Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘America’s Past’ Category

Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump’s Rally”

donald-trump-protester-e1458971678770
For weeks, rumors have circulated the web that individuals were being paid to protest at rallies held by Presidential hopeful, Donald Trump. Today a man from Trump’s rally on Saturday in Fountain Hills, Arizona has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event.“I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad a little over a week ago about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”Trump supporters have been claiming for weeks that the protesters are being paid for by Bernie Sanders’ campaign, but Horner disagrees.“As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.” Horner continued, “It was mostly women in their 60’s at the interview that I went to. Plus, all the people that I communicated with had an AOL email address. No one still has an AOL email address except people that would vote for Hillary Clinton.”

A screenshot of the Craigslist ad that Horner says he responded to. The actual ad has since been removed.
A screenshot of the Craigslist ad that Horner says he responded to. The actual ad has since been removed.
“I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart,” said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. “I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em’ and stuff.” Downey continued, “I think we did a good job though. I was shouting at them the whole time, calling them losers, telling them to get a job or go back home to mommy’s house; I got a bunch of high-fives from my fellow Trump supporters. It was a great time.”When asked about the other protesters at the rally, Horner said he saw most of them during the interview and training for the rally.“Almost all of the people I was protesting with I had seen at my interview and training class. At the rally, talking with some of them, I learned they only paid Latinos $500, Muslims $600 and African Americans $750. I don’t think they were looking for any Asians. Women and children were paid half of what the men got and illegals received $300 across the board. I think I was paid more than the other protesters because I was white and had taken classes in street fighting and boxing a few years back”Sarah Bradley, a spokeswoman for Sock It Forward, a group that provides the homeless and those less fortunate with brand new socks told ABC News that she does not understand why Trump protesters would need to be paid.“I’ll protest that guy for free,” Bradley said. “Trump is creating a place for like-minded, hate-filled, individuals to gather. You wouldn’t have to pay me anything to protest that.”Horner said the group had a mandatory six-hour training class that had to be completed before protesting at Trump’s rally.“During training we were taught chants to shout like ‘Dump Trump’ and ‘Trump Is A Racist’, things like that. We were told how to respond to anti-Trump comments too. If a Trump supporter said something about how great his wall will be, the Latinos in our group would say, ‘We’re just going to tunnel underneath it.’ They even gave me a shirt to wear at the rally which said ‘F*ck Donald Trump’ along with a sign to hold that said ‘Make America White Again’.”Hillary Clinton’s campaign crew refused to respond.

COMPUTER PROGRAMMER MAKES SHOCKING ADMISSION ON WHAT HE WAS ORDERED TO DO TO THE VOYING MACHINES…

We’ve been reporting on votes for Trump being changed to Hillary and this is happening all over the country. Many Americans, especially Republicans are concerned about vote-rigging and election fraud as we should be- we see it happening right before our eyes.

The media plays it off as if there no problem and that we are all just a bunch of paranoid right wingers.

But take a look at this.

Clinton Eugene Curtis, who is a computer programmer and former employee of ExxonMobil and NASA claims that he was told to write a special program for electronic voting machines that would rig close elections for whoever had control of the program.

Conservative Tribune reports that Curtis was questioned before Congress in 2004, in this video uploaded by hacktivist group Anonymous. He was asked by attorney Cliff Arnebeck, “Mr Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?”
When he responded affirmatively, he was asked, “How do you know that to be the case?”

“Because in October of 2000 I wrote a prototype for present Congressman Tom Feeney, at the company I work for in Oviedo, Florida, that did just that,” Curtis said. “It would flip the vote 51 – 49 to whoever you wanted it to go to, and whichever race you wanted it to win.”

“And would that program that you designed be something that elections officials, that might be on county boards of elections, could detect?” Arnebeck asked.

“They’d never see it,” Curtis said. “You would have to view it either in the source code, or you’d have to have a receipt, and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total. Other than that, you won’t see it.”

The Chick Who STARTED Chicago Trump Riots Was Getting PAID BY DNC

Zulema Rodgriguez, paid thug. You won’t believe who is footing the bill.

An activist who bragged about disrupting multiple Donald Trump campaign events in a recent Project Veritas video was on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign payroll, a search of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records reveals.
In a Veritas video released Monday, filmmaker and provocateur James O’Keefe recounts meeting activist Zulema Rodriguez at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. In the video, Rodriguez takes credit for violent protests in Chicago that forced Trump to cancel a March rally.
…Notably, a search of FEC records reveals that Rodriguez was paid by the Clinton campaign shortly before she disrupted the Chicago rally. The campaign paid her $1,610.34 as a “payroll” expense, and also gave her a $30 payment that is described only as “phone.”
Read more: The Daily Caller
Rodriguez also admits to involvement in an Arizona protest that shut down the highway.

Since two cops were injured in Chicago, maybe Rodriguez can pay their hospital bill. After all, she’s bringing in the big bucks from Hillary’s campaign.

Unbelievable!

Is there a depth that these people WON’T sink to?

Well, there are still 20 days left.

We’re sure to find out.

Hillary and Her Pal Lester Holt are Wrong, Stop and Frisk is Perfectly Constitutional

by Warner Tod Houston
serrano130527_2_560Stop and Frisk is Perfectly Constitutional
During the first presidential debate of the election year, Donald Trump and moderator-cum second Democrat debater Lester Holt clashed over the police policy of stop and frisk. Siding with Hillary, shill Holt insisted the policy was deemed unconstitutional while Trump disputed that notion. But in fact, Holt is wrong. Stop and frisk is perfectly legal.

One of Trump’s suggestions for how to put a dent in the wildly rising rates of violent crime in America’s Democrat-controlled big cities is to reinstate and expand the stop and frisk policy. Trump said as much during the September 26 debate.
ut, as Trump spoke the third debater interrupted him saying it was an illegal policy.

“Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men,” so-called “moderator” Holt told Trump.

“No, you’re wrong,” Trump responded. “It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”

So, who is right? Well, all signs point to Trump.

For those unaware, stop and frisk (sometimes called a “Terry stop”) was legitimized by the U.S. Supreme Court way back in 1968 when the court ruled that a police officer could legally frisk a suspect without obtaining a search warrant or first arresting them if the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed or carrying contraband (such as drugs).

But the concept goes back even farther than 1968 and can be found in the English Common Law upon which the American system of justice was based. In any case, it is a concept of very long standing and has already been ruled a legal policing tool.

The trick, though, is in the way stop and frisk is observed and put into use. In practice, the officer needs a “reasonable” cause to perform a stop and search and that is where the whole policy can get political. Should a department indulge the process too much it could result in calls of harassment by members of the community and that is what happened in New York City. Stop and frisk was ended due to political pressure, not really legal pressure.

Holt did have a minor point in that a 2013 lawsuit against the New York Police Department put a halt to stop and frisk by the NYPD saying that its process was flawed. But the lawsuit did not deem the policy of stop and frisk itself to be unconstitutional. Holt was 100% wrong on that.

In the 2013 case, Bill Clinton appointed Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan essentially ruled that New York City’s version of the policy was improper–calling it an example of “indirect racial profiling”–and demanded that the NYPD put a halt to its policy.

After her decision Judge Scheindlin was criticized by an appeals panel saying she had compromised the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation” by taking the case to the media instead of remaining properly aloof during the process.

Even after she issued her decision it wasn’t necessarily the end of the case as the city had initially begun to file an appeal of the ruling. The appeal could well have over turned Judge Scheindlin’s obviously liberal political ruling but the appeal was canceled by incoming, self-avowed socialist mayor Bill de Blasio whose decision was arrived via political considerations, not legal ones

So, even the NYPD’s version of stop and frisk never reached its final legal challenge to determine its legality.

But don’t take my word for it. After the debate the policy was immediately defended by one-time New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The former mayor said that stop and frisk helped bring about an 85 percent reduction in crime in the Big Apple and is a perfectly legitimate, legal and constitutional tool used by America’s police departments.

Giuliani took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal the day after the debate to side with Trump and asserted the efficacy of the stop and frisk policy.

Rudy insisted that the policy saved black lives.

Over a 20-year use of this policy, spanning the administration of two New York City mayors and four police commissioners, stop and frisk played a material part in reducing homicides in New York City. It helped to change New York City from the crime capital of America to the safest large city in the country. In each of those 20 years, approximately six of 10 murder victims in New York City were African-Americans. In other words, stop and frisk saved many black lives.
Rudy also pointed out that during his tenure the U.S. Department of Justice constantly reviewed the NYPD’s policy and never filed any sanctions or actions against the city.

It wasn’t until the liberal Manhattan judge appointed by a leftist president who wanted to make her mark in social justice before she retired that the policy was s maligned.

Rudy slammed both Hillary Clinton and “moderator” Lester Holt for their attack on Trump during the debate.

“Donald Trump was right. Hillary Clinton was wrong. Lester Holt should apologize for interfering and trying so hard to help Mrs. Clinton support her incorrect statement that stop and frisk is unconstitutional,” he wrote.

But Rudy Giuliani isn’t alone in his contention that stop and frisk is a good policy.

Even FBI Director James Comey noted that stop and frisk is a useful and legal tool for police. Comey recently told the House Judiciary Committee that the policy is perfectly fine when used properly.

Of course, many claim the policy is “racist” because it affects so many black citizens. But a study by the RAND Corp. found that “black pedestrians were stopped at a rate that is 20 to 30 percent lower than their representation in crime-suspect descriptions.”

In any case, the decision on how to or whether to implement stop and frisk is firmly in the political realm because in the legal realm the policy is perfectly constitutional.

FBI Director Comey Took Millions from Clinton Foundation Defense Contractor

Is anyone surprised by this corruption? When FBI Director James Comey said that the organization would not be seeking to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her illegal email server, anyone paying attention knew there was a deep level of corruption. Now, it’s been made clear. James Comey received millions of dollars from the corrupt Clinton Foundation, and his brother’s law firm also does the Clinton’s taxes.

According to a letter sent by 200 Republicans who stated Clinton “clearly placed our nation’s secrets in peril,” Comey was asked why he would not bring charges against her. “No one is above the law, and the American people deserve a more robust explanation for your decision to not recommend criminal charges.”

MiniPlanet reports:

A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.

These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
In the report, Comey is noted as receiving $6 million in one year along from Lockheed Martin, who is a Clinton Foundation donor, and became a donor in the same year Comey received those funds.

Additionally, Mr. Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings in 2013. HSBC has also partnered with The Clinton Foundation, where records indicate that the bank projected $1 billion in financing through the Clinton Foundation for “retrofitting” 1,500 to 2,000 housing units to conserve energy.

Additionally, Peter Comey, James’ brother, serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper, according to the report.

DLA Piper is number five on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list. DLA also performed an independent audit of The Clinton Foundation in November.

So, is anyone else going to question the motives of FBI Director Comey when it comes to failing to call for charges against Hillary Clinton regarding her blatant disregard for the law, national security and the American people? I think not.

Harry Reid Disgraces Himself With Parting Speech

reid
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) is set for retirement, but he couldn’t resist unleashing a barrage of unwarranted attacks on his Republican colleagues before lurching back to his home state. Reid, who has been one of the most divisive politicians on Capitol Hill for the last decade, used the final day of the congressional term to lash out at the GOP and their 2016 presidential nominee.

“I feel compelled to comment on how Republicans have treated the president of the United States during the last eight years,” Reid said Thursday. “History will look back and note the Republicans in Congress treated President Obama with unprecedented disrespect.”

Well, you get the respect you give.

Reid said that Senate Republicans “have not done the basic work of government,” which, in Reid’s twisted mind, means going along with whatever Barack Obama dreams up in the Oval Office.

“They have not stood by their commitments to restore regular order or to pass a budget,” he said. “Republicans have spent their time doing everything in their power to discredit President Obama and empower Donald Trump.”

That’s a laugh. Republicans in Congress are doing everything possible to empower Trump? If that jab is limited to Mitch McConnell’s refusal to hold confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee, we can forgive this otherwise-ridiculous comment, but Reid didn’t specify. In fact, as he continued, it became clear that he has a very distorted view of how the GOP establishment has treated their presidential nominee.

“The only thing Republicans have done this year was to prove that they are the party of Trump,” he said. “They are the party of Trump. They would have us believe that Trump just fell out of the sky and somehow mysteriously became the nominee of the party, but that’s not the way it is.”

First of all, Reid needs some help when it comes to keeping his tenses straight. He’s all over the place with “was” and “is.” Maybe he can consult an elementary English book in his retirement.

Second, Reid was all too happy to use the filibuster when Democrats were in control of the Senate, so his criticism of Republicans reeks of hypocrisy.

Third, he’s out of his gourd if he thinks congressional Republicans paved the way for Donald Trump. If anything, it was their inability to stand on principle and block the worst of Obama’s agenda that gave rise to Trump. Trump isn’t the ultimate manifestation of the Republican Party; he’s a message from Republican voters to the party elite: You had your chance, now we’re doing this.

“He is their Frankenstein monster,” Reid said.

No, sir. He’s OUR Frankenstein monster. And much like the one in the movie, he’s unjustifiably demonized and willfully misunderstood by the village idiots on Capitol Hill, including both Republicans and Democrats. They’re coming after him with their torches and pitchforks, blithely unaware that in attacking him, they are attacking us. And if they keep it up, they may be joining Harry Reid in the world of the unemployed very soon.

At Least 858 Immigrants “Mistakenly” Granted Citizenship – 1 Became a Law Enforcement Officer

BY TIM BROWN
At Least 858 Immigrants “Mistakenly” Granted Citizenship – 1 Became a Law Enforcement Officer

According to Homeland Security’s Inspector General, at least 858 immigrants from foreign countries that pose national security risks, as well as those from countries with high immigration fraud who had orders to have them deported were “mistakenly” granted citizenship.

An internal Homeland Security audit was released Monday, which documented the “mistake.”

The Associated Press reports:

The report does not identify any of the immigrants by name, but Inspector General John Roth’s auditors said they were all from “special interest countries” — those that present a national security concern for the United States — or neighboring countries with high rates of immigration fraud. The report did not identify those countries.
DHS said the findings reflect what has long been a problem for immigration officials — old paper-based records containing fingerprint information that can’t be searched electronically. DHS says immigration officials are in the process of uploading these files and that officials will review “every file” identified as a case of possible fraud.

Roth’s report said fingerprints are missing from federal databases for as many as 315,000 immigrants with final deportation orders or who are fugitive criminals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not reviewed about 148,000 of those immigrants’ files to add fingerprints to the digital record.

The gap was created because older, paper records were never added to fingerprint databases created by both the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service and the FBI in the 1990s. ICE, the DHS agency responsible for finding and deporting immigrants living in the country illegally, didn’t consistently add digital fingerprint records of immigrants whom agents encountered until 2010.

And this is what happens when government puts its nose in things like healthcare and other unconstitutional things it usurps its authority to meddle in. If the central government had been focused only on the things it is authorized to deal with, this matter would more than likely never have occurred. Not only that, but you can rest assured that no one will be held accountable in the matter.

While DHS is blaming paper issues and fingerprints, there were some of those who were awarded citizenship that were set to be deported.

While Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul called on ICE to have all immigration fingerprints digitized, but the threat to national security is great since citizens can apply and obtain security clearances or take jobs which are security sensitive.
According to Roth, at least three of these new citizens acquired aviation or transportation worker credentials, granting them access to secure areas in airports or maritime facilities and vessels. He went on to state that their credentials were revoked once it was discovered that they had been given citizenship mistakenly.

He also said that another individual had been given the role of a law enforcement officer.

While changes were recommended and DHS agreed with them and said they would work to implement them, this problem has been going on for years.

According to the AP report, “The government has known about the information gap and its impact on naturalization decisions since at least 2008 when a Customs and Border Protection official identified 206 immigrants who used a different name or other biographical information to gain citizenship or other immigration benefits, though few cases have been investigated.”

What has really been done about it? Nothing. Are we really to expect something new?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN – VOTE HILLARY?

14457442_10209803581743005_1114303326478533952_n

Democrats’ Deplorable Emails WHEN CAN WE GET RID OF THE DIRTY DEMOCRATS’?

How much to buy an ambassadorship? The answer is in the latest hacked messages.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Sept. 15, 2016
WALL STREET JOURNAL
If the 2016 election is remembered for anything beyond its flawed candidates, it will be recalled as the year of the Democratic email dump. Or rather, the year that the voting public got an unvarnished view of the disturbing—nay, deplorable—inner workings of the highest echelons of the Democratic Party.

What makes the continuing flood of emails instructive is that nobody was ever meant to see these documents. Hillary Clinton set up a private server to shield her communications as secretary of state from the public. She gave top aide Huma Abedin an account on that server. She never envisioned that an FBI investigation and lawsuits would drag her conversations into the light.

The Democratic National Committee and Colin Powell (an honorary Democrat) likewise believed their correspondence secure. But both were successfully targeted by hackers, who released the latest round of enlightening emails this week.

These emails provide what the public always complains it doesn’t have: unfiltered evidence of what top politicians do and think. And what a picture they collectively paint of the party of the left. For years, Democrats have steadfastly portrayed Republicans as elitist fat cats who buy elections, as backroom bosses who rig the laws in their favor, as brass-knuckle lobbyists and operators who get special access. It turns out that this is the precise description of the Democratic Party. They know of what they speak.

The latest hack of the DNC—courtesy of WikiLeaks via Guccifer 2.0—shows that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t alone in steering favors to big donors. Among the documents leaked is one that lists the party’s largest fundraisers/donors as of 2008. Of the top 57 cash cows 18 ended up with ambassadorships. The largest fundraiser listed, Matthew Barzun, who drummed up $3.5 million for Mr. Obama’s first campaign, was named ambassador to Sweden and then ambassador to the United Kingdom. The second-largest, Julius Genachowski, was named the head of the Federal Communications Commission. The third largest, Frank Sanchez, was named undersecretary of commerce.

Keep in mind what an earlier leak revealed: a May 18, 2016, email from an outside lawyer to DNC staffers in which the attorney suggests a call to “go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters.” Add this to what the Clinton and Abedin emails have shown to be a massive pay-to-play operation at the Clinton Foundation, in which megadonors like the crown prince of Bahrain got special access to the secretary of state.

And there are also all those Clinton speeches, for which they were paid millions. News comes this week that despite the Clintons’ promises to distance themselves from their foundation, they will first be holding what sounds like one last fire sale on future presidential access: a belated birthday bash for Bill Clinton, with a glitzy party at the Rainbow Room in Manhattan. A donation of $250,000 gets you listed as “chair” of the party, while “co-chair” costs $100,000. Foundation officials are refusing to say who has donated, or how much.

So which political party is all about money, influence and special access? The Republican Party held a true, democratic primary. Seventeen candidates battled it out, and the voters choose a nominee that much of the party establishment disliked.

Leaked emails show that the Democratic Party hierarchy retreated to a backroom to anoint Hillary Clinton and then exercised its considerable power to subvert the primary process and kill off the Bernie Sanders campaign. In one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall suggested sliming Mr. Sanders on religion: “Can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” How’s that for deplorable?

Perhaps most revealing are Mr. Powell’s emails, which show, undisguised, how Clinton supporters think. Specifically, the emails demonstrate that this crowd recognizes the Clintons as a menace—and yet they are willing to excuse away anything. “I would rather not have to vote for her,” Mr. Powell wrote to a friend. “A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still [sleeping with] bimbos at home.”

Unpack that. Mr. Powell is saying that Hillary is old; that she is a scandal factory; that she will cut any corner to win and do anything for a buck; that she won’t help the country; and that her husband remains a liability. And yet other emails suggest Mr. Powell nonetheless was (is?) debating giving her a boost with a well-timed endorsement in the fall.

This is the modern Democratic Party. The more it has struggled to sell its ideas to the public, the more it has turned to rigging the system to its political benefit. Don’t take Republicans’ word for it. Just read the emails.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Hillary Clinton’s Illness Revealed

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN