WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration set a record for the number of times its federal employees told disappointed citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page requested under the Freedom of Information Act, according to a new Associated Press analysis of government data.
In more than one in six cases, or 129,825 times, government searchers said they came up empty-handed last year.Such cases contributed to an alarming measurement: People who asked for records under the law received censored files or nothing in 77 percent of requests, also a record. In the first full year after President Barack Obama’s election, that figure was only 65 percent of cases.
Democratic Party politicians and operatives descended on Flint before Tuesday’s Michigan primary hoping to exploit public anger over the water crisis to boost their electoral chances. The selection of the city as the venue for the March 6 debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton was designed to give the appearance that the Democrats were concerned with, and would seriously address, the disaster inflicted on the people of Flint over the last two years.
Both candidates sought to lay blame solely on the Republican governor, Rick Snyder, while concealing the role of state and local Democrats, including the state treasurer, the mayor, the emergency manager and the city council. They also said nothing about federal officials from Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who knowingly concealed the fact that the city was not treating its water supply with anti-corrosive agents and that lead levels in the water had made it toxic.
While making various demagogic statements, neither candidate offers any serious proposal to provide relief to the beleaguered residents. During the debate, LeeAnne Walters from Flint asked both candidates if they would require public water systems to replace lead pipes throughout the US if they were elected. Neither candidate would give a direct answer to the question.
Clinton replied, “We will commit to a priority to change the water systems and we will commit within five years to remove lead from everywhere,” referring to all lead sources, including paint and dust.
Walters, a key figure in exposing the consistent cover-up by water quality officials, told the Huffington Post on Monday, “I hated Clinton’s answer. To tell a Flint resident that we’ll handle this in five years is no different than what the city was telling us and what the state was telling us.”
The Flint mother noted that federal agencies, particularly the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), have been downplaying the importance of lead in drinking water for decades, focusing almost exclusively on lead in paint and dust. This attitude toward public water systems was a significant factor in the lead poisoning of Washington, DC from 2001 to 2005 and contributed to the culture within agencies tasked to protect drinking water safety that has been exposed in the Flint events.
“If you look at the numbers, most of the grants and funding go to lead paint, so to lump it all together is unacceptable,” Walters said.
Walters said Sanders’ response to her question—that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under his administration would monitor water safety—was “lame,” adding that this is what the EPA is already supposed to do.
Thousands of emails have emerged exposing the role of top employees at Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in covering up the lack of proper treatment in Flint’s water leading to the spike in lead levels. A spate of resignations and firings in the department have occurred as a result.
While the Democrats denounced the Snyder administration, they have consistently given a pass to the EPA, with US Congressman Dan Kildee from Flint, for example, saying that claims that the EPA is equally as responsible as the MDEQ is a “false equivalency.”
In fact, the EPA played a key role in aiding and abetting the efforts by MDEQ and the Snyder administration to conceal the danger to the public. A March 5 article in the Detroit Free Press examines emails between MDEQ and EPA officials from February 25, 2015 through the end of 2015. The emails reveal that the EPA was well informed that Flint was in violation of federal safe drinking water regulations, and that the MDEQ was not only aware, but itself instigating Flint officials to falsify water testing.
The article dates exchanges starting on February 25, when LeeAnne Walters’ home tap water tested at 104 parts per billion (ppb)—7 times more than the EPA action level of 15 ppb. Her child developed skin rashes. The next day, EPA program manager for Region 5 (the Midwest region), Jennifer Crooks, relates this to MDEQ’s Lansing District Coordinator for Drinking Water, Steve Busch, and Mike Prysby, MDEQ district engineer, with a note that says: “WOW!!!! Did he find the LEAD! 104 ppb. She has 2 children under the age of 3… Big worries here.”
This message was forwarded to EPA Region 5 Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch Chief Tom Poy, and Regulations Manager Miguel Del Toral, who is a leading expert on lead in water.
Del Toral, alarmed by the test results followed up with visits to Walters’ home to do further testing. Further emails corroborated Walters’ testimony at the February 3 US Congressional hearing, where she described Del Toral’s work in Flint, which culminated in a June memorandum to the EPA and the MDEQ, after which he was silenced by the federal agency.
Walters testified that she had made that report public.
“So when he called me and asked me if he could use my information for this report, I said yes, and I asked for a copy. When I saw it in black and white—there is a difference living it and seeing it in black and white—that is why it was given to the ACLU and made public, because people did have a right to know. From that point, he was then no longer allowed to have association with me or anybody else in Flint. By the EPA.”
Del Toral and Walters had uncovered that there had been no corrosion control treatment of the water in Flint since the water source was switched to the Flint River in April 2014. For decades, the water supplied to Flint from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department’s treatment plant near Lake Huron had been treated for corrosives, in line with federal law, in order to prevent lead and other chemicals from leaching from Flint’s pipelines into its drinking water.
The long-mothballed Flint treatment plant neither had the technical capacity or the manpower to treat the water, but this did not stop state and local officials from both parties from approving the switch. The officials essentially rolled the dice hoping there would be no public outcry until a new pipeline that would connect Flint directly to Lake Huron was completed.
In his June memorandum, Del Toral also revealed that sampling of the water in Flint homes was done improperly, making the high lead levels less like to be revealed.
EPA Region 5 head, Susan Hedman, since resigned, told Flint’s Mayor Dayne Walling and others who raised concerns about the Del Toral memo, that she wished it had never been produced and that after she edited and vetted it, it would tell a different story—that Flint’s water was in compliance with lead and copper standards established by the federal government.
In early July, Walling asked Hedman to make a public statement to the ACLU to justify the city’s actions and she replied, “I’m not inclined to have any further communications with the ACLU representative.”
Dr. Marc Edwards, the leader of the Virginia Tech University team that performed an extensive testing of Flint’s water in August, told the February 3 Congressional hearing.
“I did not know what happened for quite some time until MDEQ bragged to Ms. Walters and laughed at her and she reported back to me that ‘Mr. Del Toral had been handled’ and it was very clear that an agreement had been reached of some sort between EPA and MDEQ that would let MDEQ have their way with Flint’s children.
“That they were not going to install corrosion control. They had no intention to do it. There’s many emails that show that they were waiting for this new pipeline to come on next year and they thought it was a waste of time to do anything to treat the water. When we got involved, in August as a matter of fact, an MDEQ email said ‘Shouldn’t someone tell those folks from Virginia Tech that we’re switching to the pipeline next year so they don’t bother wasting their time on this issue?’”
National EPA Director Gina McCarthy, an Obama appointee, appeared for the first time in Flint at a February 2 EPA press conference. When a World Socialist Web Site reporter asked her directly about the quashing of the Del Toral memo, she lied, insisting the lead-in-water expert had not been silenced.
The significance of the cover-up for the EPA by the Democratic Party establishment is vast. Over the last weeks, it has emerged that lead poisoning of the population through the water systems is not isolated to Flint, but is a national phenomenon. In the state of Ohio, lead levels in the blood of children are high in many areas of the state. In the village of Sebring, Ohio, near the deindustrialized city of Youngstown, it has recently been made public that state water quality officials kept quiet for months when they knew that residents had lead-tainted water flowing through their taps.
Image: Map showing recorded blood-lead levels in the US
The map above shows the extent to which blood levels exceed the EPA action level across the country. Even more disturbing is the number of states that are not required to submit those levels to the EPA.
Food and Water Watch, the Washington DC-based advocate for public water,reports that federal water infrastructure spending has been cut by 74 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1977. Obama’s latest budget calls for another 11 percent cut.
Neither Democratic Party candidate has any intention of investing in desperately needed infrastructure. They dare not cut across the agenda of the financial elite to amass greater and greater profits at the expense of the working class, and to dedicate obscene sums to the endless pursuit of technology and weapons for war.
The ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Issue & American PresidentsAlan Korwin
Arizona –-(Ammoland.com)- Can just anyone be elected President of the United States?
No, of course not. Foreigners for example are not eligible. The Constitution spells out the eligibility standards:
Article II, Section 1:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
As you can see, Article II distinguishes between Citizens and natural born Citizens. Although we know the Founding Fathers used language with extreme care, this is now raising a ruckus. I’m a researcher, I’ve done the legwork, so let me set the record straight.
The answers we need are right there in the historical record. This is not a judiciable matter for courts as has been recently suggested, along with other modern-day distractions and red herrings. Here’s the short version.
At the time of our nation’s founding Benjamin Franklin obtained three copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. There is a record of the acquisition from Franklin backing this up that still exists today. I’ll quote that in a moment. It was the preeminent guide on the subject. Franklin put one in a library, sent one to the College of Massachusetts, and brought one to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for the delegates to use, which they did.
This book they used defines “natural born citizen” clearly as a person born in a country, both of whose parents are citizens of the country at the time of birth. It’s a plain, clear definition of the term they used in the Constitution.
“Natural born citizen” is clearly defeined as a person born in a country, both of whose parents are citizens of the country at the time of birth.
It’s a three-part requirement. It allows for no foreign birth or parentage in a person who is a natural born citizen. It is distinct from ordinary citizenship. Article II in the Constitution recognizes the distinction.
John Jay, who became our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, sent a letter to George Washington, which also still exists, which I’ll also quote in a moment, confirming that the only way to ensure the U.S. presidency remains free of what today we would call “foreign entanglements” was to require that eligibility be limited to natural born citizens only.
Washington replied, thanking him for the advice. In editing the final version of the Constitution, the Framers changed Article II from citizen to natural born Citizen, capitalized that way. Records of all this exist.
There, in a nutshell, is the entire situation.
No court decision is needed. The idea that a court must weigh in because the Founders didn’t define the term in the Constitution is nonsense. It is the same type of nonsense modern people have created to undermine other fundamental elements of our Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what the term meant, just like they knew what “weights and measures” meant when they used that (without defining it) and they used it with precision, for deliberate reason.
The presidency is the only office in our entire legal structure that has this requirement. Citizen appears throughout the law. Natural born citizen appears in one place and one place only—as a requirement for the highest office in the land. You can stop here and you have the truth of the matter, or read further if this interests you and you want the details.
This White Paper is not about liking one candidate over another—I do not endorse or oppose candidates, as people who know me are well aware. This is about liking the Constitution over any candidate.
It would be wrong to let the fact that we have allowed a person into office who somehow avoided proper review and does not meet the eligibility requirements stated in our Constitution, to justify offering up additional candidates who similarly do not meet the fundamental test set out in our nation’s charter.
A Way Out of Our Dilemma
Those running who fit this category of ineligible to hold the office of President would do the nation an immense service, cement their place in history forever, and find the love of their countrymen, by stepping down gracefully and with honor. They can state publicly they have seen the light and have come to understand the facts as they should properly be understood. The Constitution comes first.
“Sometimes wisdom comes late,” as Justice Antonin Scalia presciently said. Since they cannot all rise to the top, it would be a far more elegant, courageous and honorable departure than simply conceding the race to someone else based on poll numbers. Such a tactful move would leave them, admired and respected, available for virtually any other office in the land.”
THE DOCUMENTATION
From Ben Franklin’s letter to Charles William Frederic Dumas:
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel…”
The letter addresses other matters concerning employment of colleagues, and translations of the proceedings of the Congress.
Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen:
Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:
§ 212: The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
There is more, concerning ordinary citizens, inhabitants, naturalization, duties and responsibilities of citizenship, renouncing citizenship once you become of age, children born of foreigners, or at sea, it is a complex subject and a big book. Read it all here if you wish: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2246#lfVattel_label_1642
John Jay wrote to George Washington:
July 25, 1787
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
In Sep., 1787, the “Committee of Eleven,” chosen at the Constitutional Convention to work out details on numerous occasions, changed the presidential requirement from citizen to natural born citizen, after receiving Jay’s letter. The Convention accepted the changes, hence the wording we have today.
Additional valuable resources
Attorney Mario Appuzo has made this situation a core of his life’s work and has assembled, in one place, the references, if you care to delve more deeply, with links to the complete edition of Vattel and more. He has been attacked by everyone who wants to hide all this from public view. His lawsuit on this issue on behalf of retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner and others reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was declined. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
The Publius Huldah blog has serious flaws but makes interesting reference to the vast array of wild conjecture that has effloresced lately as to what a natural born citizen is, based upon nothing but idle speculation and blather, giving these examples:
Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.
Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” (available on Amazon) and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868. (For the record, the 14th Amendment did not amend or even address Article II.)
Human Events claimed in 2012 that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President, and based on a “common-sense logical approach” that includes any foreigner naturalized or otherwise obtaining citizenship as eligible. No support is included (because there isn’t any).
Jake Walker at Red State confuses natural born subjects (a function of the British Crown) and natural born citizens (in this Republic which we fought a war to achieve).
I’ve seen worse examples on TV but didn’t take notes. Rush Limbaugh suggested on radio the issue is not an issue. Bill O’Reilly said on his FOX-TV show The Factor definitively he will not mention the matter again. The collection of official sounding commentary, from Harvard to hashtags, is mind boggling. One learned fellow tells me Article II was added to keep foreign-born Alexander Hamilton out of office, which makes little sense since all Founders were British subjects when the nation began, and Article II accounts for that. CNN has aired a bewildering array of self-contradictory pontification on who is eligible with barely any reference to history, much of it from talking heads whose ignorance of the subject is self evident.
Tokaji and the Tribe Approach
The Donald Tokaji paper for the Michigan Law Review (Vol. 107, 2008), often cited and excellent as far as it goes, puts forth credible arguments for why virtually no one will make it through federal or state courts with challenges to aspirants on natural-born-citizen grounds. Fascinating, well reasoned arguments. It seems he misses only one, addressed at the end of this paper.
Lawrence Tribe, a preeminent scholar of today wisely suggested the matter may never be satisfactorily resolved, saying, “there is no single, settled answer.” He also dubiously said, “There is no defense now for retaining the clause in the Constitution. It really needs to be removed,” according to the venerable New York Times (which went on to suggest removing it, “with a bit of constitutional copy editing,” seriously.)
The National Constitution Center makes reference (as do many) to the 1790 Naturalization Act, to support a broad interpretation, for people born abroad, but that definition includes, “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States…”, not “children of a citizen,” singular. Replete with imperfections and replaced five years later, an act doesn’t amend the Constitution. Tribe believes concepts at the time of adoption would appeal best to originalists, as if this is a flaw. Katyal and Clement, in the Harvard Law Review, argue that one candidate was a citizen from birth, and so is a natural-born citizen, conflating the two terms. And so it goes, expert after expert, none the same, ad infinitum.
A person can become a citizen in many ways, and hold any office, except the presidency, unless the person is a “natural born Citizen” as cited in the Constitution, and for good reason. Natural born citizenship can only be acquired at birth. Let me explain, first by example.
Examples Help Clarify
Marco Rubio
If both of Marco Rubio’s parents, for example, were Syrian refugees instead of Cuban, we would likely not be having this conversation.
Few people would entertain any notion of his eligibility, as if they were the Framers themselves.
Likewise, if Ted Cruz had been born in communist North Korea instead of friendly Canada, to an American mom and an Iranian dad, instead of a communist Cuban refugee dad, it would boggle the American psyche—as it would our Founding Fathers, and for the same reasons—possibly divided loyalties and questionable allegiance.
Does this help shake your thinking free? Instead of continuing the permutations—
This interesting conundrum riddle teases out the logical errors:
If your parents’ nationality is the requirement— How can Marco Rubio be eligible?
If your place of birth is the requirement— Then how can Ted Cruz be eligible?
If both blood and soil are required— Then how can either be eligible?
If neither is required— Then who is not eligible?
And if only one out of three is required— What combination of enemies can be excluded?
So what protection for the office did the Founders provide?
Surely the Founders intended some protective wall around the office in Article II. The deceptive answer being thrown about today is that the Framers believed any toe in the water was sufficient to qualify a person to be Commander In Chief and (to mix time frames) gain access to the nuclear launch codes. North Korean parents? A dad from the Khmer Rouge?
How foreign is too foreign?
The Founders wisely decided that, to avoid any split allegiance, any possibly divided loyalty or conflict of interest, the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, the Chief Executive and President of the United States had to be 100% American. How foreign is too foreign? Any amount of foreign is too foreign—that was their plan, right there in Article II. It can only be changed by amending that specific section of the Constitution itself. That has not happened.
Only pure American by parentage (in Latin it’s called jus sanguinis, by blood) and by place of birth (jus soli, by soil), would do. Vattel defined the constitutional term “natural born Citizen,” and the Founders put it, capitalized that way, in Article II. People are arguing about nbC today, for good reason, and that gets pretty ugly, but they didn’t back then. Let’s proceed, step by step.
When the Constitution was drafted, the presidential requirement distinguished between the Founding Era (“a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”), because no one was a citizen yet, because the nation had just begun. Talk about being precise! This was not a haphazard draft. After the starting period ended, the nbC rule applied. And there you have it.
The sense of things
People have a natural attachment to the land they were born upon, it’s only natural, plus the ancestry of their parents. Proud Americans say they’ve got Greek roots, or are of Irish extraction, or they’re of French descent or Italian stallions and have the T-shirt to prove it. There are lots of T-shirts, worn with fervor and dedication, and for good reason. God bless ’em all.
The news media in 2016 refers to two presidential candidates as Cuban Americans (or a Canadian American). Good for them, but maybe not for the office they seek, if our Founders have anything to say about it. Bobby Jindal (both parents from nuclear-armed India), and Rick Santorum (dad from Italy but perhaps a citizen by the time of birth), dropped out of the race and the public eye early.
Having a native-land attraction is healthy and good. Culturally. But would our Founders believe one parent from an enemy (or any other) foreign nation—and birth on some other country’s land—make a person eligible for the presidency? Now you know—they would not.
A few months ago communist Cuba was a mortal enemy, a human-rights atrocity (still is), willing to deploy nuclear bombs aimed at us. Now they just want to sell us cigars, which unlike cigarettes with fine Virginia leaf tobacco, are highly prized. How do these loyalties switch so fast? (Please skip the tobacco hypocrisy for now.) A bunch of old dead white tobacco growers who got the U.S. started would counsel caution.
The Old Days
All manner of intrigue was the politics of the Founding era, not all that different from today really. The Founders were deeply concerned that the Chief Executive—as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—should have absolutely undivided loyalty to the nation. The Commander’s allegiance could have no foreign claims or foreign fealty whatsoever. How do you do that?
Back then, your legience (allegiance in modern terms) sprang by the very nature of things, from two natural forces—blood and land. These were natural laws you hear so much about, brought up in the Declaration of Independence. The standards among nations differed, with some recognizing duties and privileges of citizenship based on soil (the place you were born), and others seeing it as a function of blood (parenthood). Some nations considered both relevant. They applied these to subjects. We championed the idea of citizens.
You cannot escape your natural native heritage, even if you hate it, it’s yours. You’re German, Nigerian, Cuban? It is what it is, you are what you are, our Founders understood this. You do too, unless you’re in denial.
Where parenthood was concerned, the mother’s (matrilineal) or father’s (patrilineal) blood was a key, though obviously, the father’s lineage (which Britain favored) could be questionable. No one asks a pregnant woman, “Are you sure it’s yours?”
Blood and soil combined guarantee the greatest likelihood of love and devotion to a nation, so two citizen parents—at the time of birth on native American soil was—many would say wisely—seen as the best natural pedigree to hold the highest office in this land. It is perfectly reasonable. A British officer’s son born to an American woman in Spain who lived there for ten years might have divided loyalties, yes?
The Modern Day
Chris Matthews of MSNBC told Ted Cruz on air about the two-parent requirement (Cruz has only one, his dad’s Cuban). Matthews then referred to the so-called “Boss” requirement (“Born in the U.S.A.,” from the Bruce “The Boss” Springsteen song). Cruz, proud of his foreign birth (he was born in Canada, and held Canadian citizenship until 2014), replied by denigrating Donald Trump on unrelated subjects.
Matthews seized this golden opportunity by not following up, for reasons that remain unclear at press time. All four “questionably” eligible 2016 candidates have argued they are just good enough to go. One drop of American contact, it seems, is enough to satisfy the Constitution in the days of a pen and a phone. And there, my friends, is the root of the real problem.
McCain Grilled by the Senate on C-SPAN
As luck would have it, I flipped on the TV back in April, 2008, and got to watch the entire Senate hearing over John McCain’s eligibility to run for president. It was fascinating, at least to me. With a little tortured logic the committee decided, in a nonbinding resolution, the Panama Canal Zone was indeed U.S. soil, and since both of McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens, he qualified and was good to go.
What was stunning to me however was that the subsequent hearing, for the candidate where there was a real deep eligibility question, the candidate with the Arabic name, was never held. I could never get an answer as to why or how the Senate evaded that hearing. Lots of conjecture and speculation, all of it nasty, and just no examination. And it wasn’t really about the long-stalled birth certificate, though that might have mattered. It was about the acknowledged Kenyan father (and lots of “sealed” records, conveniently ignored).
The Kenyan American got a pass.
And now we’re at the real reason, the ugly reason, why Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and the rest will not be found ineligible to become President under Article II, the one item Tokaji omitted, even though you can see they are ineligible. Because: If current candidates are officially determined to be ineligible to be President under Article II, it would mean the person currently in the office of President is ineligible for the same reason. This would lead to a constitutional crisis and charges of misprision of treason beyond anything America could withstand.
A blogger writing as bob68 framed it perfectly, let him speak here:
The reason the meaning of natural born citizen has been tortured into meaning virtually anyone is one is because this discussion is taking place after the commission of a crime “too big to prosecute,” by a lot of rich, powerful and influential people.
Once Congress allowed and assisted the ineligible, identity fraud con artist Barack Hussein Obama to usurp the presidency there was no one complicit in Obama’s successful takeover of America’s highest office, and her military, who was not going to fight, with everything in them, to insure he remains officially a legitimate president. Anything else subjects the complicit, many at the highest possible level, to charges of treason for literally giving America’s government and her military to the enemy.
No amount of history, common sense or anything else will ever get an admission from the media, Congress or the others involved that they were complicit in, as a minimum, misprision of a felony [18 USC §4] or misprision of treason [18 USC §2382] for their part in the biggest hoax in history. Obama must be protected from the truth about him being fully revealed and acted upon. When a regime owns the courts, Congress and the media, that job becomes doable, no matter how compelling or plentiful evidence to the contrary may be.
Supporting and defending as many ineligible presidential candidates as possible is a way of protecting Obama’s false eligibility, as ineligible candidates are molded into natural born citizens by those who want the Obama fraud and their paid assistants to just fade away. Every ineligible candidate accepted as “eligible,” no matter what it takes for that to happen, helps them reach their goal. Those complicit believe their personal freedom could depend on continuing the charade of legitimacy they have surrounded Obama with, both by their actions and inaction.
In Conclusion
So there you have it. The Founders wanted and specified a totally American president: two citizen parents and born here. It is documented beyond reproach in the historical record. Modern wishes that this weren’t so count for nothing. The Founding Fathers’ fears have been realized—all sorts of pretenders have been and are aspiring to the seat of power. Arguments and hyperbole running rampant today confirm the wisdom of the original requirement: Only a natural born Citizen as the Founders understood the term may legitimately hold the office.
If the U.S. Supreme Court gets hold of the issue, which now seems likely, it may find itself compelled to water down the answer to “How foreign is too foreign?” to satisfy the mess we find ourselves in. And as we perhaps officially abandon our Founders’ sage instructions, that dilemma and its unsavory result will afflict this nation for as long as it may continue to exist. May God bless and keep us all.
____________
Postscript
A preemptive word to critics…
… who are already asking where I come off disagreeing with scholars from Harvard (as if this formerly unassailable school still lives up to its reputation), seasoned attorneys (and I’m not even a lawyer), constitutional geniuses (who have the undebatable truth locked down), journalists (though I’m widely published and a 25-year member of the Society of Professional Journalists) and other know-it-alls who I should not dare to impugn, question or challenge: I faced similar opprobrium when common wisdom insisted the U.S. Supreme Court had said little about guns and everything was a settled matter of law, until I published, after six years of labor in 2003, Supreme Court Gun Cases, with the 92 gun cases the High Court had decided up to that point in time.
By the time the Heller case was decided, the total had risen to 96, the word firearm (in some form) had been used in decisions more than 2,900 times and virtually all the cases were consistent with an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. To this day, “geniuses” at the Associated Press and other ivory-tower scholars insist that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it always used to mean, and doesn’t support the idea that we have gun stores all across this nation for the public to use. My work on natural born citizens and Article II stands despite the interest of some to deny it and concoct realities that do not exist.
About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit:www.gunlaws.com
In the spirit of the transparency — of which the Obama administration claims to be a champion — there will be no details regarding the allocation of non-military intelligence spending in the president’s final budget request to Congress.
According to a press release from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), fiscal year 2017’s budget totals $53.5 billion, but don’t ask which agencies or programs will receive the funds — “because such disclosures could harm national security.”
Indubitably.
Of course, the ODNI congratulated the self-titled most transparent administration in history for its laudatory lucidity, anyway.
“Reflecting the Administration’s commitment to transparency and open government, this Budget continues the practice begun in 2012 of disclosing the President’s aggregate funding requests for the [National Intelligence Program],” stated an ODNI fact sheet.
Considering such disclosures became a requirement under the law in 2010, that pat on the back seems superfluous, if not smug.
“That’s a business as usual claim,” said Representative Peter Welch, according to US News & World Report. “There is no transparency there — they’re complying with the thinnest of laws about the [aggregate budget] number. Members of Congress and the American public really are learning nothing.”
US News also reported Welch first learned of the 16 individual intelligence agencies’ budget allocations, along with the rest of the U.S. populace, thanks to Edward Snowden’s disclosures revealed by the Washington Post in 2013.
Welch also explained that although members of Congress aren’t restricted from viewing the specifics of intelligence program appropriations, they are prohibited from discussing the contents — “It’s like going in there with a blindfold and coming out being mute,” he mused. In fact, objecting to the classified budget allotments would mean being “escorted off the House floor in handcuffs” — though it wasn’t entirely apparent whether Welch intended sarcasm in saying so.
Despite the revelations in Snowden’s massive document releases, and his ambitious aspirations to bring transparency to governmental operations, the Obama administration continues to thwart attempts to force the matter — and not only will it continue to do so, but administrations that follow will almost certainly continue the pattern.
In the meantime, it should come as no shock that we will never be completely privy to the intelligence programs we fund through our taxes.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
The Obama’s Administration Is Arresting Independent Journalists for Anti-Government Speech
On December 16, 2015, I published the following picture and commentary based upon credible intelligence that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had instructed the Department of Justice and DHS to target journalists from the Independent Media for daring to speak out against admitting immigrants to the United States without conducting the requisite background checks.
This is the face of a domestic terrorist. She will jail all talk show hosts who speak out against Muslim extremism. One day following the San Bernardino massacre, she did not utter a word about the 14 Americans that were executed by a Muslim terrorist. But Lynch(mob) threatens to arrest anyone speaking out against Muslim extremism. I do not have words to describe how out of touch this administration is with the American people. Please note the background as Lynch delivered her threat to Americans who will not submit to extremism and Sharia Law.
As an American, and as Thomas Jefferson would point out, it is my duty to my country to speak out and identify all potential threats the United States. The Obama administration’s practice of admitting hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants, none of them Christian, without the adequate background checks, is insane and invites more terrorism incidents .
In every instance, when I travel, I am subjected to warrantless searches and seizures at the airport. My background is subject to review by the authorities in the TSA. Then why are not Muslim immigrants subject to the same rules? What makes them so special that they are above the law? And for daring to point this out, I am not subject to being arrested at gunpoint, for no reason? And if I were to make one move that a law enforcement officer did not like, I would be subject to being killed during a routine traffic stop, all because Loretta Lynch(mob) does not like what I, or what other journalists have written. The reckless immigration policies of President Obama and Attorney General Lynch are putting all American in harms way.
As I reported in the original article, the FBI has publicly admitted that they estimate that 10% of all Muslims are radicalized in their hatred towards Americans and should be considered to be dangerous. I go further than the FBI, any immigrant needs to be screened before being granted admittance to the United States, not just Muslims. For the record, this site has never advocated any form of vigilantism against group of people regardless of their race, religion and country of origin. I want all immigrants to be subject to the same procedures that I am forced to comply with. I want all immigrants to be screened by the FBI in the name of national security.
In the December 16th article, I stated that many journalists have been put on the DHS Terror Watch List and are subject to arrest, or worse. Immediately after publishing the article, I was accused of overreacting to the DHS/Lorreta Lynch threat.
It only took one day, for my warning to come true!
One Day Later… Pete Santilli Is Taken Into Custody for “Slow Driving”
Talk show host, Pete Santilli, arrested without cause at gun point for impeding traffic.
At a time when the Obama administration is stopping all investigations into the domestic threat posed by ISIS, they have begun to arrest journalists for speaking out against reckless immigration policies.
While driving in Newtown (how ironic), Ohio, Pete Santilli was pulled for slow driving and was arrested at gunpoint. He was held for 24 hours. Santilli has no criminal record and has never been arrested. During the course of the arrest, Santilli learned that he was on the DHS watch list.
Pete Santilli contacted me late last night and verified the events as listed here.
Doug Hagmann
Doug and Joe Hagmann
Doug Hagmann notified me in advance of his intention to meet with an informant inside of DoJ where Lynch presides with regard to the persecution of journalists who dare criticize this administration. The following is a brief account of what Doug Hagmann was told by this source in which he also show Doug documents to validate his concerns. Here are excerpts sent to me by Doug with regard to this topic and what he learned.
“… this source works at DoJ and listens to our shows and The Common Sense Show. ( …during our initial conversation to confirm his (identity and status… which checked out). Long story short, (the) source said that the DoJ created a special section birthed from a meeting 2 weeks ago that is dedicated to the monitoring of certain “alternative media programs and web sites,” although the name and mission statement of that section (sub-department) does not reflect its actual job. This is staffed by about 20 people and supervised by a US Attorney.” (Author’s note: Obviously this “task force” designed to harass members of the Independent Media was put together well in advance of the events at San Bernardino which was supposedly Lynch’s motivation to issue the threat against journalists). …In sum and substance, the section is compiling all current and historical information about anti-Islamic (and laughably, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish) hate speech. The plan is to use federal regulations to warn us off any such talk, but it goes even deeper. He said that in the meeting, the stated criteria was much broader, including anti-government talk.”
I asked Doug if my previous article led to the D0J official contacting and he said that it did.
Conclusion
Do I need to say it? Do I dare say it? Under this administration, our liberties are quickly eroding to a level experienced by people living under the Stasi, the Nazis and the KGB. Journalists, or anyone else with an opinion which differs from this administration are being put in grave danger.
These totalitarian actions need to be exposed for all to see. Please make this article go viral with your comments.
Today at 4pm EST, The Common Sense Show is interviewing Mike Adams on the implications of the Santilli event. The show is being broadcast by the following outlets:
AM 1600, 50, 000 watt superstation WMQM
Global Star Radio Network
Talknetwork.com
And of course, people can listen by clicking the listen to Dave button at the top right hand side.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Running on financial fumes, the Obama Administration now planning on confiscating retirement accounts and pensions across the nation
Saturday, December 05, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Strapped for cash and eager to expand social entitlement programs and government dependency, President Obama is proposing to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues for the government by taxing, of all things, your retirement.
For the past couple of years, some analysts and administration watchers have predicted that the Obama Administration would eventually make such proposals, given its propensity to produce trillion-dollar budget deficits. And now, it seems, those predictions may be about to come true.
As reported by Market Watch:
This year's version of the budget included a number of provisions targeting retirement accounts. That was no surprise, as provisions aimed at retirement accounts have been a regular feature in budgets in recent years. What was a surprise, however, is how many proposals were targeting retirement accounts, and how many new proposals there were. All told, this year's budget featured over a dozen provisions that, if they were to become law, could directly impact your retirement savings.
"We want your Roth"
Here is a breakdown of some of Obama's retirement account tax proposals:
-- Eliminate the NUA tax break: NUA -- net unrealized appreciation -- is one of the biggest tax breaks in the entire lengthy, complicated tax code for some owners of retirement accounts. If eliminated, it would hit younger workers the hardest; the proposal is aimed at participants 50 years old or younger by this year (2015).
"Although those 50 and over would be exempt, younger savers who invested in the stock of their company within their retirement plan would miss out on the tax break," noted Market Watch.
-- Limit Roth IRA conversions to pre-tax dollars: After-tax money that you put into your traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan could no longer be converted to a Roth account.
-- Create a 28 percent maximum tax benefit for all retirement account contributions: If you are currently in the 28 percent tax bracket or below, then you won't be affected per se. But Americans who are in higher tax brackets will no longer receive the full tax deduction for contributions.
"If this provision were to become law, it would create a terrible compliance burden for those in the highest tax brackets with respect to their retirement accounts," Market Watch reported.
There are others, including a "cap" on retirement savings that would prohibit additional contributions, which would essentially limit how much Americans could save for their retirement (a terrible idea; government economic policy ought to encourage people to save as much as possible).
As reported by WorldNetDaily, the Obama proposals appear to be targeted toward the most popular savings vehicles:
For starters, under the Obama administration proposals, the after-tax money held in traditional IRA or employer-sponsor retirement plans would no longer be eligible for conversion to a popular Roth IRA. There is no up-front tax deduction for Roth IRA contributions as there are in traditional IRAs. Roth distributions are tax-free when the retirement investor follows the rules.
These features make the Roth IRAs ideal saving vehicles both for younger, lower-income workers who do not need the tax advantage on contributions, as well as for older, wealthier taxpayers who want a way to leave their assets to their heirs tax-free.
Uncle Sam is broke - and desperate
Many analysts see the proposals -- especially those aimed at Roth IRAs -- as inherently unfair. Others, however, say that for now, there may not be much appetite in Congress for new taxes on retirement savings.
"It is unlikely that any of Pres. Obama's proposals [to increase taxes on retirement savings accounts] will pass under the current Congress," wrote Karen Beseth of Watchdog.org.
However, debt pressures -- which were created by successive congresses and presidents over many years -- are liable to tempt many of today's elected officials to continue to eye retirement account raids.
"That doesn't mean that these ideas will go away. The national debt is a staggering $18.1 trillion, and unfunded liabilities come to an astronomical $94 trillion," she wrote, adding that there is currently more than $10 trillion in Americans' retirement accounts -- a tempting target.
"Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away": US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/23/2015 23:30 -0500
Last week, in the wake of Russian and US airstrikes on ISIS oil convoys, we asked three important questions:
Who are the commodity trading firms that have been so generously buying millions of smuggled oil barrels procured by the Islamic State at massive discounts to market, and then reselling them to other interested parties? In other words, who are the middlemen?
Can it possibly be true, as officials now claim, that the Obama administration refrained from bombing Islamic State oil trucks because Washington thought the group was “only” making $100 million per year instead of $400 million?
Is it likely, considering how cavalier the US is about collateral damage from drone strikes, that The Pentagon refused to take out Islamic State’s revenue stream because the military was afraid of killing a few “innocent” truck drivers who by definition knew they were transporting illegal crude for a terrorist organization?
The first question is, for now anyway, unanswerable. As to the second and third, here’s what we said:
Perhaps the US overestimated the effect its airstrikes were having on Islamic State’s oil production capabilities and perhaps The Pentagon was concerned with killing innocent truck drivers, but it could also be that, as Sergei Lavrov suggested earlier this month, the US has until now intentionally avoided hitting ISIS where it hurts in order to keep them in the game and ensure they can still be effective at destabilizing Assad. If you cut off the oil trade, they lose the ability to battle the regime.
Whatever the case, it's too late now, because just as Russian airstrikes and the Iranian ground presence forced the US to do something - anything - to prove to the world that America is serious about fighting terrorism, Moscow's targeting of ISIS oil convoys has forced the US to get on board (the Russians are going to hit them anyway, so there's no point in vacillating).
American airstrikes reportedly destroyed 116 oil tanker trucks earlier this month and another 280 today in Paris mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud's former fiefdom of Deir ez-Zor.
Of course the US would hate to catch ISIS off guard risk killing innocent truck drivers, so prior to the November 16 strike, US planes dropped leaflets warning the drivers to "get out of your trucks now, and run away from them." Here's the leaflet (note the stick figures running for their lives):
Here's some commentary from Colonel Steve Warren from Operation Inherent Resolve (delivered at a press conference earlier this month):
Early Sunday morning in Al-Bukamal, which is the southern blue circle number two, you see two blue circles there. They both represent Tidal Wave II operations, but we're in the southern one -- the one further towards the bottom of your screen, there.
In Al-Bukamal, we destroyed 116 tanker trucks, which we believe will reduce ISIL's ability to transport its stolen oil products.
This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike. We did a show of force, by -- we had aircraft essentially buzz the trucks at low altitude.
So, I do have copy of the leaflet, and I have got some videos, so why don't you pull the leaflet up. Let me take a look at it so I can talk about it.
As you can see, it's a fairly simple leaflet, it says, "Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them." A very simple message.
And then, also, "Warning: airstrikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life."
And so, these are the leaflets that we dropped -- about 45 minutes before the airstrikes actually began.
And here's an amusing bit from the post-presser Q&A:
Q: On Bob's question, too, if -- if it's so important to cut off the oil shipments, the critical revenue source for ISIS, why did it take so long to take out 116 oil tanker trucks?
COL. WARREN: No, that's a great question, Jim. Thanks for asking it.
So, a little history on Operation Tidal Wave II. Initially, we, you know, we have been striking oil infrastructure targets since the very beginning of this operation.
What we found out was that many of our strikes were only minimally effective. We would strike pieces of the oil infrastructure that were easily repaired.
When we came to that realization, we conducted some more study -- I think I talked about this last week, a little bit -- we conducted some more study, and determined how to better strike the oil infrastructure itself, different pieces of the system.
During the course of that study, we also determined that part of the illicit oil system, from the oil coming out of the ground at a -- at a pump head, to the end of that chain, which is the distribution network.
So, this is a decision that we had to make. We have not struck these trucks before. We assessed that these trucks, while although they are being used for operations that support ISIL, the truck drivers, themselves, probably not members of ISIL; they're probably just civilians. So we had to figure out a way around that. We're not in this business to kill civilians, we're in this business to stop ISIL -- to defeat ISIL.
So basically, it took the US 13 months to figure out that the best way to cripple Islamic State's oil trade was to bomb - the oil.
To the extent that occurred to anyone previously, the idea was dismissed because the truck drivers are "probably not members of ISIL." Well then who are they? Sure, they may not be suiting up in all black and firing RPGs at Toyota Corollas packed with "spies" for a propaganda video, but it's not like they don't know who they're working for.
Also, as mentioned above, the US hasn't exactly been shy about engaging targets even when there are women, children, and bedridden hospital patients in the vicinity so it's hard to imagine that anyone at the Pentagon was worried about Islamic State's truck drivers.
Whatever the case, the US is apprently set to give ISIS a 45 minute heads up when The Pentagon plans to bomb an oil convoy which we suppose makes sense.
It's the least the CIA can do for an old friend.
CIA, Saudis To Give "Select" Syrian Militants Weapons Capable Of Downing Commercial Airliners
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/05/2015 07:49 -0500
Wednesday brought a veritable smorgasbord of “new” information about the Russian passenger jet which fell out of the sky above the Sinai Peninsula last weekend.
First there was an audio recording from ISIS’ Egyptian affiliate reiterating that they did indeed “down” the plane. Next, the ISIS home office in Raqqa (or Langley or Hollywood) released a video of five guys sitting in the front yard congratulating their Egyptian “brothers” on the accomplishment.
Then the UK grounded air traffic from Sharm el-Sheikh noting that the plane “may well” have had an “explosive device” on board.
Finally, US media lit up with reports that according to American “intelligence” sources, ISIS was probably responsible for the crash.
Over the course of the investigation, one question that’s continually come up is whether militants could have shot the plane down. Generally speaking, the contention that ISIS (or at least IS Sinai) has the technology and/or the expertise to shoot down a passenger jet flying at 31,000 feet has been discredited by “experts” and infrared satellite imagery. But that’s nothing the CIA can’t fix.
With the Pentagon now set to deploy US ground troops to Syria (and indeed they may already be there, operating near Latakia no less), Washington is reportedly bolstering the supply lines to “moderate” anti-regime forces at the urging of (guess who) the Saudis and Erdogan. Incredibly, some of the weapons being passed out may be shoulder-fire man-portable air-defense systems, or Manpads, capable of hitting civilian aircraft.
But don’t worry, those will only be given to “select rebels.” Here’s more from WSJ:
The U.S. and its regional allies agreed to increase shipments of weapons and other supplies to help moderate Syrian rebels hold their ground and challenge the intervention of Russia and Iran on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.S. officials and their counterparts in the region said.
The deliveries from the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Arabia and other allied spy services deepen the fight between the forces battling in Syria, despite President Barack Obama’s public pledge to not let the conflict become a U.S.-Russia proxy war.
Saudi officials not only pushed for the White House to keep the arms pipeline open, but also warned the administration against backing away from a longstanding demand that Mr. Assad must leave office.
In the past month of intensifying Russian airstrikes, the CIA and its partners have increased the flow of military supplies to rebels in northern Syria, including of U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles, these officials said. Those supplies will continue to increase in coming weeks, replenishing stocks depleted by the regime’s expanded military offensive.
An Obama administration official said the military pressure is needed to push Mr. Assad from power.
“Assad is not going to feel any pressure to make concessions if there is no viable opposition that has the capacity, through the support of its partners, to put pressure on his regime,” the official said.
In addition to the arms the U.S. has agreed to provide, Saudi and Turkish officials have renewed talks with their American counterparts about allowing limited supplies of shoulder-fire man-portable air-defense systems, or Manpads, to select rebels. Those weapons could help target regime aircraft, in particular those responsible for dropping barrel bombs, and could also help keep Russian air power at bay, the officials said.
Mr. Obama has long rebuffed such proposals, citing the risk to civilian aircraft and fears they could end up in the hands of terrorists. To reduce those dangers, U.S. allies have proposed retrofitting the equipment to add so-called kill switches and specialized software that would prevent the operator from using the weapon outside a designated area, said officials in the region briefed on the option.
U.S. intelligence agencies are concerned that a few older Manpads may already have been smuggled into Syria through supply channels the CIA doesn’t control.
If that sounds insane to you, that’s because it is. Even as US intelligence (which we can only assume emanates from the CIA) indicates that IS Sinai likely brought down a Russian passenger jet with 224 people on board, the same CIA is working with the Saudis to supply “select rebels” with weapons capable of shooting down commercial airliners.
In order to make sure no one ends up blowing a 747 out of the sky, Washington will “retrofit” the weapons with “special” software that makes sure they can only be used in certain areas.
Make no mistake, this has gone beyond absurd and is now bordering on the bizarre. It’s apparently not enough that the US is supplying anti-tank missiles to rebels shooting at the very same Iran-backed militias that the US implicitly supports across the border in Iraq so now, the CIA and Saudi Arabia will give these rebels the firepower to shoot down planes, meaning that in the “best” case scenario they’ll be firing at Russian fighter jets, and in the worst case scenario these weapons will end up in the “wrong” hands and be used to down commercial flights.
It's difficult to see how John Kerry can attend "peace" talks in Vienna and keep a straight face while chatting with Sergei Lavrov. That's not to say that Russia bears no responsibility for its role in the conflict (sure, Moscow is supporting a "legitimate" government in Syria but they're still dropping bombs on populated areas), but the US and the Saudis are arming Sunni extremist groups and encouraging them to shoot at Russian and Iranian forces. For Obama to suggest this isn't a proxy war is absurd.
Putting this all together, it now appears possible that the US is, i) sending anti-tank weapons to rebels who are shooting at Iranian soldiers, ii) embedding ground troops near Latakia which means they'll almost certainly be engaging Hezbollah directly, and iii) passing weapons capable of downing a commercial airliner to "select" militants days after a Russian passenger jet exploded in the skies above the Sinai Peninsula.
This is all in conjunction with the Saudis and Erodgan, who just rigged an election in Turkey on the way to rewriting his country's constitution.
And the Western media reports this with a straight face as though it all makes some measure of sense...
Today we are witnessing the continuation of a soft coup against not only President Trump, but of our Republic. The Democrats must be highly compromised, i.e. lots of skeletons in their closets. This was the most blatantly biased investigation of Democrats looking for a crime. Yet not that some Republicans are not compromised. Donald Trump did not erase 33,000 e-mail, did not accept 145,000,000 from a Russian Bank, did not hammer his Blackberries, did not bleach bit his computers, did not threaten Ukraine with withholding $1 Billion dollars from Ukraine unless they stopped the investigation of his drug addicted son Hunter, did not sell out the United States of America like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the compromised Democrats have. If the impeachment does not work this time they will try again, and again any means necessary to end the Presidency of Donald Trump, for they do not want their swamp drained.
Gun Safety, ala Governor Murphy
The NWO puppet that is the currently selected Governor of New Jersey constantly calls for "common sense gun control" should step back, and look at what "common sense gun control did for a group of Mormons in Mexico. In Mexico it is illegal to own a gun. Hey Murphy, what criminal obeys the law? He is in reality working for the disarmament of the American people and their subsequent enslavement.
Coup d'etat
Halloween a day when the demons come back to haunt us. It is the day of the devil. Nancy Pelosi, and Adam Schiff are perfect examples of the personification of evil. Nancy is an extremely devious person, and Adam continues to bite the apple over and over again. He tries to cover his loins just a Adam did as described in the Book of Genesis. The Star Chamber events that only the corrupt and compromised Democrats can call witnesses, and the accused has no right to confront his detractors. Only what lying little Adam Schiff see what will help his narrative gets out.
So now they will bring the charade out in the open, but with Nancy and liddle Schiff's caveats. Republican can only call witnesses if liddle Schiff approves them.
This is a Deep State operation in high gear. If the treasonous Democrats succeed in this impeachment it will be the END OF AMERICA as we know it.
Damn the Democrats, and I am a registered Democrat. I will vote in 2020 for President Trump!
Bought and Paid For
Jerry Nadler claims that there is NO evidence that Google censors conservatives. Either he is a liar, a fool or both. Well he pocketed $26, 000 from Google. It does not take much to buy this clown. My own blog went from 3000 hits-per day to between 50 to 100. It happened from one day to the next. It is called shadow banning. When I googled a story that was a rare story my blog DID NOT appear.
What else does the Deep State have on Nadler? Could it be pedophilia?
Death of Bush a Distraction
Hey did they pull the plug on daddy Bush to delay the Trump's release of classified information? This was to be the week of revelation about Hillary, Bill and the Deep State. Monday the Whistle blower on the Uranium One deal was to speak, but instead we have receive lies about a very evil man. The FBI raided the home of the whistle blower instead. Folks if you cannot see the current war that is going on inside our borders they you are either blind of dumber than a box of rocks. WTFU!!!
With the consummate liar, Netanyahu, claiming that there is a secret nuclear program in Iran is beyond hypocrisy. This criminal lives in a glass house, and should not throw stones. If Israel has the right to nuclear weapons so does Iran. What I would be looking for is Israel pulling a false flag on the US Navy.
Stein Hillary's Shill 120216
On Wednesday I listened to "Democracy Now", and later the Tucker Carlson Show. Each host was interviewing Jill Sellout Stein, but neither asked the key question. The key question for me would have been the following: "Jill, a hand recount of the votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would probably not be completed by the December 19th deadline for the electoral votes. That would deny Trump the necessary votes to be elected President. That seems to be the Hillary strategy to steal the election, so why would the Green Party candidate shill for Hillary's election. Has Hillary, Bill, the Clinton Campaign, the DNC or others that are connected to the Clinton's approached you, and what were you offered?"
That would have been my question, but then again that is why I only operate in the "Fake News" section of journalism.
Egg Timer 06/14/16
The shooting at the Pulse night club in Orlando, which is just another false flag to promote a not so hidden agenda if failing to convince America that the gun did it. At the gym last night no body believed the government's story.
Just think of the 2.5 to 3 million UNCOUNTED votes in California. Had to get that off the front page. Just think that yesterday Trump was going to give a speech on the crimes of the Clintons. Well that had to be postponed. Cui bono? Hillary of course, and the Indonesian male prostitute that resides in the White House, and vacations around the world. He is determined to disarm law abiding Americans before he leaves the White House.
Iowa Caucus
How about Hillary's luck with her winning 6 coin tosses? Maybe she should play the horses, blackjack, etc. as they all can be fixed too. In six coin tosses you would have a 1 in 64 chance of winning all six. What that tells me is that the Iowa democrats have more allegiance to The Wicked Witch of the West than they do to their own country.
How about Sen. Cruz? He was not natural born, and there is doubt that his mother was born in the US. He is ineligible to run for President, but hey Obama did it why not him?
As for Rubio he was born in the US, but not of US citizens, so he too is not eligible to run for President. He has quite a few skeletons in his closet, and that is why they like him.
So much for representative government. It is a joke, but it is not funny.
Pearl Harbor
Today one should remember a day of "infamay". Yes today December 7th, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, as Roosevelt hoped that they would. He made sure that the aircraft carriers were out to sea, and the dinosaur battleships were in port.
He needed an attack, where the US would lose military personnel, so that he could take the side of Churchill against Hitler. You see there were many like the Bush family that backed Hitler. So this necessitated the sacrifice of Americans to further Roosevelt's agenda.
And the beat goes on. We are still expendable to further hidden agendas.
December 7th, 2015
Halloween brings people in strange costumes, and strange people without costumes. So to does it sometimes bring strange events, in costumes. A Russian jet crashes in the Sinai. Well who was, and still is looking for their candy? Who would be willing and able to inflict such damage to the Russians? Looks to me that it would be Israel, the US, with the most means to do it. With ISIS a distant third.
Who does the security at the airport that the plane took off from?
Listening to the House Hearings on Benghazi was maddening.
The question not asked of the Wicked Witch of the West was "Why were we in Libya, and under what Congressional authorization justified it?"
What Hillary said at one point was that "We had to stop Quadafi from oppressing his people." Well he could ride standing up in an open top car without armed protection, and hear the "oppressed" cheer him. Quadafi had turned his country around, and he ran it for the benefit of the people.
The "oppressed" that the Witch referred to were the hired mercenaries out of Benghazi that Quadafi was fighting, and fighting successfully.
The Democrats were not interested in a thorough investigation of what happened, and why, but only in "Lets cover Hillary's ass mode." They accused the Republicans of turning it into a political circus. Well Hillary and Barry (aka Barack) immediately turned in into a political fairy tale while the dead Americans bodies were still warm. Obama thinking of 2012 election and Hillary thinking about 2016.
What Stevens was in on was the knowledge that Hillary and Obama were shipping weapons such as Stinger Missiles to the enemy. The enemy was fighting a US, Israeli, Saudi proxy war to overthrow Assad. My fellow Americans that is TREASON.
Was Hillary using here State Department Office to enhance the Clinton Foundation with money from people and countries that made generous "contributions" to it? In essence these were bribes to pay for her 2016 Presidential run
Hello all,
The technical support that I signed up for in 5 minutes has resolved the problem. So we will be back up and flying soon.
Obama will hate that fact.
October 3, 2015
The problem is back.
October 2, 2015
Finally, the problem has been fixed. Will be posting again soon, but first I have to take care of personal business.
October 2, 2015
Campus was a gun free zone, and vet with concealed carry was prevented to stop the carnage.
Also the World's most notorious killer, Barack Obama, referred to himself 28 times in his feigned attempt to turn the still warm victims as sacrificial lambs in his desire to disarm all Americans. This is a sick man that the rest of the World suffers from him NPD. Did you notice his pursed lips during his reading of his "sympathy" speech? That is a true sign of NPD. He knows NO empathy whatsoever.
Every Tuesday this asshole sits down with a kill list, and picks out who to execute with drones. Many men, women and children dies as collateral damage with the actions of this beast.
October 1, 2015
Still cannot post.
Will keep trying to right the situation.
September 30, 2015
Could not get into the blog today, and now that that has been addressed, we now cannot post.
Bear with us as we try and right the situation.
I guess that we must have annoyed someone.
Stock Trading 07/08/15
Stock trading has been suspended!!!
Christie Waddles for the Presidency
Just this past week the big fat bully governor of New Jersey announced that he was running for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. We here in New Jersey knew that he was waddling for the job ever since he was elected governor.
He has been a disaster for New Jersey, and he would be worse for the US.
JUST A COINCIDENCE
This past Friday I received a survey from "Everytown for Gun Safety", and of course it was about gun control. Or should I say the disarming of the citizens of America before their total enslavement and death.
It was also just a coincidence that the DHS ran an "active shooter" drill at the time of the Charleston shooting.
DISTRACTION
April 30, 2015
They have been trying to divide and conquer for quite some time, and Baltimore is just another attempt. Do not fall for it. Yes the murder of Freddie Gray was terrible, but it does not justify violence. Beware of agent provocateurs.
Yes there were peaceful protests, but looking at MSM you would not know it. What are they hiding while the Baltimore Riots takes front page, while a Treaty disguised as an agreement is being thrust upon our Nation. Discussed in secret, and with transnational corporate input. No Congressional input. They cannot even discuss what they have been told with their constituents.
Fast Track began with the Nixon administration for tariff rate, and only tariff rates. Treaties required 2/3 of the Senate to pass. Along comes The Great Communicator, the straight man for a chimp, and he declares treaties nothing more than agreements. So Ronnie only needed a simple majority of both houses.
Then came coke snorting, womanizing, money laundering Bill Clinton to get Fast Track on NAFTA, GATT, etc.
The TPP will grant sovereignty to corporations, and subject the citizens to their greedy whims and fancies. The poverty in this country and in others will explode, and violence will begin. That is why you are being subjected to another drill for Martial Law in Baltimore.
Just wait for Jade Helm, and again a psyops to get the masses used to Martial Law.
My friends any one who pushes the TPP is a TRAITOR.
FORCLOSURES
April 17, 2015
In the local paper every Friday has what appears in the classified section is a listing of Sherrif's Sales. Every Friday the list was 3, 4 or 5 pages. Today while we are in "recovery" the pages number 7, and the Republican Congress is pushing the TPP, which will destroy not only the soveringty of the US and any other signatories, but it will further bring down the middle class (what is left of it). Do not worry though, the vultures will peck at the bones of the national, state, county, and local government's assets, and they will get them for pennies on the dollar. The bastards of banking will devour the houses, and turn them into rentals.
WTFU America.
January 20, 2015
Just listenedd to Obama's Chief of Staff say that Obama with his State of the Union will continue his struggle for the middle class. "Continue his struggle for the middle class...", is that sarcasm. Obama, if that is his real name, has been attacking the middle class, and in so doing is destroying the United States of America.
His speech will be nothing more than rhetoric. He is going to demand increased taxes on the rich. Well how will that happen with a GOP House and Senate? It cannot happen and he knows it. It is all for show, and he continues his life in lies.
January 12, 2015
There is outrage on the outcome of the Dallas Cowboys versus the Green Bay Packers. Why is their outrage on this total distraction? Fans here belong to one of two tribes that support the circus of the "bread and circus".
It has become a game of less and less interest as commercials, reviews, more reviews, pregame shows of several well paid ex-jocks to tell us what must be done by each team to win. Then after the game the same go over and over the game and why one team won and one lost. The media has more covering a meaningless event than the do covering all of Africa.
It is done to take you mind off the reality of the day. It is the blue pill to keep you from seeing that you are accepting a police state as you are groped and searched when you enter the stadium.
Then there is more money to be made in the betting on the game than in the TV and commercials. So would it be any surprise to you that the games might be fixed? It isn't to me. Have you ever seen the pro football game where one team plays and the other merely shows up? Maybe the team that only showed up knew who the winner would be.
There is also a globalist plan to destroy national sports such as US football, and replace it with soccer. Could this be a step in that direction?
I remember the day well. A Customer Service Representative was promoted to Outside Sales, and he left just before lunch. His new job was to begin on the following Monday. He came back in at about an hour or two later. His face was white as a ghosts. He took a deep breath and said "President Kennedy has been killed."
It was a quiet at the bus stop in Newark that night, and the bus was dead silent. Just like today people are silent on the coup d'etat that happened that day in Dallas. It angers me that people can forget that at that day and time on the 11th month and the 22nd day our country was changed forever, and not for the better.
Many still believe that it is us versus them, and Democrat versus Republican when there is not a dime's worth of difference. The US and the world are run by a SSG (Secret Shadow Government).
Here is the audio of President Kennedy speaking about the danger to American in Secret Societies.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn? It takes more than flying a flag and closing your eyes to the senseless slaughterr of men, women, and children to be patriotic. The "Great Satan" has struck again, and killed children in Ahrar Ash-Sham, Syria. It is to stop our own creation ISIS, or so they say. It is really to wage war against the Syrian government, and his majesty want Congress to expand his war making powers. So get off of your patriotic ass and call your Congressman and Senator and say, "I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. End the wars, stop the bombing."
November 5, 2014
Today is the day after, and many of us know what a day after can be like. We promise never to do it again when we recover, but we forget about it and do it again. Well we did it again. We traded one bunch of traitors for another. It is like getting drunk on a different beverage. What will change? Nothing much will change. It will be the continued destruction of the United States, and the impoverishment of millions more. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?
May 28, 2008. MEDICARE PREMIUMS HAVE DOUBLED SINCE 2000? I did not know that. Can you help get the ad on the air? May 26, 2008: Vet Burials Nonstop At National Cemeteries Average Of 1,800 Veterans Die Each Day
RITTMAN, Ohio -- The cracking of rifle fire silenced the twittering blue jays, blackbirds and killdeer. (read entire article)
May 8, 2008: Hey, at least the OIL surge is working! This is happening on such a regular basis, it's not even shocking anymore, but that (to me) is the outrage! May 5, 2008: Another Taser incident. Just the facts: Number of Google hits for "Taser 20007" = 3,650,000. Number of hits for "Taser 2008" = 4,260,000. And it's only the beginning of May. May 1, 2008: CBS-2 HDTV reports that House members are leasing expensive cars on taxpayers' money. LINK April 30, 2008: Don't let anyone tell you that the U.S. "liberated' the women of Afghanistan. Shine the light on stories like this. April 29, 2008:I know, technically this qualifies as an "Outrage of the Last 7 Years," but it could also be an ACTION ITEM (read to the end of the column). Thank you, Ted Rall. April 28, 2008: Preventing Voter Fraud by Burdening the Poor and Elderly? Only in Bush World April 27, 2008: Doctors to kill transplant patient for using medical pot
