Tag Archives: Corruption

“Comey’s Law” Revisited

BY JIM O’NEILL

As outlined in Comey’s speech exonerating Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing “Comey’s Law” may be summarized as follows: “Unless one intends to break the law, then no law has in fact been broken…unless they are not, in which case they are.”

That last bit refers to the fact that if one is not a Clinton then the first part of “Comey’s Law” does not apply, and the individual in question is indeed guilty of breaking the law, whether they did it intentionally or not.  (See “Exhibit A” former US Navy sailor Kristian Saucier).

After stating that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against Hillary Clinton, Comey helpfully clarifies things by adding the following caveat:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

“To be clear” — yes, by all means let’s be clear about all this.  (Helpful hint: by “security or administrative sanctions” Comey means being thrown into prison).

At the beginning of his statement Comey informs us that “Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that [i.e. Clinton’s] personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way…” (italics added).

To be clear, Comey later informs us that Clinton did not act in a “grossly negligent” manner, but merely in an “extremely careless” manner.  Apples and oranges, right?  Who could ever confuse the two?

To be even more clear, Comey tells us that in no way did Clinton intend to break the law, ergo she is obviously innocent (as any reasonable prosecutor would tell you).

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct…or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, apparently the intention to break the law needs to be present, and/or “vast quantities” of classified material needs to be involved in order to break the law.  Seems a shame that Kristian Saucier’s lawyer was unaware of these legal statutes.

I have to admit to being puzzled however by Comey’s statement that “We do not see those things here” – referring to “intentional misconduct or efforts to obstruct justice.”  Did not Clinton’s minions “willfully and intentionally” attempt to hide tens of thousands of subpoenaed emails, BleachBit hard drives, and physically smash others to bits?  Why is that not considered obstruction of justice?  Oh well, I guess as Director of the FBI Comey must have known what he was talking about, right?

Let’s be clear.  Comey knew what he was talking about all right.  His stunning exoneration of Clinton, filled with duplicity and verbal razzle-dazzzle, will no doubt stand as a prime example of legal-weaselese for future students of law.

As We the People prepare for the IG’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton server “matter,” I thought that a refresher on “Comey’s Law” might be in order.  Laus Deo, power to the people!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are We the People Fighting Political Ideologues, Corrupt Crooks, Meanspirited Idiots, or all the Above?

BY JIM O’NEILL

A nation can survive its fools…but it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly…[but] the traitor appears not a traitor…he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC)

I used to believe that constitutional conservatives are fighting an ideological battle against political opponents – but I’m not so sure anymore.  It appears increasingly obvious to me that we are in fact engaged in a battle with power-hungry, ruthless, greedy, ill-informed opportunistic morons (sometimes bright morons, but morons nonetheless) – treasonous, self-righteous, scum-sucking bottom dwellers whose pretentions to moral authority make me want to puke.

They wrap their corruption up in fine sounding slogans and rationalizations but strip away the verbal razzmatazz and you are left with naked ugly ambition and greed.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Call it Marxism, call it communism, call it fascism, call it globalism, call it what you will – it all comes down to a power grab by a narcissistic elite bent on ruling We the People using whatever means it takes.  And they have no interest at all in playing by the rules.

Hillary Clinton is guilty as sin, and we the people have been hep to the corruption and coverup for years.  And who is this mysterious former POTUS who goes by the nom de plume Barack Hussein Obama?  He could be anyone, he could be from anywhere.  I am so sick of the abuse heaped on those of us who know we are being lied to and yet are constantly told to shut up and not be conspiratorial.

Well f—k them, and f—k their corrupt lying media sycophants.  They disgust me…as they should anyone with decency, honor, and integrity.  I have been studying the political left for some years now, and what I see is a collection of whiny losers – sociopathic professional victims who lie, cheat, and squirm their way into positions of power where they loudly proclaim their moral superiority for all to hear.  Again, f—k them, I’m so tired of their odious, dishonest, self-righteous bloviating that I could scream.  They lie constantly, and then lie about their lying, and then pout and act shocked when you call them on their c—p.

They celebrate and promote international thugs and asinine government policies with proven track records of ineptitude, failure, and murder.  Where will the next “killing fields” be?  Do these idiots not know how to read?  Have they not glanced through “The Black Book of Communism” (published through Harvard University Press no less)?  Such ignorance!  And they pat each other on the back, give each other “prestigious awards,” and remain ignorant buffoons (dangerous buffoons) trapped within their hothouse echo-chamber of blather and bombast.

They actively seek to harm and diminish America at every turn.  It’s a win/win situation for them, they can’t lose.  If their hairbrained schemes somehow work they crow about their supposed genius, and if they fail, well then that hurts America, which is all to the good right?  Think Cloward/Piven and its numerous diabolical offshoots.

I call bulls—t on all of it, and say it is well past time that we the people stopped treating these duplicitous, traitorous crooks with anything approaching respect, and started acting toward these professional parasites with the disdain and disgust that they so richly deserve.  The corruption in DC is so deep-seated, so pervasive, and so accepted as the norm, that grand juries, trials, and prison time is what’s needed, not more hail-fellow-well-met collegial claptrap.  America is still very much teetering on the brink, and this is no time for half measures.  Time to turn up the heat on all burners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turning Off Fakestream Media and Tuning In The Revolution

By Jim O’Neill

The Fake News refuses to talk about how Big and how Strong our BASE is. They show Fake Polls just like they report Fake News. Despite only negative reporting, we are doing well – nobody is going to beat us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States 12/24/17

Now we have for the first time in human history – certainly since the invention of the printing press – we have a chance to bypass this chokehold of propaganda that seems to run civilizations into the ground with depressing regularity.

Stephan Molyneux

Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?

John Page to Thomas Jefferson, 1776

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, free speech, higher wages, less taxes, and America, then you are a Trumpian revolutionary my friend, like it or not, believe it or not.

Why are we revolutionaries?  Because when We the People stand in opposition to the status quo, the elites, the Establishment, the globalists, then by our very existence we are revolutionaries.

When I say the “establishment” I mean the entrenched global hegemony of bankers, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, academics, media pundits, and various and sundry aiders and abettors (i.e. useful idiots).  It is a corrupt and corrupting nest of power-hungry social-engineering wonks and narcissistic Machiavellian plutocrats.  They are intent on turning We the People into dispensable, interchangeable cogs within the Machine of State.  If you resist being a nameless cog in their machinery then you are a de facto revolutionary.

There never was a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The right has always been too fractured and independent-minded to form such a thing.  The group-think herd mentality of the Left, however, is made to order for such a vast conspiracy.

The Left controls our educational (indoctrination) system from kindergarten through grad school.  They control our entertainment venues – movies, television, sports, you name it, and they control more leftist NGOs than I can count.  And they of course control our “news” (propaganda) media, from the wire services to television’s talking heads.  Fox News is the lone exception to the liberal bias in television “news” — an outlier of conservative viewpoints.  The rest of television “news” is unremittingly leftist and anti-Trump, the only differences between the channels being one of degree – Left, or Far Left.

They push “fake news” 24/7.  They are blatantly and unremittingly anti-Trump, which is to say that they are anti-We the People, for we are the ones who elected our “messenger.”  They are anti-capitalism, anti-free speech, and anti-American.  That is not hyperbole, as anyone who has been paying attention to what passes for American culture these days knows all too well.

Because you are drawn to this website then it is safe to assume that these facts are already known to you, so I won’t belabor the point.  If you are a patriotic revolutionary then the question becomes where to turn for real news, for honest reporting.  What follows is by no means an exhaustive list, but simply some of my favorite “go-to” sources.  I check them at least once a day, often multiple times.

I probably check in with “Fox News” and “Breitbart” more than any of the other news websites – in addition, I seem to have experienced a Vulcan mind-meld with “The Gateway Pundit,” as our viewpoints are so simpatico.

I also check out “The Daily Caller,” and I have the Apple app “Trump Feed” (“Trump White House Consolidated News”).  I love keeping up to date with the latest tweets, emails, FB posts, whatever, from President Trump, VP Pence, and their aides.  Also, I’ve been keeping an eye on “InfoWars” over the years, and IMO it continues to keep getting better (i.e. more trustworthy, inclusive, and relevant).

The long and the short of it is that if a TV channel or website seems to me to be in any way “Anti-Trump” (which, ipso facto means anti-We the People) then I pay it no mind.  I only tune in and pay attention to revolutionary news these days.

We are in the midst of the 2nd American Revolution, and as far as I am concerned President Donald J. Trump has the Divine Hand of Providence upon him, and is the most important political figure in American history since the Founding Fathers.

A war is coming — you can almost feel it in the air.  We should all pray that it will be non-violent and work hard to keep it that way.  But we should also have our ideological troops ready and prepared for that imminent battle for the hearts and minds.  It’s going to be pivotal.

Roger L. Simon “Why the Remaining NeverTrumpers Should Apologize Now

I agree with the above quote by Mr. Simon, except that I would say that we are already engaged in a war of far reaching, even cosmic, significance.  Nihilism and chaos versus logic and law — the confined and constricted limits of egoic narcissism versus the infinite expansion, freedom, and clear light of spiritual truth.

God versus Lucifer – an ongoing battle of truly biblical proportions.  Have you chosen your side yet?  Will you be one of the clueless, indoctrinated sheeple, or an awake and aware freedom-loving revolutionary?

 

 

President Trump and Perkins Coie

By Jim O’Neill

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Adam Entous, Devlin Barrett, Rosalind Helderman (“The Washington Post”) “Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Well finally.  The nefarious nature of the so called “Russian dossier” has come to light, and its salacious (read that as lewd and crude) allegations against President Trump will soon be shown for the slanderous falsehoods that they always were.

It is important to note that the DNC, Clinton, Christopher Steele, and the Russians, came into the picture after the original investigation by Fusion GPS was started and then dropped by an as yet unnamed Republican.  The entire Steele/Russia dossier is wholly owned by the Democrats.  (Which Republicans assisted in disseminating it is another matter).  The company that “investigated” the material in the dossier, Fusion GPS, was hired by the law firm Perkins Coie.

As my colleague Andrew McCarthy notes, it’s a clever arrangement. The use of the law firm adds a layer of deniability, and when controversy arises, Fusion GPS is able to appeal to attorney-client privilege to shield itself from scrutiny.

David French “The Russia Dossier Story: A Perfect Storm of Clinton Deception, Media Irresponsibility, and Democratic Moral Blindness

Besides reportedly being involved with the Clinton/Comey/McCain/Russia/Trump dossier imbroglio, the Seattle based law firm of Perkins Coie (founded 1912) is reputed to have been largely responsible for the legal firewall erected around much of Barack Obama’s past.

Perkins Coie is counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Other political clients include nearly all Democratic members of the United States Congress. It has also represented several presidential campaigns, including those of John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Wikipedia “Perkins Coie

As you’ll recall, Obama’s American citizenship (or lack thereof) was a cause celebre among conservatives prior to the 2008 presidential election, and especially in the years immediately afterward.  At the center of the controversy were two forensically disputed birth certificates shown on the Internet.  The controversy has never been resolved to the satisfaction of those doubting the veracity of the documents.

It is not a question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Tasmania, or wherever, it’s a question of the legitimacy of the birth certificates…and a number of other pertinent questions.

One of the people concerned about these questions was Donald Trump.  I wrote about it at the time (2011) in an article with the New York Post-worthy title “Help Trump Dump the Chump!”  The fact that someone with the nationally recognized status of Donald Trump was questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificates added an exposure and gravitas to the issue that it had previously lacked.

When [Obama White House counsel] Robert Bauer got up to speak, one of the reporters asked him, “Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years?  Was it Donald Trump who prompted you to issue this?”  One month earlier, Trump was a guest on the TV show The View and had asked, “Why does Obama refuse to show his long-form birth certificate?”

Ronald Jay PollandObama Revealed More Than His Birth Certificate Last Year

During Donald Trump’s campaign to, first win the Republican nomination, and then the presidency in 2016, the MSM made hay with the remarks he had made concerning Obama’s birth certificates in prior years.  Time will tell if their snarky remarks come back to bite them in a manner similar to what is presently happening in regard to their fake Trump/Russia collusion narrative.

In closing, let me state that I am definitely not accusing Perkins Coie of any wrongdoing.  I am simply pointing out that Perkins Coie and President Trump seem destined to butt heads from time to time.  Who, if anyone, will come out the winner is impossible to say…personally I’m betting on President Trump.

How 2 US senators profited from America’s financial crisis

Documents connect Senators Bob Corker and Mark Warner to controversial Wall Street deals.

Bob Corker is the Junior Senator in Tennessee and he is no friend of Constitutional Conservatives.  He is following in the leftist footsteps of our Senior Republican Senator, Lamar Alexander.  Both of these Republican neo-cons should be ousted and for many, many reasons.

.

Bob Corker and Mark Warner speaking in an interview with Zillow about mortgage-finance reform in September 2013.

Bob Corker and Mark Warner speaking in an interview with Zillow about mortgage-finance reform in September 201 …

“The idea that Wall Street came out of this thing just fine, thank you, is just something that just grates on people. They think you didn’t just come out fine because it was luck. They think you guys just really gamed this thing real well.”

So said then-Senator Edward E. Kaufman, a Democrat from Delaware, at the Congressional hearing in the spring of 2010 where assorted members of Congress lambasted Goldman Sachs’ activity in the run-up to the financial crisis.

But it turns out two members of Congress actually made money from that crisis, according to publicly available documents. During the crisis years, two now-senators, Mark Warner (D-Va.) who was the governor of Virginia until his Senate term began in 2009, and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who took office in 2007, were invested in a fund that appears to have made sizable profits from Goldman products that were designed to bet against the real estate market.

 

There’s no evidence either Senator was aware of the specific strategy, although both have reported millions of dollars of income from the fund. A little bit of ancient history: Back in the spring of 2010, the SEC charged Goldman Sachs with fraud over a deal called Abacus 2007-AC1. Abacus 2007-AC1 was a so-called CDO, which in essence requires investors to wager against each other. One set of investors was betting that homeowners would continue to pay their mortgages. Others, who were short, were betting there would be massive defaults.

In this particular deal, Goldman allowed a hedge fund client, Paulson Capital Management, to take the short position and help choose which securities would go into it. The SEC alleged that Goldman hadn’t told the long investors that Paulson’s team essentially had designed the CDO to fail. According to a report done by the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, three long investors together lost about $1 billion from their Abacus investments, while the Paulson hedge fund profited by about the same amount.

Goldman paid $550 million to settle the SEC’s charges in the summer of 2010. A young vice president who had worked on the deal, Fabrice Tourre, was eventually found liable in a civil suit brought by the SEC, making him one of the few to face any repercussions from the crisis era.

.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 28, 2016.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, …

But Abacus 2007-AC1 wasn’t unique. In fact, it was merely the last in a series of Abacus CDOs. According to the Senate report, these were “pioneered by Goldman to provide customized CDOs for clients interested in assuming a specific type and amount of investment risk” and “enabled investors to short a selected group” of securities. Many of the Abacus deals were tied in part to the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities, but some were also tied to the performance of commercial mortgage-backed securities.

Because AIG provided insurance on at least some of the Abacus deals, the Abacus deals were also part of the collateral calls that Goldman made to AIG, and part of the reason that taxpayers ended up bailing out AIG. Plenty of well-known hedge funds availed themselves of Goldman’s Abacus deals, according to a document Goldman provided the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The list of those who were short various Abacus deals includes Moore Capital Management, run by billionaire Louis Bacon; Magnetar, an Illinois-based fund run by Alec Litowitz; Brevan Howard, a European hedge fund management company; and FrontPoint Partners (which shows up in the movie “The Big Short”).

There are also some lesser known names in the document, including Pointer Management, a Tennessee-based fund which was founded in 1990 by Joseph Davenport, a Chattanooga area businessman and former Coca-Cola executive, and Thorpe McKenzie, also from Chattanooga, according to the Campaign for Accountability.

Specifically, Pointer took short positions in an Abacus deal called ABAC07-18, as did FrontPoint Partners and several others. According to several sources, this Abacus deal was based entirely on securities tied to commercial real estate, rather than residential real estate. While few people have heard about this particular Abacus deal, it too resulted in Goldman making a collateral call on AIG. According to a document Goldman submitted to the FCIC, it looks as if by late 2008, AIG had posted a total of $308 million in collateral to Goldman in connection with Abacus 2007-18.

View gallery

.

U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) speaks at a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, in this May 19, 2015 file photo. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque...

U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) speaks at a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, in this May 19, …

And it too was controversial — so controversial that at a meeting of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on October 12, 2010, the commissioners voted to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, citing “potential fraud by Goldman Sachs in connection with Abacus 2007-18 CDO.”

In its write-up, the FCIC quoted Steve Eisman, the FrontPoint trader whose character figures prominently in “The Big Short.” According to his interview with the FCIC, Eisman seemed to feel that Goldman might have gamed the rating agencies, and might have brought in outside investors so that the firm could justify marking the deal down immediately, meaning long investors would suffer and short sellers would make money.

According to Eisman’s testimony, he said to the Goldman traders, “So you put this stuff together and you went to the agencies to get a rating and the biggest issue with the rating is the correlation of loss, and you presented a correlation analysis that was lower than you actually thought it was but the rating agencies were stupid, so they’d buy it anyway. So assuming your correlation analysis was correct, you took the short side, sold it to the client, and then [did the deal with me to get a mark].” One of the Goldman traders responded, according to Eisman’s testimony, “Well, I wouldn’t put it in those terms exactly.”

Eisman went on to say he believed Goldman “wanted another party in the transaction so if we have to mark the thing down, we’re not just marking it to our book.” He added that, “Goldman was short, and we [FrontPoint] were short. So when they go to a client and say we’re marking it down, they can say well it wasn’t just our mark.”

The FCIC noted that if Goldman did agree with Eisman’s characterization, this could raise legal issues for Goldman as to whether the firm deliberately misled the rating agencies, thereby leading to a material omission in the offering documents for Abacus 2007-18 and violating securities laws. The FCIC also noted that if Goldman indeed knew it was expecting to lower the value of the security as the firm was creating it, and brought in other investors only to make that look more genuine, that could be another potential violation of securities laws. Anyway. Nothing came of this, just as nothing came of any of the FCIC’s other referrals to the Justice Department.

According to a document Goldman submitted to the FCIC, the short investors did very well: Pointer appears to have been paid $120 million in “termination payments” in 2008 and 2009. (Although commercial real estate held up fairly well in the end, prices also collapsed in the crisis.) The documents don’t make it clear what, if any, upfront investment was required; the monthly coupon rate was small.

“This amount of money that’s going into AIG, there is no upside now,” Corker told Politico in early 2009 about the taxpayer bailout of the company. “This is all just like gone money.”

Gone where? Well, what is clear is that Corker especially, but also Warner, made money from their overall investments in Pointer.  According to his disclosure forms, Corker’s investment in Pointer first shows up in 2006. He put the value of his investment between $5 million and $25 million. In July 2007, several months before the effective dates for Pointer’s Abacus deals, he put an additional $1 million to $5 million into Pointer. From 2006 to 2014, he reported total income from Pointer of between $3.9 million at the low end and $35.5 million at the high end (including funds from the sale of part of his stake in the fund in 2012.) He sold the rest of his stake in 2014 and reported a cash receivable from Pointer of between $5 million and $25 million that year.

According to Warner’s disclosure forms, he first invested in Pointer in 2007. He assigned his stake the same value range as Corker did his: between $5 million to $25 million. Warner, who sold his entire position in 2012, reported total income from Pointer of between $1.5 million and $10 million. There’s no evidence that either senator knew that a fund in which they had invested was shorting the real estate market.

A letter from Pointer’s chief compliance officer says that Corker “can neither exercise control nor have the ability to exercise control over the financial interest held by Pointer.” Nonetheless, Corker and the principals of Pointer have known each other for a long time. According to the Campaign for Accountability, in 2004, Corker named Joseph Davenport among his co-chairs of his campaign committee ahead of his 2006 election; Pointer employees and their spouses have contributed $76,840 to Corker’s campaigns and $55,000 to his Rock City PAC, says CfA. And several business entities tied to Corker list the same address as Pointer. There aren’t any obvious ties between Warner and Pointer.

Pointer did not return a call for comment. A spokesperson for Warner declined to comment.  Corker’s spokesperson says, “This is yet another ridiculous narrative being peddled by a politically-motivated special interest group that refuses to disclose its donors. This dark money entity has an abysmal track record for accuracy, and just like the other unfounded claims they have leveled against Senator Corker, this too is completely baseless.” (They are apparently referring to the Campaign for Accountability, although this story was sourced from publicly available documents.)

It’s also a little ironic that Corker and Warner were the co-sponsors of the Corker Warner bill, which set out to reform the housing finance system. Let’s give them some credit. Since they already benefitted from the last crisis, maybe they’re trying to protect us from the next one?

Read more:

Why was nobody prosecuted for contributing to the financial crisis? Documents show why

The biggest remaining risk in today’s financial system, hiding in plain sight

Bank capital is an illusion: Bethany McLean

Coming Out Fashion Statement? Iranian Valerie Jarrett Describing Last Year Of Obama Nightmare In More Traditional Garb

BY RICK WELLS FOR RICKWELLS.US

valerie jarrett

For those of us who aren’t fashion aficionados it’s difficult to figure out exactly what that is wrapped around Valerie Jarrett. She looks as if she might have inadvertently gotten herself tangled up in the window drapes or something but it’s color-coordinated so that’s unlikely. Maybe it’s some kind of Iranian headscarf and shawl combination turned around backwards.

Given her appearance, having the headscarf turned backwards is a great idea, provided she had left it in place. But she’s uncovered, so what’s the point other than a statement, an actual fashion statement, of who she is and what she represents. She is what she is; a pro-Islamic operative guiding what is at a minimum an Islamic sympathizer who’s squatting in the big boy chair in our White House.

The conversation is centered on crime, a topic the members of this regime are undeniably experts on. She describes their approach to redefining it and reducing the penalties for the types of crime most common to potential black voters, if they were, absent a felony conviction on their record, able to vote.

She claims that if you keep people from going to prison in the first place it reduces subsequent crimes. Of course not committing crimes in the first place is the most effective method of remaining out of prison, but that’s not what criminals do, so the regime is looking at other ways to once again reward bad behavior.  Pretending the crime never occurred or blaming someone other than the perpetrator seems like the course of action they’ve decided upon.

She describes the alternative to choosing a life of crime, which happen to be the very things her Dear Leader is destroying through his open borders invasion; an ability for the potential criminals to have had gainful employment and a means through which to support their families.

Ominously, Jarrett compares the last year of the Obama tenure to the second half of the fourth quarter of a football game, noting that “really big things happen near the end of the game, as we all know. And just look at this last year, we’ve had a terrific year,” mockingly criticizing the media who she recalls as having described Obama as a lame duck. She says, “Doesn’t feel much like lame duck to me.” A terrific year for Jarrett and Obama translates into another miserable year for traditional, free America.

She’s describing their focus for the next year as “criminal justice reform.” As there is bound to be a significant amount of liberal double-speak in her comments, just what perversions will be identified as reform is unknown and they will not likely be restricted to those she is admitting to in the interview.

Hidden agenda items will be attached, such as the federalization of local police forces, efforts to attack the Second Amendment in the name of crime reduction, and wealth redistribution packaged as “social justice” and “equal opportunity.”

Jarrett highlights with pride their pronouncement that felons will no longer be required to self identify on federal employment applications. It’s a situation which could leave the personal data of all Americans subject to harvesting for criminal activities, a situation she views as a positive and urges Congress to mimic their insanity in the case of federal contractors.

She calls upon everyone to help, saying it’s a problem that touches all of us and we need to own that responsibility. Just how we’re all responsible for the deliberate decisions of others to break the law is unclear. She talks of responsibility but not personal responsibility, that of the criminals to take ownership of their own bad decisions which led to their introduction into the criminal justice system.

Jarrett’s right, Obama isn’t lame; Congress is. She’s also correct that, given the level of forethought and scheming that has gone into the Marxist efforts under his “leadership,” the second half of the fourth quarter is going to be quite turbulent for the American people. It will be a period of offensive success for the regime, filled with trick plays and misdirection as well as bad officiating, missed opportunities, and the giving up by the Republicans on defense.

The Republicans haven’t stood up to these criminals in seven long years; there’s absolutely no reason to think they’d start now.

I’m Rick Wells – a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. I’m not PC; I call it like I see it. – Please “Like” me on Facebook, “Follow” me on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us & www.truthburgers.com.

What’s The Hurry? Senator Sessions On Ryan’s Pelosi-Style “Shove it Down America’s Throat” Spending Bill – Slow Down

Posted on October 31, 2015 by Rick Wells

SESSIONS

It was entirely predictable that the last act of Speaker John Boehner and the first act of Speaker Paul Ryan would be a seamless continuation of the assault on the American people; that‘s what Congress does these days. It’s also no surprise that the assault included a capitulation to the wishes of the anti-American tyrant in the White House, for the same reasons.

The power of the purse is being discarded for the remainder of the Hussein Obama nightmare, as is any pretense of financial responsibility in a deal which Senator Jeff Sessions has discovered looks remarkably similar to one co-authored by Paul Ryan back in 2013. The wolves aren’t just guarding the hen house, they’ve taken it over. It’s a complete abdication of responsibility and duty to their constituents, one which Sessions reminds his Congressional counterparts there is no need to rush to complete. He reminds them of their duty, something they seem to have forgotten, to the people of the nation. On Tuesday Sessions wrote:

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued the following statement after outgoing speaker John Boehner and President Obama unveiled a two-year deal to suspend the debt limit, waive federal spending caps and raid workers’ payments into their Social Security Trust Fund:

“Once again, a massive deal, crafted in secret, unveiled at the 11th hour, is being rushed through Congress under threat of panic. Once again, we have waited until an artificial deadline to force through that which our voters oppose.

At its core, this deal with President Obama does two things: First, it lifts federal spending caps for the next two years – including a $40 billion increase in spending on the federal bureaucracy. Second, it waives the federal debt limit through March of 2017, allowing for approximately $1.5 trillion to be added to the debt – ensuring no further conversation about our debt course or any corresponding action to alter it.

It appears this deal is built on the same principles as the Ryan-Murray budget deal from 2013. It exchanges instant increases in federal spending for distant savings, as much two decades down the road, that are likely to never materialize. It funds increased spending through increased revenues – violating a core budget principle by collecting more money to expand an already too-large federal bureaucracy. And it trades the termination of today’s spending limits for the promise of new spending limits ten years from now.

The spending caps in law today were pledged as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act agreement to lift the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. It represented a bipartisan commitment to cap spending at a fixed amount. This deal shatters that commitment by spending $80 billion more than we promised over the next 2 years.

The deal also uses a common gimmick where alleged savings in an entitlement program are used to boost unrelated spending in the federal bureaucracy. Any savings found to entitlement programs faced with insolvency must be used to shore up those programs – not to surge spending somewhere else. Yet this deal claims illusory savings from Disability Insurance and increased pension insurance fees in order to boost bureaucratic budgets. Perhaps even worse, the deal attempts to stave off the shortfall in fraud-ridden Social Security Disability by plundering from the Social Security Trust Fund for retirees. One hundred and fifty billion dollars in funds will be siphoned from Americans’ payroll retirement contributions and redirected to the mismanaged disability program.

Finally, this deal cements the unacceptable precedent that every dollar of increased defense spending should be matched with a dollar of increased non-defense spending. This is upside-down: if an emergency requires more defense spending, common sense says we should seek to identify reductions, not hikes, to spending in non-defense accounts.

The people want an end to wasteful Washington spending. Lifting the budget caps and raising the debt ceiling through 2017 only ensures that our ineffective bureaucracy continues its wasteful ways while momentum in Washington for debt reduction stalls out. It eliminates a powerful opportunity to advance the case for financial discipline.

The deadline is artificial and can easily be pushed back with a short-term measure if needed. Republicans should insist that any vote on spending caps or the debt ceiling be delayed until the House has chosen a new Speaker – and until there has been a full conversation among our conference and, most importantly, our voters. There is no urgency to pass a 2-year deal. GOP voters are entitled to have their representatives represent them – not act as opposing counsel, urging them to capitulate to the President’s demands. Whether it’s spending, debt, crime, immigration or trade, it is time for us to start fighting for what our voters want – instead of demeaning their just concerns about the future of our country.”

Hillary Clinton’s Record of Malfeasance

8From Little Rock to Chappaqua — Will Any Scandal Stick?

By Mark Alexander FOR THEPATRIOTPOST.US

“[She] who permits [herself] to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; [she] tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing [her]. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)

orange

Long before the Great Prevaricator Bill Clinton and his chief administrator Hillary duped their way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, their tenure in Arkansas was defined by relationships with radicals, real-estate shenanigans, drug dealing associates, Ponzi schemes and “lucky investment returns” such as Hillary’s one-in-31-trillion cattle futures profits. However, none of that corruption stuck to the Teflon couple.

What follows is a concise record of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s deceptions, obfuscations and subterfuges, from Little Rock to Chappaqua. Given that Hillary is (for the moment) the national frontrunner for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination, I’ve compiled some of the more ignoble examples of her abject corruption from the Clintons’ White House “co-presidency” years (recall that Bill promised “You get two for the price of one”) — and the years since. (For a complete chronological listing of our Clinton campaign coverage, check out the Clinton tags.) But don’t delay — the terminus of Hillary’s political aspirations may come sooner than she expected — if her email server lies results in felony indictments.

If I had to choose just one quote that best defines the Clintons’ philosophy on governing, it would be these recent words from Hillary: “I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.” This is the re-warmed doctrine of Karl Marx and the mantra of today’s Democratic Party statists.

1993: After the suicide of Hillary’s longtime friend and White House counsel Vince Foster, files “disappear” from his office, impeding the investigation into his death — files that would most assuredly have shown the Clintons’ fingerprints to be on various nefarious enterprises. (Sound familiar?)

liar

1993-94: The Clintons’ White House “security director,” Craig Livingstone, a former bar bouncer and Clinton political hack, is caught with more than 900 classified FBI background files that he’d requested on leading Republicans from the Reagan and Bush administrations. Hillary lied in her testimony about the files.

1993-96: Hillary convenes illegal secret panels to create a socialized health care plan, which was exposed by Republican House investigators and subsequently went down in flames. Her ClintonCare proposal was thus shelved until Barack Obama became president, but she is without question the grande dame of what eventually became ObamaCare.

1993-97: The Clintons turn the IRS into their personal attack dog, and the agency went after every major conservative group in the nation, including The Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association, Concerned Women of America, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Not even conservative publications such as National Review and American Spectator were spared. In 1996, The Washington Times researched the targeting of these organizations and could not identify a single liberal advocacy organization that had been audited during Bill’s first term. (Sound familiar?)

1994: Hillary’s Rose Law Firm billing records related to the 1980s Whitewater Development bankruptcy mysteriously disappear — but then inexplicably reappear a year later after having been “scrubbed” of any incriminating evidence linking Hillary with key partners in that fraud. (Sound familiar?)

1995: Bill Clinton signs legislation making it easier for minority constituents with bad credit to obtain mortgages. His Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, rewrote the lending rules for the ill-conceived Community Reinvestment Act (which had been signed into law by none other than Jimmy Carter), opening the floodgates of Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) subprime loans. Clinton’s legislation applied affirmative action to the lending industry, sowing the seeds for the massive deflation of home prices and for the near-total collapse of the American financial markets 10 years later. Bill Clinton admitted in 2008, “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress … to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Indeed.

mortgage

Democrat Rep. Artur Davis was a bit more direct: “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In retrospect I should have heeded the [Republican] concerns in 2004. Frankly I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that, when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

1995-96: Hillary confidant John Huang is appointed to the DNC and raised large illegal donations from foreign sources. (Sound familiar?) Charlie Trie also raised major illegal donations from foreign sources. His $450,000 contribution to Clinton’s legal defense fund was a pass-through from Asian special interests. According to Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman, those interests included the Red Chinese government.

1996: The Clintons trade Commerce Department positions and Lincoln Bedroom lodging for big campaign donations. Then-Vice President Al Gore repeatedly and infamously insisted, “There is no controlling legal authority,” after it was determined that the Clintons were operating a major fundraising call center in the White House.

1997: Six years into Bill Clinton’s tenure of national security malfeasance, one of Osama bin Laden’s well organized al-Qa’ida terrorist cells crafts a plan to settle into American suburbs and prepare a strike on our homeland. Four years had passed from the time of the first World Trade Center attack under Clinton’s watch until preparations began for the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. The Clinton’s refused an FBI field agent’s efforts to open a case file on Arab nationals who were, curiously, training to fly commercial aircraft, but not training for takeoffs or landings. The stated reason for the case file denial was to avoid the appearance of any presumption of an Islamic threat — precisely why, to this day, Democrats refuse to use the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” in the same context. During his eight years in office, Clinton had numerous opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden, but refused. Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the “nuclear football” codes for the Clinton administration, notes, “[W]e could have prevented the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we could have prevented 9/11 and we could have prevented the bombings of the embassies in Africa if President Clinton had taken one of these opportunities. … We had eight chances at least to either nab bin Laden or to kill him.” Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the team responsible for hunting bin Laden, confirmed that prior to 9/11 SpecOps had two opportunities when Osama was literally in their sights, but Clinton pulled the plug on both operations.

1998: Bill Clinton is impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice after falsely insisting he “did not have sexual relations” with a 22-year-old female White House intern. Hillary had established a long record of defending her husband against charges ranging from sexual impropriety to rape (in order to ensure her own political aspirations), including but not limited to charges brought by Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Hillary perfected the practice of “blaming the victim,” and she insisted that the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal was fabricated by a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

billy

Americans learned a lot about DNA evidence, and the Clintons should be credited with the popularity of all the cold case and forensic file TV shows that followed. We also learned that, unlike Richard Nixon, who had the decency to resign instead of putting the nation through an impeachment proceeding, the Clintons knew that Senate Democrats would never join with Republicans to achieve the two-thirds majority vote required to convict the Philanderer in Chief.

2000: Bill Clinton issues executive pardons to big donors and other convicted felons, some doing time related to Clinton scandals. Recall that among all those last-minute political pardons, one was for his former CIA director, John Deutch, who, it was discovered in 1996, stored classified documents on an unsecure laptop at his residence.

2001: According to Hillary, she and Bill depart the White House “dead broke” after vandalizing the executive residence before the Bush family arrived and loading up $190,000 in gifts and furnishings. However penniless (despite six-figure taxpayer-funded salaries and an $8 million book deal), they managed to buy a Chappaqua, New York, country house for $1.7 million in 1999 in order to establish residency for Hillary’s carpet-bagging Senate run in 2000. They also acquired a seven-bedroom house in DC for $2.85 million so Hillary would have a place to stay while the Senate was in session.

So, what are the two most notable lessons from the Clinton White House years?

First, never select an old establishment Republican like George Bush or Bob Dole to run against a young, charismatic narcissist. (Apparently Republicans forgot that lesson in both 2008 and 2012.)

Second, virtually nothing sticks to the Teflon Clintons. They have perfected the art of the BIG Lie and the basic tenets of obfuscation: Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-allegations.

2001-2009: Bill and the then-junior senator from New York amass hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth from fees charged to those who were betting on Hillary’s political future. What she did not amass, however, is any record of accomplishment as a senator — no piece of legislation was advanced under her name.

2009: After Hillary’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential primary bid against Barack Obama, he hushes her up and keeps her close with an appointment as secretary of state, an office she held from 2009-2013. While Bill and their “family foundation” continued to amass millions in speaking fees and donations, Hillary compiled an even less impressive but much more lethal record as secretary of state than she had as a senator. She visited 112 countries, and, though she falsely claimed having been shot at by snipers in at least one of them, she can claim no treaty, no accord or even a meaningful summit success. Hillary does claim that she “restored America’s reputation,” but what she actually did was advance Obama’s failed foreign policies to the extent that America now suffers its weakest world standing since the Jimmy Carter era.

2012: Hillary crafts and propagates the Benghazi cover-up after the death of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya. She lied about the attack, claiming it was inspired by an obscure Internet video rather than a well-planned and executed al-Qa’ida assault on the anniversary of 9/11. She did so to protect Obama’s 2012 election, thus ensuring her own 2016 ambitions. Recall that at that time Obama was continuously crowing about how al-Qa’ida was “on the run.” Given that his domestic economic and social policies had been an abject failure, all he had to frame his 2012 campaign upon were the patently false claims of victory in Iraq and the defeat of al-Qa’ida.

2014: While Hillary was secretary of state, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation took in hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments, corporations and individuals, who were currying favor with Hillary as secretary of state and as a potential future president. Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” provides a sobering outline of the abuse.

2015: In March, Hillary admits that she illegally maintained a “private email server” for official State Department communications — in violation of federal law, and had failed to acknowledge those records in congressional testimony regarding the Benghazi attack and cover-up. In April, Clinton officially announces her presidential candidacy. But Clinton’s self-spun web of lies about keeping her communications out of the public record may yet ensnare her, and end her 2016 presidential aspirations. It’s not likely that she’ll withdraw without a fight, but she is, clearly, in trouble. (Read our comprehensive account of Clinton’s email cover-up lies.)

Thus far, from Little Rock to Chappaqua, Hillary’s non-stick surface has proven effective at avoiding criminal charges. Indeed, she learned a lot from her slippery spouse. But she may have finally met her match in South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor who now heads the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

If he pins Clinton with felony charges related to her email server subterfuges, those charges will stick.

Indeed, it is now increasingly likely that Clinton, having deleted more than 30,000 emails from her communications server, will face criminal charges. Those charges range from perjury and felony possession and dissemination of classified documents to obstruction of justice. The latter could result in felony charges, as Clinton directed the erasure of all those emails even though she was fully aware that all documents pertaining to her tenure as secretary of state were subject to subpoena by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Though Clinton claimed, “I’ve never had a subpoena,” Rep. Gowdy corrected the record, noting, “[S]he was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server, and that the State Department was not the custodian of her official record. For more than two years, Clinton never availed herself of the opportunity, even in response to a direct congressional inquiry, to inform the public of her unusual email arrangement designed to evade public transparency.”

In regard to felony possession and dissemination of classified documents, recall if you will the recent prosecution of Gen. David Petraeus, Obama’s former CIA director. Gen. Petraeus admitted to security violations after he inadvertently made classified material available to his biographer, with whom he was having an adulterous affair. Though that biographer, former Army Major Paula Broadwell, held security clearances and none of the classified material was compromised, it was still a serious breach of security protocols. Petraeus avoided a felony conviction by pleading guilty, and he was sentenced to two years’ probation and required to pay a $100,000 fine.

And regarding the statute pertaining to obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, it specifies felony charges for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry” in any official account or record “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter.” Notably, it further specifies, “or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case,” which is precisely why Clinton maintained that private server.

That statute, part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, for which then-Senator Hillary Clinton voted “yes,” includes penalties of up to 20 years in prison.

Felony counts may be coming, despite her claims that “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” and “There is no classified material,” now that another 300 emails have been recovered from “lost” State Department servers that appear to have classified content.

As for where the Benghazi investigation will lead, Clinton concludes, “We’ll see how this all plays out.”

Indeed we will… At present, the best evidence that felony charges will be filed is Obama’s pseudo-endorsement of Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy, by way of his spokesman Josh Earnest.

According to Earnest, “The president has indicated that his view that the decision that he made … to add Joe Biden to the ticket as his running mate was the smartest decision that he has ever made in politics. And I think that should give you some sense into the president’s view into the vice president’s aptitude for the top job.” Earnest added, “The vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. So I think you could probably make the case that there is no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

While Earnest also expressed Obama’s “appreciation, respect and admiration” for Hillary Clinton, it’s hard to overestimate the importance of his statements on Biden in light of Hillary’s mounting troubles.

And that statement came a day after Biden met with Sen. Elizabeth “Honest Injun” Warren. No doubt that meeting was to reach an accord that he would serve one term with her as his veep, if she stayed out of the 2016 primary. Indeed, a Biden/Warren ticket would be far more competitive than either Clinton or Sanders at the top of a ticket.

Recall that in February, Biden advocated for an Obama third term: “I call it sticking with what works!” By “what works,” he must have meant duping voters in presidential campaigns, because in both the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Obama’s Democratic Party policies suffered resounding defeat. That notwithstanding, in July, Obama himself asserted: “I cannot run again. I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran I could win. But I can’t.”

Make no mistake, a Biden/Warren ticket is a third Obama term!

And I noted that Bill Clinton was vacationing with the now-rich and famous Obamas at their exclusive Martha’s Vineyard in mid August. The White House press corps released photos of Bill and Barack golfing — which I’m sure Clinton hoped would be a subtle shot over Biden’s bow to keep clear of Hillary’s ‘16 campaign.

Or… perhaps he was cutting a deal for another executive pardon similar to the one he gave John Deutch in 2000, as noted above. However, in this case, it would be Hillary who was keeping classified documents on an unauthorized server in her home.

(For a complete chronological listing of our Clintons campaign coverage see the Clinton tags. For our comprehensive account of her email cover-up lies, click here.)

 

 

Since John McCain Brought It Up – Why Did He Obstruct Pro-POW Legislation, Why Do So Many Despise Him?

By RICK WELLS FOR CONSTITUTION RISING.COM

MCCAIN

Veterans, House Members and Senators are featured in this discussion of the record and anti-veteran behavior of Senator John McCain, particularly after his release from his North Vietnamese captors.

They remark how odd it is that John McCain, once held as a POW himself, would be so bitterly opposed to efforts on behalf of those who might have been left behind by our nation and still be being held in captivity. Those acts include blocking the release of classified intelligence regarding the issue of POW/MIA’s. Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) describes information being deliberately withheld from a Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs by the U.S. federal government.

Veterans raise the question of whether or not McCain was a collaborator with the enemy, as is strongly rumored, and whether it is out of concerns for damaging information being revealed that McCain is so protective of the still classified information.

There is evidence that the United States is complicit in actively covering up information relating to POW’s and MIA’s in both Korea and Vietnam, and their subsequent transfer to other nations, such as China and the former Soviet Union, now Russia. McCain and John Kerry are exposed as assisting in that cover-up.

Another interesting point about John Kerry that is revealed by Tracy Usry, a former US Senate Chief Investigator, is that the Heinz Family, which is John Kerry’s wife’s Ketchup Empire, was given sole rights for the negotiation of all real estate issues within Vietnam. If that is true, there could not be a more egregious conflict of interest imaginable.

There is also information regarding McCain’s reputation and nickname given by his captives of the “Songbird,” which refers to his willingness to sing like a bird, telling all he knew from the very beginning, and without the need for torture.

John McCain has never had these questions raised on a national stage before. In spite of the complicit media doing their best to condemn Donald Trump and rally to McCain’s assistance, thereby eliminating a serious campaign threat to the status quo of non-representative government, the truth may be leaking its way out of the tightly held grip of McCain, Kerry and their anti-American collaborators.

McCain may wish he hadn’t picked a fight with Donald Trump. There are lots of people who have come to that realization the hard way. With a reelection fight due 2016, McCain may have introduced issues into the debate he would have preferred had remained outside of the public domain and discussion.