President of the United States. And I will stand with Donald Trump, as long as I can. I'll stand with him until he starts to say crazy, divisive things that are -- and suggest policies that are not conservative or constitutional. But until he does that, I stand with him.

Featured Image: President-elect Donald Trump meets with US President Barack Obama during an update on transition planning in the Oval Office at the White House on November 10, 2016 in Washington,DC. (Photo Credit: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

RADIO

QUID PRO QUO STRATEGY: Should Trump change tactic to defend Ukraine phone call against impeachment?

Mercury One

Mercury One would like to invite you to be a neighbor in your community to help us restore the human spirit through simple — yet impactful — random acts of kindness and volunteer opportunities on November 16, 2019.

This nationwide Be A Neighbor Campaign, hosted by VOMO in association with the film A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, allows us to honor the legacy of Mr. Rogers and the impact he made in communities across the world.

You can join the movement by partaking in volunteer opportunities in participating cities, like Dallas, or you can create change from anywhere in the United States.

Don't want to participate on your own? Join together with your friends, family, co-workers, church group, or neighbors. There's something for everyone!

Interested in participating in the Be A Neighbor Campaign on November 16th? Heres how…

1. Visit the link bit.ly/mercuryoneneighbor on your smartphone or computer to log in or to create your VOMO account in association with Mercury One.

2. Once logged in, check out the different ways you can participate and give back in your community on November 16th in association with the Be A Neighbor Campaign.

3. Join any of the 16 different ways to participate in the Be A Neighbor Campaign.

Ways to participae incldue…

– Perform a random act of kindness
– Give a teacher supplies needed for a class
– Donate to a charity of your choice, like Mercury One
– Visit and volunteer with seniors
– Clean up a part of your neighborhood
– Give someone a genuine compliment

4. On November 16th, get out in your communities to partake in your act of good within your neighborhood. Make sure you track your tie on the VOMO app to show you've participated in the campaign.

If you decide to join Mercur One in being a neighbor this weekend, please share your participation with us on social media! Use the hashtags #MercuryOne and #BeANeighbor so we can see the ways you make your community a batter place.

Thank you for your ongoing support that makes Mercury One's education and humanitarian efforts possible. We are proud to work alongside each and every one of you.

Donate

Celebrities aren’t our culture warriors

Screenshot/YouTube

Because this is the state of our politics nowadays, the past few days have seen the Washington Nationals World Series victory overshadowed by the team's visit to the White House. When catcher Kurt Suzuki donned a MAGA hat and first baseman Ryan Zimmerman praised Trump, Woke Twitter erupted and another outrage cycle began—and has yet to dissipate fully.

At this point, anger with celebrities for their politics has become a normal function of our culture. And frankly, it's exhausting. Yet, when entertainment becomes a substitute battleground for politics, it's also inevitable. We not only welcome, but expect our celebrities to actively advance our political agendas. But for the sake of American discourse, we must re-learn the value of separating entertainment from our politics.

The root of this conflation problem originates from a psychological phenomenon called "the halo effect." We seem to presume good characteristics from a person simply because we appreciate another characteristic about them. For example, person A is talented at X, so that person must also be talented at Y. With celebrities, we incorrectly assume they have expertise in whatever they do, which is why we care deeply about their political and cultural viewpoints. And their silence is perceived as complicity, as we saw with the bizarre campaign to get Taylor Swift to denounce President Trump.

With celebrities, we incorrectly assume they have expertise in whatever they do, which is why we care deeply about their political and cultural viewpoints.

Under this paradigm, it's only natural that we end up having female soccer star Meghan Rapinoe questioned not solely on her athletic success, but also her thoughts on the president and the state of the 2020 election. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that she become a politician one day.

But whenever celebrities espouse political views that run afoul of our expectations, it engenders a startling, gag-like reaction because we assume, often erroneously, that they were enlightened and adherent to our political vision. This leads certain conservative figures to behave rather hypocritically, such as when they demean Lebron James, telling him to "shut up and dribble" while extolling Kanye West because he supports the president.

But of course, expertise is not transferable. A great baseball player can have a tough time understanding Alexander Hamilton's writing. A renowned popstar can make for a lousy thinker. There is not one good reason why MSNBC, a purportedly serious network, needs to interview actor Robert De Niro about impeachment or director Rob Reiner about the findings of the Mueller Report. Neither of these figures have any especially unique insight or political experience.

Of course, Kurt Suzuki and Ryan Zimmerman have been venerated by Trump's base and targeted by the Resistance. Surely, many more figures will follow their lead and occupy the news cycle for all of the wrong reasons.

The only remedy for all of this, then, is to fortify the separation between entertainment and politics.

The only remedy for all of this, then, is to fortify the separation between entertainment and politics. That requires celebrities to push back against calls to disavow certain figures on the basis of politics. Things looked hopeful when Ellen DeGeneres recently stood up for her friendship with George W. Bush, despite profound political differences.

But more importantly, it requires the American people to detach themselves from the political hysteria that has infected every aspect of our daily lives. The reality is that some celebrities are smart—but many aren't. We shouldn't presume political prowess because they're talented in other arenas. And we shouldn't crave their opinions or denounce them when they disagree with ours. In other words, we need to recognize that they are regular people, and we should approach their viewpoints no differently than we would anyone else's.

Ethan Lamb (@realethanlamb) is a Young Voices contributor and a law student at Georgetown University.

Kevin Ryan: America, country versus city

Photo by Kevin Ryan

Imagine a prairie, red in bloodshot light, swollen with corn.

You're in a rocking chair, on a porch, looking out at fields of grain, surrounded by friends and family. Now imagine an urban sprawl, a landscape of fog and metal and sidewalk and car horns. From the patio of your high-rise apartment, you look out at the city, as a dinner party churns.

One thing I hear repeatedly from people in rural areas is, "I cannot believe the amount of hatred Trump faces. It's unprecedented."
If you measure public opinion via mainstream media — excluding Fox News, which is definitely part of the so-called mainstream media — you'd understandably assume that most Americans hate Trump's guts.

Yet nearly 63 million people voted for him in 2016. Still fewer than Hillary Clinton, although Trump nabbed the electoral vote by a far larger margin.

When I talk to people in cities, they often have a gauzy idea about Trump supporters. To them, Trump supporters are faraway anomalies. The obverse is true in smaller towns, especially in the countryside — and not just the South or in Middle America, you'll find tons of Trump flags along the backroads of Oregon and California, same for the East coast.

Earlier this summer, I was at a gun range in Clear Lake, Texas and a half-dozen people were wearing MAGA hats, including one of the Ranger Officers. Drive an hour north on the Gulf Freeway, into the Montrose neighborhood of Houston, and you'll find a much different dynamic.

And Clear Lake is by no means a small town, not compared to all those towns throughout Texas with 200 people and a gas station.

Because the divide is multifold. And impressively, nearly all of the separate attributes at play are polarized.

Probably because liberals and conservatives literally don't even live in the same places. Rarely cross paths.

There are two America's, same as ever. The countryside and the city. I've lived in both. And as I travel around America for this series, I see the delicate kingdoms of each.

So as I travel around from state to state, through all the different towns and cities, I feel the presence of Walt Whitman's great poem "America."

Centre of equal daughters, equal sons,
All, all alike endear'd, grown, ungrown, young or old,
Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable, rich,Perennial with the Earth, with Freedom, Law and Love,
A grand, sane, towering, seated Mother,
Chair'd in the adamant of Time

In 2016, a paltry 12 percent of Trump voters lived in urban areas, compared to Clinton's 32 percent. The numbers were basically flipped, with 35 percent of Trump voters in rural areas, compared to 19 percent of Clinton voters in rural areas.
This divide was even more dramatic along partisan lines.

As noted by Pew Research Center,

Virtually all validated voters with consistently liberal values voted for Clinton over Trump (95% to 2%), while nearly all those with consistently conservative values went for Trump (98% to less than 1% for Clinton).

So it makes sense that neither side would understand the other. Especially when you toss in a dose of American combativeness.

In the words of Aristotle, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Which is not to say that Americans aren't of an educated mind, although it is something we have historically been sensitive about, particularly in relation to art and literature.

Rather, my point is that there are gradations of ignorance.

A continuum.

Some forms of ignorance are more forgivable than others. And a certain type of ignorance is not forgivable at all.

Our hindrance, as Americans, is that we are — well, we are stubborn people. I've lived outside America, and traveled extensively. My father is Irish, and I have dual citizenship.

I will say that every country has problems. Unique problems.

As Americans, we tend to lean on convenience, even if we don't see it as a luxury. Which, let's be real, it totally is.

We take for granted that, when you're in public and you need to use a toilet, there's one nearby. And it's free. And clean.
Or showers. How often are we forced to take cold showers?

I know I'm doing a lot of generalizing here, but I've thought about it a lot, and it's all based on my desire to see Americans get along better. To rouse the humanity in all of us.

We Americans will always thrive with a pioneer spirit. A wildness. Rebels.

And Americans are undoubtedly some of the kindest, most generous people on earth.

But we also tend to focus exclusively on ourselves, our country, our city, our town, our yard, our skyline. Which happens everywhere, yes, but not like here. More often, we can't even imagine the other worlds within our own country.

Here's an exercise, if you're a born-and-bred American.

Name a dozen living world leaders. Now a dozen more.

Describe the Croatian flag, or the flag of any African country. Can you tell the difference between the Salvadorian flag and the flag of Argentina?

Sing a few national Anthems.

Revolutions or uprisings are currently taking place in the following countries or regions: Chile, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Hong Kong, Libya, Niger, Lebanon, Iraq, France, Puerto Rico, Haiti, you get the idea.

Because people in other countries know far more about America than we know about them. Which, at times, can be heart-breaking:

Protesters singing the American national anthem youtu.be

Don't get me wrong, I probably got the same score on that little quiz as you did.

Probably lower, actually, as the folks who contact me about my stories have the most astute and insightful observations.

Want to know the one thing we can all agree on as Americans? Cutting in line is unforgivable. Any sort of line. We learn this from a young age. Internalize it, collectively. If you ask us, we say that line-cutters deserve the great heat of an eternal hell!

Real talk here. We're spoiled, and occasionally we act like it. Although, most of the time — say, while traveling abroad — we're so kind that we come off as naïve, which is charming when you think of it.

And most of all, we are big, in mind and heart and spirit. In the words of the great American poet Walt Whitman, we contain multitudes.

You'd never know it, but Americans comprise a mere 4 percent of the world's population.

And, look, I'm not here to trash America. I love our country.

And I find much of the criticisms of our country to be rooted in cowardice, even when they are legitimate.

More than a few times, in Spain or Germany, I listened to locals excoriate the States. While drinking a Coca-Cola, and wearing Levi's Jeans, and nodding their head to Bruce Springsteen, as the Simpsons plays on the TV and a Cormac McCarthy novel rests on their bookshelf.

Most people I've met abroad like America. And they love Americans.

They admire our weird, endless spirit.

Poet Theodore Roethke wrote, "What's freedom for?"

In readings of the poem, he lets the question hang in the air for a moment, then answers it with a bellow.

"To know eternity."

Not only are we heartedly multicultural, our diversity is natural.

With regard to race and ethnicity, the U.S. usually occupies the middle of the chart.

But what's unique about the U.S. is that an American can be any race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, color.
And this is our golden age.

You'd never know it, but Americans comprise a mere 4 percent of the world's population. Because, most of all, we are big, in mind and heart and spirit. To paraphrase Walt Whitman, we contain multitudes.

Ask liberals to describe conservatives, and vice versa, and you'll find that both sides tend to depict the other in a ghoulishly inaccurate and unflattering way. Conservatives often see liberals as elitist, intolerant, self-important, and out-of-touch.

Whereas liberals see conservatives as dumb, intolerant, backwards, and out-of-touch.

Either way, it's a pretty bad way to start a conversation.

We know the statistics by now. White voters accounted for 88 percent of the Trump vote. And far fewer Trump supporters were non-college whites.

More white women voted for Trump than for Clinton.

Of all the groups, Black women accounted for the fewest Trump votes, so few that its nearly statistically insignificant. In total, Trump got 6 percent of the Black vote.

A few things have changed since then. Specifically, Candace Owens and Kanye West.

I'll profile Owens in a later installment, for the last six months or so, I've been reporting on it. The vociferous, charming, and unbelievable 30-year-old woman at the helm of a strange new countercultural movement re-shaping America. She wears her MAGA hat when she travels, and she travels most days of the year.

She has led #Blexit, a movement geared at empowering the black community to vote Republican.

Kanye West, who was emboldened by Owen's unflinching style and bold words, regularly defends his support of Trump.

Those two events alone are bound to increase the number of Black Americans who vote for Trump in 2020.

I'll be at Kanye's performance in Houston on Sunday, at Joel Osteen's mega-church. And, about the time this story publishes, I'll be en route to Bossier City, Louisiana for my third Trump rally in as many weeks. And everywhere I travel for this series, I see the recurring qualities unique to our country.

Those two events alone are bound to increase the number of Black Americans who vote for Trump in 2020.

We Americans are generally honest people. We are straightforward yet empathetic. Just contrast general American English with general British English. We are cowboys and roughshod poets, they are royalty and cautious essayists.

In the introduction to this series, I described today's America, our America, as "a country that is — everywhere, secretly — hurting."

My aim, along the way, has been to scour for remedies. To posit whatever positivity I can. Like prayer in public, to tens of thousands of people every week.

As I see it, we will fix America by living out our most American ideals. By speaking from our spirit, no gimmickry or slogans or con men in the way.

We need truth. Its function is to guide us to redemption.

The most insidious criticism of America comes from inside. It is much different than protest. Because America is a free country. We can express our beliefs and opinions how we like. That includes kneeling athletes and flag-defiling musicians. Dissent is allowed and patriotism is by no means required.

What I'm talking about is subtler. It can arise from any point on the political spectrum. Left, right, center. Even be apolitical. It embodies the unforgivable ignorance I mentioned above. People who spit at the world around them, lacking self-awareness, unaware of the privilege that comes with living in America. They've never left, never even tried. Yet they remain certain, until their opinions mutate into hatred, and only want to destroy. They deny humanity, they choose nihilism.

It's easy to be cynical about something you don't understand. Humanity is the realization that all of this has meaning. That every moment of life is charged with an existential purpose. That death is a life with no meaning.

This video makes the rounds every once in a while. It's meant to denounce the spirit of our country, to drain it of meaning, but just comes off as snotty and high-minded, which, to be fair, are trademarks of a quality Aaron Sorkin monologue.

All my life, my father, an immigrant, has told me that America is the greatest country in the world. Just look at the Democratic Presidential candidates. Andrew Yang's parents emigrated from Taiwan, he flourished, now he's running for President. Bernie Sanders, son of a man who fled Poland as a teenage high school drop-out with a poor grasp of English, is now also running for President. Or Pete Buttigieg, whose father emigrated from Malta in 1979. Kamala Harris' mother emigrated from India, her father from Jamaica.

In other words, seven immigrants, all from different continents, traveled to America with hope and their eyes, and now their children have a realistic chance of being the President of the country. From the bottom to the top, in one generation.That would be like if your parents emigrated to America from another country, worked hard, then you went on to become a realistic candidate for the most important job in the entire world. Now do that three more times.

Because there is nothing to compare it to.

It becomes all the more impressive the farther you zoom out.

Imagine taking a time machine back to Ancient Egypt and trying to make your way up the ladder so that your son could become Pharaoh. You'd zap into the sand and straight into slavery. Immediately. And your kids? Assuming you even had time for love, on account of all the pyramid building, slaves, also.

And even if you were somehow able to maneuver to the top, you could still die at any moment of some horrific, now-curable disease.

Or be poisoned by Cleopatra.

Or be "suicided" by Romans, never to be found.

Or just vanish, despite your being the Pharaoh.

Or be decapitated by your own father.

Or drown in the Nile.

Or lose your firstborn in a Biblical plague.

All of which were fates that Pharaohs actually suffered. And even the lucky Pharaohs, they didn't have air conditioning or cars or pizza delivery.

New installments of this series come out every Monday and Thursday morning. Check out my Twitter or email me at kryan@mercurystudios.com

'The Democrats' Hydra': Here are the FACTS about the impeachment inquiry, Soros, Ukraine

Editor's Note: You don't want to miss this! To get the whole story, watch this special now. If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV. Help support research like this and get access to more Glenn content with breakdowns issues and complex ideas daily. With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations that let BlazeTV tell the stories the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what the media doesn't want you to see.

"As one falls, two more will take their place."

Democracy does die in darkness and is being strangled in secret, back-door arrangements. In the third part of our special series on the REAL Ukraine scandal, my team's research exposes a much bigger story into what Democrats were doing in Ukraine. Disturbing details and explosive documents reveal how the Obama Deep State allowed the theft of a country and has set the stage for devastating consequences on our democracy today. It's all happening under the nose of the president and, more importantly, without the approval of the American people.

There's a big difference between conspiracy THEORY and conspiracy FACT. A conspiracy THEORY is an attempt to explain or connect the dots on something, but without any hard evidence. Everything in this is backed up with hard evidence. Is it a conspiracy? Absolutely it is, but it's a conspiracy FACT.

Watch the full special here:

As you watch the special, take time to explore the documents below, with all the proof you need to come to your own conclusion about the impeachment inquiry, Soros, and Ukraine.

Here are the facts

The Obama Administration has been working IN TANDEM with George Soros, supporting his NGOs, going all the way back to the months leading up to the Ukrainian Coup in 2014. In 2013, just before the coup, Soros' International Renaissance Foundation was their primary financier, but the U.S. Embassy was also strangely giving them money.

Link: https://antac.org.ua/en/pro-nas/ (Go to finances and mouse over 2013, notice IRS and US Embassy.)

From 2014 through 2017, basically up until Trump became president, the two main sources of funding came from George Soros and the Obama Administration through USAID.

Link: https://antac.org.ua/en/pro-nas/ (Go to finances and mouse over 2014-2017, notice IRS and USAID.)

Now look at 2018. The Trump Administration halted the money from USAID, so look who stepped in to pull the extra weight: Soros doubled down, and then the U.S. Embassy resumed their funding role just as they did BEFORE the 2014 coup.

Link: https://antac.org.ua/en/pro-nas/ (Go to finances and mouse over 2018, notice IRS, Open Society and US Embassy.)

Why is the U.S. Embassy, and by extension the State Department, working with George Soros? What do they have to gain from this relationship? Let me ask you this: have you noticed where all the people that have been called to testify against Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry have come from? They're ALL career diplomats. They're all privy to what went down in the months leading up to the Ukrainian Coup, and everything that went down from then up until Donald Trump. And this includes, if the rumors are correct, the whistleblower, whom everyone in Washington believes is Eric Ciaramella.

Link: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2...

Ciaramella is a CIA analyst, and was on the NSC during the Trump Administration as a Ukraine expert. He was later kicked out of the White House for leaking information and pushing Russia collusion hoaxes. He also worked directly with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa who was tasked with working alongside the Ukrainian Embassy in the U.S. to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. And if all of this isn't enough to discredit him as a witness, he ALSO worked alongside Joe Biden when he was made the “point man" in Ukraine. It's becoming all too painfully obvious why Adam Schiff doesn't want anyone talking to this guy.

Why are all these State Department officials, and CIA/NSC staffers so scared of Donald Trump poking around in Ukraine? I wonder ... does it have anything to do with the financing of some of these groups like the Soros funded NGO? I pointed out in my mega chalkboard that Ukrainian prosecutors claimed to have evidence that over SEVEN BILLION had been misappropriated. Is this part of that, because that's kind of important here. And would it also be important, or relevant, if the people currently involved in impeachment were dealing with these funds that were being given to groups like the Soros NGO? That is an answer we can not find, but that is an answer that Donald Trump was asking for on they July 25th phone call ... and it MUT BE ANSWERED in a Senate trial.

Link: https://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchT...

This email chain was released via a Freedom of Information Act request. The first email is from the alleged whistleblower sent to all the heavy weights within the State Department that were working on Ukraine. The entire email has been redacted. Whatever Ciaramella specifically said, the State Department doesn't want us to know about, but the final email in the chain reveals the overall context: Obama Administration dollars, going through the U.S. Embassy via USAID.

And the State Department official that replied with this information, was Christopher Anderson. Now why does that name sound familiar?

Link: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774552056/read-chri...

Oh that's right. He was testifying against Donald Trump at the impeachment inquiry twi weeks ago. They're ALL connected ... and the coup is on

But still, this begs the question: what was really going on in Ukraine and WHY?

Being that U.S. funding to Soros backed groups began in 2013, we started looking beyond our initial timeline. We noticed one name pop up again, and again and again. That name is Alec Ross.

Ross was appointed to the State Department as the Senior Advisor on Innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He first started popping up in Ukraine in late 2011.

This is Ross at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine on a fact finding mission where he was quote:

Learning about the local status of internet freedom and discussing Secretary Clinton's 21st Century Statecraft agenda.

Link: https://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/tag/alec-ross/

This is Alec Ross addressing the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine in October 2011 (5:03 to 5:23).

Disruptive change. Some might describe this as CHAOS, but ultimately — for those willing to exploit it — the reward is ... POWER.

For most of us, no matter which side of the aisle you're on, we all pretty much agree that regime change and stoking chaos is NOT what the American people want. But this is EXACTLY what was going on under the Obama Administration, and it was all being done in YOUR name.

Hillary's State Department was bastardizing a plan that actually began a few weeks after Obama was elected in November 2008.

Link: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/us/2008/112605.htm

It was an initiative called Public Diplomacy 2.0, and it's stated goal was to enable people in other countries to combat violent or extreme ideology. More specifically, Islamic radicalism from Al Qaeda.

Link: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/us/2008/112310.htm

The State Department invited tech savvy people from all over the world to show them how to network and launch Social Media campaigns to counter radical ideology.

Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/1...

But just a few months later, under the Obama Administration, Clinton changed Public Diplomacy 2.0 to “Civil Society 2.0." Here's Alec Ross on what Civil Society 2.0 was doing, and how they were actively training groups to mobilize through Social Media.

Let's just call a spade a spade here. Civil Society 2.0 was a training ground for the foot soldiers of what began to be known as “indigenous, spontaneous uprisings." And if you're curious as to what “civil society" or “open society" groups should be advocating, here's Hillary Clinton speaking THIS YEAR on civil society organizations (1:00:52 to 1:01:40).

Was that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren or was that Hillary Clinton? Civil Society 2.0 came to Ukraine in 2011. Alec Ross' TechCamps commenced shortly after, teaching native activists and NGOs how to mobilize, and carry their online presence to the streets.

I want to show you a video taken within the Ukrainian Parliament in November 2013. This was BEFORE the Ukrainian uprising ousted the former regime (0:20 to 1:07).

It's important to point out that this lawmaker was very pro-Russia, and he was being shouted down because of that. But it's also important to point out that everything he just said, WE KNOW was actually happening.

As we analyzed Ukraine, we started to break down the left's strategy in tearing down an entire country, and molding it in line with their political ideology. The founders of the Fabian Society would be impressed.

It's a four part strategy, and — since Ukraine was so successful for them — we'll use it as the case study. I want you to know that I'm only using Ukraine as an example, but this is happening all over the world.

Step one: The U.S. State Department - and their proxies like the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House - identifies, trains and funds “Civil Society" groups to mobilize.

This is Civil Society 2.0 and operations like Alec Ross' “TechCamps."

Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/19...

It all began in Ukraine — eerily enough — on September 11, 2012.

And make no mistake ... these programs are designed for one thing: REVOLUTION. They operate to nurture chaos and collapse regimes. They're not even trying to hide that fact. Check out this quote from Alec Ross:

Some of the things that I spoke about when I came into the department — things like leaderless revolution or virtual organizations — might have been really edgy or a little off-center. But after Tunisia and Egypt, nobody is questioning the abstraction of leaderless revolutions, and after WikiLeaks, certainly everybody understands the power of virtual, globally distributed organizations.

Link: https://mashable.com/2011/08/22/alec-ross-tech-int...

Leaderless revolutions ... kind of sounds familiar doesn't it? “You can't ban or go after ANTIFA. They're just a leaderless activist group." “We can't shut down Occupy Wall Street ... there's no leadership."

No administration in their right mind — outside of Obama and Hillary — would condone something like this. That's why they built it to run separately within already established organizations like the State Department. These policies are being pursued RIGHT NOW, and they could give a flying crap who the president is. Again, from Alec Ross:

Instead of trying to create a new bureau, what we wanted to do was build a long-term institutional capacity. I leave feeling that the work has been fully institutionalized and that the programs will live on.

Link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/14/tech-guru-ale...

A little tip for Alec and Hillary: Hydra from Captain America ... they're the BAD GUYS. Maybe you should stop talking and acting like them.

Is it starting to become clear now why the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine was telling Ukrainian lawmakers to keep their hands off of Soros NGOs? One fo the satr witnesses for Adam Schiff in the impeachment is the former ukrainian ambassador that trump and the new president of ukraine spoke about in the Jukly 25th call. Multiple sources verify that she told the prosecutor general in uktraine to keep their hands off of the soros ngos, and various others. Is it now a littl emore lcr]ear why should would have said that? Because Soros is working with the State Dpearmtnet. Its not criminal to them… its the plan. And why a CIA analyst was involved in USAID money going into Ukraine, and now is a whistleblower against a president that was looking into it? Or maybe why the main witnesses in the impeachment are all from the State Department and diplomatic corps? And also how the intelligence community and FBI has seemingly been operating on their own to bring down Trump. It's because, as Alec Ross said, this operation has now been quote, “institutionalized and will live on.'' This House impeachment trial is why Elliot Ness had to switch jurys. Because Al Capone had paid off the jury, press, judges and was controlling who was testifying.

Step 2: When opportunity emerges, U.S. trained activists go into action.

I'll talk about the Arab Spring more in a bit, but the opportunity in the Middle East and North Africa was a Tunisian fruit vendor setting himself on fire. For Ukraine, it was when the former president decided to side with Russia over the European Union. That's when all the people that Alec Ross and the State Department trained went into action.

Step 3: The State Department, and their proxies, actively support the opposition.

Under Obama, this was actual Administration policy, but now this happens REGARDLESS of the elected administration's policy by the “INSTITUTIONALIZED" Deep State. This institutionalized policy is what all witnesses were talking about in the impeachment trial. Trump is a threat to the policy they have going, and they will NOT STOP doing this policy no matter what the president says.

As activists, protesters and riots began to overtake the streets in Ukraine, Victoria Nuland — the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs — travel to Ukraine 3 separate times. In December 2013, she was even seen handing out cookies to activists in the streets!

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john...

That same month, John McCain showed that Obama's regime change policy was a bipartisan effort when he went to Ukraine to meet with the Ukrainian opposition. But lets not forget, it was the same John McCain that went over to Syria to meet with the terrorists who later became ISIS. When the administration used this very revolutionary system to try and overthrow Assad.

The National Endowment for Democracy, which I just showed you in our little history lesson a few minutes ago, reported that it spent over 3 million of YOUR tax dollars in Ukraine.

Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20140831044648/http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/eurasia/ukraine

Question: Why has this report has been scrubbed from their official website? And when will people learn the internet is forever?

Their funding included more than thirty thousand dollars to George Soros' Open Society Foundation. Again, this begs the question: why was the U.S. Government helping George Soros? What was their ultimate goal here?

The answer to those questions lies in the final stage of this plan.

Step 4: Once regime change has occurred, infiltrate the new government with hand picked “Civil Society" leaders.

Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught red-handed in a leaked phone conversation, discussing how they were manipulating who would become the next Ukrainian Prime Minister. And — surprise surprise — their man ended up getting the job.

But even though they'd been publicly outed, manipulating the affairs of a sovereign nation, they didn't stop ... they doubled down.

We already know that the State Department, and the Obama Administration as a whole, were working to protect a George Soros funded NGO called the Anti-Corruption Action Center. Soros and the Obama Admin were specifically using them to target Ukraine's criminal justice system. But their coordination didn't stop there. Newly released emails, obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests, shows near weekly communication between Nuland and Soros.

Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/421081817/SorosNul... (See last line in paragraph on first email at bottom.)

This email chain from June 1st 2016 shows Soros setting up a call with Nuland for one of their scheduled “updates."

Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/421081036/SorosNul...

This next email chain just one week later, initiated by Soros' organization, details how the State Department and Soros were actively working together on projects relating to Ukraine's criminal justice system.

Do you recognize any of these names? Wait ... is that the whistleblower? Crazy ... it's almost like this guy had his hands into EVERYTHING. The State Department, the NSC, CIA, DNC operatives, Joe Biden, and now George Soros. This is the REAL reason why Adam Schiff and the Democrats are so scared of naming the whistleblower. There's no way they want him testifying in an open forum, and they'll do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen.

What I'm about to show you is absolutely insane. This is the final piece that shows you the full extent of how embedded the State Department and George Soros were in the Ukrainian Government. This right here is how they sealed the deal on the theft of an entire country.

Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/421078499/Soros-Uk...

This is a leaked document that was actually written by George Soros personally, entitled: "Comprehensive Strategy For The New Ukraine"

In this paper, Soros identifies the institutions that need to either be set up or targeted.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau needed to be established.

They got this done right from the beginning. It's also relevant to point out that this relationship bore fruit for the Obama Administration after they pressured the Bureau to investigate Manafort. They later hit a home run when they illegally released information implicating Manafort in the “Black Ledger," and that kicked the Russia Investigation into overdrive. And why did I say “illegally" released the information? Because a Ukrainian court convicted the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau for doing this, and interfering in the U.S. 2016 election.

Isn't it interesting that the establishment of the Bureau was all part of Soros' plan who was coordinating DIRECTLY with the Obama Administration. And it was the head of this very organization that was caught on tape bragging how he worked to discredit Trump on behalf of Hillary Clinton. By the way ... convicted in a court of law for interfering in the U.S. election.

Judiciary Reform, including the appointment of a new High Council of justice.

Rewrite the Constitution.

That's game, set and match. Control those three areas, along with an ally in the Presidency — which they had — and the country was now THEIRS.

But Soros had a problem. As he notes, the newly elected Parliament (the rada) was slowing down his master plan by having the audacity of insisting on that pesky little thing called “transparency." But, not to worry, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

(See end of page 3 and 4.)

Soros notes that after a year of preparation, all the pieces were finally in place for quote “radical reform." His plan called for the creation of the National Reform Council that would bring together the president's administration, the cabinet of ministers, Parliament and — get this — civil society. Which basically means the government — ALL OF IT — would be linked directly to HIM.

And this shows the insane hypocrisy of Soros and all these other organizations, supported by the State Department and Obama Administration, that claim to be spreading Democracy. The NSC had the power to completely bypass Parliament. It was designed to fast track “radical reform" by completely subverting the will of the people. That doesn't sound very Democracy-ish.

(See page 4 paragraph 5.)

Now here's the best part. If you wanna know who REALLY pulls the strings in what had now become the most powerful entity in the “New Ukraine", all you have to do is read paragraph 5 on page 4.

The sole financer for the National Reform Council was the International Renaissance Foundation. Also known as, the Ukrainian branch of the George Soros Foundation. Oh but never mind, it's ok. Soros points out that a Ukrainian department would later take over the funding for the Reform Council… so there's that. The “Project Management Office" would eventually fill Soros' funding role, and lead the charge on implementing reform projects. But where would THEY get their funding?

(See page 4 paragraph 5, particularly “International Renaissance Foundation" and “will be one of the main supporters of the PMO.")

Oh ... George Soros.

(See page 6.)

And he was standing by with one billion of his own money to invest in various Ukrainian businesses. Because why settle with just bending a country to your Leftist policies when you can also make billions to boot? Oh, but he wants to make it clear that he's going to reinvest all of that money into his Civil Society programs. Obama was right: sometimes you have enough money. Soros doesn't want more money. If I can quote Alec Ross: he wants more POWER.

It's really hard to grasp the concept that someone could just start revolutions, collapse countries — as Soros has. He's considered a criminal in many countries in Asia for what he's done. But this is what he's about. As I reminded you in his own words, this is fun for him.

Ukraine became the crown jewel for the now “institutionalized" U.S. Deep State and their like minded partners such as George Soros. And we might not have ever truly known the full extent of how bad it has become if not for that July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelesnky. Hydra mobilized, and they revealed themselves. But Ukraine is just the tip of the iceberg.

When Clinton's Civil Society 2.0 first came to Ukraine, consider the state of the world at the time.

The revolutions going on in the Middle East that he's talking about were more commonly known as ... The Arab Spring. At this point in time, November 2011, revolutions had broken out in Tunisia, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Libya and Morocco. TWO regimes — Egypt and Libya — had already fully collapsed.

Now for parts of the Arab Spring, the Obama Administration was much more overt in their participation. Remember this from Hillary Clinton?

Everytime I hear that, I think of the video of the barely alive Gadaffi.

Not a good guy. But can you imagine being responsbile for that and laughing about it? Its almost as if this is “fun" for those involved. Clinton, the State Department ... who do they answer to? Certainly not you.

Libya still hasn't recovered, and would eventually become the country with the largest ISIS presence outside Syria. Libya and Syria are absolute dumpster fires, and Alec Ross' “shop" within the State Department were at ground zero right from the beginning.

Link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/14/tech-guru-ale...

They were training NGOs and rebels in both countries, and actually providing communications technology to enable them to coordinate.

This was going down WHILE the Arab Spring was in full swing, but the meddling began long BEFORE.

Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/1...

Civil Society 2.0 began in November 2009, and it's no coincidence where they chose to kick it off… North Africa.

And remember what this program is intended for… what it's designed to nurture: revolution and regime change. As they did in Ukraine, they identify “Civil Society" groups, train them, fund them and show them how to mobilize.

Just a few months later, the White House initiated secret meetings with officials from the State Department and CIA. The meetings were led by Dennis Ross, the senior advisor on the Middle East; Samantha Power, from the National Security Council; and Gayle Smith, the director for global development.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeas...

They developed an 18 page classified report which the Obama Administration dubbed Presidential Study Directive 11.

Link: https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/psd/index.html

Now, the Obama Admin issued 11 Study Directives in total, and the vast majority have been declassified. But all we know about PSD 11 is that it had to do with quote: “political reform in the Middle East and North Africa."

An official with knowledge of the classified report told this to the New York Times:

"Whether it was Yemen or other countries in the region, you saw a set of trends" — a big youth population, threadbare education systems, stagnant economies and NEW SOCIAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES LIKE FACEBOOK AND TWITTER — that was a "real prescription for trouble."

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeas...

Could I just ask: Is this why Facebook, Twitter and Google have hired so many democrats specifically form HC's State Department office? Are they an expansion of the SD? You do know that the original seed money for google came form the CIA. What had the gov asked for in return. By the way ... that's a question, not a theory. And not a conspiracy fact as of yet.

Why is this report still classified? I'll just throw this out there ... maybe because there was an office in the State Department that was traveling the world training these “big youth populations" in revolution and regime change, in the months BEFORE the Arab Spring began?

Civil Society 2.0 arrived in the Middle East and North Africa in November 2009. Presidential Study Directive 11 occurred in August 2010. The Arab Spring kicked off just FOUR MONTHS LATER.

I want to make a personal plea to President Trump. If you want to know how institutionalized Hydra is, and why they're coning after you so hard you might want to declassify directive 11. If you want to see how deep the Ukrainian rabbit whole REALLY goes ... declassify PSD 11. You have the power to do it. I have a feeling that the strategy they used to take over Ukraine is probably described IN DETAIL in PSD 11.

Everything that was happening in Ukraine, was being done during the Arab Spring. Civil Society 2.0 had been on the ground a full year before the Arab Spring kicked off.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html

U.S. dollars then began to flow to the protestors on the streets. They did this through funding from Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy.

Remember that State Department meeting in 2008 a few months after Obama was elected? The Egyptian activists that brought down their countries regime ... were at that conference. They were:

Taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html

This is a leaked State Department diplomatic cable where they confirm the participation of the Egyptian activists at the 2008 meeting in New York.

Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaa...

It also reveals that the U.S. Embassy in Egypt was putting pressure on the Egyptian government in support of the street protestors.

And, just as in Ukraine, the Egyptian Regime buckled under the weight of these new tech savvy global community organizers.

All three stages that would later be used in Ukraine, were pulled off to perfection in toppling the regime in Egypt. But what about stage 4?

Infiltrating the criminal justice system was harder in Egypt because the military had an iron grasp on the government. So how did they plan on getting around that? Exactly what George Soros proposed in Ukraine ... just rewrite the Constitution.

Link: https://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71F0...

This Reuters article, written right after the regime fell, describes who was involved in rewriting Egypt's Constitution. Look who was in charge:

“CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month."

The main group in charge was the Arabic Network for Human Rights. You'll never guess who funds them.

Link: http://www.anhri.net/en/reports/net2004/thank.shtml (Specifically, “HRINFO gratefully acknowledges the Open Society Institute (OSI) for its financial support.")

And while Soros funded NGOs went to work rewriting the Constitution, he then moved to get his guys into top level positions within the government.

Link: https://www.npr.org/2011/01/31/133307779/could-egy...

Mohammed ElBaradei emerged out of nowhere as the de facto leader of the “revolution." He's also a trustee of an organization called the International Crisis Group.

Link: https://www.crisisgroup.org/

They're a ThinkTank that claims to be:

Working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.

They're also founded AND FUNDED by George Soros.

Everything was in place for a Ukraine level theft of a country, but the Egyptian military stepped in and put a stop to it.

What began 10 years ago in North Africa and the Middle East, and then later perfected in Ukraine in 2014 ... still goes on to this very day. We have a new president, a new administration, new lawmakers in Congress ... but Hydra marches on.

But to be fair, you could say that they're only trying to foment revolution in bad countries. Ok, but thats not the case.

A few months after Civil Society 2.0 began in Ukraine, a near identical project popped up in Macedonia.

Link: https://www.usaid.gov/macedonia/fact-sheets/civil-...

In February 2012, the U.S. Government gave George Soros nearly $5 million to carry out a quote “Civil Society Program." According to the financial disclosure, Soros was involved in training and funding Macedonians on freedom of association, youth policies, citizen initiatives, persuasive argumentation and use of new media. So, in other words, they wanted a Macedonian Spring.

The money flowed through the State Department and was facilitated by U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Jess Baily. Now, at this point, this isn't surprising coming from the Obama Administration, but after Trump was elected in 2016 an additional $9.5 million was allocated to keep the operation going.

Judicial Watch has done some digging on this, and they've interviewed several Macedonian officials to find out what the State Department and Soros are up to. See if this sounds familiar:

The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government. One of the Soros' groups funded the translation and publication of Saul Alinsky's “Rules for Radicals" into Macedonian.

Link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicle...

I wonder ... what did Hydra have against the Macedonian Government at the time? Could it be because they had one of the more conservative governments in all of Europe? They had the lowest flat tax on the continent, close ties with Israel and were strongly pro-life. They had also recently built a border fence to try and deal with the immigration crisis.

The State Department was attacking this government, through George Soros, with YOUR money.

Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/338904121/Senator-...

It prompted Mike Lee to write an official letter to Ambassador Baily, asking him what the heck was going on. This wasn't the official policy of the U.S. Government, this was someone else's SHADOW policy.

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/crisis-macedonia-protests...

And, as it has happened time and time again since this all began, violence, riots and chaos were the consequences of that shadow policy.

The U.S. Ambassador remained in Macedonia up until a few months ago. There was never any explanation as to why he left. There's no entry on the official embassy website. He just suddenly ... wasn't there anymore. I talked to Mike Lee before this broadcast. He told me that he received what the State Department might classify as answers. But Mike says that his questions were NEVER satisfactorily answered.

“Spontaneous, indigenous popular uprisings" continue to break out TO THIS DAY, and the fingerprints of Civil Society 2.0 and George Soros are all over it. They're following their 4 part plan country by country.

I challenge you —everywhere the violence is erupting — try and find one that isn't related to the programs, groups and people that I've shown you here.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/world/americas/...

Violence in Chile continues to boil over. Chile ... the one country in South America that has actually seen economic growth by adhering to open and free markets, is now spiraling out of control. More than 15 people have died. And you know what sparked all the chaos? It wasn't self immolation like the Arab Spring. No ... “Civil Society" groups hit the streets in Chile due to a three cent cost in public transportation. THREE PENNIES.

Chile's free market government has been a target of Hydra for a long time.

Link: https://2009-2017.state.gov/statecraft/cs20/index.htm

Civil Society 2.0 began setting up TechCamps in Chile in November 2010. From the press release:

Goals of the program include increasing regional civil society organizations' digital literacy, sharing information, building networks and matchmaking like-minded individuals to organizations.

It always reads the same, and regime change and chaos in the streets always follows. And those “like minded organizations and individuals" included people like this woman (Javiera Lopez).

Link: https://twitter.com/japalola?lang=en

She's one of the lead organizers out in the streets. She's also the National Political Counselor for a far-left Socialist political party called Democratic Revolution. Their top demands, as seen in this tweet, is to force the rewriting of the Chilean Constitution:

Hmm, where have we seen that before? The State Department and Soros, the Hydra that is called Civil Society 2.0.

A year after Civil Society 2.0 began training activists in Chile, Democratic Revolution formed to organize the quote “activities of the student movement." Today, they're leading the charge in the same way Egyptian activists overthrew the Mubarak regime. But none of it would have been possible without the financing of George Soros and his Open Society Foundation.

Link: https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/nacional/chile...

Soros was there from the beginning and continued funding through, AT LEAST, 2015. Now they're poised to overthrow one of the most free market economies in South America.

They're taking down country by country, one at a time. The strategies of progressive leaders in the past of establishing large governing bodies such as the League of Nations or the UN, and bending continents under their ideological boots is largely over. Why start from the top, when you can conquer fragile regimes one by one?

And if you think this is happening purely beyond our own borders ... I've got some REALLY bad news for you. Countries like Ukraine, Macedonia, Egypt, Yemen and even Chile are much easier to heat up, destabilize and then cast into your image. You can place allies in the criminal justice system, and do deals with their leaders to fast track legislation. You can't really do that here.

However, is it a coincidence that leftists are being trained here in the U.S. by Soros groups? That our DOJ, FBI CIA, all of it has been so badly damaged in reputation? That corruption is at a level I've never seen in our country before? And our Constitution is constantly discredited and no one really knows it anymore. How far-fetched is it to believe that in the next 5 years you could get America to call for an ACB — some outside force that would rat our corruption? How hard is it to believe that protesters —leaderless organizations — could rise up to create instability and demand that a few changes to be made to our constitution?

Make no mistake, Hydra is active here in the United States. They're skipping the federal government and going state by state, county by county ... city by city. The same tactics they've been employing all over the world have come, and are coming, to main street USA. We are currently in contact with multiple state officials who have been investigating the infiltration of Soros in key positions. It is well organized and well financed and way beyond anything you might have heard before.

You're likely to see a barrage of people on left instantly labeling this entire program a conspiracy THEORY. We're already seeing that in the impeachment proceedings. In her testimony, Fiona Hill said the words conspiracy theory at least twice, and at one point specifically mentions George Soros. But I'll challenge every single one of the naysayers: try and refute any single one of the FACTS I'm about to show you. Just try. I'll bring you on the show and we can talk about, but you better bring facts because I'll be holding all of mine.

And why is it so taboo to call out Soros' involvement in the Ukraine scandal? Why is Soros "the name that shall not be named"? What are they so afraid of? I've been highlighting FOR YEARS how he plays with entire countries. He's already brought several of those countries down.

Crashing economies and bringing countries to their knees is fun for him, but the question has always been: how does he do it, and — possibly more important — are nation states colluding with him to pull it off?

Glenn's Show Prep