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 ‘Corruption’ Category

Warren Warpath

Fraud-Trump-600-LA

THE REAL FRAUD

13445504_10208910875185899_3207969885296265001_n

DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY – Feds pouring Muslim migrants into Rand Paul’s hometown

BY LEO HOHMANN

map_of_bowling_green_ky
The same resettlement agency that is funneling Syrian Muslims into Sen. Bernie Sanders’ state of Vermont and also into Nevada is now delivering them to Sen. Rand Paul’s hometown of Bowling Green, Kentucky.

WND reported last week on the plans to seed the small town of Rutland, Vermont, with 100 Syrian Muslims while another 75 are being sent to Reno, Nevada, and dozens more in Missoula, Montana. WND has previously reported on plans to bring up to 5,000 Syrians to Michigan and hundreds more to Idaho.

The feds have been scouting for new places to bring the Syrians including in northwest Arkansas and in Ithaca, New York.

Now the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, or USCRI – the same volunteer agency that is working in Rutland and Reno – has called a surprise meeting for 5 p.m. Friday to announce plans to bring 40 Syrians to Bowling Green, Kentucky, in October.

“That’s very little notice for a public meeting to be held on a Friday evening,” said Ann Corcoran, who follows the refugee movement at Refugee Resettlement Watch.

City goes from no Muslims to 10% Muslim in 15 years

Bowling Green is not new to Muslim refugees. The city has been transformed over the past decade from a typical Middle America town that had no Muslims to one that now has more than 7,000 who account for at least 10 percent of the city’s population. It had no mosques 15 years ago and now has several including a large Islamic Center. The Islamic refugees have come from 23 countries, mostly from Bosnia, Russia, Burma, Iraq and now Syria.

“They’ve had the same federal contractor, USCRI, in Bowling Green for a long time,” Corcoran added. “We have a large archive on Bowling Green because they have had many problems there over the years with Iraqi refugees. Now Syrian Muslims will join the Iraqi Muslims in Rand Paul-land.”

Make YOUR voice heard! Sign the petition to impose a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration to our country

Paul’s office told WND he is not in favor of the Syrian refugee dumps in Kentucky or anywhere else under the current vetting process being used by President Obama.

“Senator Paul believes we must pass the SECURE Act,” said Sergio Gor, the senator’s press secretary. “This legislation would suspend visa issuance for countries with a high risk of terrorism and impose a waiting period for background checks on visa issuance from other countries until the American people can be assured terrorists cannot enter the country through our immigration and visa system.”

Paul was much more outspoken against refugee resettlement three years ago, before he contemplated a run for president.

Paul softens his stance

In a June 2013 article in the Huffington Post, the senator said the U.S. should be skeptical of accepting refugees, from the Mideast in particular, because they take welfare and could plan attacks on American soil.

“We have had refugees attack us here. Ninety-five (percent) of our 70,000 Iraqi refugees are on food stamps, majority are in government housing, 46 percent are unemployed,” he said. “It’s one thing to have a big heart and invite people to our country, and if you do it in a small fashion, the churches and the people take care of them; that’s one thing. But like in my town in particular, they bring ’em in and there is someone whose job and expertise is to sign them up for welfare as soon as they get here.”

Since he decided to run for president, he has been much more guarded in the substance and tone of his comments about refugees.

Pamela Geller wrote the book on how to prevent creeping Shariah from entering your community in “Stop the Islamization of America.”

It was just last year that Americans learned a terrorist, Tashfeen Malik, had entered the U.S. from Saudi Arabia not as a refugee but on a fiancée visa. She, along with her husband, Syed Farook, killed 14 people at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino. And two of the jihadists who pulled off the bloody attack on Paris that killed 130 people in November 2015 had entered Europe as “refugees” carrying Syrian passports.

Head of resettlement agency paid salary of $289,192

The Syrians are being brought to Bowling Green by USCRI, a nonprofit headed by Lavinia Limon, the former head of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement under Bill Clinton. Limon made the transition from government bureaucrat to government contractor at USCRI, where she now earns an annual salary of $289,192, according to USCRI’s 2013 IRS form 990. She also managed to get a relative, Peter Limon, a plum job at the nonprofit, which pays him $139,869.

USCRI, like the other eight volunteer agencies, gets paid nearly $2,000 in federal grant money for every refugee it brings to America.

Bowling Green has a troublesome history with Muslim refugees. Two Iraqi nationals who were resettled as refugees in the city in 2009 were caught in 2011 sending military supplies and other material support to al-Qaida in Iraq. They were eventually convicted and are serving long prison terms.

President Obama is in the midst of a “surge” in Syrian refugee resettlement, seeking to fulfill his promise to the United Nations that he will admit 10,000 Syrians into the U.S. by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. To reach that goal, he will need to bring in an average of 358 Syrians per week.

And the pipeline from Syria to the U.S. will continue even into the next fiscal year, officials with the State Department have said.

More than 97 percent of the Syrians resettled in the U.S. since the start of the Syrian civil war have been Sunni Muslim. Only 1 percent have been Christian, and of the 499 Syrians who have entered the U.S. since the “surge” began last month, not a single one has been Christian.

Christians are the most persecuted of all religious groups in Syria, hunted down and killed by the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front and other Sunni groups, but the administration has shown zero interest in offering them a safe haven in the United States.

Trump blasts Hillary on refugee stance

Hillary Clinton has promised to go even further with the resettlement of Syrian Muslim refugees selected by the United Nations.

Clinton wants to increase Syrian refugees from 10,000 to 65,000, an increase of over 500 percent. Donald Trump blasted her earlier this week saying she could not claim to care about women and women’s rights while advocating for a radical increase in Syrian immigration. Most Muslims coming from Syria are Shariah-compliant, meaning their women wear the veil in public and their husbands are allowed to beat them for disobedience in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad in the Quran (see Sura 4:34).

The Bowling Green International Center plans to help resettle refugees as a subcontractor working under USCRI. They will initially bring a group of 40 from Syria in October, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

“A plan to accept Syrian refugees in Bowling Green is raising concerns,” the newspaper reported. “In response, the organizations involved have scheduled a town hall to address any questions.”

Bowling Green residents will be told vetting is airtight

International Center Director Albert Mbanfu told the local newspaper he hopes to address concerns about the screening process and explain how these refugees come to the United States.

“My objective is that people will leave this town hall with a sound knowledge on how refugee resettlement works,” he said.

Mbanfu said the federal government would never put the country at risk of potential terrorist infiltrators.

City Commissioner Melinda Hill is the only elected leader who has voiced concerns, calling the resettlement risky.

“This is not against the people,” Hill said. “Our federal government has not put in place a good vetting process.”

Mayor Bruce Wilkerson and City Commissioner Joe Denning declined to comment, citing “unfamiliarity with the topic,” the Daily News reported.

Another city commissioner, Sue Parrigin, said she sees refugees as a way for employers to fill jobs as the baby boomers grow old and exit the workforce, leaving a dearth of workers in the younger generations that have had smaller families. This is the exact same argument that European governments have given as to why they have imported so many Muslim migrants over the decades.

“This is for the community to come out,” Parrigin said. “The community deserves to come out and be heard.”

Of course, members of the community will be allowed to air their concerns, but none of their concerns will be addressed. As the government has shown in other cities, like Missoula and Rutland, these town-hall meetings are for show only. President Obama has said he will continue importing Sunni Muslims from the jihadist hotbed of Syria regardless of whether state or local leaders oppose him on the issue.

Town-hall meetings were also held in Spartanburg, South Carolina, in Twin Falls, Idaho, and in Helena, Montana, and scores of other cities. In all of these places where citizens voiced concerns, the numbers were initially downplayed only to be adjusted upward later.

For example, volunteer agency World Relief told residents of Spartanburg they would get less than 60 refugees and most of them would be from Africa, not Syria. Now, that story has changed and the Spartanburg area has been targeted for 120 refugees, most of whom will be from Syria.

But citizens can and should attend such meetings and demand as much information as possible, says Corcoran. They should also demand to see the R&P Abstract prepared by the federal contractor agency.

Despite what Mbanfu says, WND has reported numerous times that the government has imported terrorists, through the refugee program and other immigration programs, and Mbanfu need not look past his own hometown for proof. “Lax background checks were to blame” for the two Iraqi refugee terrorists infiltrating Kentucky in 2009, ABC News reported.

But these are the kind of outright lies and omissions the resettlement agencies tell concerned citizens at their town-hall meetings.

If the U.S. had trouble vetting refugees from Iraq, where it had occupied the country and had access to all law enforcement and intelligence records, how can it vet people claiming to be fleeing Syria?

FBI Director James Comey admitted last year before Congress that vetting Syrians is impossible. The president and his State Department have focused instead on the humanitarian aspect of helping widows and orphans.

But concerns include more than just terrorism. There’s also the issue of cost. Refugees, unlike most other immigrants, qualify for a full slate of welfare benefits on day one of their arrival. Those age 65 and over immediately receive Social Security benefits and 91 percent of refugees from the Middle East receive food stamps, according to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Congress approved Obama’s $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package in December, and it fully funded the president’s expanded refugee program, which will spend about $1.2 billion to resettle 85,000 foreign refugees from all countries in fiscal 2016. Another 100,000 are slated for arrival in 2017. That figure — $1.2 billion — does not include the cost of welfare benefits nor does it include the cost of educating refugee children.

Pamela Geller wrote the book on how to prevent creeping Shariah from entering your community in “Stop the Islamization of America.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/feds-pouring-muslim-migrants-into-rand-pauls-hometown/#CeGCGVgFUc8X6DBq.99

Bart Simpson For President

That ultimate symbol of mischievous scamp Bart Simpson in Season One of the longest running show in TV history when caught red-handed offered up one of his signature phrases, “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything.”

This came to mind when I was thinking about Hillary “They’ll Never Indict Me” Clinton and her morally challenged obviously corrupt character.   Donald Trump has said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”  Hillary could say, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t get indicted.”

Everyone in the country knows that if any of us common people did one hundredth of what she has done in the email scandal alone we would have already been indicted along with the ten year Navy Vet indicted for taking a selfie on a submarine.  The Obama Justice Department is not going to indict Mrs. Clinton no matter what the FBI recommends.  She is above the law and she knows it or as she infamously said in the Benghazi hearing with regard to our four dead heroes, “What does it matter now?”

As a person who has been involved with and has closely followed the American political scene for more than fifty years this is the first time in my personal memory or Historical knowledge that a potential candidate for one party has promised to prosecute a potential candidate of the other party if elected.

As Secretary of State, Hillary’s accomplishments include the failed reset with Russia and of course her debacle in Libya.  As a United State Senator what did she accomplish?  In eight years she only sponsored three inconsequential laws:

S.3145, which designated a portion of U.S. Route 20A, located in Orchard Park, N.Y., as the “Timothy J. Russert Highway,” after the former “Meet the Press” host.

  1. 3613, which renamed the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the “Major George Quamo Post Office Building.”
  2. 1241 which made the brick house of 19th century female union leader Kate Mullany a national historic site.

Her major accomplishment is that she married a man who became the most ethically challenged president in American History.  As the wife of Bill Clnton she was deeply involved in smothering the serial bimbo eruptions which grew out of his long history of having affairs, sexually harassing women who worked for him, and assaulting others.   This is the person who portrays herself as an advocate of women’s rights.

To highlight just one of her hypocritical faux stances for women’s rights look at her advocacy for equal pay.  The Clinton Foundation pays women executives 38% less than their male counterparts.  During her time in the Senate she paid women 72 cents for every dollar she paid men.  According to public records her current campaign pays women staffers less than she pays men. So much for putting your money where your mouth is!

Looking back once more to the email scandal that Hillary so nonchalantly dismisses if as she maintains she never received nor sent any classified material during her entire term as our Secretary of State my question is, what was she doing besides traveling the world at our expense?  Was she out of the loop and merely Secretary of State in name only?   It is inconceivable that anyone could be the Secretary of State and not send or receive any classified material.  That is beyond belief and a lie so transparent it shows total contempt for those it is meant to fool.

In the current election the Great Impresario likes to label people.  In many ways it is an effective form of political shorthand.  It sums up the thoughts, accusations, and beliefs about a person and brings them crashing in whenever they hear the catcall.  Lyin Ted and Little Marco have taken their toll picked up and repeated by the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media and their pet FOX.  Now we have Crooked Hillary.  The others were just effective.  This one seems appropriate.

If Hillary wins the presidency it will be a watershed just as the election and then re-election of her husband was.  As his marked the end of public morality hers will mean the end of the rule of law.  It will become evident to anyone observant enough to note the sunrise that enforcement of the bewildering lattice of laws and regulations are only aimed at the common folk not at our masters.

If such a legally challenged individual can fool enough of the people all the time to sit in the oval office it reminds me of what Bart said to Homer after it was revealed he had cheated on an important test, “I cheated on the intelligence test. I’m sorry. But I just want to say that the past few weeks have been great. Me and you have done stuff together. You’ve helped me out with things and we’re closer than we’ve ever been. I love you, Dad. And I think if something can bring us that close it can’t possibly be bad.”

Doing bad things for good purposes is the operational rational of Progressive Liberalism.  The ends justify the means was the operational rational of all the megalomaniac dictators of world History.  Please explain the difference.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

 

DIRTY Karl Rove plotting to make Mitt Romney president?

Strategy could set up draft of 2012 candidate at convention

mitt-romney-loser
NEW YORK – Is the ultimate aim of campaign strategist Karl Rove’s stop-Trump plot to make Mitt Romney the 2016 Republican nominee?

At a meeting of Republican governors and donors in Washington, D.C., last month, Rove – dubbed the “architect” of George W. Bush’s election success – launched a movement to prevent Donald Trump from gaining the 1,237 delegates he needs in the primaries to win the GOP nomination on the first ballot at the party’s convention in Cleveland in July.

Last weekend, Rove stepped up his efforts to block Trump, arguing his case at the American Enterprise Institute’s World Forum in Sea Island, Georgia, a closed-to-the-press meeting of billionaire GOP donors, tech company CEOs and Republican establishment leaders.

Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs

The highlight of the meeting was Rove’s presentation of focus group findings in which he argued that encouraging votes for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ohio Gov. John Kasich could derail Trump’s march to the nomination by denying him the plurality of votes he needs to win March 15 “winner take all” primaries in Ohio and Florida.

Rove’s ‘Draft Romney’ strategy

As WND reported Tuesday, if Trump wins both Ohio and Florida, stopping him from gaining 1,237 delegates in the remaining GOP primary contests will be difficult, if not impossible.

By pushing votes for Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, Rove appears to be angling for a “brokered” or “contested” nominating convention in which all delegates would be free to vote their preferences if the first ballot fails to produce a winner.

Mitt Romney’s availability as a possible consensus choice at a brokered convention gained credence with in an interview last Sunday with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

“Just slam the door on it. Close the door. Unambiguous – you will not run for president?” Wallace asked Romney after several failed attempts to get him to say whether or not he would accept a draft in a contested nominating convention.

“I’m not running for president, and I won’t run for president,” Romney said.

“OK. This is the kind of thing – the question I’m going to ask you now is why people hate reporters,” Wallace responded. “You say you won’t run for president, but you didn’t rule out a draft. So here is an opportunity.”

From there, the exchange got even more pointed.

ROMNEY: OK, Chris, this is so ridiculous. I’m not going there. You’ve got three people who I’d like to see as the nominee. I’m going to endorse one of them. I’m going to campaign with one of them.

I’m not running for president. I’m not planning on running for president. And that’s what it’s all about.

You got four people running for president on this stage. One of them will be our nominee.

WALLACE: And as General George Sherman said, if nominated, I will not run, if elected, I will not serve?

ROMNEY: That’s an absurd — in my opinion, that’s an absurd thing to say. No Republican should say that. That makes no sense for someone to say if they were drafted by their country, that they’d say no.

What I can tell you is I’m not running for president. ’m not going to run for president. I’m going to support one of these four people to be our nominee. I’m supporting three of them right now. And that means that we’re going to get one of those people as our nominee.

WALLACE: You realize that by saying what you just said that people are going to say he opened the door to a draft?

Romney concluded the discussion by making it clear he would not vote for Trump under any circumstances, preferring to write in a candidate if the real estate billionaire were to become the GOP presidential nominee.

Robo for Rubio, Kasich

On Tuesday, Fox News played a robocall Romney recorded supporting Rubio and Kasich while attacking Trump. It targeted the four states holding GOP primaries March 8 – Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho and Hawaii.

Romney spokesmen insisted the calls were not intended to endorse Rubio or Kasich, adding more evidence Romney had decided to go along with Rove’s strategy of promoting votes for Trump competitors.

The Romney campaign also told Fox News that the robocalls did not mean Romney was entering the race himself. But they gave no indication Romney would rule out a draft nomination.

“Gov. Romney has offered and is glad to help Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich in any way he can,” a source close to Romney said in a statement. “He’s been clear that he believes that Donald Trump is not the best person to represent the Republican Party and will do what he can to support a strong nominee who holds conservative values to win back the White House.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/karl-rove-plotting-to-make-mitt-romney-president/#hSZMSeT24LMW4Rfm.99

Email-Gate: Did Clinton Knowingly Violate Eight Federal Laws?

bill-and-hillary-clinton and hilly

James Madison once said: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” Clearly, Clinton didn’t get the message.

Despite bearing the name “Clinton” the former Secretary of State achieved her obscure power through a series of debacles that include presidential runs, her time as a U.S. Senator, and the infidelity of her husband, Bill.

However, no matter one’s societal status or last name, especially for Hillary in this case, no American citizen is exempt from the rule of law. Even agency executives who handle classified information are not exempt. With that, even though no indictment has been spurred by the probes into Secretary Clinton’s email fiasco, it is definitively likely that she violated federal secrecy laws.

Clinton claims “Email-gate” it a “vast right wing conspiracy,” not an abuse of power and of her position at the State Department.

Though relentless in her presidential bid, Clinton has opened herself to unwanted attention, and investigation, because of personal mistakes for which she is solely responsible. No “vast right-wing conspiracy” can replace federal law.
James Madison once said: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” Clearly, Clinton didn’t get the message.

Despite bearing the name “Clinton” the former Secretary of State achieved her obscure power through a series of debacles that include presidential runs, her time as a U.S. Senator, and the infidelity of her husband, Bill.

However, no matter one’s societal status or last name, especially for Hillary in this case, no American citizen is exempt from the rule of law. Even agency executives who handle classified information are not exempt. With that, even though no indictment has been spurred by the probes into Secretary Clinton’s email fiasco, it is definitively likely that she violated federal secrecy laws.

Clinton claims “Email-gate” it a “vast right wing conspiracy,” not an abuse of power and of her position at the State Department.

Though relentless in her presidential bid, Clinton has opened herself to unwanted attention, and investigation, because of personal mistakes for which she is solely responsible. No “vast right-wing conspiracy” can replace federal law.

One such law is 18 United States Code 1924: Did Clinton knowingly and willingly mishandle classified information?

18 U.S.C. 1924 states:

“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his [or her] office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…”

The punishment for committing this crime is one year in federal penitentiary and a fine.

Other federal laws she potentially violated range from conspiracy to commit a federal offense to Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in a federal investigation.

Kenneth Bergquist, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under Reagan, identified these laws in The Daily Caller. Bergquist indicates that there are 8 laws (including 18 USC 1924) Hillary may have violated, exposing the degrees of these violations, if she’s indicted

The Washington Examiner reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed that a criminal probe into her personal email server use was acknowledged. Though this observation was reported in October of 2015, the general counsel of the FBI filed a letter in a federal court confirming the existence of the probe to the media via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.
James Madison once said: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” Clearly, Clinton didn’t get the message.

Despite bearing the name “Clinton” the former Secretary of State achieved her obscure power through a series of debacles that include presidential runs, her time as a U.S. Senator, and the infidelity of her husband, Bill.

However, no matter one’s societal status or last name, especially for Hillary in this case, no American citizen is exempt from the rule of law. Even agency executives who handle classified information are not exempt. With that, even though no indictment has been spurred by the probes into Secretary Clinton’s email fiasco, it is definitively likely that she violated federal secrecy laws.

Clinton claims “Email-gate” it a “vast right wing conspiracy,” not an abuse of power and of her position at the State Department.

Though relentless in her presidential bid, Clinton has opened herself to unwanted attention, and investigation, because of personal mistakes for which she is solely responsible. No “vast right-wing conspiracy” can replace federal law.

One such law is 18 United States Code 1924: Did Clinton knowingly and willingly mishandle classified information?

18 U.S.C. 1924 states:

“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his [or her] office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…”

The punishment for committing this crime is one year in federal penitentiary and a fine.

Other federal laws she potentially violated range from conspiracy to commit a federal offense to Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in a federal investigation.

Kenneth Bergquist, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under Reagan, identified these laws in The Daily Caller. Bergquist indicates that there are 8 laws (including 18 USC 1924) Hillary may have violated, exposing the degrees of these violations, if she’s indicted

The Washington Examiner reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed that a criminal probe into her personal email server use was acknowledged. Though this observation was reported in October of 2015, the general counsel of the FBI filed a letter in a federal court confirming the existence of the probe to the media via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Twenty-two of the hundreds of emails recently released by the State Department were withheld and deemed “top secret” – so secret that a full redaction is risky.

Yet, Clinton had the audacity to assert that she knew nothing of about any classified information on her private email server.

At the most recent MSNBC Democratic townhall debate, Clinton outright lied by stating, “I never sent or received any classified material.”

Kind of like her husband Bill claiming, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

The official MSNBC transcript reads:

TODD: All right, Madam Secretary, there is an open — there is an open FBI investigation into this matter about how you may have handled classified material. Are you 100 percent confident that nothing is going to come of this FBI investigation?

CLINTON: I am 100 percent confident. This is a security review that was requested. It is being carried out. It will be resolved. But I have to add if there’s going to be a security review about me, there’s going to have to be security reviews about a lot of other people, including Republican office holders, because we’ve got this absurd situation of retroactive classifications…

The woman is playing the media, yes, and despite her education and long history of political scandals, she’s most likely calculated the costs—and risks. Perhaps though she only calculated the costs for her political career, not her personal freedom.

While Clinton may be calculating the costs associated with these crimes and her political future, she reveals her lack of concern for the future safety of America. Through all of this, Clinton has projected herself as a self-righteous, self-interested, want-to-be despot of a leader. If she cared so much about the American people, why has she taken the position she has on “national security” risks?

And if she isn’t lying, as she claims, do Americans really want a leader who doesn’t know what information is classified and whether or not it is on her email server?

The White House is Covering for Hillary Clinton and the FBI is “Super Pissed-Off”!

The FBI has been investigating the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s lawless use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. Sadly, much of their work has been roundly abused by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party. Unjustly so. The FBI is not at fault for pursuing an investigation into obviously criminal behavior, but if their investigation uncovers proof of Mrs. Clinton’s malfeasance, then the Democrat Party could lose many of the gains they’ve made during the Obama era. This is something that the President seems dead-set against allowing.

How sold-out is the Obama team to discrediting the investigation against Clinton? They are prepared to sacrifice the sanctity of our system of justice to defend the law-breaking Clinton.

When asked during a recent press conference whether or not Clinton would be indicted, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had this to say, “That will be a decision made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there. What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it’s trending. But I’m certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors but again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction.”

Anyone who understands the way the justice system in America works knows that this type of statement from the White House is completely out of place, as it undercuts the investigators and the way an investigation must be handled. Fox News’s Catherine Herridge explains. “That statement by Josh Earnest has got the back up of our contacts at the FBI and Justice Department for two reasons… They are SUPER PISSED OFF to use a technical term. Number one, Josh Earnest has absolutely no clearance or visibility in the FBI investigation. Number two, they say it really seems part of a troubling pattern from the White House because the president earlier said he did not see any national security implications to the Clinton emails and then we found out he had never been briefed.”

Make no mistake, fellow citizens. The media has already uncovered more than 1500 different occasions where classified material passed across Hillary Clinton’s private (and unsecure) servers. Based simply on this FACT, she is guilty and disqualified from serving in any elected position (especially President) ever again.

243 emails released Friday were classified at some level, bringing the overall number of classified Clinton emails to 1,583. The State Department also announced Friday that it is withholding in full and into perpetuity 22 emails that contain “Top Secret” information — the highest classification category.

However, none of these facts will deter President Obama or the Democrat Party for fighting tooth and nail to stop justice from taking its course. Why? Because the Democrat Party doesn’t care about justice. The Democrat Party doesn’t care about truth. No, the only thing the Democrat Party cares about, as evidenced by the life and career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is POWER.

If McDonald’s Goes Under It Will Be Because They Followed Liberals to Disaster

Ronald
I saw a sad but not totally unexpected news item from John Hawkins this morning regarding one of America’s premiere dining outlets… McDonald’s. The House That Ronald Built has fallen on hard times, with some estimates indicating that a significant portion of the franchises are currently insolvent or seriously in the red. The dire warnings from franchise owners are including phrases such as, “these are the final days.” (Yahoo News)

McDonald’s franchisees believe the brand is in a “deep depression” and could be facing its “final days,” according to a new survey.

“We are in the throes of a deep depression, and nothing is changing,” one franchisee wrote in response to the survey by Nomura analyst Mark Kalinowski. “Probably 30% of operators are insolvent.”

Another wrote, “The CEO is sowing the seeds of our demise. We are a quick-serve fast-food restaurant, not a fast casual like Five Guys or Chipotle. The system may be facing its final days.”

More than a dozen franchisees expressed frustration with McDonald’s management, saying that CEO Steve Easterbrook’s turnaround plan — which includes initiatives like all-day breakfast and a shift to digital ordering kiosks — is a distraction from the core issues of McDonald’s, like food quality and customer service.
We’ve talked about this here before and it’s been a regular feature of financial news headlines. McDonalds has been losing money right and left and they’ve been dumping massive resources into a seemingly endless array of marketing gimmicks as they try to turn their fortunes around. None of it seems to be working, and the reason may be that they’re not addressing the core issue which some of the franchisees are bringing up: the chain strayed away from their original core mission and the strength of their brand in response to social pressures of the day.

Let’s face it… McDonald’s was never meant to be a fancy, high end eatery, nor were they a health food store. It was fast food that tasted good and people were willing to tolerate all the negatives that came with that deal if the price was right. It’s true that costs of beef and some of their toppings have been going up, leading to pressure on them to raise prices, but that’s hardly the only cause for their woes. Everyone in that market sector is dealing with the same problems. No… what really killed McDonald’s market position was selling out to liberal pressure groups.

I think the beginning of the end can be traced back to 2002 when they buckled to pressure from health nuts and changed the oil they used to make their french fries, cutting the dreaded trans-fats. They tinkered with the formula again in 2007 but it was never the same. Are any of you old enough to remember the original McDonald’s fries? Those things were like crack in a cardboard cup. I could eat two large orders by myself because They… Were… Awesome. Were they good for you? Obviously not. But that’s not why we bought them. It’s not Ronald McDonald’s responsibility to keep you healthy, it’s yours. When they changed the fries they were just awful and I didn’t order them nearly as often.

Later the restaurant felt even more pressure from the health obsessed wing on the left and began “diversifying” their menu to be less trashy. They were trying to sell apple wedges as an alternate for fries and the menu was stocked with salads. SALADS. At McDonald’s. The only lettuce we needed to see during a visit to the Golden Arches was shredded up on the Big Macs. More changes along those lines followed and their brand loyalty cratered.

The problem with adding lots of options is that more food goes to waste since they have to prepare some of it in advance. Sure, people will always say they love more options, but it’s not always economically viable. The Breakfast All Day idea sounded great to me, but if they’re losing money on it then it’s one option too many. So that was their other major issue… too many options. But to combat the problem, they decided to diversify the menu even further and start offering all manner of specialty sandwiches. Some were good and some… not so much. But yet again they were losing more money by having to stock up and prepare even more items which didn’t fly off the heating tables fast enough. And most of this was done in response to reading too many articles in the New York Times.

McDonald’s could still probably be saved, but I doubt they’re willing to risk the backlash from Michelle Obama’s army if they did it. The company could go back to their old school formula. Trim down the menu for starters. You need a hamburger, cheeseburger, the Quarter Pounder and the Big Mac. Toss in the fish fillet and maybe one chicken sandwich. Put the fatty, lard filled oil back in the fry machine. Keep those molten hot apple pies and maybe a few dessert options. Kick the rest except for some seasonal specialties like the McRib. I’m guessing people would come back and your waste costs would go down hugely. You may get nailed with a minimum wage increase, but all your competitors will face the same thing if you do.

It’s a shame to see McDonald’s floundering, but they really brought it on themselves.

To The Senators Who Voted Against Kate’s Law — Your Hands Are Dyed Red

by Bob Knowles

It’s easy for man to let others die if those who are dying are out of sight. That much we’ve learned from war. Setting aside the morality of particular wars, war is easy to support when you’re not the one fighting. This ethical defect we’ve developed as a species was on full display this week when the Senate voted down Kate’s Law.

Kate’s Law, otherwise known as the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act,” would have withheld federal grants from sanctuary cities (cities that refuse to obey federal immigration laws, thus protecting criminal illegal aliens), and mandated a minimum five-year prison sentence for any illegal caught re-entering the United States who had a prior aggregated felony conviction, or two prior illegal re-entry convictions.

This bill was colloquially known as Kate’s Law because San Fransisco resident Kate Steinle was shot and killed in July by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien and seven-time felon who had previously been deported five times.

The bill, which needed 60 votes to move forward, was blocked 54-45. 45 Senators voted against the bill, almost all of whom are Democrats (Lindsey Graham didn’t vote).

Prior to the vote, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said:

“The standard rhetorical device that so many Democratic Senators use is to say ‘Well, not all immigrants are criminals.’ Well of course they’re not…but this bill doesn’t deal with all immigrants, it deals with one specific subset of immigrants: Criminal illegal aliens. Those who come to this country illegally and also have additional criminal convictions, whether homicide, whether sexual assault, whether kidnapping, or battery, or drunk driving…For every Democratic senator, this vote today is a simple decision: With whom do you stand? Do you stand with the violent, criminal illegal aliens who are being released over and over again?”


It’s been argued–even by conservatives–that such mandatory sentences would burden our already overpopulated prisons, which would be fiscally imprudent. I understand that argument, however, the alternative to imprisonment is deportation. And as we’ve learned from the Kate Steinle killing, deportation doesn’t do very much when we have a porous border.

Democrats and Republicans love to brag about deporting criminal illegals while someone like Francisco Lopez-Sanchez entered into the United States illegally five times. Wow, we’re doing such a great job with those violent criminal illegals! Hey, is that Francisco creeping across the border AGAIN?! You little devil!

Also of note, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that in 2013, ICE released 36,007 “convicted criminal aliens” into the wind. Of the 36,007 criminal aliens, 193 had been convicted of homicide, 426 of sexual assault, 303 of kidnapping, and 1,075 of aggravated assault. This is a severe problem.

The Kate Steinle killing wasn’t some freak thing. We basically don’t have borders, and apparently, we just release many of the criminal illegals we do manage to snag.

To the Democrats–and singular Republican Mark Kirk–who voted against Kate’s Law, I suppose you’ve revealed your priorities. You care more about your agenda, whatever the end goal may be–voters for Democrats, and cheap labor for Republicans–than you do about human life.

I say this because in addition to voting against this law, you continuously obstruct any and every attempt to secure the border unless it’s packaged with “comprehensive” immigration reform legislation (translation: amnesty).

If someone is rushed into the ER with multiple stab wounds, gushing blood, the doctor’s first priority is to stem the blood-flow, not give the exsanguinating patient antibiotics. Similarly, if we don’t first secure the border, dealing with illegals who are already here doesn’t really matter, because we still have a gaping wound.

Regardless of the law itself, and the arguments against it fiscally, or on other grounds, Cruz is correct. The 45 Senators who voted ‘No’ on Kate’s Law, and the Senators who block “border security first” bills again and again–all to advance an agenda–bear the full burden of Kate Steinle’s death, as well as any subsequent deaths at the hands of criminal illegal aliens.

But it’s just so easy to let people die when you aren’t watching them take their final breath, isn’t it?

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/14339/to-the-senators-who-voted-against-kates-law-your-hands-are-dyed-red/#c5dHmcD3wZ2o6myt.99

Planned Parenthood Kept Aborted Babies Alive to Harvest Organs, Ex-Technician says

By Cheryl Wetzstein – The Washington Times – Wednesday, August 19, 2015
In an undercover video released Wednesday, a former technician for a tissue-harvesting company details how an aborted baby was kept alive so that its heart could be harvested at a California Planned Parenthood facility, raising more legal questions about the group’s practices.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.
A StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said Ms. O’Donnell, who has been featured in earlier videos by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group that previously had released six undercover clips involving Planned Parenthood personnel and practices.

David Daleiden, the video project leader, said the undercover footage and interviews show that fetuses are sometimes delivered “intact and alive” before their organs are harvested.

The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 says that when a child is born alive, including having a beating heart, he or she is a legal person and has a right to lifesaving medical care.

California law also prohibits any kind of experimentation on a fetus with a discernible heartbeat, said the Center for Medical Progress, which is calling for the federal government to cease its $500 million a year support to Planned Parenthood and for it to be investigated.

“Today’s video is especially gruesome, and it shows, once again, the barbarity of what takes place at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country,” said Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health, one of several congressional panels investigating Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Wednesday that all the videos are “disturbing,” and his committee’s investigation will look into whether “any federal funding supported transactions involving fetal tissue.”

“Top-level employees of Planned Parenthood admit to changing their procedures to harvest intact bodies of unborn children for body-part trafficking,” said Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and civil justice.

Mr. Franks and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, also said Wednesday that they have written to 58 Planned Parenthood affiliates. They are seeking 10 years of data about all abortions, late-term abortions, “born-alive” infants, fetal tissue collections and any modifications of abortion techniques to “increase the odds of preserving intact fetal tissue and organs.”

Five states — Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah and New Hampshire — already have defunded Planned Parenthood.

A request for comment from Planned Parenthood Federation of America about the new video was not immediately available, but the nonprofit organization has denounced earlier undercover videos as fraudulent and misleading.

“These extremists show a total lack of compassion and dignity for women’s most personal medical decisions,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, said earlier this month after a video release.

Meanwhile, pro-life groups are using the videos to step up their calls for investigations and defunding of Planned Parenthood.

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