Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 20 Years Later

As it seems almost certain that the House of Representatives will attempt to impeach Donald Trump, it’s worth a look back at the last impeachment of a president that took place during the lives of many of us. However, many today were not alive in 1999 when Bill Clinton’s impeachment took place. It is worth a look back today to examine the similarities and the differences between Clinton’s impeachment and details surrounding it as compared to the impending impeachment of President Trump. Let’s walk down Memory Lane together and reminisce for the late 1990s.

The Clinton Impeachment

In the highly charged partisan politics of the 1990s, President Bill Clinton’s personal indiscretions led to the second impeachment trial in our history. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating Clinton’s pre-presidential financial dealings but could prove no wrongdoing. In a separate case, Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. In her effort to demonstrate that Clinton was a harasser, Jones called a young former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky to testify. Lewinsky had told a friend that she had been having a relationship with the President.

In the Jones case, Lewinsky at first denied a relationship with the president. In his deposition, Clinton denied under oath any involvement with Lewinsky. This denial caught Starr’s attention; Starr suspected the president had committed perjury and obstructed justice in the Jones trial. Starr assembled a grand jury, issued dozens of subpoenas, and eventually offered Lewinsky immunity in return for her testimony. She finally admitted that she had lied — she and Clinton had had sexual encounters. When Clinton testified for Starr’s grand jury, he gave evasive answers. However, that same night, he admitted the Lewinsky affair to the American people, apologizing to his family.

Starr submitted his report to the House Judiciary Committee, saying that he had proof of eleven impeachable offenses. The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment, both regarding his relationship with Lewinsky. House prosecutors said that Clinton deserved to be convicted and removed from office because he had committed perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones investigation. Lying under oath is clearly a crime.

The president’s own lawyers said his behavior was “morally reprehensible,” but not impeachable. They explained that the accusations against the president did not “meet the constitutional standard to remove the president from office.” Whatever wrongs the president had committed were wrongs against his family, not matters of public concern because they did not threaten the national interests that the president is sworn to uphold.

A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr’s referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President’s defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.

The 1990s was a time of viciously partisan politics in the United States. According to a U.S. News & World Report article published in December 1998, “The House that voted to impeach President Clinton is more deeply divided than at any time since Reconstruction.” Some people believe that Clinton was impeached for political reasons, not for constitutional reasons.

There are many people — including many Constitutional experts — that question the substance of the original impeachment statute. Rather than pontificate on personal opinions, let’s take an objective look.

What is the Basis  For Impeachment?

Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct. There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for “mal-practice and neglect of duty” as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested “maladministration,” but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President’s independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which the Convention accepted.

Because “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.

The word “impeachment” is popularly used to indicate both the bringing of charges in the House and the Senate vote on removal from office. In the Constitution, however, the term refers only to the former. At the Convention, the delegates experimented with differing impeachment proceedings. As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed. The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate, then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions. With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity.

It’s important to note that the U.S. President is NOT the only person in the federal government who can be impeached. Impeachment can occur for any person in the judiciary or executive branch of government. I know that is mentioned above but is important to mention again. I’ve seen numerous social media posts encouraging the impeachment of members of Congress and even state governors. In each of those cases, the voters who elected them into their positions have recall power to use to remove them. That process varies from state to state but is governed by law.

Trump’s Acts of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

Now we know what impeachment is all about, how it works, and what is necessary to initiate the act. To impeach this president (or ANY president) their acts of “high crimes and misdemeanors” must be established. Let’s look at what a few of the President’s such acts have been that are driving the cries for his impeachment:

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Mueller report outlined evidence of impeachable offenses by President Trump. “Oh, I think there are grounds for impeachment. I said, if you look at the second part of the report, there’s no question that obstruction of justice does exist in the findings that Bob Mueller reported, and in painstaking detail. And that in and of itself would be the basis for impeachment,” Holder said. “I think the House needs to gather evidence, we need to hear from Bob Mueller. They need to get the entirety of the report, and then make a reasoned decision,” Holder said.

David Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Psychology & Cognitive Sciences at Rice University said, “Trump has done a lot of things that are even more disgusting than anything Clinton did, but at least in the sexual realm not while president as far as we know. He has helped further divide the country and has issued policy statements based on fear, hatred and a kind of racism. He’s a horrible human being, and by my lights has been a terrible president. Using the Republican standards for impeachment he probably qualifies. But if we apply the narrower and I think correct standards I’m far less sure.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), who has been one of Trump’s fiercest critics, redoubled his criticism of the president, saying the Mueller report depicted presidential conduct that was as bad as or worse than Watergate, the scandal that forced the resignation of President Nixon.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York declared that there was “plenty of evidence of obstruction” that lawmakers would need to weigh. “Obstruction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable,” Nadler said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment proceedings originate.

Author David Swanson uses the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution as the justification for the Trump impeachment: Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states: ‘The President … shall not receive … any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.’ This means that the President cannot receive personal financial gains from the United States government or from the governments of any of the 50 states while he is president. This restriction is absolute and cannot be waived by Congress. Trump is already in violation of it and will be more so with every law, rule, regulation, enforcement, or lack thereof that his subordinates, Congress, or any agency of the federal government enact to the benefit of Trump’s businesses and possessions. For example, Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office Building violates an explicit clause in the General Services Administration lease contract which states: ‘No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.’ The GSA’s failure to enforce that contract is an unconstitutional benefit to Trump.”

The problem with Swanson’s explanation is that if the Emoluments Clause was used as the basis for impeachment, any and all who are appointed to positions in the judiciary and/or the executive branches of government could never have professionally engaged in any type of business enterprise or personal financial interaction at all before being elected President or appointed by the President. Obviously, that would be an impossible task to enter into or oversee. President Trump famously turned over ALL Trump business enterprises and operations to his two sons Eric and Don Jr. to exclusively handle without his involvement at all. Short of liquidating dozens and dozens of companies and historical financial interactions this President and many previous judges at all federal judicial levels and members of pretty much every presidential cabinet would have been disqualified under the strictest interpretations of the Emoluments Clause.

We could list politico after politico who all are on the “Impeachment Bandwagon.” Do you know what’s missing in all of their impeachment charges against President Trump? Specific facts showing “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Constitutionally those must be present and provable to successfully exercise impeachment that would result in removal from office.

Impact of Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump

Most Democrat Party leaders are extremely hesitant to go down the “Impeachment Road.” Doing so by the Republicans in 1999 cost them dearly in the next midterm election. Bill Clinton’s approval rating among Americans during impeachment proceedings was as high as it ever had been during his presidency. Why? The economy in America was soaring! Sound a bit familiar?

Make no mistake about it: the Democrat Party is — on the impeachment issue — severely divided. Those in the “establishment” wing of the Party understand the dangers of going through an impeachment. Certainly, there are not enough Republican senators that will vote against the President to secure a conviction even if the House passes an impeachment motion. Those Democrats are convinced their House majority would be obliterated in 2020 just as happened to the GOP after the Clinton impeachment.

On the other hand, the young Turks in the House are hell-bent on impeachment. They as a unified and militant arm of the Democrat Party have made it clear they demand impeachment proceedings immediately. They primarily represent Millennials, which is a group of voters that Democrat Party leadership are desperate to keep happy. Without their support of Party policies and legislation, it would be tough to reach their legislative objectives.

Democrats are in a “catch-22” dilemma.

Summary

There’s one more thing we need to mention before we finish today. Let’s imagine for a minute:

The assumption is for Mueller to call and execute that very unusual press conference at the Department of Justice in which he did little more than repeating the details of his already released Mueller report, one would think he did so for a specific purpose. Many are certain that his reason was to send a message to Congress that says, “Hey guys, I’m done. We couldn’t prove sufficient wrongdoing to guarantee a successful action against President Trump, but we want to make certain you understand we think YOU (Congress) should take the ball we gave you to use to impeach him.” But I’m not so certain that’s the case.

Consider this: Let’s assume for a moment that Mueller really DOES NOT think or want the President impeached. By leaving his report with no solid conclusions shared for or against his removal from office, his dog whistle shoutout to Congress says, ” Sick ’em, Boys!” What if he purposely is goading members of Congress led by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Chair of the House Judiciary Committee to impeach the president all the while KNOWING THAT THEIR DOING SO WILL MOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN A SIMILAR ELECTION OUTCOME AS DID AFTER THE FAILED CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL!

Wouldn’t that be a sneaky way to assist the President in a dramatic re-election in 2020, “IF” really wants President Trump to win?

Play

Mueller: “Forget Presumption of Innocence”

Everybody was shocked when Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced he was going to speak to the press on Wednesday. Many more were shocked at the things he said:

Think about this: he stated his team — IF they could declare the President not guilty of allegations made — would have included that in the Mueller Report. What does that actually mean?

Never in U.S. history has any prosecutor ever felt obligated under the law to prove the innocence of someone charged. Mueller is the very first to do so! Based on what you heard and saw above, Mueller has changed the very premise of U.S. law: a charged individual is considered innocent “until” and “unless” he/she is PROVEN GUILTY. According to Mueller, his investigative team, besides not finding Trump guilty of collusion and obstruction of justice, could NOT prove he is innocent either.

I’m not an attorney, but Mueller doing so is either trying to forever change “innocence until proven guilty,” or he takes that position for another purpose. Wanna bet which of those is his reason?

Changing History

Folks, this position was taken by Mueller Wednesday is a first in not just U.S. history, but a first in World History. Throughout every contemporary World government on Earth, the judicial system in each of those countries adopted a presumption of innocence as a foundation. Here is a link for you to use to see the countries who do so:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Countries like France, Italy, Philippines, China, Poland, Romania, Spain, Brazil, not to mention countries of the European Union and even Russia and every Islamic country in their criminal and civil law as a default presume the innocence of the accused with the burden of proof lying directly on the accuser.

Apparently, Robert Mueller — that bastion of impartiality and upholder of the Law — decided on his own the U.S. no longer believes the presumption of innocence.

Why do you suppose the sudden proposed change in the foundation of Law has been assumed by Mueller?

Assumption Bullet Points

  • Mueller is really after Trump. He couldn’t find hard evidence of guilt so he left the doubt in the air to prompt the Democrat House to begin impeachment proceedings. Honestly, I think this is NOT his reason. Even though he said in his press conference they could not find sufficient evidence to indict the President, he could have simply said, “We are today turning over the evidence that we DID uncover to the House for use in their investigation into presidential wrongdoing.” Congress in impeachment is NOT required to prove criminality on the part of the charged — in this case, President Trump. They merely are required to prove guilt in the commitment of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” (Isn’t that crazy: those two words are nowhere in the Constitution defined — they are totally subjective.)
  • Mueller has been tasked by someone to lay the groundwork for non-stop Trump investigations through the 2020 elections. That’s a plausible possibility in that Democrats running for President — all 23 of them and the DNC — have put forth NO legislative platform, no new ideas on any front, and have given Americans no good reasons for voters to (based on Trump policies and legislative and executive actions Dems claim are all wrong and evil) vote for their nominee in 2020. Once again they find themselves with one thing and one thing only to use against Mr. Trump: impeachment. The timing for making impeachment last through the 2020 elections is perfect. Even though Mueller’s team has exhaustive data, documents, written and recorded testimony of hundreds of witnesses, the Democrat House will slow-play impeachment proceedings so they are justified in “thorough investigations” of their own to assure Americans they have all the facts. It’s comical that Dems were so demanding for all to give Mueller room and latitude to complete his investigation with no interruptions, but then refuse to accept his findings: politics at its worst.
  • Mueller has something to hide and he is kicking this can down the road to distract “this” from everyone until after 2020 — whatever “this” is. As strange as this may seem, this is probably the most plausible of explanations for Mueller’s actions — especially for calling that press conference, making his statement, and, more importantly, taking NO questions! That seems like an effort on his part to send a message to his minions — the Democrats — so they will take action with this cue.

The last listed above is the explanation I feel for Mueller to do what he did. He’s messaged members of the Democrat Party to “circle the wagons” around him because something really serious is about to happen. What can that be? Who will it involve and who or what will initiate it and under what circumstances?

The answers to those will blow your mind! And we’ll get to them in detail after we take this short break at TruthNewsNet.org.

The “Decoy”

Fired FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, DNI head James Clapper, and others that many say are part of the “Deep State,” have become very vocal in recent days. Comey and Brennan have always had easy access to the media, but of late in social media and Mainstream media television outlets, they are again regular fixtures. And they have become amazingly bombastic and nasty towards Mr. Trump — which is no surprise to anyone. But they’ve turned their vitriol up a notch or two.

Conventional wisdom is that because DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is reportedly releasing one of his investigations’ reports in the next few weeks, that details in that report will certainly implicate at least Brennan, Clapper, and Comey for wrongdoing in both the Clinton email debacle and in the alleged fraudulent FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign. All three have each been caught in lies in sworn testimony before House and Senate committees. It is probable Horowitz will address those issues and many more. And, of course, there are many others like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and many more from the Obama Justice Department who probably are in his crosshairs. His first report will tell that tale. But, there’s a second report coming as well.

There are plenty of Americans who feel more and more that additional Obama Administration career politicians were involved in the propped-up FBI Trump Campaign investigation from its inception. Several from the Obama White House staff have already been drawn into the investigation while other big name folks are yet to be mentioned. But certainly, some if not many will be exposed in the second Horowitz report. Many believe those implicated could include Susan Rice (NSA Advisor to Obama), Samantha Power (United Nations U.S. Ambassador), former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and also Bill and Hillary Clinton. The name Barack Obama has been continually floated by those closest to Horowitz, but it is probable that even if the former president was involved, lower level members of his administration would probably take the fall for any of his wrongdoing. Time will tell.

What role would Bill and Hillary Clinton play in this? And where does Mueller fit into this picture? Hold on to your hats!

Hillary And Bill

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated the transfer of highly enriched uranium (HEU) previously confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during a 2006 “nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices,” a newly leaked classified cable shows.

The classified cable released by WikiLeaks was authored by Hillary Clinton’s State Department on August 17th, 2009.  In the cable it states –

In 2008, Russia requested a ten-gram sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) seized in early 2006 in Georgia during a nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices. The seized HEU was transferred to U.S. custody and is being held at a secure Department of Energy facility. In response to the Russian request, the Georgian Government authorized the United States to share a sample of the material with the Russians for forensic analysis.

The cable also states that “Given Russia’s reluctance to act so far, FBI Director Robert Mueller’s delivery of this sample will underscore to Russia our commitment to follow through on this case.”  It continues in stating, “Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives in Moscow on September 21.”

Robert Mueller — FBI Director — was “sent” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Moscow to personally deliver a sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU)!

The cable summarizes that, “We regret that the April visit by Director Mueller could not take place due to a scheduling conflict.” and makes a final request that, “We require that the transfer of this material be conducted at the airport, on the tarmac nearby the plane, upon arrival of the Director’s aircraft.”

Now knowing that the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton hid the FBI investigation into the Uranium One deal, this cable brings on new meaning and leads to numerous questions:

  • Why did Obama and Clinton agree to provide this uranium delivered by Mueller to Russia in the first place?
  • Another question is why did Clinton’s Secretary of State request that FBI Director Mueller deliver the sample of HEU to Russia and why was the transfer in April canceled and postponed to September?

The fact that Mueller needed to perform the transfer should raise numerous red flags.  It’s been widely reported about Mueller’s conflicts of interest with his recent appointment as special counsel in the Russia investigation.

This past week information was reported that prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium through the approved sale of Uranium One, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill.

Mueller was handpicked by Hillary Clinton’s State Department to deal uranium to Russia.

Summary

What is Mueller attempting to hide? Robert Mueller is really a brilliant individual. We wrote extensively about his personal and business history when he was first appointed as Special Counsel by President Trump. It is important to note that in his past business life, he initiated and was personally involved in multiple “speckled” circumstances in which he took dramatic and questionable actions that were never questioned by anyone! Well, almost no one questioned him. But Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert certainly did. Take a look back at our 4-part series on Mr. Mueller that started on July 28, 2018: “ROBERT MUELLER: UNMASKED Part One.“ 

It’s a simple fact: members of the proverbial “Deep State” — and Mueller certainly is actually a “Charter Member” of that group — are masterful and hiding, covering, and making excuses for the wrongdoings of each other. The Obama Administration was full of them! We’ve mentioned just a few names in today’s story, but know for certain there are dozens more that have a Deep State ID card in their wallet or purse.

Why oh why would the Director of the FBI be tasked by Hillary Clinton — then Secretary of State that had NO authority to dispatch anyone in the FBI to Moscow, especially not the Director — to take that HEU sample to Putin personally? The only answer can be this: Hillary had/has something on Mueller that she threatened to expose if he did NOT take care of that tidbit of necessity to ramp-up the closing of that Uranium One deal! “If” Mueller is as smart as most think he is, and “If” Mueller has the legal mind that most think he does, the ONLY explanation for his doing so was that he owed the Clintons something and they had something on him. Think about it: by taking that trip, he exposed himself as a Clinton sycophant!

In closing, know this: Washington D.C. and those who live and work in that swamp are known as the “quid pro quo” capital of the world. Nothing is done in that city unless somebody initiates it with a threat or blackmail, and in doing so, someone else then owes a favor to the initiator. Mueller in his charade press conference was out there not because he thought it was the right thing to do or that he wanted to do it, he was told by someone who has something on him to do it!

So what happens now? Let’s hope it all ends this way:

  1. Attorney General Barr releases the now unclassified documents that will show U.S. voters exactly what and who initiated the bogus Russia Collusion investigation;
  2. With the release, AG Barr starts letting indictments fly for all those implicated in those documents;
  3. Many of those indicted will “turn” on those above them — their “handlers” — by cutting a deal with the DOJ for immunity or negotiated sentences for their crimes;
  4. Inspector General Horowitz will fill the missing spots with details he’ll be shortly releasing of his investigation into the Clinton Campaign, the DNC server hack, the Clinton email server debacle, and Uranium One and the involvement (if any) by the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.

I doubt Attorney General Barr is going to let this all drag out. I feel strongly that he’ll push hard for indictments, prosecution, and sentence adjudications. He is a no-play federal attorney who knows his way around an investigation and corrupt political operations. And one other thing: he’s planning on retiring from prosecuting and I don’t think he will let this push his retirement back!

The last thing in this conversation, I hope President Trump will NOT get so angry, tired, and disgusted with the dysfunctional American political system that he decides to simply throw in the towel. Just how many Americans would stay in the line of fire as he has when every day he and every member of his family are denigrated in the vilest ways very publicly, often by people who are supposed to be honest and hard-working government servants? Not very many.

You can say much about Donald Trump. Yes, he is loud. Yes, he bloviates quite often. Yes, he is caustic. Yes, he brags a lot.

But as Deion Sanders once said to Howard Cosell in an interview when Cosell asked Sanders why he bragged so much about his capabilities on the football field. Deion famously responded, “Howard, it ain’t bragging if you can do it!”

Say what you will, but Donald Trump has accomplished a lot for Americans and our nation. Just imagine how much more he would have achieved if the Deep State and Never Trumpers had stayed out of the way?

 

Play

The Federal Reserve: A Necessary Evil

Before the Federal Reserve was founded, the nation was plagued with financial crises. At times, these crises led to “panics” in which people raced to their banks to withdraw their deposits. The failure of one bank often had a domino effect, in which customers of other banks rushed to withdraw funds from their own banks even if those banks were not in danger of failing. Banks needed a source of emergency reserves to prevent the panics and resulting runs from driving them out of business.

A particularly severe panic in 1907 resulted in bank runs that wreaked havoc on the fragile banking system and ultimately led Congress in 1913 to write the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve System, initially created to address these banking panics, is now charged with several broader responsibilities, including fostering a sound banking system and a healthy economy.

Although the need for banking reform was undisputed, for decades early supporters debated the delicate balance between national and regional interests. Nationally, the central bank had to make it easier to conduct financial transactions between businesses and individuals across regions of the country.

A stable central bank would also strengthen the United States’ standing in the world economy because foreign individuals, businesses, and governments have confidence in doing business within a country that has a responsible central bank and economic system. Regionally, the central bank would have to respond to the local needs for currency, which could vary across regions. A lack of available currency had caused the earlier banking panics.

Another important issue was creating a balance between the private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government. What emerged—the Federal Reserve System—was a central bank under public control, with many checks and balances.

Congress oversees the entire Federal Reserve System. And the Fed must work within the objectives established by Congress. Yet Congress gave the Federal Reserve the autonomy to carry out its responsibilities without political pressure. Each of the Fed’s three parts—the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve Banks, and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Fed’s core responsibilities.

The Federal Reserve System was developed and continues to develop as an interesting blend of public and private interests and centralized and decentralized decision-making. As you continue reading, you will learn about the Fed’s structure and responsibilities—what the Fed is and what it does.

Who Runs the Federal Reserve?

At the core of the Federal Reserve System is the Board of Governors, or Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., is a federal government agency that is the Fed’s centralized component. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. These Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions.

A Governor’s term is 14 years. It is possible, however, for a Federal Reserve Governor to serve a longer term. For example, William McChesney Martin Jr. served as a member and Chairman of the Board of Governors for nearly 19 years because he was appointed as Chairman to complete another person’s term and was then appointed to his own term.

Appointments to the Board of Governors are staggered—one Governor’s term expires every two years. Terms are staggered to provide the Fed political independence as a central bank, ensuring that one president cannot take advantage of his power to appoint Governors by “stacking the deck” with those who favor his policies. The Board of Governors must be nonpartisan and act independently. In addition to independence, the staggered terms enable stability and continuity on the Board of Governors. The seven Governors, according to the original Federal Reserve Act, should represent the nation’s financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests. Geography is a factor, too, as every Governor must be selected from a different Federal Reserve District. Recently Congress directed that at least one of the Governors have experience in community banking. (In general, community banks can be defined as those owned by organizations with less than $10 billion in assets.) The seven Governors, along with a host of economists and support staff, write the policies that ensure financially sound banks and a stable and strong national economy.

Governors actively lead committees that study prevailing economic issues—from affordable housing and consumer banking laws to interstate banking and electronic commerce. The Board of Governors also exercises broad supervisory control over certain state-chartered financial institutions, called member banks, as well as the companies that own banks (bank holding companies). This control ensures that commercial banks operate responsibly and comply with federal regulations and that the nation’s payments system functions smoothly. In addition, the Board of Governors oversees the activities of Reserve Banks, approving the appointments of each Reserve Bank’s president and three members of its board of directors. The Governors’ most important responsibility is participating on the FOMC, the committee that directs the nation’s monetary policy.

Who’s The Boss?

Jerome H. Powell Heading the Board of Governors are a Chairman and Vice Chairman, who are Governors whom the president of the United States appoints to serve four-year terms. The current Chairman of the Board of Governors is Jerome H. Powell. This is a highly visible position.

The Chairman reports twice a year to Congress on the Fed’s monetary policy objectives, testifies before Congress on numerous other issues, and meets periodically with the secretary of the Treasury. Other Board of Governors officials are also called to testify before Congress, and they maintain regular contact with other government organizations as well.

As the Federal Reserve’s centralized component, the seven members of the Board of Governors guide the Federal Reserve’s policy actions, study trends in the economy, and help forecast the country’s future economic direction. The Governors also participate in monetary policymaking on the FOMC. In addition, the Board of Governors is responsible for regulations to keep the banking system sound and for overseeing the operations of the 12 Reserve Banks.

The U.S. Currency

Did you know that Federal Reserve Banks place the currency you use to make purchases into circulation? Each bill has a number and a letter that denote the Federal Reserve Bank that accounts for that particular bill. For example, a bill with the number 8 will have the letter H (the eighth letter in the alphabet), which means it appears on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

For the recently redesigned $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 bills, the letter and number that identify the Federal Reserve Bank are beneath the left serial number on the face of the bill.

Who Owns the Fed

The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?

The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank’s board of directors.

Should the Federal Reserve be Abolished

The answers here are provided under the condition that US monetary policy is reformed, and that means that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would be repealed, and other new legislature would then specifically outline the steps to be taken with ending the Federal Reserve, or 3rd Central Bank of the U.S.

The Monetary Act, or Monetary Reform Act, could be enacted by Congress, could reform the monetary system in two basic steps:

  1. Abolish the Federal Reserve by repealing the act authorizing it (Fed Act of 1913), which also has illegally contradicted the Constitutional power given to Congress to coin money and control the supply of money.
  2. Authorize the Treasury to print US NOTES, equal to the value of currency also known as “Federal Reserve Notes,” and also as “dollars,” currently in circulation. US Notes would then become “dollars” as the currency.

Pros:

  • Since the amount of money in circulation is roughly equal to the amount of the national debt, the creation of U.S. Notes as a replacement to “Federal Reserve Notes,” would simultaneously eliminate the national debt (approaching $19 trillion).
  • The elimination of the debt would occur without inflation or deflation since the amount of Constitutionally mandated U.S. Notes printed to replace federal reserve notes would be equal, therefore, the money supply as a currency value would not change (hence, no inflation or deflation).
  • The almost $450 billion dollar interest payments on debt also be gone and so tax revenues that are currently wasted to pay interest could actually be used for say, infrastructure, and other expenses which many believe that taxes “pay for” now, except with the existing system, not all the interest can be paid annually. Therefore, all tax revenues go to just paying interest, and more money must be borrowed as deficit spending (borrowing from banks) to pay off just the remaining interest due, and also cover the federal budgets.
  • The US could cut all ties with the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, The Bank of International Settlements, ending association with some of the institutions that propagate on-going famine and impoverishment throughout the world, and the unethical domination of already-poor countries that accepted “aid” or “relief” during times of crisis, but then found out that it was money lent to them as debt. This leaves the already worst-off in many countries in an even more desperate state because of intentional destabilization and subrogation results when countries do not or can not pay their national debts.
  • The government would be controlled by the will of the people again, and not a group of independent bankers more powerful than the President, and the Congress. The lender is always more powerful than the borrower.
  • People seem to constantly scratch their heads about why, even though we all know that “change” would be good. And why is it that nothing ever does change, or why is it that government doesn’t seem to serve the interests of the people, the voters, but the bureaucratic machine, and what has to be nameless, faceless others? Why is the US in a state of constant warfare? The actual dissolution of the Federal Reserve would make it abundantly more clear, why it would be beneficial to do so.
  • Abolishing the Fed would put the money, provided for the needs of the people, would be back in the hands of the Congress, which is Constitutionally granted, and an illegal system that contradicts the mandates of the Constitution and the spirit of our national laws would finally be ended.

Consider:

-The Bank of England called in their loans on King George III who then took away colonial money (Colonial script) and forced English coinage onto the colonists with increased taxation. This was the major catalyst for the war for independence.

-Thomas Jefferson ended the First Central Bank of the U.S. as they tried to recharter

-The War of 1812, an almost forgotten war, was the result of the U.S. government’s refusal to recharter another central bank.

-Andrew Jackson ended then Second Central Bank of the US. He was shot at by a “lone nutjob” house painter who missed with both pistols.

-Abraham Lincoln printed Greenbacks to fund the Civil War to maintain the union, and that money was highly successful, with some greenbacks in circulation till the 1970s. He was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” John Wilkes Boothe.

-James Garfield staunchly claims that he would not allow for the recharter of another central bank in the U.S. He was shot and died of his injuries a week later by “lone nutjob,” Charles Giteau, basically forgotten (See: The Unforgiven, film, Clint Eastwood, won Oscar for Best Picture).

-In 1913, the Third Central Bank of the U.S. is authorized by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which promises full employment, and was signed by Woodrow Wilson (duped), while banking proponents and their shills feign opposition to their own Act as if it was a threat to banking interests.

-John F. Kennedy signs an order to authorize Silver Certificates to replace Fed Reserve Notes. Only weeks later, he was shot and killed by a “lone nutjob,” Lee Harvey Oswald.

-Ronald Reagan appears on national television and claims in his address that the Federal Reserve poses the greatest threat to the future of the United States. A couple of weeks later, he was shot by a “lone nutjob,” John Hinkley Jr.

Summary

The secretive Federal Reserve has remained a mystery for more than 100 years. Reading its history above shows at its creation there was a definite need for it to stabilize the U.S. economy. But it has been questioned for a long time as being essential. In fact, its purposes have been continually questioned by many. It seems to simply be an entity to which the United States Government owes huge amounts of interest dollars to simply for printing currency.

That being said, most financial experts will agree that whether or not the Fed remains useful, it is time for the U.S. to get away from fiat currency and back to a currency that is just a representation of the actual hard, tangible assets owned by the U.S. and its citizens — like gold. For many, a dollar bill is just that: a dollar bill that means nothing.

I was in Zurich, Switzerland the day the Swiss shocked the world and held a press conference to announce their termination of a long-standing practice of pegging the value of the Swiss franc to the value of the Euro. Why? Switzerland owned more gold than necessary to back its issued currency notes — francs — with tangible value instead of setting an artifical value pegged to another currency’s value. Though it rocked the world, it stabilized Switzerland’s currency. In today’s economically up-and-down currency markets, having a currency that itself represents a real asset like gold would give that nation’s citizens confidence in their government and its economic policies.

It’s time we do the same thing here in the U.S.

Play

Remember: Banks Too Big To Fail? Part I

Not much is known by average American citizens about banking — other than depositing money, withdrawing money, obtaining a loan to buy a car or home improvements. But as you can imagine, there’s a whole lot more to banking than that.

Many people are afraid of banks and bankers, simply because there is so little known about them and how they operate. The “unknown” always leads to fear and concern, especially when the unknown is a mysterious person or a group of mysterious people. Certainly that applies to the entities and people who control the collection and distribution of pretty much all the cash on Earth.

Americans have watched the news the last decade in which financial scandal after scandal have been exposed in the banking community. And then there was the Bush 43 bailout of almost every bank in the U.S. that was underwritten by the American people. In most cases, that bailout helped to avoid a U.S. financial explosion initiated by unsafe bank investments in shaky and heretofore unexplored financial areas. Those were called “derivatives.” For the sake of time we will not go into that near-collapse or derivatives themselves.

What we DO know for certain is that most of the World banking operations are controlled (and many are owned) by a small number of people. Hints of that fact occasionally have appeared in media reports, but usually only when there’s some type of financial boondoggle that happens on a small scale. But did you know banking in the U.S. is controlled primarily by a very small group of powerful individuals and families? Not only that, but the mystical “Federal Reserve” is the principal entity used by the purveyors of U.S. finance on every level to direct and control all things pertaining to finance.

Today and tomorrow  we will take a look at those entities, families, and people who control each of our financial lives in two parts. You’ll be shocked, but you’ll be educated. It is important for all to know exactly what’s going on to the best of our ability. And that includes banking.

You may be tempted to let details here get boring to you. Don’t! Over the next decade, what you know about banking may save your retirement and protect your children and grandchildren. All these names we list are important. Some you’ve heard before, others not. But make some notes. You will hear ALL these names (at least of those still alive) throughout news reports in coming days and months.

8 Families ”Own” the U.S.

Let’s start with the Rockefellers. You may be surprised that they certainly are into banking, but there into much, much, more!

Companies under Rockefeller control include Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, ASARCO, United, Delta, ITT, International Harvester, Xerox, Boeing, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide and General Foods.

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in conjunction with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money giants.

Their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch. According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.

So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks? This information is guarded much more closely. Inquiries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 U.S. bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe. One of the biggest entities that owns these bank holding companies is U.S. Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent U.S. Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild.

Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank — by far the most powerful Fed branch — by just eight families, four of which reside in the U.S.

They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York, the Rothschilds of Paris and London, the Warburgs of Hamburg, the Lazards of Paris, and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf confirms McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches. He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York.

Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century. Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others.

The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally kept in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking group as “conspiracy theory.” Yet the facts remain.

Banking History

In 1903 Banker’s Trust was set up by the Eight Families. Benjamin Strong of Banker’s Trust was the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The 1913 creation of the Fed fused the power of the Eight Families to the military and diplomatic might of the U.S. government. If their overseas loans went unpaid, the powerful banks could now deploy U.S. Marines to collect the debts. Morgan, Chase and Citibank formed an international lending syndicate. The House of Morgan was cozy with the British House of Windsor and the Italian House of Savoy. The Kuhn Loebs, Warburgs, Lehmans, Lazards, Israel Moses Seifs and Goldman Sachs also had close ties to European royalty.

By 1895 Morgan controlled the flow of gold in and out of the U.S. The first American wave of mergers was still a baby and was being promoted by the bankers. In 1897 there were sixty-nine industrial mergers. By 1899 there were twelve-hundred. In 1904 John Moody – founder of Moody’s Investor Services – said it was impossible to talk of Rockefeller and Morgan interests as separate. Public distrust of the group spread.

Many considered them traitors working for European old money. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Edward Harriman’s railroads were all financed by banker Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who worked closely with the European Rothschilds. Several Western states banned the bankers. Preacher William Jennings Bryan was three-times the Democratic nominee for President from 1896 -1908. The central theme of his campaign was that America was falling into a trap of “financial servitude to British capital.” Teddy Roosevelt defeated Bryan in 1908, but was forced by this financial-fear wildfire to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He then went after the Standard Oil Trust.

That same year Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her shares in New York’s Guaranty Trust Bank to J.P. Morgan, creating Morgan Guaranty Trust. Judge Louis Brandeis convinced President Woodrow Wilson to call for an end to interbank bank directors. In 1914 the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed. Jack Morgan – J. Pierpont’s son and successor – responded by calling on Morgan clients Remington and Winchester to increase arms production. He argued that the US needed to enter WWI. Prodded by the Carnegie Foundation and others, Wilson followed through.

The House of Morgan financed half the U.S. war effort, and got commissions for lining up contractors like GE, Du Pont, US Steel, Kennecott and ASARCO. All were Morgan clients. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was presided over by Morgan, which led both German and Allied reconstruction efforts.

House Banking Committee Chairman Louis McFadden (D-NY) said of the Great Depression, “It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence…The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all.” Sen. Gerald Nye (D-ND) chaired a munitions investigation in 1936. Nye concluded that the House of Morgan had plunged the U.S. into WWI to protect loans and create a booming arms industry.

In 1937 Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned of the influence of “America’s 60 Families.” Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas stated this, “Morgan influence…the most pernicious one in industry and finance today.” Jack Morgan responded by nudging the U.S. towards WWII. Morgan had close relations with the Iwasaki and Dan families – Japan’s two wealthiest clans – who have owned Mitsubishi and Mitsui, respectively, since the companies emerged from 17th Century shogunates.

When Japan invaded Manchuria, slaughtering Chinese peasants at Nanking, Morgan downplayed the incident. Morgan also had close relations with Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, while German Nazi Dr. Hjalmer Schacht was a Morgan Bank go-between during WWII. After the war Morgan representatives met with Schacht at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. The House of Rockefeller BIS is the most powerful bank in the world, a global central bank for the Eight Families who control the private central banks of almost all Western and developing nations.

The first President of BIS was Rockefeller banker Gates McGarrah — an official at Chase Manhattan and the Federal Reserve. McGarrah was the grandfather of former CIA director Richard Helms. The Rockefellers — like the Morgans — had close ties to London. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix, that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just “gofers” for the European Rothschilds.

BIS is owned by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, Bank of Canada, Swiss National Bank, Nederlandsche Bank, Bundesbank and Bank of France. Historian Carroll Quigley wrote in his epic book Tragedy and Hope that BIS was part of a plan, “to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole…to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements.”

The US government had a historical distrust of BIS, lobbying unsuccessfully for its demise at the 1944 post-WWII Bretton Woods Conference. Instead the Eight Families’ power was exacerbated, with the Bretton Woods creation of the IMF and the World Bank.

Summary

I know, I know, this was a lot of “stuff” — information. I’ll bet you knew very little about the U.S. Banking system and its history. That’s something that every American should not only know, but understand.

As the World Currency system is in transition — yes, there are serious conversations about President Trump taking the U.S. currency back to its former gold-backed status — and you need to understand how that will impact you. The best way to be prepared for future events is know the history so as to make certain the future is the best it can be made.

The Federal Reserve as always been a mystery to most. What is it? How does it function? Who controls it?  Part II of this will complete the banking history but will put you right in the middle of exactly where we stand today and how it directly and indirectly impacts us all. And we’ll break down in layman’s terms the secrets of the Federal Reserve.

 

A Soldier Died Today

Most Americans respect and honor our veterans. Unfortunately, it seems we have two Veterans Days each year — often we forget the fact that Memorial Day is NOT another Veterans Day. Today we honor all those who gave their lives for the cause of Freedom.

It’s days like today that remind us of the importance of the Star Spangled Banner, The Pledge of Allegiance, The U.S. Constitution, and America the Beautiful. The family members of those who gave their lives during their military service will certainly agree that today,

EVERY American owes reverence, honor, and thanks for those heroes’ sacrifices — forget about raising voices against The Stars and Stripes, and The National Anthem, and The Pledge of Allegiance.  Jesus said “No man has greater love than this; that he would lay down his life for a friend.” If you’re reading this, you’re one of those that either did not serve or you survived. In either case, you too are fortunate. And we honor you.

Thanks to everyone who has paid that price — including the families who today will think back on fond memories of outdoor cookouts, swimming parties, weddings and graduations shared with a loved one taken while defending our nation.

If a tear runs down your cheek today while remembering a hero who gave their life in keeping America free and safe, don’t be ashamed. Why? Because by sunset somewhere in the greatest country on Earth,  a man or woman in uniform (or in a retirement center after wearing that uniform standing watch for us against our foes) paid the ultimate price for your freedom.

This nation is bigger than any one person. It was made that way by people who abandoned the tyranny of totalitarianism in Europe to give their families and descendants — US — a life of life and liberty with justice for each and every one. 

“A Soldier Died Today”

The Word “Racist” is Racist

The most misused word in American social and cultural interactions today is “Racist” — and that in itself is racist.

Think about it: in using the word racist as an adjective, it is defined as “showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another;” as a noun is defined as “a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.” When used as either an adjective or noun, the term “racist” bears a negative connotation in comparison to other people — maybe even to the person using the word.

In its universal use globally, it is actually a curse word, not a name (noun) or description (adjective). And typically the person(s) using it are doing so to demean someone else or some group in particular by comparison to other people or groups. And using it in any circumstance today is a racial act in simply doing so! How so?

The Vacuum

You probably have never thought about that word and how it is used. It is tossed about as slang — just an afterthought. But it is so impactful, we all need to understand it, its origins, and its purposes.

First, it is not a “stand alone.” In fact, it is impossible for a word this powerful to exist in a vacuum. The word “racist” actually describes someone the user wishes to demean with the word. If/when a person chooses to take all that goes along with that “word,” it becomes a cancer. In fact, it is really nothing but an identifier of its source. Racism did not just pop up of the ground at some farm. It does not originate from a workshop or art studio. It was created by men about men centuries ago. In fact it has almost certainly existed since Man’s beginning. Racism is a product cooked up in a cauldron of humanity that periodically simply spills over into the hearts of men. But what is its source?

When our young children have a fever, we naturally run to the medicine cabinet and grab Tylenol or aspirin to give to the child to reduce the fever. The fever is NOT the child’s problem, rather a symptom of a problem: maybe an infection or a virus. But we act like if we rid the fever the problem is gone. Not so. The term “racist” does NOT define the problem — it defines the symptoms OF the problem. What is the problem? Elitism.

In the Beginning…..

There have always been at least two classes of humans since Creation — at least with the creation of Eve. God created Adam who needed someone with him. That was Eve. No sooner had Eve entered the scene, both Adam and Eve realized they were different. Each liked, respected, and accepted SOME of the differences of the other, but not all. Then the personality traits God embedded in each took over. Each felt superior in certain ways to the other, and vice versa. i.e. Adam felt he was smarter and stronger. Eve felt she was smarter and more enlightened about everything in their world. Eve felt superior to Adam and Adam felt superior to Eve. Their justifications for those opinions: “I’m better just because I’m a man,” or “Just because I’m a woman.” That was the beginning of elitism.

We all know how the World population grew then: the same way it grows now. Before too long there were many more people around. With those people came different physical attributes, intelligence levels, skills and talents, and personalities. Without really thinking about it, class and status and labeling automatically became simply part of life. Perceptually everyone developed an opinion of everyone else. Reality of those perceptions very seldom were questioned. After all, “Perception IS Reality.”

Inevitably groups were formed comprised of those with similarities with which others identified: race, intelligence, like and dislikes, spirituality, etc. Inevitably those in some of these groups felt better, smarter, better looking — all those things that represent human differences. Whether accurate or not, many in these groups sought to assume places of social standing based on understanding and rankings of those differences. These were the first elitists.

Since Adam and Eve, Elitists have always existed and have permeated every culture on Earth, and still do. No matter what society or culture they are part of, they find a way to demand status. Social Elitists assume power and authority over all labels for everyone in their lives. Elitists invented the words “racist,” “racism,” and other descriptive words like “homophobe,” “islamaphobe,” “xenophobe,” and all the other slang and demeaning labels we hear for various social groups in our lives. These monikors devised by Elitists are dog whistles for all those who subscribe to elitist mentality. Often as in the case of the words “Racist” and “Racism,” the labels that are created and assigned are NOT the issues. The spirit of Elitism is the issue. Those who embrace Elitism feel empowered to determine worth, value, and status of everyone, including themselves. And in all this, Truth does not matter.

“Racist” and “Racism” are simply words and descriptive phrases that describe emotions held and named by Elitists to use to selectively demean others. And they can be VERY brutal. Elitists are those who invent and maintain all the negative descriptive words used to label and while labeling demean all those who Elitists hate — whether or not their disdain for those they label is based on any real characteristic.

Examples

  1. “Jay, when did you stop beating your wife?” How horrible for Jay to do that! Guess what: Jay DIDN’T BEAT HIS WIFE!
  2. Homophobe. A very common term elitists use for anyone that disagrees with elitist philosophies — about anything! It does not need to be about homosexuality. You may simply be a Conservative and Liberals label you as a homophobe.
  3. Xenophobe. Anyone who disagrees with the concept of open borders, who believes in LEGAL immigration, who joins the push for border enforcement is labelled by elitists as xenophobic. Forget about law, legalities, and illegalities. Disagree with elitists and you get a label.

The examples are endless. Each can be catastrophic. Elitist labels have destroyed marriages, careers, friendships, companies, and kept some good people from politics and run others out of politics.

Summary

Matthew 12:35 puts this in perspective: “A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.”

There are no racists, supremacists, homophobes, xenophobes, islamophobes, alive today. All those that have been labeled as such are just PEOPLE. Sure, some hold views that are angry, hateful, totally emotional without any intellectual basis. But they each are real people with real thoughts, ideas, characteristics, and value. For Elitists to use their dog-whistle labels to point out to fellow elitists an individual or group to attack, is inhumane, sick, and intellectually demeaning.

Guess what: anyone that calls you a racist, IS a racist! For racism is NOT anything on its on. It is created by a heart of elitism to use to attack others by creating a perception in others that the Elitist is more worthy than the one they are compared to.

The Sin is Elitism and the attacks it initiates.

The Elitist goal: “to make others seem and appear to be less valuable and less important than me.”

 

 

 

Mueller Probe Was Bad — Really Bad

Now that the dust has settled after the two-plus years of the Mueller probe into Trump Campaign collusion with Russians and Obstruction of Justice, common sense dictates an objective look back to examine the probe’s function, its purpose, and objectively examine its findings.

Donald Trump early on named it a “Witch Hunt.” That term angered many and many of his followers adopted it. The Mueller findings in many ways confirmed that name was in some ways appropriate. But in the aftermath of its release and upon close examination a “Witch Hunt” may be too nice a term for it. One more appropriate may be a “Hit Job.” What am I talking about? Let’s dig in.

“In The Beginning….”

What was Mueller appointed to do? Investigate the alleged collusion between the Russians and members of the Trump Campaign during and for the purpose of impacting the 2016 presidential election for the benefit of Donald Trump. Remember this: Mueller signed on to the task AFTER the FBI had been on the case for quite a while. They had investigated the Trump Campaign for the same reasons. The FBI had already accumulated a plethora of evidence to which Mueller had unfettered access.

In that pile of evidence from the considerable FBI interrogations and documents already compiled was the infamous Steele Dossier. FBI and DOJ investigators had already been to the FISA Court and had obtained surveillance authorization to surveil electronically Carter Page and those with whom he communicated. The dossier was prepared by Christopher Steele, who we now know was an FBI paid informant. All of his interview materials, documents prepared by Steele for his “employer,” (FBI) were there for Mueller.

Why is this important?

Mueller knew from the very beginning there was NO collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians! 

If he didn’t know that on Day One, he knew it very shortly afterwards. Think about it: a good investigator — Mueller was a god of investigators according to Democrats and career FBI officials — would upon initiation of such an investigation first peruse all the evidence available so as to intelligently initiate whatever actions were deemed necessary to achieve the goal of the investigation. Again, Mueller knew quickly there was no Russian collusion.

From that, here’s the obvious question: Why did Mueller NOT inform the Department of Justice, the President, the FBI, or members of Congress?

Some will say that Mueller didn’t know early on for certain there was no Russian collusion. But even if he didn’t know early, in no more than a few days he knew. Remember the process of the DOJ that was used with Senator Dianne Feinstein? The instant the FBI knew that an employee that had been in her employment for years was actually a spy for China, they immediately informed Feinstein and that employee was terminated. 

But Mueller didn’t know who or what was happening illegally, right? And the FISA warrant was for surveillance of Carter Page. Still, the DOJ protocol was when an individual was being investigated, if there is evidence that individual is involved in any way with a government entity, the leader of that department or entity is immediately notified of that investigation and the evidence against that individual.

Why wasn’t Donald Trump notified by the FBI or the Mueller team about the suspicions of Carter Page and the FISA authorized wiretap? Could it be the purpose of the Mueller Witch Hunt was to look further for dirt on the Trump Campaign, or to maybe just keep the cloud of “suspicion of wrongdoing” over the heads of all people and all things Trump?

The Rest of the Story

Remember this: the FBI had just gone through the Hillary Clinton email investigation and simultaneously the investigation of the hacking of the Democrat National Committee’s servers. Strangely enough, NO expert at the FBI was given access to the DNC servers. Also, strangely enough, the FBI took for granted the Russians must have been the guilty party who hacked the DNC.

So how did Mueller get started with all of this stuff up in the air? Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” that hacked the DNC, and he deliberately excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view. Remember this: he was hired to investigate the Russians and their role in the 2016 election. He put 2 and 2 together and “assumed” the DNC attack and Russian collusion with Trump were connected. The key word in that sentence is “assumed.”

To that end, Mueller, as a matter of policy in his investigation, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did NOT commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did NOT interview the DOJ and National Defense IT expert for hacking: Bill Binney. He did NOT interview Julian Assange. Why Assange? Remember: part of the cloud of allegations against the Trump gang was that they got all the Hillary bad news and emails from Wikileaks and Assange. Mueller’s failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless in the minds of many experts domestically. And foreign intelligence IT officials are laughing at the Mueller Investigation ineptness!

Just one important note: It’s May, 2.5 years after the Trump Collusion investigation began. There has never been, by any U.S. law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.

That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:

“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”

Two Facts underline how incompetent the Mueller Report and his investigation are:

The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organization. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is far more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: therefore the information must have been downloaded to a local device, like a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this.

Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to Wikileaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy it’s actually laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to Wikileaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the IT packets containing the information would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA. Explanation? It never happened!

Bill Binney is not a “deplorable.” He is the former Technical Director of the NSA. Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report.

Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.

The second vital piece of evidence we have is from the Wikileaks “Vault 7” release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of key foreign material. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claims to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.

So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately not taking any steps to get evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had plenty of  time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after non-existent links between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico.

Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales when compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on NO conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most importantly, he did NOT give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice AND a pre-determination of the results. That’s horrible police work!

Unbelievably, for example, the Mueller Report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself. Mueller if honest should have certainly gone to London to interview Assange. Not doing so exposed Mueller’s investigation ”pre-judgment.”

It is also cowardly as Julian was held in silence with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.

Summary

How could such an experienced, well-respected career investigator take two years, 20 professional federal prosecutors, millions of pieces of evidence and spend $30 million doing so and not find wrongdoing by those investigated if there was wrongdoing going on in the first place? If there really was Russian hacking of the Clinton email server and the DNC, how could this reputable investigator NOT examine either server, nor have any IT expert examine them instead taking for granted what he was told about Russian hacking was true?

It makes NO logical sense.

But what really smells is the fact that after all this work, all this investigating, spending all this money, Mueller did NOT find evidence of collusion and did NOT find evidence to justify charges of Obstruction of Justice either. ”BUT”……..he DID feel compelled to give 248 pages of doubts of his own conclusions (or non-conclusions)!

Why would any prosecutor do so? After all, prosecutors are not charged under any federal laws to investigate the accused in an effort to prove they are NOT guilty of a crime. They begin investigations starting from “A Crime Was Committed.”   The investigation is to find evidence that proves who committed the crime.

THAT’S NOT WHAT MUELLER DID!

His perspective apparently was that a crime was “alleged,” and even with NO evidence that a crime WAS committed, he launched a 2-year fiasco that began with NO crime and NO evidence of a crime.

But he had an ALLEGED criminal offender: Donald Trump.

The only logical conclusion one can draw for those 248 pages of the Mueller report that followed the Mueller conclusion that there WAS no collusion and WAS no Obstruction of Justice is this: either Mueller was on a mission to take whatever actions were necessary to discredit the presidency of Donald Trump, OR Mueller was paying Mr. Trump back for NOT hiring him as FBI Director to replace James Comey, OR Mueller was using this sham investigation to avenge the firing of his close friend and buddy: James Comey.

One or all those three MUST be the explanation for the findings (or lack of findings) detailed in the Mueller Report.

One final thought: If the process of the Mueller investigation really was an honest effort, using honest and thorough investigative procedures, real evidence, and methods, and if the crew of attorneys Mueller collected for his team were really the best of the U.S. federal prosecutors, the United States Department of Justice and the entire Intelligence group of agencies are in really sad shape!

Bless Their Hearts!

 

Play

“Impeach 45!”

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) has been on fire since Donald Trump won the White House in 2016. Just 2 weeks after the Trump inauguration, TruthNewsNetwork predicted the cries of “Impeachment” from Democrats would begin, would increase in their fury, and would result in impeachment proceedings in Congress, especially if they could somehow regain the House in 2018. They regained the House, and impeachment proceedings look to be just around the corner!

Wednesday (May 22, 2019) House Democrats had an early morning private meeting the purpose of which was to discuss the merits of the House moving forward with Trump impeachment. Speaker Pelosi has avoided impeachment discussions. One would think she as the House Democrat leader would be out front in any process to discredit the Trump Administration. But she has been VERY hesitant to do so. Why is that?

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was in Congress when the Bill Clinton impeachment took place. Republicans were so anxious to impeach former President Bill Clinton that they ignored what they should have learned from the Nixon situation–that the key to getting rid of a President is to have thorough and open hearings before one even gets to the impeachment process so that the President’s goose is already cooked before impeachment proceedings begin. Republicans rushed ahead soon after Kenneth Star published his report—without any open Senate hearings at all. America was doing well at the time, including the American economy, and most Democrats in Congress thought that the charges against Clinton were contrived. Without a sufficient number of Democrats willing to convict Clinton in the Senate, Clinton was not convicted of those perjury charges and never was going to be convicted.

In addition, the American public was so annoyed at the complete waste of time of the Clinton impeachment process that the Democrats actually gained seats during a midterm while having a Democrat as President, only one of two times in modern history that this has ever happened (the two times in modern history occurred in 1998 after Republican’s failed attempt to convict Clinton and in 2002, post 9/11, under George W. Bush).

Do you think Pelosi went to school on Republicans backlash for going after Bill? I’m certain that keyed her hesitance this time. But with the fury that has been unleashed by her “junior” House members — Omar, Talib, and AOC — who are full-speed ahead for impeachment, Pelosi is in a tough spot.

Add to the fury of the youngsters the overreaching of Jerald Nadler (D-NY) who heads the House Judiciary Committee, and Nancy is facing a dilemma. Remember this: Nadler famously claimed numerous times even before the 2018 elections “there is irrefutable proof of Trump wrongdoing, including collusion with Russia,” and the identical claims of Congressmen Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Nadler finds himself in the same spot with Pelosi.

To illustrate the House Democrat dilemma and how convinced of impeachment House Dems are, in March of 2019, Swalwell said in MSNBC he’s ready for President Trump to sue him because he refuses to back down from his public assertions that there was evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

What’s at Stake For Democrats?

Plenty.

There were 13 Democratic-held U.S. House districts up for election in 2018 that Donald Trump won in the 2016 presidential election. Three of the districts flipped, voting in a Republican representative in 2018:

  • Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District
  • Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District
  • Pennsylvania’s 14th Congressional District

All three races were open seats. Minnesota’s 1st Tim Walz successfully ran for governor, while Minnesota’s 8th Rick Nolan did not seek re-election. Conor Lamb (D) successfully ran to represent Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District. Lamb had previously won a 2018 special election to replace U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (R). This increased the number of Trump/Democratic districts in Pennsylvania from one to two. The districts in Pennsylvania were redrawn after the state Supreme Court ruled that the state’s previous congressional map was unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

The 13 districts voted for Trump by as many as 30.8 percentage points and as few as 0.7 percentage points.

This may seem meaningless, but it really is important. And this may be the fundamental reason for Pelosi’s hesitation to push forward with impeachment. But there’s more.

The U.S. is booming on every financial front: revenue, unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, 5 million off of Food Stamps, more people employed in the U.S. than ever, etc.

These facts should certainly slow any impeachment discussions. What do Democrats have to offer better than this? Quoting that famous Democrat pundit, James Carville, or “Serpent-Head” as his wife termed him during the Clinton years: “It’s the economy, Stupid!”

What’s at Stake for Americans?

Let’s be honest: Americans tire quickly with all of the arguing and finger-pointing in Washington. Depending on which poll numbers one believes, Congressional members approval ratings among Americans is just 15% or less. Why is that?

Congress gets very little done!

Congress is really good at spending taxpayer dollars. But Congress is really slow at getting legislation passed and over to the President for a signature to become law. And that’s what members of Congress are supposed to do! Wouldn’t it be prudent to find out just what American registered voters think about what’s important for our government? We can do that.

In April, FOX News polled 1004 registered voters about what their most important issues are for the 2020 elections. Registered voters’ issues that impact their votes are as follows (most important to least important):

  1. Immigration/illegal immigration, border security wall: 21%
  2. The economy/jobs/unemployment:  10%
  3. Healthcare:  9%
  4. Climate change/Environment:  6%
  5. Race relations/race issues/police:  5%
  6. Guns/gun violence:  4%
  7. Political corruption/leadership:  4%
  8. Lack of unity/Partisanship/Polarization/gridlock:  4%
  9. Education:  4%
  10. Terrorism/National Security/ISIS: 4%
  11. Donald Trump:  3%
  12. Government spending/budget deficit/debt:  3%
  13. Income inequality/disappearing middle class:  3%
  14. Moral decline:  2%
  15. Social Security/Medicare:  2%
  16. Foreign policy/Middle East/nuclear weapons/war:  2%
  17. Crime:  2%
  18. Abortion:  1%
  19. Taxes:  1%
  20. Opioid addiction/Drugs:  1%

As you can see from the results of this poll, Americans are pretty much in lock step with the Trump agenda with maybe one exception: Climate change. But even without that factored in, far more than half of Americans who participated in the poll do not just support Trump’s efforts across the board as President, but strongly support his agenda. And this is the 2020 Democrat nightmare!

I’ve asked this before during the last two years: “What is the Democrat Party platform? What specifics do they plan on bringing to Americans that would support changing the residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year?” I’m still waiting for good answers. Until Wednesday, I thought there was only one. But it appears that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer after their Wednesday morning private chit chat with fellow Democrats, they’ve added a second “platform” idea.

“Let’s Do NOTHING!”

That’s right: immediately after their meeting with fellow Democrats, the pair went to the White House to negotiate infrastructure legislation with the President. However, before heading over to the White House, Pelosi spoke to reporters and gave America the Democrats’ “temporary” plan that they are going to use while deciding if there is enough on which to impeach the President. Pelosi spelled it out for us all: stonewall any meaningful legislation in Congress. And there’s one more thing. Listen closely to Pelosi tell reporters what that “one more thing” is:

According to the House Speaker, “The President is involved in a coverup.”

No explanation…no details…but a typical “drive-by shooter” tactic by the Democrats. What Pelosi did was give the messaging arm of the Democrat Party the talking points to be used by all in the upcoming days when speaking of President Trump. Who is that “messaging arm” of the Democrat Party? CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Washington Post, and The New York Times — The Mainstream Media.

No surprise here.

Do you know what’s saddest about all this? American confidence in the economy is at a high far above any in recent years. Wages are rising, unemployment is lower than almost ever, federal revenue is higher than ever, we are not in any foreign wars, international credibility in the U.S. is back after 8 years of NONE, our military is getting stronger after being gutted by the Obama Administration, law enforcement agencies and men and women who serve there for the first time in almost a decade feel this president has their backs. And the Democrats want to stop ALL this progress and take us back to the horrors of 2008-2016.

And they want Americans to believe in their plan?

I’ll end here with this: what’s the definition of insanity? “Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.”

What would be insanity for Americans at this point? Put a Democrat back in the White House for another 8 years of ObamaGate.

NO THANK YOU!

 

Play

Executive Privilege

This was released Monday (May 19, 2019) from The Hill:

A district judge on Monday upheld a subpoena issued by the House Oversight and Reform Committee for President Trump’s financial records, dealing a blow to White House efforts to resist the Democrats’ investigations. In a 41-page opinion, Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, found that the panel, under the leadership of Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), had valid reasons for requesting the president’s financial records from the accounting firm Mazars, even though they predated his entering office.

“These are factually valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations,” Mehta wrote.

The judge was skeptical of the arguments brought forward by the president’s attorneys both in court last week and in his opinion issued Monday. Trump’s attorneys had argued that the subpoena, issued by Cummings earlier this year, was unconstitutional because it wasn’t tied to legislation. But attorneys for the House said that the records will help strengthen ethics and disclosure laws and see if Trump is in compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Let’s get this straight: the basis for this judge’s ruling was reasonable because the committee’s request for Trump’s financial records was “to see if Trump is in compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.”

Americans should be horrified!

Judge Mehta in his ruling forgot one thing — a very fundamental thing — that is a thread of the very fiber of the Constitution: “Probable Cause.” In his 41-page opinion, Federal District Judge Mehta asserted that Congress has the right to investigate potential illegal behavior by a president, including actions both before and after the president assumed office. Seriously?!? Americans are to accept this amazing finding by a federal judge as a “legal and Constitutionally based opinion?” I think not!

Most Americans when discovering Congressman Elijah Cumming’s subpoena for the President’s financial records for a period before he became President and for the period of time he has been office will shake their heads in disbelief. This committee’s action further fans the flames of those who look own in amazement at what Congress is doing to “get” Donald Trump in the wake of the Mueller Report. (In our Summary below we’ll unpack what Congress is really up to)

President Trump’s team is fighting this action based on Executive Privilege. What is it?

Executive Privilege

In the landmark case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that it had authority to resolve the conflict between President Richard Nixon and Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had been appointed to investigate the Watergate affair, over the issue of executive privilege. Cox had obtained a grand jury subpoena requiring Nixon to deliver to the district court tape recordings of various meetings with assistants. The Supreme Court acknowledged, for the first time, that an executive privilege exists under the Constitution, but it qualified the scope of the privilege by subjecting it to a balancing of the opposing interests and legitimate needs of the executive and judicial branches. Courts have applied this general approach in the context of enforcement of congressional subpoenas as well, but there haven’t been very many such decisions—and the ones that do exist are drawn to the particular facts of the cases at hand. In addition, as articulated in United States v. AT&T, courts will only decide such a case if the executive and legislative branches have tried, in good faith, but failed to reach an accommodation. (“in good faith” is the principle in this argument that, in my opinion, is NOT occurring)

So while it is settled that the federal courts have jurisdiction to resolve a conflict over a claim of executive privilege in the context of enforcement of a congressional subpoena, there isn’t much actual case law to suggest exactly how assertions of executive privilege by the president may ultimately be decided by a court. In addition, the good-faith accommodation requirement typically has the effect of lengthening the amount of time it takes for civil enforcement action by Congress to confirm its subpoena power, and in many instances may prevent the practical usefulness of a court decision in a given controversy.

Dealing with White House executive privilege has always created issues: and always have been political in nature.

The most recent example is President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege regarding “Operation Fast and Furious”—a federal gun-running investigation and operation gone wrong. On March 31, 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, then chaired by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The Justice Department responded in writing to the committee a few months later. After more back-and-forth, on Oct. 12, the committee issued a second subpoena to the department for communications from several top officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, relating to the operation. The subpoena covered communications from Holder’s chief of staff and the head of the department’s criminal division. It also requested information regarding relevant departmental communications with the White House and details about the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent that spurred investigation of the operation.

In June of 2012, President Obama invoked executive privilege to deny the committee access to certain documents responsive to the subpoena on the basis that complying “would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship” between Congress and the White House. The House voted on June 28, 2012, to hold Holder in contempt—the first such action against a sitting Cabinet official. The committee then brought a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force disclosure of the documents at issue. The court case was repeatedly delayed by procedural issues and unsuccessful efforts to broker a settlement.

It wasn’t until January of 2016—a full three and a half years later—that a federal judge rejected Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to the records on the grounds that “under the unique and limited circumstances of this case, … the qualified privilege must yield, given the executive’s acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the investigation, and the fact that the Department itself has already publicly revealed the sum and substance of the very material it is now seeking to withhold.” The court also found that “records reflecting the agency’s internal deliberations over how to respond to Congressional and media inquiries fall under the protection of the deliberative process privilege.” Finally, the court “encourage[d] the parties to start with a fresh slate and resolve the few remaining issues with flexibility and respect.”

Knowing what we know now and this exhaustive confrontational relationship between the White House and the Democrat-controlled House, peaceful resolution of this conflict does not seem inevitable. What will happen?

The criminal contempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation against the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of whoever is the principal of the subpoena. But Congress will have a practical problem using this approach if the president does not agree with the action. Administrations of both political parties have decided that U.S. attorneys are NOT required to refer congressional contempt charges to a grand jury or prosecute an executive branch official who carries out the president’s instruction to invoke the president’s claim of executive privilege before a committee.

That leaves Congress’s inherent contempt power, which means relying on the legislature’s own constitutional authority to detain and jail a person in contempt until the individual complies with congressional demands. What does that actually look like? It’s not very pretty—which is why the contempt process has not been used by either body since 1935 when a Herbert Hoover administration official was held briefly in the Willard Hotel. While there is no “Capitol Jail,” the Capitol Police do maintain a holding cell a few blocks away at the Capitol Police Department. At the current moment, the prospect of the House sending the sergeant-at-arms of the Capitol to arrest an administration official would likely not sit well with a public that does not favor physical confrontation in U.S. politics.

Summary

Let’s see: unemployment overall is at record lows; black, Hispanic, and female unemployment is at record lows; millions of taxpayers received a federal income tax reduction in 2018 that averaged just over $2000; federal government revenue last year far exceeded any previous year, in spite of those massive tax cuts; there are far more people at work today than ever before. And what is our government doing in the wake of these successes?

  • Congress refuses to pass comprehensive immigration reforms;
  • Congress refuses to finance measures to close our borders to illegal aliens;
  • Congress refuses to support and/or demand federal law enforcement agencies enforce laws that Congress passed;
  • Pushes for the legalization of 3rd-trimester abortions;
  • Pushes for two legislative measures that have NEVER worked anywhere on Earth but if made law will cost Americans MORE THAN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ANNUAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCOME over the next 10 years;
  • Demanded that all stay away from Special Counsel Mueller to guarantee completion of his findings on Russia collusion with the Trump Campaign;
  • Demand now the rejection of the Mueller findings because they are “incomplete;”
  • Are burying members and agencies of this Administration with subpoenas, testimony, and records that are already in the treasure-trove of evidence voluntarily given to Mueller;
  • What else is our government doing? NOTHING!

What’s Really Going On?

What we are watching in D.C. in the House of Representatives is the equivalent of that North Carolina Tar Heel 4-corner stall in which the sole purpose is to bring the game to a screeching whoa: kill time to “run out the clock.” The clock that concerns them is the calendar until 2020’s elections. They are desperate with these parlor tricks masking the REAL reasons for these silly measures: praying that something will mysteriously pop up they can use to legitimately go after Mr. Trump.

Congressman Jerald Nadler (D-NY) is totally committed to destroying Donald Trump. And his commitment is running far ahead of all reason, legality, and any concerns for the citizens of the United States. On his watch the committee he chairs — the House Judiciary Committee — is instead of doing the business of the People, sending out demand after demand, subpoena after subpoena, daily threatening members of the Trump Administration with obstruction charges if they do not comply with his committee’s requests. This is all after exhaustive compliance with subpoenas for records and testimony by the Administration to Robert Mueller over 2 years and $30 million of taxpayer funds: a “Witch Hunt” in the President’s words. I suggest that Mr. Nadler and Democrat House members get after doing the work for which they were elected: Legislation. Find some ways to make America better. What they’re doing now is pure insanity: doing the same things over and over but expecting different results.

Democrats’ only hope is for some mysterious piece of evidence is uncovered that is so egregious that the U.S. cannot in any way reconcile a sitting U.S. president committing such a travesty that they can immediately impeach.

Wait: they can file articles of impeachment right now, can’t they? Absolutely! Nadler’s committee is the ONLY committee that can draft, approve, and then send to the floor of the House for consideration. If the President’s actions are so egregious and if there is real evidence that confirms any illegal actions as Congressmen Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell still maintain they have, why don’t they just go ahead and file the impeachment articles? Honestly, as a law-abiding American, I think THEY are obstructing justice by NOT taking legal action because of the President’s wrongdoing of which they say they have evidence. Why don’t they take action? THERE’S NO THERE THERE!

So what is Congress doing that really matters? Congress is REALLY good at doing two things and only two: 1) assuring their spot in Congress through massive campaign contributions to give them an extreme inside track to re-election, and 2) Spending taxpayer money!

Play

Drums of War

Thankfully, the U.S. stays away from wars. That is unless there seems to be no way out. Yes, I know that the basis for going to Iraq for those proven “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Saddam had turned out to be a bit iffy. Hindsight always being 20/20 indicates that war was probably a mistake — a “probable” mistake that cost 4500 Americans their lives. But that’s a conversation for another day.

The Drums of War have suddenly begun to sound again: this time again in the Middle East. Even as the Obama Administration quietly turned the U.S. into a “cash cow”  by sending $150 Billion to Iran as part of that Iran Peace Deal in an effort to coax the Middle East rogue nation out of their nuclear weapons activities, those drums continued to sound and are getting louder today.

The U.S. has tried many ways to nudge the leaders of Earth’s #1 terrorist power away from conflict. Current National Security Advisor John Bolton sent a mind-boggling message to Iran’s leaders in 2015 when it appeared Iran was preparing to attack American allies. Bolton’s message stated that to stop Iran from bombing, the U.S. should bomb Iran. Thankfully no bombing occurred on either side. But the sparring and rhetoric between both nation’s leaders is continuing and is escalating every day.

Meanwhile, the citizens of both countries are praying that the war stays away. This while American intelligence reports alerted military leaders once more that Iranian attacks may be imminent. The U.S. military has responded to this intelligence by sending an aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean to send Iran a message while getting close just in case Iran starts some type of military conflict.

At Home in Congress

While this is going on, many Americans look on in horror as several members of Congress continue their rhetoric targeted at the greatest ally the U.S. has in that part of the World: the nation of Israel. Last weekend, Palestinians lobbed more than 400 rockets into Israel that killed several Israelis. No one knows for sure if those rockets were actually provided by Iran, but such has happened on multiple previous occasions and experts deem their involvement in this latest incident as “probable.”

Muslim Extremism in the Middle East is once again the probable source of the latest conflict between Muslims and Jewish people. Such conflicts have existed for centuries. The U.S. has always in similar situations sided with Israel. But the new “look” in Congress may signal a change in that policy. This has many Americans concerned as well as are foreign leaders across the globe.

But one Muslim religious leader has decided to take-on these U.S. legislators who have been sending mixed signals regarding U.S. support for Israel.

That Iranian-born Australian Shia Muslim imam, known as the “imam of peace,” called out freshman Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib on Saturday for remaining silent amid that onslaught of Palestinian rocket fire into Israel.

“Remember that time Omar and Tlaib condemned Hamas’ terrorism?” Imam Mohamad Tawhidi tweeted. “Neither do I.”

Tawhidi, who is the president of the Islamic Association of South Australia, was responding to the nearly 600 rockets that have been fired into Israel from across the Gaza border this past weekend. The Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas has already claimed responsibility for three Israeli deaths, according to The Jerusalem Post. Neither Omar nor Tlaib have commented on the attack.

Omar and Tlaib became America’s first Muslim congresswomen when sworn into office in January. Their time in office has been full of allegations of anti-Semitism and anti-American sentiments.

Omar has defended anti-Israeli statements, such as ones invoking Allah to expose Israel’s “evil doings” and faced criticism from both sides of the aisle for promoting age-old anti-Semitic claims such as that Jews’ support of Israel is paid for and that they have dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel.

Tlaib has also received widespread criticism for her ties to anti-Israel and terror-affiliated activists. Pro-Hezbollah, anti-Israel activist Abbas Hamideh attended her swearing-in ceremony and private dinner, and Tlaib hosted in her congressional office Joe Catron, an avowed supporter of multiple Palestinian terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Hezbollah and Hamas.

She is also a member of multiple anti-Semitic social media groups, including the “Palestinian American Congress,” where members frequently demonize Jews and Israel. The founder of the aforementioned Facebook group, Maher Abdel-qader, is a Palestinian activist and was a key fundraiser for Tlaib’s congressional campaign.

Omar and Tlaib both fundraised with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a well-known pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups. The U.S. Department of Justice listed CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding millions of dollars to Hamas. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates named CAIR a terrorist organization along with al-Qaeda and the ISIS in 2014.

Both the Minnesota and Michigan congresswomen deny they are anti-Semitic. However, they promote the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to punish Israel by economically depriving the country for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Anti-Defamation League describes BDS as “the most prominent effort to undermine Israel’s existence.”

Tawhidi has condemned the duo’s anti-Semitism in the past, specifically while visiting the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.

“The American Congress should not be a platform for Islamist members of the American government to preach their hate against the Jewish people,” Tawhidi said in February. “The Jewish people will remain a minority and have remained a minority. If this situation continues then this minority will be persecuted once again and we need to make sure that this never happens.”

“It’s very sad to see what is happening within the American government,” he continued. “People like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, absolute frauds and Islamists, promoting hatred against the Jewish people.”

Is Anything Scarier?

The answer is a resounding “Yes.” We have recent history with war in the Middle East. America learned a lot from both wars in Iraq. And certainly much was learned from the drastic changes in contemporary war in the U.S. struggle with Syria and ISIS. War is different than ever before. It has changed. Yet its devastation and severe costs of human life, social and actual infrastructure, and dollars and cents keep most from testing it as being a logical answer for conflict. But still the strongmen of the World speak freely of war as not just rare possibilities but as near certain probabilities. It’s the same concept as the bully in the schoolyard staking out his territory and power.

But even with U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and drawing the line in front of Iran, the scariest potential war that faces the U.S. is NOT against a foreign foe or even several, it’s a war from within. Yes, the Drums of War that sound the loudest are those marking a second U.S. Civil War.

It’s easy to imagine that a second civil war might proceed like the first: two particular factions with state militaries against each other along specific strategic fronts. Generals would choose a side, those with the most troops and firepower at their disposal would claim victory. The outcome, we imagine, would likely be a winner-take-all restructuring of the United States.

But that’s not really how wars are fought in the 21st century. Indeed, much of the last century was about deconstructing the habits of large-scale, state-driven conventional warfare. As networks distribute power to the edges, warfighting shifts further away from a handful of central forces and towards a web of small actors. Warfare now often comes from ideologically and economically diverse communities whose suffering and fear is preyed upon by stealthy bad guys. They become guerrillas, rebel factions, proxies, and insurgencies. Sometimes they look more like tribal conflicts composed along racial, religious, or economic lines, often on top of crises that push violence to become a necessary solution. But they are rarely simple two-sided conflicts.

To dismiss this possibility here in the U.S. risks missing the signs of coordinated disruption and violence. If we keep thinking in terms of opposed armies, we’ll fail to develop successful strategies for recognizing and containing such a new hybrid type warfare.

For the United States, the shape of future internal conflicts will be as de-centralized. A 21st century homeland conflict would likely be made up of numerous diverse factions organized by digital tools around ideological networks. It would likely be a patchwork of affiliated insurgency groups engaging in light skirmishes along the edges of their networks, mixed with high-value terror attacks against soft and hard targets. Such groups are much smaller than conventional militaries and where they lack in firepower, they replace with ugliness and severity. As in Charlottesville and Berkeley, the fronts are less regional and far more ideological.

Furthermore, digital networks erase the boundaries of the state. Like the Islamic State and al Qaeda, any cell can access the literature, claim allegiance in some distant suburb, and start whipping up violence against their targets. Both Antifa and the Alt-Right are a mix of different groups loosely coupled under their respective brand names with local chapters spread across global networks. These are not top-down hierarchies. They’re stealthy and shapeless with the capacity to grow quickly then disappear.

As an example, consider ISIS. One simply cannot explain the speed and scale at which the Islamic State formed without that network effect. And it can happen again and in the United States.

Just as we risk missing the signs of networked violence, thinking in terms of a classic civil war can blind us to the many actors working to disrupt the U.S. from within and beyond our borders.

Behind the extremists are often additional layers of those who hate the liberty and freedom of the United States: oligarchs, transnational criminal networks, and foreign powers wielding them on both sides towards their strategic goals. We’ve seen this with Russian-backed Facebook groups organizing right wing protests in the U.S., and in the increasing regularity of information warfare originating from adversarial governments. They don’t want or feel the need to invade the U.S. from the outside, but to use these types of networking to attack the U.S. from within using angry and disenfranchised Americans!

With this in mind we can picture what a modern U.S. civil war might look like. More sporadic and unexpected conflicts but with fewer deaths. Factions popping up like mushrooms, taking different forms but coordinated across invisible networks. Waves of information warfare. Chaos and accelerated violence with a healthy immune response from the local and national authorities. The outcome (and probable goal) would likely be a split of the republic into smaller, more manageable alliances, though it may just as easily harden an increasingly unilateral federal government. This is essentially how Russia waged its internal war against Ukraine.

To counter this threat in America it’s critical to establish more formal practices for identifying and tracking domestic extremism — with an honest recognition that young, white males on both ends of the political spectrum are the most likely to commit violence. In doing so there must be inclusion in looking for likely participants from all factions. Likewise, we must formalize intense network analysis to map and track these groups across their digital territories and to identify their backers, funders, and agitators. Finally, there needs to be a very serious conversation about how to regulate Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter as platforms for influence, instigation, propaganda, and recruiting.

For now, America is held in line by the strong rule of law and a good-enough economy that most people still have something to lose by choosing violence. But as our government and corporate leaders continue to attack the rule of law and economic opportunity, the norms deteriorate  and the space for evil spurred by anger becomes bigger.

Are we headed to the second U.S. Civil War? My gut says the likelihood of a second U.S. civil war in the next five years is between 20 and 40 percent but trending upward significantly. And with the vitriol and hatred being spewed daily by the 2 dozen in number and growing Democrat presidential candidates, the possibilities for anger rising to the level of internal war are steadily increasing. God help us!

This 65 year old grandfather of 6 does not want to sit on the sidelines and be forced to pray every day for the safety of my 6 grandsons while they wage war, especially against fellow Americans. War is the direct product of Men and Women who simply refuse to discuss resolutions to differences because of hardness in their hearts. Burying a few teenage children is too great a price to pay for the pride that instigates those deaths. But stopping a civil war is a process that requires mutual agreement. I’m fearful that there aren’t enough people in D.C. that really care to do the right thing in regard to many issues we are dealing with today, yet alone to stop a war.

“Wisdom dictates reasoning, reasoning dictates compromise.” Hopefully that will be the song this in Washington will sing in this circumstance.

 

Play