Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 7      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Imran Awan, and the Democrats

pic445.jpg

Clarice Feldman (AmericanThinker) has a list of questions for those involved with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Imran Awan, the Democrat side of the House Intelligence Committee, and everyone else you can imagine:

    170730-awan-pelosi.jpg1. Who coordinated the hiring of the Awan brothers by dozens of Democratic Congressman?

    2. Why were they so grossly overcompensated (millions of dollars) for no work?

    3. Were they kicking back money to the Democrats, doing "dirty" work for them, or blackmailing them?

    4. Why did Wasserman-Schultz keep the Capitol Police from searching her laptop they had confiscated from Imran Awan?

    5. Why did Wasserman-Schultz keep him on her payroll after the Capitol Police further barred him and his brothers from accessing Congressional computers?

    6. Why did the Iraqi fugitive and Hezb'allah supporter Dr. Ali-al Attar "lend" them $100,000?

    7. Who is paying Chris Gowan, a Clinton insider, to represent Imran Awan?

    8. Why did the Awan brothers continue to have security clearances when they had declared several bankruptcies and were engaged in financial misdealing?

    9. Why were the Awans broke when they were making so much money and living so modestly?

    10. Why did eight members of the House Permanent Select committee on Intelligence issue a letter demanding the Awans be granted access to Top Secret information?

    11.Were the Awans working for Pakistani intelligence and the Moslem Brotherhood?

    12. To whom were the Awans sending data to on an offsite server?

Nobody cares. They're Democrats. Nobody ever does anything about Democrat's crimes.

And that's a crime!



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

More Hillary emails released -- showing "pay for play"

pic357.jpg

Alicia Powe (WND) is reporting that More than eight months after Hillary Clinton's election loss, her use of a private email server and other conduct during her tenure as U.S. secretary of state continue to haunt her.

A newly released batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch showcases numerous instances of Clinton Foundation donors receiving favors from the State Department.

In one email exchange, Huma Abedin, Clinton's former deputy chief of staff in the State Department and longtime aide, negotiated who the next the U.S. ambassador to Barbados would be after Clinton Global Initiative executive Doug Band recommended a candidate to fill the position.

"I know, he's emailed a few times," Abedin said in reply to Band's request. "But she wants to give someone else."

Another exchange shows Band instructing Abedin to "show love" to Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical.

Judicial Watch pointed out Dow gave between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.

Band also pushed for Hillary Clinton to do a favor for Karlheinz Koegel, a major Clinton Foundation contributor, who wanted the secretary of state to give the "honor speech" for his media prize to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The emails show Tony Rodham, Clinton's brother, acted as a liaison between Abedin and Korean businessman and Clinton Foundation donor Richard Park. Rodham facilitated the State Department's approval of an invitation to President Bill Clinton to speak at a North Korean industrial complex that allegedly funds the country's rogue nuclear program.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton argued the newly released documents substantiate accusations that Clinton and her team engaged in criminality.

"I'm not sure how much more evidence of pay for play, classified information mishandling and influence peddling from Clinton's email server one would need to show a serious criminal investigation is required," Fitton said.

To obtain the documents, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in May 2015 against the State Department requesting "all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from Jan. 1, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013, using a non-'state.gov' email address."

Bill Clinton's $48 million speaking tour

Bill Clinton frequently addressed foreign governments and entities that had interests pending before his wife's State Department. He successfully sought State Department approval for 215 speeches while she served as secretary of state, earning $48 million on the speaking circuit during her tenure, reported the Washington Examiner.

Donors of the Clinton Global Initiative also wielded influence in Clinton's State Department by requesting the department expedite U.S. visas for foreign nationals, Judicial Watch found.

In the new batch of emails, Clinton donor Ben Ringel contacted Abedin and requested that she help an Iranian woman obtain a U.S. visa, writing, "We need to get her clearance even only temporary to be with her granddaughter."

Band also used Abedin to help Canadian Clinton donor Michael Cohl obtain a visa.

In both instances, Abedin acquiesced and forwarded the email requests.

Jeopardizing national security, Abedin, in some instances, forwarded emails to her unsecured account with information pertaining to former President Obama's daily schedule, Clinton's schedule, "foreign governments" and "national defense or foreign policy."

"Other emails found in Abedin's unsecure email account appear to show additional instances of the Clinton State Department's lax approach to protecting national security," Judicial Watch said.

According to the Washington watchdog, information regarding "federal preparedness and response for an international terrorist threat to the United States," "The Secretary's Phone Call with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang" and "The Secretary's Phone Call with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov" were also sent to the unsecured email server.

Failed to turn over 439 emails

During the FBI investigation of Clinton's private email server, the former secretary of state released 55,000 pages of emails and pledged under oath "that as far as she knew" she had turned over all of her government documents.

However, contradicting Clinton's sworn declaration, the pages Judicial Watch released include six email exchanges she failed to turn over to the State Department, bringing the known total of emails she excluded to more than 439.

On July 11, Judicial Watch released 42 pages of highly redacted documents from the FBI's criminal investigation into Clinton's mishandling of high classified materials that were marked "grand jury material."

According to the documents, Clinton private attorney Katherine Turner handed over Clinton's non-secure Apple iPads and two of her Blackberrys to the FBI but took out the SIM cards of the devices.

A total of 13 mobile devices identified by the FBI as potentially using clintonemail.com addresses were never located by Clinton's lawyers, Fitton told Fox News.

"The Trump Justice Department needs to audit this mess and figure out if the Clinton matters need to be reopened or reinvigorated," Fitton said.

Fitton contends Clinton should undergo another criminal investigation for "influence peddling" and mishandling classified information. And he is calling for a federal investigation of Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman, John Podesta.

Podesta served on the board of a company that received at least $35 million from a Russian investment group that was created and funded by the Kremlin, investigator and author Peter Schweizer told the New York Post.

While the Trump administration has been subjected to an ongoing probe into its alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, little attention has been given to Podesta's Russia ties.

"If the standard is if you're talking to the Russians and doing business with the Russians you need to be investigated, [then] John Podesta fits the bill to a T," Fitton argued Friday on the Fox Business Network's "The Intelligence Report with Trish Regan."

"He served on a board with Russian government officials," said Fitton. "His board, his company took $35 million out of $110 million raised from a Russia-centered organization, or state organization."

Hey! Hillary is a Democrat. Nobody cares. No big whoop!



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

Corruption and collusion -- Obama, Comey, and the press

pic35.jpg

Andrew Klavan (PJMedia) says it now seems clear that Barack Obama was a corrupt machine politician in the worst Chicago mold. He used the IRS to silence his enemies, and the Justice Department to protect his friends. His two major "achievements" -- a health care law that doesn't work and a deal that increased the power and prestige of the terrorist state of Iran -- were built on lies to the public and manipulation of the press. And that's according to his own allies! Only the leftist bias and racial pathology of the media kept his administration from being destroyed by scandal, as it surely would have been had he been a white Republican.

I don't mention this to bring up old grudges, but for what it says about the current moment and the week just passed. Here's some of what we recently learned:

Former FBI Director James Comey's Senate testimony concerning former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's corruption confirmed our worst suspicions about the Obama DOJ. In an apparent attempt to help Hillary Clinton's campaign, Lynch told Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's abuse of classified material as "a matter" rather than an investigation. And, as we already knew but Comey confirmed, Lynch's secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton so underscored Comey's sense of her crookedness that the self-serving drama queen Comey actually went around her to publicly declare Hillary guilty-but-not-guilty...

...But all that was nothing compared to the brutal, nearly 300-page report released last week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a report absolutely blasting the previous Obama AG, Eric Holder. The report details how Holder and the Obama administration labored to cover up the details of the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal -- a scandal which, unlike the non-collusion-with-Russia non-scandal, was implicated in the murder of an American law officer. Even the mom of the slain officer couldn't get the truth out of Holder and his cronies. The report says Holder considered the officer's family a "nuisance" because they were trying to get him to tell them how exactly the lawman died at the hands of gangsters who were wielding guns Obama's DoJhad allowed them to buy.

...[Remember,] Holder was also the first attorney general ever to be held in contempt of Congress for not turning over documents relating to Fast and Furious. And, speaking of obstruction of justice -- we were speaking of obstruction of justice, weren't we? -- Obama asserted executive privilege to make it easier for Holder to keep those documents in the dark ... !

...So let's remember. Obama is the nefarious machine pol who appointed James Comey to head the FBI in the first place. This is the Comey who took no notes when he spoke with Obama, no notes when he questioned Hillary about her emails, no notes, apparently, during the cover-up conversation with Lynch that left him with "a queasy feeling," but who suddenly began documenting his exchanges with Trump -- exchanges that Trump says never happened. This is the Comey who let Hillary off the hook because he somehow knew she didn't intend to share classified information (a matter that doesn't exist in the relevant law), but who cannot comment on whether Donald Trump intended to obstruct justice when Trump expressed his hopes about an investigation.

And the Obama administration -- this crooked gang of liars and colluders -- this is the gang that was deemed "scandal free" by virtually every "mainstream" news outlet. Indeed, investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson had to leave CBS News in large part because CBS would not run her work on Fast and Furious.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

James Woods speaks truth to power

pic994.jpg 



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

The 4th Circuit's travel ban decision -- an affront to the Rule of Law

pic973.jpg

John Hinderaker (PowerLine) says on Thursday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order that found President Trump's second travel ban to be unconstitutional. This is one of those news stories that make me sad rather than angry.

The decision is ridiculous. The court's majority relied heavily on candidate Donald Trump's stump speeches in which he talked about a ban on all Muslim immigration. The court found that this "context" demonstrated a discriminatory intent. The decision's implication is that a different president could have issued the same order, and it would have been constitutional. The ACLU's lawyer made this explicit during his oral argument, saying that the order under attack may well have been constitutional if it had been issued by Hillary Clinton.

This is idiotic. For a court to say that a presidential order may or may not be constitutional depending on who the president is–constitutional if issued by a Democrat, unconstitutional if by a Republican–is the ultimate repudiation of the rule of law. Moreover, the president's order didn't ban all Muslim immigration. It is absurd to condemn the order the president issued by arguing that he really wanted to issue something different.

It is also worth noting that the idea that a president can't "discriminate" with regard to travel to the U.S., or immigration, is ridiculous. Of course he can, and so can Congress. For most of our history, our immigration policy has been explicitly discriminatory. It arguably still is. Under federal law, the president has blanket authority to suspend immigration or travel, wholly or in part, from any country or group of countries, on the ground that it is in the national interest. The suggestion that a random Yemeni has a constitutional right to enter the United States is untenable, and flies in the face of all precedent.

Decisions like those we have seen on Trump's travel orders can't be viewed as legal rulings. As such, they are absurd. They can only be understood as part of the establishment's war on the Trump administration. The Democrats (the 4th Circuit is now heavily Democrat) simply refuse to accept Trump's authority as president.

I assume the 4th Circuit's decision will ultimately be overturned in the Supreme Court, and Trump's travel order will be upheld. However, as Steve pointed out during our Power Line Live event last night, there is a risk that Anthony Kennedy might decide to go out in a blaze of liberal glory, establishing previously unknown rights on behalf of Yemenis, Iranians, Syrians and so on. Unfortunately, we can assume that the four Democratic Party justices will vote as their party wants, regardless of how irrational that position may be.

As I said, this news story makes me sad rather than angry. The fact that Democratic Party judges are so far gone in hate and partisanship as to repudiate the rule of law suggests that the fabric of our society is coming apart.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

Uh oh! John Podesta may have violated federal law by failing to disclose 75,000 stock shares

pic543.jpg

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Hillary Clinton's former campaign chairman, John Podesta may have violated federal law when he failed to disclose 75,000 stock shares from a Russian-backed company in 2014.

Looks like Hillary Clinton isn't the only one who got financially mixed up with the Russians. The Left is using Alinsky-type tactics by projecting the Russian connections onto the GOP.

The Daily Caller reports:

Joule Unlimited Technologies -- financed in part by a Russian firm -- originally awarded Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.

When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President Obama's special counsellor, the company officially issued him 75,000 common shares of stock.

The Schedule B section of the federal government's form 278 which -- requires financial disclosures for government officials -- required Podesta to "report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your spouse, or dependent children…of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000."

Podesta's form 278 Schedule B is blank regarding his receipt of any stock from any company.

Hillary Clinton sold 20% of our Uranium to Russia in exchange for $150 million to the Clinton Foundation and now John Podesta failed to disclose 75,000 stock shares from a Kremlin-financed company. There needs to be a Russian investigation into these criminals.

The left is knee deep in Russia, not Donald Trump and his administration. The fake Russian story is to distract from their own illegal dealings with Russia.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

General claims Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both in violation of the Espionage Act

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Lt. General Thomas McInerney appeared on Fox News to discuss Obamagate and the attacks on Devin Nunes who recently came out confirming that Trump was surveilled between Election Day and Inauguration Day.

Lt. McInerney said that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both in violation of the Espionage Act. It's time for a special prosecutor to go after these two and others involved in their criminal activity.

McInerney: "Fingerprints that are now gonna start coming out that will show that the Obama administration was heavily listening to what was going on in the Trump campaign.

They (Democrats) do not want the Trump administration to start looking in at the violation of the Espionage Act by Hillary Clinton with her rogue server and by the president who used a pseudonym on her rogue server and they are both in violation of the Espionage Act. They do not want this to come out so they brought up all these other facts out about Russia.

..the unmasking (of Trump people) is another criminal offense…the special prosecutor should start looking at Hillary's rogue server…"


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

Barack Obama’s complete and up-to-date list of historic firsts

pic408.jpg

While Barack Obama occupied the Oval Office, he was . . .

By Doug Ross (IndependentSentinel) . . .



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

Obama signs bill into law after acknowledging it violates the Constitution -- "a clear abuse of power"

pic814.jpg

Andrew Kerr (WesternJournalism) is reporting that Barack Obama just did something he promised never to do.

Obama acknowledged in a signing statement Friday that the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act violated the Constitution. Obama said:

"As I have said repeatedly, the provisions in this bill concerning detainee transfers would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation-of-powers principles. Additionally, Section 1034 could in some circumstances interfere with the ability to transfer a detainee who has been granted a writ of habeas corpus."

Obama promised, with less than 30 days remaining in his presidency, that his "administration will implement [these sections] in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict."

In 2007, candidate Obama pledged to never take such action. He took the issue of President Bush making signing statements to reinterpret laws very seriously.

In a campaign survey with The Boston Globe in December 2007, Obama said that "it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like."

He promised at the time that he would "not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

But when Obama assumed the presidency, he dramatically reversed course. Friday marked Obama's 37th signing statement.

Twenty-two of Obama's statements aimed to reinterpret, nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law, a clear reversal on his campaign promise.

In 2014, PolitiFact officially recognized that Obama broke his pledge to never use signing statements to reinterpret laws.

President-elect Donald Trump will have the authority to undo all 37 of Obama's signing statements when he assumes office in less than a month.

"Anything that Obama has done using his sole executive power can be undone by President Trump on his first day in office, including the policies set forth in these signing statements," John Yoo, a Justice Department lawyer on separation of powers in the Bush administration, told The Washington Times.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

What if Trump enforces the law?

pic524.jpg

John Hinderaker (Powerline) says: I have been saying for a long time that, while our current legal immigration system poses intractable problems, illegal immigration is relatively easy to solve: we only need to enforce our existing laws. Donald Trump's appointment of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General signals that he intends to do just that. Politico belatedly tumbles, apparently, to what is going on: "Immigration-hardliner Sessions could execute crackdown as AG."

If confirmed as Trump's attorney general, the Alabama senator would instantly become one of the most powerful people overseeing the nation's immigration policy, with wide latitude over the kinds of immigration violations to prosecute and who would be deported.

As the nation's top cop, Sessions would be able to direct limited department resources to pursuing immigration cases. He could launch federal investigations into what he perceives as discrimination against U.S. citizens caused by immigration. He would be in charge of drafting legal rationales for immigration policies under the Trump administration.

And Sessions, as attorney general, could find ways to choke off funding for "sanctuary cities," where local officials decline to help federal officials identify undocumented immigrants so they can be deported.

Doesn't that sound great? And it's not all, either. But first, this:

Some immigrant advocates are alarmed by the idea of a Justice Department led by someone they see as far outside the mainstream.

It can't be "far outside the mainstream" to enforce existing federal law. On the contrary, it is the president's most fundamental constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Barack Obama violated this duty, to his everlasting shame. It also can't be "far outside the mainstream" for Trump and Sessions to carry out the policies on which Trump campaigned and was elected.

Politico adds much more about the powers Sessions will wield as Attorney General. Strangely, however, the most important point comes near the end:

Sessions would have similarly expansive powers when it comes to enforcing immigration law. The attorney general sets guidelines for the types of violations federal prosecutors should pursue.

Von Spakovksy said a Sessions-led Justice Department could, for example, ramp up enforcement of a current ban on employers hiring those who are here illegally.

"If the employer provision is enforced and the news gets out that the Justice Department is finally enforcing that provision … that will lead to large numbers of individuals self-deporting," said von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

That is exactly right. The long-promised wall along the Mexican border, already mandated by federal law, may be a good idea but is mostly a distraction. If the executive branch finally carries out its duty to enforce the immigration laws against employers by sending a few farmers, owners of roofing companies, executives of meat packing plants and hotel managers to prison, the job market for illegal aliens will rapidly disappear. The vast majority will then self-deport, to use Mitt Romney's perfectly appropriate phrase.

All of this is devoutly hoped for by most Americans. In the first days of the new administration, it looks as though:

1) Congress will pass a bill repealing ObamaCare
2) Sessions will start to move against illegal immigration
3) President Trump will appoint a conservative to the still-vacant Supreme Court seat

This is a trifecta the likes of which we conservatives have not seen in a long, long time.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

Barack Obama encourages an illegal alien to vote

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) says when readers first sent this to us I thought, no way, not even Obama would be this openly lawless.

But I was wrong.

Barack Obama openly called on illegal aliens to vote in Tuesday’s election.

The whole dam administration is lawless!

They lie at every turn. They lied to get ObamaCare passed. They lied about Benghazi. They lied about Hillary’s private server and emails.

And now Obama is calling on illegal aliens to vote and promises no repercussions.

Related:  Obama says immigration enforcement not investigating voter poll

I have to laugh at the way this illegal alien woman describes herself -- an "undocumented citizen."

That's as absurd as Obama calling himslef a "natural born citizen."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #12 
Trump we have been in a constitutional crisis since the Muslim Usurper, Barack Obama, was elected (or selected) in 2008.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

America is already in a constitutional crisis

Kyle McDonough (Constitution.com) says the FBI dropped a bombshell on America this past Friday when they announced the investigation into Hillary Clinton was being reopened after finding thousands of additional emails on a device used by Anthony Weiner.

Naturally, every corner of the internet exploded with speculation on how this may impact the election. Some have been gleefully declaring Trump a shoe in for president while others are screaming with their hair on fire on cable news networks. One comment that struck me in particular was that if Hillary Clinton gets elected with this investigation hanging around her neck we could be in the midst of a constitutional crisis. I don’t know who the guy was, but are you serious bro? Have you ever read the Constitution?

Do you know, for instance, that the Constitution says the United States Senate has the power to sign off on treaties? Maybe you weren’t paying attention when Barack Obama declared us to be in an "international agreement" with Iran that, after a series of negotiations, left us handing over billions of tax-payer dollars and a permission slip to continue building their nuclear arsenal as long as they pinky-promised it was just for energy production. Some would probably call such an agreement a treaty, but Obama wouldn’t, and under our current form of constitutionalism, that’s just fine. No Senate confirmation required. We will, however, go on national television and berate the Senate for "not doing their duty" when they refuse to confirm yet another radical left wing judge to the Supreme Court.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, how about that time they declared in a split decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right and it says so right there in an amendment ratified by the states well over a hundred years ago? Oh sure, anyone with eyeballs and a 5th grade reading level could read the opinion of the court when they passed the 14th Amendment and find that the subject of same-sex marriage is nowhere to be found, but that would be irrelevant. It's not what we want it to mean in this decade, and what we want now is a winning political issue that has better lobbyists. Does it violate the 10th amendment by handing the decision to five unelected judges instead of the states having authority? Sure! But only if we say it does, and we don’t. So there is your Constitution. No crisis here, only progress.

These are but two examples of hundreds. Washington DC is nothing if not a cesspool of lies, debauchery, fraud, and corruption. They live in a world of unlimited funding, power, and control over other’s people's lives if they just manage to play the right game and know the right people. In no way do these crime bosses and their cohorts consider themselves in any way constrained by a document written over two hundred years ago. Why should we, their peasants, get in the way of their brilliance and wealth? They demean and debase the Constitution every day. They’re spitting on our liberty and our children’s futures. If they could snap their fingers and make the Constitution vanish, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Free speech? Sure, but only the kind we like. Freedom of religion? Maybe in your living room with the blackout curtains pulled tight, but forget about taking that crap beyond your doorstep. Right to bear arms? HA! Right. That was written for muskets, Jack. You have a right to bear what we say you can bear. It's common sense, this tyranny stuff. Right to privacy? Sure you have that, now take your pants off and bend over or you’re not leaving this airport without handcuffs. And leave your cell phone and laptop behind. Actually, don't bother. We’ve already hacked all of the information and stored it on our servers. Tenth amendment? That’s adorable. You think states can govern themselves? Have they seen Obama? Who wouldn’t want to live by that man's decree? He’s a rock star for God's sake! Don't waste my time with this separation of powers nonsense. Oh I know, you learned in school that the Constitution lays out three branches of government, but we thought it would work better if we added a fourth. We call it "the bureaucracy." It’s this great tool of governance that has endless opportunity for expansion, both in funding and regulatory power. The army of acronyms like the EPA, FDA, and IRS all answer to the president of the United States alone, not the Congress who -- according to that Constitution thing -- are the legislators. It’s this sort of genius that gets us the right kind of progress. Not the kind you vote for, but the kind we say you should get whether you vote for it or not. You'll certainly be paying for it by the way. That's right, the government is in the business of sucking up trillions of dollars from people who earn it and giving it to the people who don't, all the while using what they can to expand their reach and influence to make sure that next year it can all be done again bigger and better. Grow, grow, grow, that’s the new Constitution.

So I laugh to keep from crying when I hear that if Hillary Clinton gets elected we'll be in a potential constitutional crisis. Maybe so, but that will come from the debate on whether or not it's constitutional for a president to pardon themselves. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is anything stopping the Democrat party if Hillary gets elected, but let's at least not kid ourselves…

We’ve been in a constitutional crisis for a long time.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

I knew Obama's "rampant lawlessness" was bad -- but not THIS bad

pic934.jpg
Not anymore! Not since January 20th, 2009

Judicial Watch is reporting that throngs of Haitians, Africans, Russians, Armenians and Guatemalans are being admitted into the United States via the Mexican border with virtually no vetting for security or health risks, high level Homeland Security officials told Judicial Watch this week. Overwhelmed and understaffed border agents are bombarded daily with an onslaught of immigrants from these countries and have been ordered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to process them as refugees with "credible fear." Most are camping out in Mexican border towns and going "port shopping" before gaining entry to the U.S., according to federal officials whose identities must be kept anonymous because they fear retaliation. The ports "are unlike anything I've ever seen," said Patricia Cramer, a veteran border agent who serves as president of the U.S. Customs employee union in the Tucson, Arizona sector.

One federal agent at the San Luis Port of entry in Arizona described the situation as a "mass crisis, like a third-world country." A DHS supervisor in the region told Judicial Watch that the agency has issued an order from Washington D.C. to all agents: "No one is allowed to speak to the media." The veteran DHS official said that to accommodate the influx border agencies have suspended regular business and "people that have actually gone through all the legal and proper ways to get documents are being shoved to the side." One frustrated DHS official in the border region said she has never seen this type of rampant lawlessness throughout a lengthy career with the government. "The elected government officials claim we are against terrorism yet they are not doing anything to actually prevent terrorists from entering the country," the DHS supervisor said, adding that the public should show up at ports of entry to see firsthand the problems border agents face every day.

The influx of Haitians and Africans has been making headlines in Mexico for weeks because droves of immigrants are being housed in shelters in Mexican border towns while they await entry into the United States under a secret accord with the Obama administration. The migrants' journey begins in Brazil under a South American policy that allows the "free transit" of immigrants throughout the continent. Ecuador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama facilitate the process by transferring the concentration of foreigners towards Mexico based on an agreement that Mexico will help them gain entry into the U.S. so they can solicit asylum. Under the plan Mexico gives the immigrants 20-day visas and temporary shelter but the backlog is out of control because the U.S. isn't processing the migrants fast enough. This week Mexico's secretary of the interior, Miguel Angel Osorio Chong, told the country's largest newspaper that DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson assured him the U.S. would speed up the process of admitting the refugees to "alleviate the crisis on the southern border."

U.S. border agents can't keep up and are working 16-hour shifts to accommodate the order, according to various officials on the frontline. DHS failed to respond to Judicial Watch's request for an actual number, but here are figures provided to a Mexican newspaper by Mexico's government this week: "More than 15,000 Haitian and Africans, especially from Congo, have crossed into Mexican territory in the last six months on their way to the United States, but more than 4,300 have been stranded on the border with California." In a separate Mexican news report published this week the country's secretary of health, Dr. José Narro Robles, delcared that the Haitians and Africans that remain in Baja California and Chiapas present serious health risks to Mexico.

Judicial Watch's sources on the border say the overwhelming majority of migrants don't appear to have been through any hardships. Instead many look in great physical shape, even muscular and fit, well-groomed and a lot of them have large amounts of cash. "They're showing up with a few hundred dollars if not a few thousand dollars, new electronics, cell phones, tablets, etc.," said a Border Patrol official in Arizona. Another border agent told Judicial Watch that many of the Haitians and Africans "know the administration is going to let them in and they come with an attitude of entitlement."

It wouldn't be the first time the Obama administration abuses the "credible fear" provision in immigration law to benefit its open borders agenda. In fact, last year Judicial Watch obtained government records showing that the administration let hundreds of illegal immigrants stay in the U.S. even though federal authorities knew in advance that an open borders group coached them to falsely claim "credible fear" to get asylum. The operation was part of a scam conducted by an immigrant rights organization called the National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NITA), which had coordinated demonstrations along the Southwest border in Texas and Arizona. In mid-2014 the group orchestrated a racket seeking to bring 250 illegal aliens into the U.S. through the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in San Diego, California. To assure the migrants were allowed to stay in the U.S., the group had them falsely claim that they had a "credible fear" of returning to their native country. Foreigners can claim asylum under five categories, based on fear of persecution over race, religion, nationality, political opinions or membership in a specific social group.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 

Hillary and the fundamental legal premise of tyranny

pic909.jpg

Daren Jonescu (AmericanThinker) says we now know that the FBI's dereliction of duty regarding Hillary Clinton's e-mail malfeasance is complete.  Not only did Director James Comey have the gall to explain her guilt in the very statement in which he announced that he (against the better judgment of some agents) would not recommend charges against her, but the FBI actually agreed to destroy laptops containing relevant evidence, thereby handicapping any future investigation.

Loyal Democrat voters could breathe easily again.  For months, they had squirmed under the awkward burden of knowing their presidential nominee had been caught violating federal law. Let me emphasize that point.  They were not afraid their nominee had broken the law; they believed, as we all did, that she had broken it.  (Not only do I feel confident in asserting that most of Clinton's supporters know she violated the law; in assuming this, I am actually applying the principle of charity, as I am granting that her supporters have enough common sense to see the obvious.)  The important question in their minds was whether she would actually be prosecuted for her violation, as any of us would certainly be in like circumstances.

Not that a prosecution would have changed anyone's voting preference, mind you.  After all, Democrat voters, like most products of late modernity's progressive socialization process, have long-since accepted that the privileged members of the ruling political and corporate elite cannot be held to the same moral or legal standards as the rest of us.  These voters wouldn't want to think the teenager who made their fast food burgers had been shoplifting from a convenience store.  But knowing that they are about to give the most powerful office on Earth to a serial violator of federal law -- even of a law with the ominous title "The Espionage Act" -- causes nary a twinge of self-doubt.

For you see, they, and we, all feel, deep in our hearts, that the teenager at the burger joint, the middle manager at the bank, the construction worker, the housewife, the small business owner, the nurse, and we ourselves, being mere ordinary people, are subject to the laws of our respective communities, whereas the progressive elite -- the elect and the elected -- are above the law.  We all instinctively sense that among the elite, crime and punishment are mere political ploys.  The progressive Republican Party hoped to have Clinton prosecuted for the same reason the progressive Democratic Party wanted to have Congressman Tom Delay prosecuted: it's good electoral strategy.

The loyal Democrat voters' only concern was the pragmatic question of whether they would have to vote for Hillary without knowing the outcome of her trial, not whether a woman who flaunts her disdain for the laws and security of her country has any business running for office.  Having been spared this discomfort by the powers that be, they could finally rally behind her "historic campaign" with vigor.  They were relieved not because she was innocent, but because, though obviously guilty by any standard applicable to ordinary people, Clinton, who is not of ordinary blood, would not have to deal with any "October surprise" publicity in the form of a prosecution.

This is not a victory of justice, a category that does not apply to the elite, much as Aristotle says it does not apply to the gods.  It is a victory of politics, of electoral gamesmanship.  Hillary had her pieces lined up in a way that allowed her to get away (again!) with acts that, in the bygone age of equality before the law, might have landed her in prison.  Two points for her!

In the aftermath of the 2012 presidential election, I wrote that America had voted to end modern civilization -- literally, that a major world-historical shift had, for the first time, been effected by means of a democratic election.  America, the planet's last principled guardian of modernity's political victories -- natural equality, individual sovereignty, limited republican government -- was faced with the choice of reelecting or rejecting a Marxist president supported by the Communist Party, who had promised to fundamentally transform the country and used his first term to begin fulfilling that promise.  She voted to stay the course, although the course, in this case, meant an ever-accelerating descent toward the abyss of Ronald Reagan's projected "thousand years of darkness."

When I wrote that assessment in 2012, many dismissed my thesis as poetic excess or a passing mood evoked by a disappointing election result.  Wrong.  "Disappointing" is a word we use to describe a result that might realistically have turned out otherwise.  Watching your favorite baseball team being eliminated from the playoffs is disappointing.  Finding out the new owners of your favorite restaurant have changed the recipes is disappointing.  But watching a glorious seven-hundred-year historical arc exhausting itself at last; seeing the immense intellectual achievements of philosophers and artists from Aquinas and Dante to Locke and Swift being snuffed out in favor of neo-Marxist critical theory and the nihilistic, infantilizing vulgarity of our popular entertainment; and observing in real time the final outcome of the civilized world's two-hundred-year submersion in the moral quicksand of government-controlled child-rearing (i.e., public school), is not "disappointing."  It is revelatory.

What has been revealed is that this age has tempted fate too long.  Tocqueville's prediction, more than one hundred seventy-five years ago, about the peculiar threat to political freedom, namely the successful free people's careless slide into the comfortable compliance of soft despotism, has not merely proved correct; it has perhaps become irreversible. The disaster must play itself out, one way or another.  The American majority, primed over generations for this moment, is finally embracing its demise, and therefore indirectly the demise of the entire civilized world, which for generations has stupidly and ungraciously enjoyed its Doomsday Eve party primarily on America's dime.

One of the chief, and most irreversible, symptoms of modernity's decay is the abandonment of the premise of all justice in a modern free society, namely equality before the law.  When a majority of men accept the immunity of their "betters" to federal law, not merely as a practical fact of political corruption but as a forgivable and overlookable reality -- that is, as acceptable -- you can be sure you are witnessing a society in freefall.  For its majority has succumbed to the fundamental legal premise of tyranny, which means men have rationalized their own enslavement.

The Doomsday Eve party is winding down.  The remaining drunken revelers, exhausted by excess and having crossed the line between Dionysian freedom and Dionysian chaos, are slowly being delivered into a long, much-needed sleep.  Not a very restful one, I'm afraid.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

Team Obama is willing to break the law to save ObamaCare

pic808.jpg

Paul Winfree (DailySignal) is reporting that Barack Obama's signature health care law is failing and his administration will go to seemingly any length to prop it up.

You know the famous quote from "Animal Farm" that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?" This was George Orwell's attempt to point out the hypocrisy that many politicians preach equality, but then give favors to only a few.

Well, for the Obama administration, it turns out that the health insurance companies participating in ObamaCare happen to be "more equal" than taxpayers -- even to the point where the administration is willing to break the law to help them stay in ObamaCare.

To see what I mean, consider the Transitional Reinsurance Program. Section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to collect payments from health insurance companies and group health plans to stabilize health insurance markets during the transition to ObamaCare's exchange-based coverage.

The transitional period is set, by law, to cover the plan years 2014 through 2016. However, section 1341 also requires HHS to collect payments from those companies to cover specified amounts and to deposit that money in the general fund of the United States Department of the Treasury.

The requirement to deposit a portion of the collections essentially earmarks that money for deficit reduction. The statute explicitly says that the collections for Treasury cannot be expended on the program. In other words, it cannot go back to the insurers unless Congress provides another appropriation redirecting those funds.

However, HHS has decided to ignore this requirement altogether by allocating all of the collections toward covering the losses of insurance companies. The administration's decision to redirect all of the collections to the insurers and none to Treasury came only after ObamaCare was up and running and the administration found out that it wasn't collecting as much as expected from the unprofitable insurers.

Not only is favoring a select few over the taxpayers unethical, but according to a recent legal opinion issued by the Government Accountability Office, it's also illegal. The GAO's legal opinion is important given its statutory authority to issue legal decisions on the availability of appropriated funds by federal agencies under the Budget and Appropriations Act of 1921 (P.L. 67-13).

According to the GAO:

The fact that HHS's collections ultimately fell short of the projected amounts does not alter the meaning of the statue. Addressing similar circumstances, courts have held that an agency has an obligation to 'effectuate the original statutory scheme as much as possible.' … In such cases, courts have held that a pro rata distribution of funds would most closely adhere to Congress's original allocation … We do not see any flexibility under section 1341(b)(4) to all HHS to expend the pro rata share of collections attributable to the Treasury … Instead, these collections must be deposited in the Treasury.

Furthermore, that GAO concluded that HHS' selective reading of the law is "driven solely by the factual circumstances present here, namely, lower than expected collections." But this unfortunate outcome is not reason to ignore statutory requirements:

… HHS's position selectively ignores one of the statute's purposes -- which is collecting funds for the Treasury -- giving effect to only one of the statute's purposes -- stabilization of health insurance premiums … We agree that a purpose of section 1314 is to provide premium stabilization in the initial years of PPACA's health insurance reforms. However, this is not the sole purpose of section 1341. Congress clearly intended that the program established under section 1341 would generate collections for the Treasury.

This goes to show that this administration is willing to do just about anything, even breaking the law, to prop up the failing ObamaCare.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

How is an Islamist, married to her biological brother, still running for office in Minneapolis?

pic536.jpg

Bethany Blankley (Constitution.com) is reporting that officials in Minneapolis don't seem to care about the law. Incest is still illegal in Minnesota. So why the government deliberately not investigating Ilhan Omar's marriage to her biological brother?

Fox 9 reported in August that U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger sent a letter to the Omar campaign, all but stating that his office will not investigate the matter.

But local Somalians who speaking out against her are being threatened with violence -- no one is doing anything about that either. Alpha News reports they are "afraid to speak publicly about their disapproval of a candidate's involvement in apparent fraudulent marriages."

The Somalian woman who won a recent primary in Minneapolis, Wisconsin, Ihan Omar, is not being investigated for her alleged marriage to a man who does not exist, and to her actual legal marriage to her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, in 2009. He was apparently seeking asylum from the oppressive regime of the United Kingdom (not Somalia).

One source from inside the Somali Community agreed to speak to Alpha News on condition of anonymity. The source stated that Somalians in Omar's neighborhood

"are being silenced through intimidation tactics and threats of physical violence on themselves and their families still back home in Somalia."

Ihan Omar's "campaign muscle," Gulaad Hashi, who is also running for office in Somalia while living in Minneapolis,

"serves as [Omar's] muscle in the Somali community and has been leading a witch hunt to out 'the snitch' in the community. He has used everything from intimidation to threats to silence community members from speaking out about this, which is why no Somali has publicly come forward to state what we all know to be true."

Alpha News obtained a video posted on Facebook that recorded Farhio Khalif Jordan, the Associate Chair of the Somali-American Caucus, warning the Somali community, saying,

"any Somali who opposes Ilhan Omar or talks about her personal life, including her marriage discrepancies, is turning on the Somali community and is an enemy of it."

Another source said:

"I very much doubt any Somali will publicly come forward and speak about this story not only because of the repercussions they could face here in Minneapolis, but also because of the potential harm doing so could bring to their loved ones in Somalia. There is no rule of law there and the risk posed by blow back from this is too high. It is no coincidence that this was first exposed on an anonymous Somali forum."

The question that remains is how does a Somali woman married to her brother whose campaign officer is running for office in Somalia get elected to run to become a member of the Minnesota state legislature?

What insanity exists that the U.S. Attorney won't investigate her?

Perhaps these voters can shed some light:

Democratic politicians, all over the country, are giving immigrants -- Mexican or Muslim -- more rights than tax-paying, lawful American citizens. One would have to be blind not to recognize what is happening.

The question is why?

The answer is to create a permanent Democratic majority and one-party progressive rule.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #18 

Pulling the plug on America

  pic514.jpg

Bob Weir (AmericanThinker) says once upon a time, if politicians were caught in a corruption probe, they would quickly resign their offices and attempt to hide from the embarrassing publicity, while praying that they would not go to jail.  In addition, when public officials were exposed as incompetent, reckless, or negligent in the performance of duty, they'd step down amid a swirling tide of public outrage.

Not anymore!  These days, it takes a lot more than bribery, mismanagement, or mendacity during congressional hearings to remove these reprobates from office.  It seems as though we've arrived at a time in which those in power have rigged the system to keep from being penalized for their reckless disregard for the law.

Suppose you were the first black president of the U.S. and you knew that Republicans were loath to confront you on many serious issues because they're afraid to be branded as racists.  Suppose further that you appointed an attorney general who is black and female, hence doubly impervious to criticism from a white majority of elected representatives.  Keep in mind that the A.G. is the boss of the justice system, including the FBI director.

Now, if Hillary Clinton had been recommended for prosecution because of the FBI's findings that she was reckless and negligent in her handling of classified national security documents, her chances to be elected president would likely have been reduced to slim to none.  That would have practically guaranteed Donald Trump a victory on November 8.

If The Donald becomes the next president and fulfills his campaign pledges, one of the first items on his agenda will be the systematic dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.  Secondly, he could begin overturning, or making ineffective, many of Obama's executive orders.  In addition, he might hire an A.G. to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the "pay to play" bribe-taking by Ms. Clinton during her suspicious wealth-gathering career as secretary of state.  Moreover, the newly elected commander in chief could initiate a probe of the money-laundering scheme involving $400 million to Iran that Obama denied was a ransom payment for release of U.S. prisoners, in violation of the law.

And the foregoing could be just the beginning of a massive exposé of the systemic corruption in the political establishment that runs this country like an organized crime empire.

The attempt by highly placed people in the government on both sides of the aisle to scuttle Trump's ambition is unprecedented in the history of politics in our country.  Why are so many insiders conspiring to keep an outsider from pushing the curtain aside and looking in the tent?  Is it possible that the level of corruption is so immense that if uncovered, elected officials from coast to coast could end up wearing orange jumpsuits?  Is it unfathomable that top officials in our government have created an alliance with corporate giants and underworld figures to make exposure impossible?  When I see an IRS director taking the Fifth during a congressional probe, I'm reminded of Mafia goons smirking at the law.

What other explanation can there be for the gang mentality coming from GOP leaders who have been verbally bludgeoning their own nominee, thereby virtually assisting his opponent?  Knowing full well that a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean a left-wing Supreme Court for generations to come, these deeply entrenched establishment moguls are proving that they care less about the country than they do about keeping the lid on their nefarious rise to power and wealth.  Nevertheless, Mr. Trump's popularity with a large portion of the electorate continues, despite the knife in his back from those he vanquished in the primaries and the kick in the groin from a dishonest, biased media working indefatigably to distort every syllable he utters.

Hopefully, on November 8, the voters in this great country will prove they still have the moral certitude and political acumen to rip the blinders off and see through the charade being foisted on them by an administration that does not have their best interests in mind.

When the president, the attorney general, the director of the FBI, et al. have conspired to not merely shield a crook from prosecution, but elect her to the highest office in the land, they resemble mobsters who use bribes, threats, and murder to expand their criminal syndicate.  What the Founding Fathers put together is now on life support, and the grasping fingers of criminal collusion and left-wing dogma are about to pull the plug.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

Obama will bypass Congress -- will seek U.N. resolution on nuclear testing 

pic63.jpg

Josh Rogin (WashingtonPost) is reporting that Barack Obama has decided to seek a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an end to nuclear testing, a move that leading lawmakers are calling an end run around Congress.

Top administration officials, including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, briefed lawmakers and congressional staffers this week about Obama's decision to push for the U.N. action this September, to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was adopted in September 1996 but was never ratified by the Senate.

National Security Council spokesperson Ned Price told me that the administration still would like to see the Senate ratify the test ban treaty but is "looking at possible action in the UN Security Council that would call on states not to test and support the CTBT's objectives. We will continue to explore ways to achieve this goal, being careful to protect the Senate's constitutional role."

The administration did not consult Congress before making the decision, and leading Republicans, including those who opposed Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, are irate that the White House plans another major national security move without their advice or consent.

"This is a plan to cede the Senate's constitutional role to the U.N. It's dangerous and it's offensive. Not only is this an affront to Congress, it's an affront to the American people," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told me. "It directly contradicts the processes that are in place to make sure that Congress appropriately weighs in on international agreements."

The Obama administration has tried for years without success to build Senate support for ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has been ratified by 164 countries. The Clinton administration signed the treaty, but the Senate refused to ratify it in 1999. There's no chance that the current Republican-led Senate would ratify it before Obama leaves office.

Corker said Congress still hasn't been able to see the proposed resolution, and administration officials did not specify any role for Congress in the U.N. effort. Lawmakers fear that a Security Council resolution could constrain the United States and subject American national security decisions to international oversight and potential legal liability.

"What it really does is allow countries like Russia and China to be able to bind the United States over our nuclear deterrent capability without the scrutiny of Congress," Corker said. "Should we ever decide we may wish to test, we could be sued in international courts over violating a United Nations Security Council resolution that Congress played no role in."

Corker said that regardless of one's view on nuclear testing, all senators should be outraged that the administration has now changed tactics, choosing to abandon the effort to get the treaty ratified in favor of going through the United Nations. As with the Iran deal, there's very little Congress can do to prevent the administration from executing its new strategy.

The White House decided not to submit the Iran deal to the Senate as a treaty, calling it an executive agreement. Republicans introduced a congressional resolution that would have expressed disapproval of the deal and potentially made the deal's implementation more difficult. That resolution failed along a largely party-line vote. Said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.): "The administration's intention to once again not use the Constitutional process of ratification in the Senate, choosing the undemocratic method of going to an international organization to circumvent the democratic process, is precisely what happened between the U.S. and the Ayatollah."

Several lawmakers and staffers acknowledged that another congressional effort to stop Obama's new U.N. plan would have little chance of success, especially because of the distractions of the election season and the shortage of days lawmakers are in session this fall.

"They devised a plan to keep the United States Senate and Congress in general from weighing in on an important agreement that's going to limit our ability to ensure our nuclear deterrent is in place," Corker said.

Congressional aides briefed on the issue are already devising a list of options for how Congress can express its anger to the administration and perhaps exert some penalty, if preventing the move proves impossible. Options include cutting U.S. funding for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, an international body that receives about a quarter of its money from U.S. taxpayers.

Lawmakers and staffers also point to several administration officials who have publicly said they favored working with Congress on the issue. Only last September, undersecretary of state Rose Gottemoeller gave a speech during the U.N. General Assembly promising the administration would work with Congress on the test ban treaty.

"Ratification of the CTBT will require debate, discussion, questions, briefings, trips to the National Labs and other technical facilities, hearings and more, as was the case with the New START Treaty," she said. "The Senators should have every opportunity to ask questions -- many, many questions -- until they are satisfied. That is how good policy is made and that is how treaties get across the finish line."

Obama's push for U.N. action on nuclear testing came after months of debate inside his administration over how to advance his nuclear non-proliferation agenda. The decided to move forward with this item after meeting with his entire National Security Council at the White House. Other nuclear policy changes could be decided and announced in the coming months.

The Obama administration and Congress share the blame for the lack of cooperation between the two branches. But the White House is cementing a bad precedent that will impact the next Congress and the next administration.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

Lynch refuses to answer questions during Clinton email probe at tense House hearing

Fox News is reporting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly dodged and deflected specific questions Tuesday on the FBI's probe of Hillary Clinton's email use, referring Republicans to the FBI director instead of answering them herself -- and leading to heated exchanges with top Republicans over the course of several hours of testimony.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Lynch's "lack of clarity is bad for the republic."

During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, also asked about the legality of sharing classified information outside the proper channels and other issues. Lynch said it would be unfair to give a blanket answer.

"I think you're sending a terrible message to the world," Chaffetz said. "The lack of clarity that you give to this body … is pretty stunning."

The exchanges were in keeping with the tense tone of a hearing where Republican lawmakers struggled -- over and over -- to draw detailed answers from the nation's top law enforcement official regarding the decision not to pursue charges against Clinton over her email use.

She repeatedly deferred to FBI Director James Comey's comments on the case, declining to elaborate herself.

"I would refer you to those statements," Lynch said. "I, as attorney general, am not able to provide any further comment on the facts or the substance of the investigation."

Even as Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., noted it was her conclusion in the end on whether to act, Lynch would not comment in detail, specifically when pressed on Comey findings that conflicted with Clinton's public statements on her email use.

Republicans, though, ramped up their criticism not only of Clinton but of the Justice Department's handling of the case. Goodlatte said the conclusion not to pursue charges "defies logic and the law" -- and once again criticized her for meeting on a tarmac in Phoenix with former President Bill Clinton just a week before the decision was announced.

"The timing of and circumstances surrounding this announcement are particularly troubling," he said.

Goodlatte suggested that and other factors could have been grounds for recusal, but Lynch rebuffed the notion. And she insisted that the discussion with the former president was "social" and did not pertain to the email investigation.

Lynch has nevertheless expressed regret for the meeting and acknowledged that it had "cast a shadow" on the public perception of the Justice Department's independence.

Her limited answers on facts of the case, meanwhile, prompted some tense exchanges with lawmakers later in the hearing. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., repeatedly pressed Lynch on whether there was some legal prohibition on her discussing the case that did not apply to Comey, who has discussed the probe at length.

In a rapid-fire exchange, Lynch said she could not provide the same level of detail and they had "very different roles" in the case.

"There is no legal prohibition that can be cited here," Forbes countered.

As they did last week when Comey was grilled by House Republicans, Democrats criticized their GOP colleagues for holding Tuesday's hearing.

"The criminal investigation is closed. There was no intentional wrongdoing," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., top Democrat on the panel.

Meanwhile, a new poll reflects widespread public unease about the FBI decision.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 56 percent disagreed with the FBI's recommendation not to pursue charges. Just 35 percent approved. A separate NBC News tracking poll showed the Democratic presidential nominee's lead over Republican Donald Trump narrowing to just 3 points.

Team Obama should be prosecuted using the RICO Act.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

Americans don't trust our institutions because they fail to prosecute crooks like Hillary

pic772.jpg

John Daniel Davidson (TheFederalist) says the FBI announcement Tuesday was not a surprise. It was always unlikely that Hillary Clinton would face a federal indictment for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of State, no matter what the FBI's investigation revealed.

The surprise was that FBI Director James Comey, in a prepared statement, laid out in detail all the ways Clinton broke the law -- transmitting and compromising classified information, destroying state records, failing to turn over "several thousand" work-related emails, some of which contained classified material. He then concluded that no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges against Clinton in such a case.

If you're wondering why Americans are losing confidence in our political system, this is why. Our political elites can't even be bothered to conceal the appearance of corruption or their sense of entitlement.

The FBI announcement came just days after Bill Clinton met privately aboard a private plane with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. But don't worry, Lynch said she didn't discuss the FBI investigation with her old friend Bill, who in 1999 appointed her U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Also, don't worry about reports that Hillary is open to retaining Lynch as her attorney general. That has nothing to do with how the FBI has handled this investigation, trust them.

Institutional failure unleashed a wave of populism

The populist wave that elevated Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders during the primaries has been pushed along by a growing sense that our elites do what they want and our institutions are unable or unwilling to check them. Institutional failure has perhaps played a greater role in this than the behavior of the elites themselves, whom we generally don't expect to behave well of their own accord. That's why we have the FBI and the DoJ, and especially the Supreme Court. Americans increasingly feel that these institutions have failed, that they exist now primarily to serve the interests of their political masters and the whims of the administrative state.

As Ilya Shapiro noted here back in May, Chief Justice John Roberts did much to shatter the confidence of conservatives back in 2012 and usher in the era of Trump with his majority opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius. By recognizing that Obamacare was unconstitutional, but rewriting the individual mandate as a "tax" to save the law in the name of judicial restraint, Roberts undermined the credibility not only of the Supreme Court but of public institutions across the board. If the Supreme Court is willing to tie itself in knots to uphold an unconstitutional and unpopular law giving sweeping new powers to the federal government, then what good is the court?

Now Comey has done more or less the same thing. By detailing how Clinton broke the law, but concluding that no charges should be brought against her, he tacitly admitted political pressures influenced the FBI's decision and perhaps undermined the rule of law. Comey even suggested the law might be applied differently to someone less important than Clinton. "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," he said. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

No, what Comey was deciding was much more important. He was giving Lynch, whose future as attorney general depends on the good graces of a Clinton administration, cover for not indicting Clinton.

So much for the rule of law

Regardless of whether Trump wins the White House or Sanders-style socialism comes to dominate the Democratic Party, Americans' sense that their institutions are corrupt and corruptible will continue to feed the populist fervor that's been so disruptive this election cycle.

There is of course some irony in this, since populist fervor tends to weaken the rule of law in favor of rule by demagogue. But a constitutional republic relies on the rule of law and therefore requires that some parts of the government function outside politics, or as far removed from politics as possible. The Supreme Court was specifically designed to be immune from political pressures. The highest court in the land is supposed to be concerned with the Constitution alone, not particular policy outcomes or the changing winds of domestic politics.

That's why the Founders insisted on lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. "Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence," wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78. If the justices relied on the executive or legislative branches, "there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either. If they were elected by the people, "there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity."

Likewise, the FBI and DoJ are also supposed to be insulated from politics, as are the agencies charged with national security and foreign policy. To function properly and retain the confidence of the people, these offices must execute their duties, as far as possible, above the political fray and beyond the influence of the elites.

So much for all that.

Barack Obama first put the IRS on American citizens and now he is using the FBI and DoJ to protect Hillary. Those are impeachable offenses.

This is the result of placing a lifelong Marxist into the Oval Office. Now, the Piper is being paid.

I hope America learns a lesson.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

Does Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton create a conflict of interest?

Short answer? Absolutely!

But Obama just dares anybody to do something about it.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
KheSanh

Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #23 

Beckwith is right as always.  Below is an email I sent to my group yesterday afternoon.

 ……………

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thu, Jun 9, 2016 1:20 pm
Subject: BREAKING: Obama WILL NOT Indict Hillary Clinton

 

BREAKING:  Obama WILL NOT Indict Hillary Clinton (My Opinion)

This is a follow-up to my yesterday's letter to you folks which is below.

This is just confirmed on CNN as I write this.  Obama has just endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, and he has done it before she is nominated at the convention in July.  So you can forget about Hillary going to the 'Big House'.  What you should now be concerned with is will she get to move to the 'White House'. 

Obama also held a secret meeting with Bernie Sanders today.  After the meeting Bernie did say he would stay in the race until after next week's primary in Washington D.C.  Then he said he will drop out and support Hillary for president.  Just as Hillary surrendered in 2008 now Bernie has surrendered before the war ended.  (I do concede the fact that the winner of the war was pre-determined before the first primary was held.  It was merely for show to appease their low-informed Democrat voters.) 

Hillary was given the job of Secretary of State for surrendering to Obama in 2008.  It isn't known at this time what goodies Obama promised Bernie he would get if he dropped out.

So the question now is when will the FBI Director James Comey resign when he is told that the Justice Department aka Attorney General Loretta Lynch aka Resident Barack Obama will not be indicting and prosecuting Hillary for the many obvious known felonies that Director Comey's FBI investigators found she committed while acting as our Secretary of State?

..............................  

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wed, Jun 8, 2016 5:25 am
Subject: If Resident Obama Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

If Resident Obama Endorses Hillary Clinton for President before the Democrat National Nominating Convention is held in July it means that he has issued orders to the Justice Department’s U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch that she is not to indict Hillary Clinton for the many felonies the FBI has discovered she has committed and recommended that she be indicted for.  Then of course the honest, decent, law-abiding American patriot FBI Director James Comey will resign in protest.

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Obama endorses Hillary

Obama finally decided it was time to endorse Hillary Clinton.

Now, let me ask you a question. What kind of signal does that send to the people in the FBI who are investigating her potentially criminal activity?

Obama, of course, doesn’t care. Or he does, and he hopes they get the message.

Remember, the Attorney General works for Obama and the Director of the FBI works for the Attorney General.

The Director of the FBI can provide information supporting an indictment, but it takes the Attorney general to indict.

Obama just told them both that he does not want Hillary to be indicted -- and she won't be. Do you really think that Obama's corrupt Justice Department will act contrary to Obama's endorsement?

The rule of law and the Constitution is dead and Obama killed it.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

Hillary and the FBI

pic270.jpg
A nation, like a fish, rots from the head

Bruce Thornton (FrontPage) is reporting that beneath the drama of the primaries the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's home-brew server keeps humming along, though one wouldn't know it from the cursory coverage by the mainstream media. It's not that there isn't anything new to report. Romanian hacker Guccifer claims he got into Clinton's server with ease, and the Kremlin asserts it's in possession of 20,000 of her emails. Hillary's standard verbal brush-off -- "it's a routine security inquiry" -- was exploded by FBI Director James Comey's laconic "I don't even know what that means . . . We're conducting an investigation. That's what we do." But these new developments are dismissed by Democrats with increasingly desperate rationalizations and lies, and Republicans haven't yet worked through the seven stages of grief over Donald Trump's ascendancy, leaving little time to mine this scandal for electoral gold. 

The Republicans need to get on with it. Sometime soon the FBI will release its report, and just based on what's leaked so far, Clinton should be indicted for mishandling classified material. But "should ain't is," as my old man used to say. There are several scenarios that can follow the report, and most will reveal just how we have fallen from the fundamental principle of representative government going back to ancient Athens: equality before the law.

In the first scenario, the FBI recommends an indictment. Supporters of this view cite the institutional culture and professionalism of the FBI, which will be angry if after spending so many thousands of man-hours Clinton gets to walk. There is talk of mass resignations, similar to the 1973 "Saturday Night Massacre," when the Attorney General and Deputy AG resigned after Richard Nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-ins. Others cite the professional integrity of James Comey as the rock upon which their hopes rest. If undercut by the Attorney General, he too will resign, creating a storm of negative publicity for Clinton and the Democrats. In 2004, Comey threatened to resign when White House aides pressured the hospitalized AG John Ashcroft to overrule Comey's refusal to certify the legality of important aspects of the NSA's domestic surveillance program. A few years later in Congressional testimony Comey stoutly defended the independence of the Department of Justice.

I hope this estimation Comey's integrity is true, but when it comes to political appointees, we should take George Orwell's attitude towards saints: guilty till proven innocent. The political rewards of not recommending an indictment would be huge for Comey if Hillary is elected president. Career FBI employees will have to make painful financial and career calculations about the effects of resignation. There are any number of ways the Bureau could spin such a recommendation in a way to let Hillary off the hook: no proof of intent, evidence of carelessness but not criminality, or throwing some staffers and aides under the bus. I believe there are men and women of principle in the FBI who can face these consequences and do the right thing. But we won't know for sure until the time comes.

If resignations don't follow a failure to recommend indictment, Hillary will reap a huge publicity windfall. She will crow about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" being thwarted by the integrity of the FBI. Her campaign will cite the months spent, the 150 agents on the case, and all the interrogations that turned up nothing. No matter how much scolding from the Bureau, she will trumpet her vindication as proof that the Republican Party has hounded her for 25 years because she's a woman who cares for the little guy.

In the next scenario, Comey recommends an indictment, and AG Loretta Lynch demurs. Her recent suit against North Carolina for its law mandating that public restrooms be differentiated by biological sex is evidence of her progressive prejudices and disrespect for the separation of powers and federalism. Her interpretation of the Civil Rights Act's language about discrimination on the basis of sex as justifying her suit is fatuous, and usurps the law-making power of Congress. No Congressman in 1964 believed that "sex" meant anything other than biological sex. Lynch is a "living Constitution" acolyte who feels justified in "interpreting" the language of law to suit ideological and political prejudices. Her public statements against state voting requirements and her support of Obama's abuse of executive orders are revealing of the same tendencies.  

With such a record of partisanship, it is very likely that she will refuse to indict Clinton. Or, if the bad publicity of such a decision would be too intense before the election, she could draw out the deliberation process for months, and then refuse after Hillary's sworn in. Or if Hillary didn't win, I could easily see Obama granting her a preemptive pardon before he left office, just as Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in September 1974. There could be blowback, but Obama would be off to six-figure speaking gigs and an eight-figure advance for his memoirs. 

If this scenario unfolds, make sure to remember some of the culprits: those Republican Senators who confirmed Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Whether they confirmed her out of fear of being called racist and sexist, or a sincere belief in her qualifications, or a gesture of bipartisan comity, their confirmation will share some blame for Hillary escaping legal and political accountability for sacrificing this country's security to her ambition.

But the worst consequence of Hillary's disregard for the law will be the blow to the foundational principle of representative government. Politics began 2500 years ago when power was based not on men because of their wealth, charisma, or prestigious ancestors, but on laws that applied equally to all citizens. Power was no longer a personal possession, but belonged to the body of citizens, to be used by them according to transparent rules and procedures that limited the scope of such power and held those who used it accountable. This same fundamental principle animated the Founders who, as John Adams put it, created "a government of laws, and not men," for all men are vulnerable to the temptation to abuse power.

This principle of divided, distributed, and accountable power that men use, not own, is the greatest protector of our freedom, for it protects us from tyranny, which Aristotle defined as

that arbitrary power of an individual which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.

We have already drawn closer to such tyrannical power. From government agencies like the EPA and the IRS, which are responsible to no one, arbitrarily abusing their power against the will of the citizens; to progressives like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who recognize no limits to their will and bend the law to suit their personal ambitions and ideological dogma. For all their talk of "equality," they live in the world of Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The Constitution, the rules of the State Department, the laws governing the handling of classified material, none of these apply to Hillary. Letting her get away with this outrage will be, like Obama's disregard for the law, yet another milestone on the road to tyranny.

Anybody that took the time to conduct even the most cursory investigation of Barack Obama back in 2008 could have easily predicted the events of the last seven-and-one-half years.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved