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

Leaked Emails Show Clinton Campaign Coordinating With Soros Organization

Leaked emails from Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s personal email account published by WikiLeaks reveal the Clinton campaign’s coordination with George Soros’s Open Society Foundations on the subject of police reform.

2013-10-24t190437z_1_cbre99n1gzs00_rtroptp_4_usa-clinton-soros-e1451604977173
Soros, who has given almost $10 million to Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, is a major funder of Black Lives Matter. The Washington Times reported in August that Soros has given at least $33 million to the group through the Open Society Foundations (OSF), which he funds and controls.

Both OSF and Clinton have called to crack down on police officers’ “implicit bias.”

As reported by The Daily Caller last month, internal OSF documents say the mainstreaming of “implicit bias” is meant to serve as a foundation from which to overhaul the nation’s anti-discrimination laws and make it easier to file racial discrimination lawsuits by eliminating the need to prove intent.

A December 2015 email exchange between Podesta and OSF president Chris Stone was included in the batch of Podesta’s emails released by WikiLeaks on Friday.

“Hi, John. Your policy team was asking me for ideas on police reform a couple of months ago. Here’s a concrete idea I’ve written up, and a good hook for it in Chicago,” Stone wrote.

Stone attached to the email an article he wrote that advocated putting federally-funded bureaucrats in charge of police oversight.
“Thanks Chris. Will circulate. Hope all is well,” Podesta replied.

“As well as can be. We are now officially and formally undesirable in Russia. Hope you are thriving!” Stone shot back. “From where I sit, things look good for your team.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/leaked-emails-show-clinton-campaign-coordinating-with-soros-organization/#ixzz4Mv6zPhUC

A Parallel Universe Without Progressives 

An astrophysicist, Ranga-Ram Chary at the European Space Agency’s Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech says he may have found evidence of alternate or parallel universes by looking back in time to just after the Big Bang more than thirteen billion years ago.

Then there is always the possible parallel universe of dark matter. As researchers learn more about dark matter’s complexities, it seems possible that our galaxy lives on top of a shadow galaxy without us even knowing it.

I have often heard it said the universe is so large that anything we can imagine exists somewhere.  Taking that as a starting point for a flight of fancy, let’s imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.

We wouldn’t have had the 16th amendment.  Therefore we would still have a land without personal income tax and the Federal Government would have lived on fees and tariffs as it always did before the Progressives secured a source of money large enough to spend us into oblivion.

We wouldn’t have had the 17th amendment and the senators would still be selected by the State legislators.  This was one of the checks and balances the Founders embedded in the original Constitution to protect the federal nature of the Federal Government.  The House represents the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the States.

We wouldn’t have had The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve System, and America’s representative of the international banking cartel.  Without the Fed to mismanage the money supply there would never have been the banking crisis of the early 1930s.  This is crisis that set the stage for the re-boot of America’s free economy as a centrally-planned command and control machine used to transform every sector of American life.

We wouldn’t have had Woodrow Wilson to take us into the War to End all Wars that ended up building up the three largest empires in the world and setting the stage of WWII.

We wouldn’t have had FDR to impose fascist economic forms on America extending what would have been a recession into the Great Depression.

We wouldn’t have had JFK to lose his nerve in 1961.  Thus the Castro brothers and their murderous savagery would have fallen with the successful Bay of Pigs invasion.

We wouldn’t have had LBJ to build a Great Society safety net that has become a hammock entrapping uncounted millions and generations in the snare of dependency.

We wouldn’t have had BHO to fundamentally transform America into a falling empire and a soon to be third world backwater.

And we wouldn’t have HRC campaigning for president as Mrs. Santa Clause promising to give everyone who doesn’t work everything they want while she seeks to take the Second Amendment from the rest of us.

Think about this; look at how our government treats citizens now as taxing units or dependent voting units and we are armed to the teeth.  Imagine how they will treat us once we are disarmed.  Many believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.

Just imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.  It’s easy if you try.

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

Obama TRASHES Cops… Makes SICK “Black Folks” Comment About Alton Sterling Shooting

President Barack Obama weighed in on the Dallas shooting that left five police officers dead yesterday, calling the incident “troubling.” He also managed to trashed police officers with a “back folks” statement that seemed terribly out of line.

“When people say black lives matter, that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter, it means all lives matter,” the president said, according to The Hill. “But the data shows that black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents.”

Obama added that we should all be troubled by the shootings because they are not isolated incidents. He also mentioned statistics indicating that black and Hispanic men were more likely to be pulled over, arrested and shot by police than white people are.
Wow. Just after five police officers were killed and one gunman admitted to police that he wanted to kill white people — especially white officers — Obama had the nerve to say that blacks are more vulnerable to violence than anyone else in our communities.

It’s a statement that was beyond disgraceful — and simply not true — but one that the Black Lives Matter movement will no doubt cling to and run with while planning more of their hate-filled rallies.

As we have come to expect, Obama weighed in on these incidents well before all of the facts were known.
The president also showed a lack of leadership when making statements that fuel the hatred spewed by the Black Lives Matter movement. He only agitates people with remarks likes these — and, make no mistake, he knows what he’s doing.

It’s despicable that our commander in chief felt compelled to make such racially charged statements when he did, but sadly, it’s not surprising.

It appears he would rather stoke the racial tensions that already exist in America than try to do something about them.

Share this story on Twitter and Facebook if you agree that Obama is way off base with these kinds of remarks and is only making things worse by making them.

Head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency FIRED for Calling our Enemies Radical Jihadis

MICHAEL-FLYNN
For years, I have written and warned of the catastrophic consequences of Obama’s sharia-compliant national security policies. Obama scrubbed all counterterror materials of the jihad doctrine and Islam.

Here is a senior ranking casualty of Obama’s jihad.

“The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis,” By Michael Flynn, NY Post, July 9, 2016:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is reportedly being vetted by Donald Trump as a potential running mate, was fired as head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the winter of 2014 after three decades in the military. Here he tells the real story of his departure from his post and why America is not getting any closer to winning the war on terror.

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.

At the time, I was working very hard to change the culture of DIA from one overly focused on Washington, DC, to a culture that focused on our forward-based war fighters and commanders. It was not an easy shift, but it was necessary and exactly the reason I was put into the job in the first place.

In the end, I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are).

I would not change a lick how I operate. Our country has too much at stake.

We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.

That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war.

If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.

This approach is doomed. We have real enemies, dedicated to dominating and eventually destroying us, and they are not going to be talked out of their hatred. Iran, for example, declared war on the United States in 1979 — that’s 37 years ago — and has been killing Americans ever since. Every year, the State Department declares Iran to be the world’s primary supporter of terror. Do you think we’ll nicely and politely convince them to be good citizens and even (as President Obama desires) a responsible ally supporting peace? Do you think ISIS or the Taliban wants to embrace us?No, we’re not going to talk our way out of this war, nor can we escape its horrors. Ask the people in San Bernardino or South Florida, or the relatives of the thousands killed on 9/11. We’re either going to win or lose. There is no other “solution.”

I believe we can and must win. This war must be waged both militarily and politically; we have to destroy the enemy armies and combat enemy doctrines. Both are doable. On military battlefields, we have defeated radical Islamic forces every time we have seriously gone after them, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Their current strength is not a reflection of their ability to overwhelm our armed forces, but rather the consequence of our mistaken and untimely withdrawal after demolishing them.

We have failed to challenge their jihadist doctrines, even though their true believers only number a small fraction of the Muslim world, and even though everybody, above all most living Muslims, knows that the Islamic world is an epic failure, desperately needing economic, cultural and educational reform of the sort that has led to the superiority of the West.

So first of all, we need to demolish the terror armies, above all in the Middle East and Libya. We have the wherewithal, but lack the will. That has to change. It’s hard to imagine it happening with our current leaders, but the next president will have to do it.

As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will. After defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we should have challenged the Islamic world and asked: “How did we win? Did Allah change sides?”

We need to denounce them as false prophets, as we insist on the superiority of our own political vision. This applies in equal measure to the radical secular elements of the enemy coalition. Is North Korea some sort of success story? Does anyone this side of a university seminar think the Cuban people prefer the Castros’ tyranny to real freedom? Is Vladimir Putin a model leader for the 21st-century world?

Just as the Muslim world has failed, so the secular tyrants have wrecked their own countries. They hate us in part because they know their own peoples would prefer to live as we do. They hope to destroy us before they have to face the consequences of their many failures.

Remember that Machiavelli insisted that tyranny is the most unstable form of government.

It infuriates me when our president bans criticism of our enemies, and I am certain that we cannot win this war unless we are free to call our enemies by their proper names: radical jihadis, failed tyrants, and so forth.

With good leadership, we should win. But we desperately need good leaders to reverse our enemies’ successes.

Flynn is the author of the new book, “The Field of Flight,” (St. Martin’s Press), out Tuesday.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/head-of-the-%C2%ADdefense-intelligence-agency-fired-for-calling-our-enemies-radical-jihadis.html/#sthash.t8bTkULu.dpuf

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?

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