The Dismantling of the U.S.: Pending

I never thought we in America would ever be discussing the dismantling of our country. Some of us have feared it as being something that might happen — “eventually” — but not in our lifetimes! I think the “eventually” may be upon us.

As quickly as a shooting star, the oppressiveness of totalitarianism that for a century has been secluded to “those countries far away” is creeping today into our political system. There have been warning signs for a good while, but almost all Americans while seeing them, brush them off as being impossible. Impossible is what they should be — but they’re not. Let’s take a look.

  • A group of U.S. Senators sent a warning to the Supreme Court telling the Court that it better change the way it operates — or else. The following was reported about the alert to SCOTUS today: “The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied. ‘The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it is ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

As shocking as this notice was, it’s not unexpected. Think about it: we have been living in an atmosphere for some time in which politicians have been giving us signs that inexorably point to not just their desires, but to their intentions to push the U.S., not just further to the left, but to the far left.

This control spirit existed in the shadows for several decades. Fortunately, champions of freedom like Ronald Reagan kicked the consuming monster of mass control out of sight long enough for a generation of Americans to bask in the light of real freedoms across the board, for a decade or more. But since, steadily and stealthily it has slipped back into everyday U.S. life.

And then Barack Obama promised in 2008 that he would famously lead “the fundamental change of the United States.” And he made good on his promise.

His first term was somewhat limited without control of the entire Congress for a couple of years. But when Democrats gained control, the “transformation” that he promised took off. It was obvious what his fundamental change was planned to look like:

  • To fundamentally transform America from a society where the majority of people live by the sweat of their brows to one where the majority live off the labors of a shrinking productive class.
  • To fundamentally transform America from one where the American dream is a job, home, and family to one where the dream is food stamps, welfare, Obama-phones, and government dependency.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a society that strives, however imperfectly, for color-blind equality to one where race matters in everything from enforcement of voter protection laws to college admissions, to hiring, to school grades and discipline.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a nation that is a beacon for freedom and democracy to one that leads from behind in the world.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in entrepreneurial efforts and free markets to a controlled economy where central planners make economic decisions for you.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a country that rewards success and hard work to one where those who disagree still believe they are entitled to a “fair share” of what those who do have earned.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a country that believes in rugged individualism to a caricature of a European socialist dependency, where citizens all belong to interest groups ever demanding more largess from the government.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a country where our grandkids have a brighter future to one where they will live in poverty and destitution under the yoke of unpayable debts to fund ever-larger vote-buying schemes from leftist interest groups.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a land of plenty to one where the poor cannot drive, heat their homes, or feed their families as they are crushed by energy costs to please environmental interest groups and green crony contributors — like the “Green New Deal” hopers.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a society that strives to eliminate class to one of four classes: wealthy elite liberals, government union bureaucrats, the growing dependent poor, and the shrinking pool of working, productive folk employed in the private sector who are expected to support the other three classes.
  • To fundamentally transform America from a society that believes in and defends our culture and values to one where multiculturalism declares equal respect and value for cultures that hang gay people, mutilate the genitals of young girls, stone women for adultery, execute “witches,” murder apostates, prohibit education of girls, riot violently against free speech if someone offends them, and murder female relatives over trivial affronts to the family’s “honor.”
  • To fundamentally transform America from one where there exists a balance of power between the states and the federal government, and between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, to one in which an all-powerful elitist class rules everything with virtually unlimited power.
  • Let’s don’t forget this one: To fundamentally transform America from one that believed in a life to one where babies are routinely aborted because of their gender or disabilities or just for inconvenience.

Summary

We’ve seen it happen for years. The insistence and embedded practice of ignoring laws at the federal level. Folks, drug possession and recreational use have been illegal — criminal law violations — for years. Yet during the Obama Administration Attorney General Eric Holder instructed federal law enforcement to ignore “minor” drug offenses and its offenders. Illegals continue their journeys to our southern border and their numbers are now in the millions. Yet, it is a federal crime for one — anyone — to cross into the United States without having expressed permission. Yet for decades, federal authorities have — at least in part — turned blind eyes on many of these illegals who do so. And the list of allowed lawlessness goes on and on.

What is the reasoning of federal authorities for doing this? After all, the United States is a “nation of laws.” I could play you videos of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, numerous Senate and House leaders through all of these administrations make speeches confirming the importance and the necessity of the “rule of law.” Yet it’s almost as if they think Americans don’t look-in on how our government acts. Certainly, many Americans don’t pay attention and many don’t care. Maybe it’s because they’re out there working, trying to make good livings for their families. And in doing so, they pay taxes — billions in taxes — that our leaders in Washington who supposedly represent all those Americans find ways to spend not just the taxes we pay, but borrow more and more to spend on additional “necessary” programs. All this while trillions are flushed at the hands of purveyors of special interests that have nothing to do with the support of the American people.

For me, these Democrat Senators have drawn a line in the sand. In effect by doing so they have for political purposes told the U.S. Supreme Court, “You either get your stuff together, start ruling on these controversial cases that come before you in ways that WE think you should, or we’re going to take you to the woodshed.”

That’s Dangerous!

The atmosphere to set up a top-down, bureaucratic, control authority in D.C. to run the nation without the people having any say-so is on the edge of town. And they want it. And they want it desperately.

They’ve been hard at work while good Americans slept doing their busy work as Americans have always done. But these Swamp Rats really don’t care. They smell it, they hunger for it, and their objective is to get power: no matter what it takes.

This is our wakeup call. We need to be vigilant and make ourselves heard. None of us want to be the frog on the stove in a pot of cool water that has the burner turned up very slowly. That frog gets lulled to sleep never thinking he’s in any danger — until it’s too late.

When the water comes to a boil, it’s all over. And in America, these folks have started turning the burner up a little higher every day.

Play

Nadler and Schiff Busted! Nadler Exposed

Today, as promised, we will look closely at the past and present of the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who has released a non-stop barrage of accusations against President Trump on many levels. His attacks have lasted for more than a year. In those attacks, he has accused President Trump of collusion, obstruction of justice, criminal violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, racism, sexism, misogyny, and for being just an all-around horrible person.

Nadler has been joined by many in the Democrat Party, none more vocal than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who has — in addition to his echoes of Nadler’s allegations of the President — claimed non-stop for more than a year that he has uncontroverted proof already of Trump’s multiple acts of obstruction of justice.

We will complete today’s story with the promised information hiding in plain sight about Rep. Nadler. But let’s begin by looking at all these allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia in 2016.

Collusion

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many alleged potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.

Adam Schiff KNOWS Trump is guilty — PERIOD!

“The Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton in writing and sent it to [Donald Trump Jr.],” Schiff stated. “And Don Jr.’s response was in writing and said, ‘As for your offer of foreign illegal help, I would love it.’ He accepted the offer.”

Noting that Team Trump later lied about the meeting and that represented the “personification of collusion,” Schiff added that Mueller had a different question—whether he could prove the crime of conspiracy.

“And as you know, well before the Mueller report, I was pointing out to the public, there is a difference between what we understand is collusion and whether you can prove all the elements of crime,” he said.

Schiff didn’t stop there. Even after the Mueller Report was released and Special Counsel Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and even in answering continual committee questions from Democrats on the alleged Trump crimes and Mueller’s testimony that did NOT formally or informally indict Trump, Schiff doubled down on his “knowledge” of Trump wrongdoing.

Before we summarize and give you the information we uncovered on Nadler, it’s important to emphasize to you the following:

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort have been given.

Remember that while listening to this short interview that Schiff believed was with Russian officials but were on-air radio announcers in the U.S. tricking Schiff. But participating in this interview, Schiff actually committed the exact same acts that he has continually accused Donald Trump Jr. committing, calling them Obstruction of Justice! (THIS AUDIO OF THE SCHIFF RADIO INTERVIEW CAN BE HEARD ONLY ON THE PODCAST)

First, by even taking this phone call from someone Schiff THOUGHT were Russians, he has committed exactly what he accused Don Jr. of doing talking with an accepting a meeting in that famous Trump Tower meeting. Secondly, he accepted their offer of sending to Schiff the “fake” proof of Trump collusion.

According to Schiff’s own words, he was guilty of the same crime he has alleged of Trump!

Jerrold Nadler

Nadler has never seen a camera he didn’t like, a microphone that he did not “know” was specifically for him, and never shunned participating in an interview to bash the President. But Nadler forgets about the documentation of EVERYTHING official committed by members of the federal government — including the Congressional Record.

The same man who once showed clear favoritism for President Clinton, an admitted perjurer, is now hellbent on continuing the witch hunt against President Trump despite the fact that Trump has been cleared by the special counsel. Will the hypocrisy never end with this man?

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Nadler made veiled threats, innuendos, and salacious accusations against President Trump that have since been disproven. “When the full scope of the president’s misconduct has been revealed, when his lies are debunked and his abuses have been laid bare, I believe that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will draft legislation to curb the worst of his offenses,” he wrote. “Put another way: If President Trump’s behavior wasn’t criminal, then perhaps it should have been.”

When the shoe was on the other foot, and Clinton had actually committed a crime, Nadler did his best to cover for him. Now that the fake collusion allegations against President Clinton have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the special counsel, he’s looking for crimes that “should have been.”

Nadler was a young Congressmen during the Clinton White House years. He was there during the impeachment proceedings against President Trump. He voraciously stood with the President defending him against impeachment proceedings and blasting Republicans for taking any actions. What justification did the junior New York Congressman give for his insistence to NOT impeach Mr. Clinton? The exact same things he himself is using in his current demands to impeach Donald Trump!

Don’t take our word for it. Let’s go to the official record: Rep. Nadler’s actual speech before Congress. His speech is lengthy, so we will not put the entire speech in this story. Below in bullet points, we share the salient points of his contentions that will shock all, especially in light of his current rants against the President.

Nadler’s Speech before the House of Representatives regarding Bill Conton’s Impeachement: December 18, 1998

  • “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people.

  • There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.

  • Some members of the House may think the people have chosen badly, but it is the people’s choice and we must respect it absent a threat to our democracy that would justify overturning the repeated expression of their will at the ballot box. Members of Congress have no right to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent that compelling case.

  • This House is not a grand jury. To impeach the President would subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months while the problems of Social Security, Medicare, a deteriorating world economy, and all our foreign concerns festered without proper attention. We cannot simply punt the duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere ‘‘probable cause’’ that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of an ‘‘independent’’ counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include exculpatory evidence, and consistently misstated the law.

  • Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law — to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen, whether or not he is impeached. And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third President in U.S. history, and the first since 1848, to be censured by the Congress. But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as a punishment for a President.

  • The case is not there — there is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the Senate. To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this House to the condemnation of history for generations to come.

  • The American people are watching, and they won’t forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but you lack the legitimacy of a national consensus and the Constitution. This partisan coup d’etat will go down in the history of this nation in infamy.”

Summary

What is most amazing to me and many other conservatives is that these Democrats who control the House believe they can lie, again and again, misrepresent acts committed by others they label as “illegal” while doing the same things themselves with impunity, and misrepresent the laws of the United States. What else? They categorically are doing their very best to remove a President that was duly and legally elected by the People of the United States!

This is an egregious moment in American history. If allowed to fulfill this travesty, it will destroy our election system, our trust in government, and send the nation back to the political environment in which it was first birthed — 250 years behind where we are today.

Do you know what’s saddest? They’re doing this with the deference if not full support of millions of Democrats who refuse to ferret out the truth for themselves. And these members of Congress are lying to their followers with no consideration for the Rule of Law, the Constitution, the will of the American voters, all the while trampling on the Truth.

Jerrold Nadler MUST be removed from the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. Adam Schiff MUST be removed fro the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. And Americans who voted constitutionally and elected Donald Trump President of the United States MUST have their will rule over a group of tyrants who have been for 2.5 years attempting what is literally a coup to overthrow the presidency put in place not by members of Congress, but by millions of voters who those in Congress work for.

Wake up America. Or get ready for REAL Mob Rule.

Play

The Federal Government Breaking the Law

It happens every day: someone in federal government arbitrarily assumes the responsibility and authority to ignore lawbreaking of every kind. Whether that lawbreaking is the selling or using marijuana, (which doing so is a federal offense) crossing American borders without legal authority, passing along classified government information and/or documents to a media organization, or using open source or unsecured computer or other electronic devices for the dissemination of classified information, each is a violation of a federal law. Apparently, these acts and others are committed daily across the U.S. Yet more often than not, these criminal acts are ignored by authorities.

What has happened to the enforcement of Law in the United States? Aren’t we a nation established on the premise that the United States Constitution was and is a template on which government was established and to function — especially regarding the enforcement of ALL laws passed according to the Constitutional process for doing so? Isn’t that process called “The Rule of Law?”

Rule of Law

In its simplest form, the “Rule of Law” means that “no one is above the law.” It is the foundation for the development of peaceful, equitable and prosperous societies. For the rule of law to be effective, there must be equality under the law, transparency of law, an independent judiciary and access to legal remedy. Yet, about 57% of the world’s population lives outside the shelter of the law. That’s five billion people struggling for basic, human rights on a daily basis.

American citizens and all those who come into our country have access to that “Rule of Law,” even those who cross into the United States illegally. That’s something of a paradox, but it’s true: once here every person Constitutionally is granted certain rights and must adhere to U.S. law.

The rule of law is a critical key to a just society and democracy. It dictates that laws of the land be transparent, known to everyone and applicable to all. No one, regardless of title, position or wealth can be held above the law and government decisions must be predictable because they follow known legal principles and encoded rules known as “laws.”

For most of the 19th century, America was far ahead of the rest of the world in its consistent and thorough efforts to adhere to the rule of law and strive toward equal opportunity for its citizens regardless of class, wealth or title. While politicians and individuals acting in self-interest have frequently violated this key principle (seems to be human nature for some), historically the courts were able to correct back to founding principles. If applying the law of the land results in an amazingly unfair or unjust outcome in a particular set of facts, courts are able to restore balance and respect for the rule of law through the principles of equity.

The “Rub” for Most Americans

What’s the complaint from average Americans about the Law? It’s not enforced equally or it’s not enforced at all!

How many specific instances can you name where lawbreakers — primarily at the federal level — are caught “in the act” but pay NO penalty for their crimes? Can you name a few?

  1. James Comey: fired FBI Director. He transferred classified documents to a member of the media for the express purpose of releasing that information to the public — a felony violation of a federal statute. Comey also lied under oath to Congress which is also a criminal violation.
  2. Hillary Clinton: Ms. Clinton broke multiple laws surrounding her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. First, that server was never tested nor certified by State Department IT personnel to operate for the purpose of sending and receiving emails containing classified information. Subsequent to the FBI’s investigation, Clinton sent numerous emails from that server that the FBI concluded were intercepted and forwarded to a foreign server belonging to an unknown person or persons — all illegal. Her illegal acts did not end there. She or others with her directions destroyed cell phones and other electronic devices that had been used for government business instead of turning those over to authorities.
  3. President Obama: while President, Obama communicated via emails with then-Secretary of State Clinton while knowing he was doing so via her illegal and unauthorized server. The President used a made-up Gmail email account he opened with no one knowing about. All communications of any kind by or with a U.S. President are by law considered “classified.” His doing so violated several federal statutes.
  4. Former NSA Adviser Susan Rice: Ms. Rice using her position in the White House authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to release the names of Trump Associates who were caughtup in communications with foreigners. The NSA legally keeps the names of Americans classified in such circumstances. Rice was discovered giving those names to others. She is the one who (through surveilled telephone conversations) released information regarding General Michael Flynn.

When Americans see and hear the obvious illegal acts committed by those in the highest echelons of U.S. government, it is at least disheartening to know (as an example) ALL four of the above politicians that includes a U.S. president are apparently above the Rule of Law!

A member of the U.S. Navy, Kristian Saucier, 28, of Arlington, Vermont, was convicted of taking photos of classified spaces, instruments and equipment inside the U.S.S. Alexandria, where he was stationed. He sent the photos to show friends where he worked. Those photos were classified. Based on THAT prosecution and his one criminal act, Comey, Clinton, Obama, and Susan Rice should ALL certainly be in prison after being tried and then certain conviction of breaking multiple very serious federal charge and all in federal prison! They would then be receiving (along with Saucier) “Equal Justice Under the Law.”
So why doesn’t this happen? Why are powerful political elites in America give preferential treatment?
  • How does a former U.S. Senator, then Secretary of State and a candidate for President skate by with thumbing her nose at the Rule of Law and accountability for her illegal acts?
  • How does an FBI Director release classified information to the Media and not even be charged for federal law violations?
  • How does a National Security Adviser unilaterally and illegally unmask the name of an American general for the express purpose of digging up dirt on a political candidate?
  • How does a sitting President of the United States over a period of years transfer and receive classified information to his Secretary of State on a non-classified and non-secured email server that transferred every one of his emails to some unknown entity in an unknown foreign country?

How did each do it? In each case there has been NO ACCOUNTABILITY for their acts.

In this short video, notice the fake outrage and demonization by James Comey of Donald Trump, all the while knowing Comey himself had and was breaking numerous laws:

The Rule of Law, Not a Rule of Lawyers

The rule of written law is one of the six pillars of the American republic.

  • One is democracy: We involve the greatest number of people in making government decisions, rather than trust in an elite of “experts.”
  • The second is free markets: We involve the greatest number of people in making economic decisions, rather than trust in central planners.
  • The third is federalism: We put government decisions closer to the people in order to involve a more diverse set of decision-makers who can experiment with different paths for different communities’ needs.
  • The fourth is tradition: We invoke the wisdom of the larger sample of multiple generations by trial and error on matters of common human experience rather than rely on the more limited number of people alive at a particular time.
  • The fifth, which ties together democracy, federalism, and tradition, is deliberation: We have a republic, not a pure democracy, so that government decisions are not the process of hasty panics but are openly debated and resolved with support that is deep, geographically wide, and enduring over a series of elections, so that continuing to enforce today’s laws tomorrow has legitimacy.
  • And sixth, without which the other five are powerless, we have the stable rule of written law so that the democratically enacted decisions reduced to written law by the representatives of the people with due deliberation are honored until overturned by the same process and not easily discarded by a narrow professional elite.

This is not the system designed by Washington, or Jefferson, or Adams, or Hamilton, or Madison, or Franklin, or any of the other Founding Fathers; it’s the system designed by deliberate compromises among all of them, ratified by the people of their day, and changed repeatedly since by the people of the U.S. when the need for changes became apparent. Taken all together, the American system is designed to follow a path down the middle between the self-absorbed elites in Washington and the self-interests of a sometimes dis-enfranchised group of middle-Americans who occasionally act as a populist mob. It is also designed to steer a middle path between the “ancient” rule of the past and the fickle moods of today. The people remain sovereign and can change any law they like — if they act in large enough numbers over a broad enough area across a sustained period of time.

The PEOPLE as represented by the 535 representatives sent to represent each community, district and state have the Constitutional right to change the law in the manner dictated by the U.S. Constitution. But NO ONE has the right to ignore or unilaterally change enforcement of any duly passed law — PERIOD. Least of all are the members of Government.

Play

Pelosi Family: BIG Money Corruption! Part 2

We’re unearthing Pelosi family “questionable” financial dealings that have to do with Speaker Pelosi’s favoritism on the part of those of special interest to her. They often have included her husband, brother-in-law, and very connected political donors. Nancy learned the political process of corruption and watched it work as a girl.

You may not have known this, but when she was younger she was “the mayor’s daughter.” Nancy Pelosi’s father Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. allegedly was a “constant companion” of notorious mobster Benjamin “Benny Trotta” Magliano and other underworld figures during his political years in Baltimore, MD. D’Alesandro was a Congressman for five terms from 1938 to 1947, and Baltimore mayor for three terms from 1947 to 1959. Magliano was identified by the FBI as one of Baltimore’s “top hoodlums,” and he widely was acknowledged as the representative for New York’s Frankie Carbo who made his bones with Murder, Inc. and later became a made guy in the Lucchese family. The allegations are included in D’Alesandro’s recently-released FBI files.

Nancy’s Dad was not the only member of her immediate family who had legal issues. During the summer of 1953, Nancy’s brother, Franklin D’Alesandro, aged twenty, was one of fourteen youths charged with having committed rape of two girls, aged eleven and thirteen, during July of that year. It was reported that Franklin D’Alesandro was the only one of twelve of those tried at that time who was successful in obtaining an acquittal.

A February 27, 1961, FBI memo states that “the consensus of opinion among persons connected with law enforcement that  D’Alesandro (Nancy’s brother) was acquitted of rape because of the brilliant fashion the way his case was handled by his defense attorney.” D’Alesandro was represented by Joseph Sherbow who managed to sever his client from the other defendants and ensured his trial went first so any convictions against the others would not prejudice him. Apparently, D’Alesandro (the “elder”) believed that his son was guilty of the charge, and prior to trial urged him to plead guilty and “take his medicine.”

Nancy grew up quickly in politics learning from one of the all-time best movers and shakers in politics: her father. And she’s developed it into an art. And she uses it prolifically — especially ingratiating family members and close political allies with “business opportunities.”

Yesterday we talked extensively about her husband Paul and his real estate dealings that have netted the pair tens of millions of dollars since the early part of this century. And those real estate ventures are still paying dividends as well as garnering Nancy huge campaign contributions. Let’s look at other financial dealings that have been purposely kept below the Media radar screen.

Green Energy

“Green Energy” has for more than a decade been the buzz in industry that has attracted constant attention and taxpayer dollars from Washington. One of the reasons for its luster is the ability to easily justify taxpayer grants and loan guarantees to startup Green Energy companies to “assist” the U.S. to — through the private sector — quickly head down the path toward energy independence, but, more importantly, “renewable” green energy independence. The Obama Administration saw that opportunity with an open cash register in mind. And the 44th president certainly opened that cash register that started full of taxpayer dollars and loan guarantees that were doled out emptying the taxpayer cash register indiscriminately to Silicon Valley companies in obscene amounts.

I was in San Jose on business several years ago and drove by a very large building right on the side of the freeway. On it was emblazoned a sign with “Solyndra” proudly displayed for all to see. After all, Solyndra was an Obama federal government and American taxpayer subsidized miracle company. Solyndra WAS subsidized, but Solyndra was far from a miracle.

Deep in the mire of the nearly $1 billion obligations to American taxpayers for Solyndra was another Pelosi family member. Let’s look.

Solyndra

Solyndra, which manufactured unique solar panels based on cylindrical cells that didn’t require silicon, was once a burgeoning clean energy superstar, attracting more than $1 billion from private investors. In 2009, the Obama administration approved a $535 million loan guarantee that helped the company build a new factory in Fremont, Calif. It became a poster child for the president’s stimulus efforts. But in August 2011, the factory suddenly closed, and by September the company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Nancy Pelosi had no direct involvement in the Solyndra loan guarantee, although she side-stepped the normal House budget examination process for all entities seeking federal loan guarantees.

It went downhill in the green energy federal loan business after the Solyndra horror.

Next?

Under Obama, the Department of Energy approved $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies — including a $737 million loan guarantee to a company known as SolarReserve:

Despite the knowledge that Solyndra was tanking, then-Minority Leader Pelosi’s brother-in-law, second in command at the energy investment firm backing the project, somehow secured government funding for the SolarReserve project. PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC, listed as one of the investors in the project was given the staggering loan, which even dwarfs that given to failed company Solyndra. The project was expected to generate enough electricity to power 43,000 homes. That’s it. Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the loan just two days after the doomed $535 million Solyndra disaster was scheduled for completion.

On SolarReserve’s website is a list of “investment partners,” including the “PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC.” As blogger American Glob quickly discovered, PCG’s number two is none other than “Ronald Pelosi, a San Francisco political insider and financial industry polymath who happens to be the brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, then was Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives.”

But wait… there’s more! One of SolarReserve’s other investment partners is Argonaut Private Equity:

“Steve Mitchell and Argonaut Private Equity might have a chance to recoup some of their losses in the Solyndra debacle now that the Department of Energy has given a $737 million dollar loan guarantee to a company backed by Argonaut that also lists Mitchell among its board of directors. Mitchell served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors. He also serves as Managing Director for Argonaut Private Equity, a company that invested in Solyndra through the LLCs parent company. After Solyndra declared bankruptcy, two Democratic members of the U.S. House asked that Mitchell testify about Solyndra. Though he has not appeared before Congress, he has “been asked to provide documents to Congress” pertaining to Solyndra.

At the time, Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns, then-chairman of the investigations subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce warned:

“The administration’s flagship project Solyndra is bankrupt and being investigated by the FBI, the promised jobs never materialized, and now the Department of Energy is preparing to rush out nearly $5 billion in loans in the final 48 hours before stimulus funds expire — that’s nearly $105 million every hour that must be finalized until the deadline.”

Despite the warnings, Energy Secretary Chu said the projects would create 900 construction jobs and, get ready for this, trumpets, please… 52 permanent jobs. Whoopie!

All told, Obama era expenditures, first put in place by Speaker Pelosi, who did away with the usual budgetary process, exceeded revenues by more than $1 Trillion each year. This became the baseline for unquestioned omnibus spending packages that subsequent Republican Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan refused to reign in. This allowed politicians on both sides of the aisle to grow rich, while our children were saddled with a debt burden from which they are not likely to escape.

There’s a reason Nancy Pelosi has a net worth ranging from $120-185 million. She more than likely earned her money the old fashioned way: by stealing it from taxpayers. It’s the same reason Democrats are lining up behind the Green New Deal that reads like a Republican parody of a Democrat program. Now put the “Green New Deal” in perspective. If the Beltway elites grew rich by spending $4 trillion dollars each year, imagine how much can they believe they can skim from doubling or tripling those expenditures.
Asking for a friend.

Pelosi Help From Obama

As the Obama White House rejected charges that the Obama administration was motivated by politics in its decisions on green energy loans, scrutiny increased over the preference given to Democratic donors seeking federal loans. 2011 emails suggested that politics did play a role in administration decisions regarding its energy loan guarantee programs. But beyond the timing of political announcements, the Solyndra investigation churned up questions about the White House’s overall strategy of doling out taxpayer money. The rolls of green energy subsidies show that beyond a few headline-grabbing cases, several well-connected Democrats obtained taxpayer assistance for environmentally friendly projects.

Among the recipients are:

— Solyndra, which received $535 million in loan guarantees and whose chief investor was the George Kaiser Family Foundation. George Kaiser was an Obama campaign bundler.

— Brightsource Energy, which received $1.6 billion and whose senior adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr., an early Obama backer;

— Solar Reserve, which got a $737 million loan, and whose major investor is a company run by Michael Froman, who was a deputy assistant to the president. Froman bundled up to $500,000 for the president’s 2008 campaign;

— Granite Reliable Wind Generation, which received a $168.9 million loan. The company’s majority owner is a firm formerly led by Nancy Ann DeParle, who became  an Obama White House deputy chief of staff and former head of the president’s health care communications team during the reform debate; and

— Abound Solar, which received a loan guarantee worth $400 million. A key investor is billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, who gave $87,000 to Obama’s inauguration committee, and hundreds of thousands more to Democratic causes.

Peter Schweizer, author of the book, “Throw Them All Out,” wrote that at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers took money from administration loan programs.

Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to an audit that suggested the controversial projects would not pay for themselves, as officials had promised.

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration approved and were implemented, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in an audit.

It’s increasingly hard to tell the government’s green jobs subsidies apart from the Democrats’ friends and family rewards program. Funny that Democrats scream that Saudi’s renting out an entire floor of a Trump hotel is an untenable emolument.

What Is Nancy’s Net Worth?

Nancy Pelosi dodged a question from a woman at a town hall event last year regarding the lawmaker’s net worth as Pelosi criticized the GOP tax reform law and the federal budget.

“God never intended one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth while others live in abject deadening poverty,” Pelosi said at the Phoenix, Ariz. event, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., according to a video shared by the Republican National Committee.

Shortly thereafter, a woman from the crowd raised her voice and asked, “How much are you worth, Nancy? Are you in abject poverty?” the woman added.

“We’re not talking about that,” Pelosi said, noting that she has five grown children and can speak “louder than anybody.” Pelosi is considered one of the wealthiest members of Congress and her net worth is estimated to be approximately $143 million.

As House Speaker, Pelosi makes $193,000 a year. We have yesterday and today listed several examples of how the longtime Congresswoman from California has parlayed her personal and business relationships and those of her husband into an amazing net worth — not just for her and her immediate family, but for relatives and even close friends.

What worries many is not that the Speaker (or any other member of Congress, for that matter) is wealthy, it’s that almost to a person they enter Congress with a pile of campaign debt, they make $170,000 or so a year, and live in one of the nation’s most costly cities while maintaining a residence back home in their district for their families. They do all this and somehow become millionaires.

Americans see that and wonder how that happens.

You now know how it happens.

There are unwritten rules for those who enter Congress. They go like this:

  • Take a seat, listen and learn;
  • Don’t question power. Don’t question how party leaders function. Don’t question the rules of Congress;
  • When you’ve proven you are a true part of our party and that you’ll do as told, you’ll begin to get good committee appointments. When that happens you’ll have financial doors open that you never knew existed. And you’ll be able to take advantage of those;
  • Keep your mouth shut about those opportunities. We do not discuss family business outside the family;
  • Democrats and Republicans alike have the same opportunities. We only push so hard against members of the “other side.” Why? They’ll win power and be in control. We do not want to upset these opportunities for them so that when they regain control, they’ll treat us the same;
  • Make certain you always take care of those who put you in the places for you to take advantage of these opportunities. “What goes around comes around;”
  • Never go outside the Congressional family to discuss any of the things you see and hear within our party;
  • If you make a habit of breaking these rules we’ll see to it you are kicked to the curb and sent home. A Representative only has two years, a Senator six. But each of those can be shortened if the Party chooses.

Financial rewards are for sale. What’s the price? Total Compliance.

Play

Pelosi Family BIG Money: Corruption!

It’s curious that members of Congress who live and work in one of the most expensive U.S. cities and make $170,000 a year in pay seem to fight for that job. We’re told by their frequent motions for personal pay increases they cannot afford to work and live in D.C. And they expect us to bow and thank them for their working for government sacrifice for Americans. Yeah, Right!

They all start at the same salary, and they almost all end their Congressional careers as multi-millionaires. 

Their secret? Job “fringe benefits.”

Let’s look at how just one member of the House of Representatives “brings home the bacon:” Nancy Pelosi.

The “Family”

Nancy Pelosi married into bucks. She came from bucks herself. But none of those “bucks” amounted to near what the Pelosi family is worth today. And Nancy opened the door to those big dollars — maybe ALL legally. After all, it seems that Congress is the place to go if one wants to become powerful and enjoy all the perks that go with that job in Congress.

Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of wonderful and honest people who are serving the nation and their constituents honestly in Congress. Then there are plenty of others who maybe don’t cross the line when it comes to the Law, but they certainly get as close to the line as they can without stepping over.

I’ll put Speaker Pelosi in the latter. How so?

Before becoming Speaker, Nancy steered more than a billion dollars in subsidies to a light rail project that benefitted a company run by a high-dollar Democratic donor and in which her husband is a major investor. When cloud computing giant Salesforce sold a large plot of land to the Golden State Warriors, it had House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to thank for helping to swell real estate prices in the area.

Pelosi worked for more than a decade to steer taxpayer funds to a light rail project in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood, where Salesforce had planned a new campus. Experts say the project boosted the value of Mission Bay real estate. The company’s CEO, Marc Benioff, is a high-dollar Democratic donor. Pelosi and her leadership PAC are among the recipients of his generous campaign contributions. Pelosi’s husband is also a major Salesforce investor. Pelosi’s tireless advocacy for federal support for San Francisco’s light rail system has come under scrutiny for potentially enriching another liberal billionaire, hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. (Does that name sound familiar? Like, in the impeachment of Donald Trump)

In Salesforce’s case, Pelosi’s work appears to have financially benefitted not just a Democratic mega-donor, but also a company in which Pelosi’s direct family owns a large stake as well as valuable real estate holdings in her husband’s portfolio. Salesforce paid $278 million for 14 acres in Mission Bay in 2010. It bought the land from a group called Alexandria Real Estate Equities, which had purchased it from FOCIL-MB, a division of Democratic financier Tom Steyer’s hedge fund. The exact dollar figure of its sale to the Warriors was not released. “We paid a very pretty penny,” the team’s co-owner said.

Real estate values in Mission Bay have skyrocketed over the past decade as the city works to transform the former industrial neighborhood. “From a decrepit and seemingly abandoned old rail yard 15 years ago, Mission Bay has sprouted into San Francisco’s fastest-growing neighborhood,” the San Francisco Business Times reported. San Francisco real estate is some of the most expensive in the nation, and Mission Bay has seen some of the fastest-growing property values in the city in recent years.

Contributing to that rise has been the expansion of the city’s Third Street Light Rail line. Studies on the financial effects of public transit projects, including one that looked specifically at the Third Street expansion, have found that they increase property values in surrounding areas. Pelosi has been the expansion’s champion at the federal level. Starting in 2003 and since, she has secured well over a billion dollars for the project in the form of earmarks, federal funding agreements, and stimulus disbursements. That work has come under scrutiny since it was revealed that Farallon was a major landholder in Mission Bay as Pelosi, a recipient of Steyer campaign contributions and an ally of the billionaire environmentalist, steered taxpayer money to the light rail extension.

A 2004 real estate deal gave Farallon ownership of roughly two million square feet of commercial space in Mission Bay. Salesforce’s planned campus in the area was a bit smaller but still significant: according to documents submitted to the San Francisco Planning Department, its four buildings would have comprised nearly 1.5 million square feet. An increase in the value of Salesforce’s real estate from 2010 to its sale would mean a financial gain for the company and its investors, one of whom is Pelosi’s husband. According to her most recent personal financial disclosures, filed in May of this year, Paul Pelosi owns a stake in Salesforce worth between $500,000 and $1 million. Pelosi first invested in the company in 2000, when he purchased between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock. According to financial news service Motley Fool, “Pelosi seems to have acquired shares in a private offering” prior to the company’s 2004 initial public offering. Its stock has soared since then. It debuted at $3.75 a share on June 23, 2004. As of last Thursday, July 18, 2019, it was trading near $153!

Does that sound at all to you like a bit of a conflict of interest? The Democratic leader’s investments in companies with business before the House came under intense scrutiny in 2011 and 2012 when Congress debated measures governing “insider trading” by members of Congress. An eventual law imposing stricter regulations on members’ financial activities even included language informally dubbed the “Pelosi provision” due to her and her husband’s participation in IPOs of companies actively lobbying for or against federal legislation.

Much of the information and Pelosi’s and other members’ “insider trading” came to light in Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer’s book Throw Them All Out, which investigated cronyism and self-serving financial deals by members of Congress. In addition to his reporting on Pelosi’s IPO participation, Schweizer revealed that her husband owns property in San Francisco that will likely benefit from the Third Street light rail extension. Two stops on the extended light rail line are about three blocks from a four-story office building owned by Paul Pelosi. According to disclosure forms, the property, at 45 Belden Place, is worth between $1 million and $5 million. He made between $100,000 and $1 million in rent from the property last year.

“The National Association of Realtors says that high-quality mass transit (like [the Third Street light rail]) can increase property values by ‘over 150 percent,’” Schweizer noted. “There’s a sweet spot for obtaining the maximum transit premium: two to four blocks away is ideal.”

That was roughly the distance from Salesforce’s planned campus to a Mission Bay stop on the light rail line as well.

In addition to the potential financial benefits of that “transit premium” for investors such as Pelosi, the light rail extension worked to the advantage of Salesforce itself. The company, which would not say whether it realized a gain on its sale to the Warriors, is aided financially by several high-dollar Democratic donors.

CEO Marc Benioff bundled half-a-million dollars for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. He donated an additional $300,000 to Democratic candidates according to data compiled by CQ Moneyline. Benioff is more bipartisan in his contributions than many prominent Obama supporters, but his Democratic donations dwarf the $62,000 he’s given to Republicans. One of Benioff contributions before the 2012 election was Pelosi, to whom the Salesforce CEO maxed out with two $2,500 payments. He gave another $5,000 to Pelosi’s leadership PAC and $15,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee the same day.

Those contributions came just four months after Pelosi secured $967 million in federal funding for the Third Street light rail project.

Summary

This all sounds amazingly secretive and certainly disingenuous. Think about it: those who work for us and have the exclusive right to craft and implement every federal law in existence are very obviously stretching the parameters of their own regulations — like “conflict of interest” — to personally enrich themselves using that power. All the while they are preaching to Americans the government needs more and more tax revenue to “take care of the business and personal needs of ALL Americans.”

Don’t think this story is complete. There are several more instances of Pelosi led financial wrongdoing that we have uncovered. We’re going to come back to you with one you’ve heard of on a broader scale, but I bet you didn’t know Pelosi and her family were right in the middle of it. Do you remember that $792 Billion Obama stimulus? It was actually called  the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” It should have been called instead the “American 2009 Porkulous Investment Act for Political Elites.” (Yes, I invented the word Porkulous)

By the way, it probably comes as no surprise to you that we reached out to the House Speaker’s office for comment on this story — four phone calls over two weeks and no response. Are you shocked!?

The meat of the exposed Pelosi conflicts is far too extensive to restrict to this one story. We’ll have a second part tomorrow. If you think today’s story was a really deep narrative about things that most Americans have expected for decades but had never been revealed, wait until you see Part II of this! It’s worse. Don’t miss it!

Play

Stock Market “Only Rich People:” Want the Truth?

We hear it every day from President Trump: the stock market is at its highest value ever. The stock market continues to climb to record levels with stock prices soaring and those who own those stocks are making millions in the market. But then we see headlines like these:

“The Top 10% Own 80% of the Stock Market,” “The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks,” and “Dow Hits 21,000, Trump Touts StockMarket Success.” I’m certain it comes as no surprise to you that the experts stood in line in the Fall of 2016 making horrific predictions of what the election of Donald Trump would turn United States economics into if he were to be elected.

It might come as a surprise to you that these numbers are NOT factual. (Who would think Mainstream Media would report to Americans fake news?) Let’s look at some “Dire predictions” and actual stock market results. Then will tell you who really invest in markets — and it ain’t just the Rich!

Predictions: Experts Aren’t Always Right

Remember the dire predictions from stock market experts during the 2016 campaign warning us all that the Stock Market would tank if Donald Trump won the White House? Actual REAL experts jumped into the fray with everything they had, foretelling the Trump gloom and doom:

  • Mark Cuban. “I can say with 100 percent certainty that there is a really good chance we could see a huge, huge correction,” Cuban told CNN. “That uncertainty potentially as the president of the United States — that’s the last thing Wall Street wants to hear.”
  • Erik Jones. “You would see incredible pressure on stock prices if Trump wins and everyone flooding into rare metals like gold and into bonds” in the U.S., Germany and the United Kingdom, Erik Jones, professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, told Politico’s Ben White.
  • Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz. “Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%,” University of Michigan professor Wolfers and Dartmouth professor Zitzewitz wrote in a report that supposedly scientifically forecast the market’s reaction to Trump’s victory
  • Andrew Ross Sorkin. The New York Times columnist and CNBC anchor wrote: “In all likelihood, a Trump victory would lead to a swift, knee-jerk sell-off. Many investors will choose to sell stocks and ask questions later.” In fairness to Sorkin he hedged his belief in the sell-off by writing: In truth, it’s impossible to predict how the markets would settle into a Trump presidency, despite the speculation on all sides. In all likelihood, it will take time for investors to truly make sense and “math out” how his policies would affect the economy.
  • Lawrence G. McDonald of ACG Analytics hedged also, predicting a massive sell-off followed by a relief rally. “Trump will create a colossal panic, but the relief rally will be outstanding,” he told Sorkin. Well, he got the rally right, anyway.
  • Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-founder of a leading economics blog, The Baseline Scenario had perhaps the most panicked reaction, in keeping with his status as America’s most authoritative economists. “With the United States’ presidential election on November 8, and a series of elections and other political decisions fast approaching in Europe, now is a good time to ask whether the global economy is in good enough shape to withstand another major negative shock. The answer, unfortunately, is that growth and employment around the world look fragile. A big adverse surprise – like the election of Donald Trump in the US – would likely cause the stock market to crash and plunge the world into recession,” Johnson wrote on October 29, 2016.
  • Ian Winer, Bridgewater Associates, Tobia Levkovich, Macroeconomics Advisors are all proven stock market experts who each projected dire economic happenings in U.S. and World financial markets if Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Would you like the “Rest of the Story?” Here are the results that ALL of the experts failed miserably to predict that certainly cost many Americans opportunities to pocket huge stock market profits:

Dow Close 11/7/2016: 17,888.28
Dow Close 7/18/2019: 27,222.97

In the midst of all the pessimistic projections by the above experts and many others, let’s compare the Dow numbers close the day before the 2016 election with today’s numbers. I’ll warn you: They’re not quite what the experts told Americans the results of a Trump victory would look like. Trump’s election instigated a Dow Jones increase of 9334.69 points or 52.2%.

How does that interpret into real dollars? a $50,000 investment in the market the day before the election — 11/7/2016 — would be worth $76,000 on 7/18/2019.

With all of this success the U.S. stock market has had, why is it only the rich and super-rich in the United States that can invest in stock markets? After all, 2020 presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Joe Biden, and others have made demeaning all those rich white millionaires and billionaires a fundamental in their campaigns. It’s just not fair! They have presented to Americans multiple promises to make multiple important parts of Americans’ lives free: free college, free healthcare, government payoff of all college tuition loans. Free, Free, Free!

How can the government pay for all of these programs? Simple: just tax those super-rich Americans who get richer and richer simply by having investments in the stock market.

Guess what: that will not work. The super-rich collectively don’t make enough money that if all was confiscated by the federal government would pay for these programs. Besides that, the money pot to which those billionaires owe their financial success to — the stock market — is NOT a party-place of the super-wealthy. What 2020 Democrat candidates are preaching to America about the stock market and the evil rich is not the truth! The wealthy don’t fly solo when it comes to stock market investing. There are others who benefit from market investments if not to the same level as the wealthy stockholders, almost the same.

So If Not Just Millionaires Who Invests in Stocks?

In 2018, 55 percent of adults in the United States invested in the stock market. While that is a slight increase from the last two years, it remains below the levels before the Financial Crisis, having peaked at 65 percent in 2007.

It’s easy to think that the stock market is the playground of hedge funds and day traders, but in reality, most of the stock market is owned by the average joe. In fact, the largest chunk is doing one thing: helping people retire. In a white paper, Steven Rosenthal and Lydia Austin of the Tax Policy Center have broken out exactly which kind of investors own the stock market. They found that a majority of corporate stock is owned by different types of retirement plans, the largest being IRAs and defined-benefit plans. Of the $22.8 trillion in stock outstanding (not including US ownership of foreign stock and stock owned by “pass-through entities” such as exchange-traded funds), retirement accounts owned roughly 37%, the most of any type of holder.

Labor Unions

If the stock market is so risky, then why does virtually every union pension fund in America invest the bulk of their assets in the “risky” stock market? Gone are the days when America’s major union pension funds invested most of their money in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. They are doing the smart thing by investing workers’ pension funds in real assets that will grow in value over time and be there when its time to pay workers’ retirement benefits.

According to the Federal Reserve, state and local government employee pension funds alone have nearly $3 trillion in assets, 66 percent of which is invested in corporate equities (i.e.: stocks). Indeed, 30 of the nation’s 50 largest pension funds are public employee pension funds. According to Pensions and Investment Magazine Online, these 30 funds have $1.5 trillion in assets, 60 percent of which is invested in the stock market. Remarkably, 13 percent of their assets are invested in foreign stocks. So much for “buy American.”

Most of the trade unions have made similar investment decisions:

  • The Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust has 40 percent of its $22 billion in assets invested in domestic stocks.
  • The United Mine Workers Retirement Fund has more than 44 percent of its $7.5 billion in assets invested in domestic stock and 8 percent invested in foreign stocks.
  • The Bakery and Confectionery Union Pension Fund has 57 percent of its $5.2 billion in assets invested in domestic stocks and 7 percent invested in foreign stocks.

How about federal employees, who can choose where to invest their money through the Federal Thrift Savings Plan – the government workers’ version of a 401(k)? The TSP now has more than $85 billion in assets, 59 percent of which is invested in the stock market. Although federal employees can also choose to invest in government bonds, they’ve chosen to invest only 5 percent of their TSP funds in government bonds. Meaning, when given the choice between the stock market and government bonds, federal employees overwhelmingly choose the market.

The value of U.S. pension funds at the end of 2015 was $21.7 trillion. The funds’ managers prudently manage assets in a method meant to ensure that retirees receive promised benefits. For many years this meant that funds were limited to investing primarily in government securities, investment-grade bonds, and a small amount placed in blue-chip stocks. Changing market conditions and the need to maintain a high rate of return have resulted in pension plan rules that allow investments in most asset classes.

Summary

Facts matter, don’t they? All of these facts take us to the point we surely are asking collectively, “Why are Democrats telling the nation over and over that the super-rich ‘OWN’ the stock market and that average Americans have no part of the investment products those billionaires are using to get rich?” The answer is simple: Democrats for all the freebies they have previously, are now, and will in the future promise to those who vote Democrat require massive amounts of new money not from just Democrat voters, but ALL Americans to fund. How does that funding occur? Through tax revenue to the federal government. How does the government get that revenue? Confiscation from Americans and American companies. So they target the most wealthy, painting wealthy Americans as “evil” Americans who are greedy, selfish, and oblivious to the lives of average Americans.

The truth? Democrats in Congress are oblivious to the needs of average Americans!

Democrats during every election cycle concentrate on two things: the demonization of conservativism and conservatives, and the best way to find voters who will give them power so as to maintain control of as much of government as possible.

Democrats all know how important the stock market is to Americans in every financial classification. They know most Americans have stock market investments through their employers on which they rely for retirement. They spin the lie to denigrate wealthy Americans so as to justify increasing taxes.

How good and fair is the stock market? How evil are Democrats for screaming that Americans who make money through stock market investments? I close today with a tidbit of factual information that illustrates Democrat Party lies. Read this and decide for yourself:

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) invested as much as $100,000 in the stock market the day after billionaire Republican Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election.
Warren, a progressive standard bearer who recently held a town hall on income inequality in America, purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard 500 Index Admiral (VFIAX) fund on November 9, 2016, according to financial disclosures filed with the Senate Clerk. At the time of Warren’s investment, VFIAX shares were trading around $200 a share; at publication time of this story, those shares were trading for more than $250 a share.  Warren’s capital gain on the investment could have been as much as $25,000.

During the campaign, Warren sharply criticized Trump’s economic plans as unfair to the poor and overly favorable to the wealthy.

Hypocrisy in the Worst Way!

 

Play

Pedophilia Front and Center

Enter Stage Left: Jeffrey Epstein. You probably heard his name during the last decade or so. But you never heard “all about” Jeffrey Epstein. He’s in the news now. And Epstein news is just beginning its ramping up. Get ready folks: Jeffrey Epstein is about to begin the daisy-chain of the revelation of dozens and dozens of famous Americans in sex trafficking incidents of which he was a part of and/or instigator! That’s right: “SEX TRAFFICKING.”

An indictment alleging sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy was unsealed Monday morning (July 8) against billionaire financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein who made his first appearance in a New York City federal court late that same day.

Prosecutors allege Epstein, the 66-year-old wealthy hedge fund manager arrested on Saturday (June 6), preyed on “dozens” of victims as young as 14.

“The victims described herein were as young as 14 years old at the time they were abused…and were, for various reasons, often particularly vulnerable to exploitation,” prosecutors wrote in court documents. “Epstein intentionally sought out minors and knew that many of his victims were in fact under the age of 18.”

Immediately following the arrest of Epstein for sex trafficking, Christine Pelosi, a Democratic National Committee official and daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warned conspicuously that it is “quite likely that some of our faves are implicated” in the “horrific” sex-trafficking case against politically connected financier Jeffrey Epstein.

“This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice,” Pelosi tweeted. “It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may – whether on Republicans or Democrats.”

Pelosi’s tweet is ominous. First, she is NOT media high profile — at least compared to her mother. Many (including TruthNewsNetwork) feel her tweet is a message to all those she termed their “faves” (who must be high-profile politicos and probably some titans of industry, finance, and entertainment) that the clock is ticking quite a bit faster now toward their exposure for the past sexual misdeeds of many.

Apparently all this has been for years commonplace in Washington. Word is that some if not many of the members of Congress who mysteriously “retired” before the 2018 midterms or who decided to simply not run for re-election for “personal reasons” and did so with little if any explanation may be on the Epstein “revelation list.”

You can bet Epstein has no intention of going down without taking others with him. If he and his attorneys sincerely believe that the Feds have the goods on him, the magnitude of the charges against him so far (with apparently more to come) would send him to jail for the rest of his life. Yep: it’s that serious. Epstein will certainly bargain with the names of visitors to his mansions and Caribbean island.

As hard as it is to envision, there will be more noise in the media in the coming days than you have EVER seen and heard before — even from Watergate, the 2 Iraq wars, and Vietnam. But here’s something that may shock you: it is doubtful that you’ll see and hear much of this in the “anti-Trump media,” at least at first. As sealed indictment after sealed indictment are released and made public, conservative media outlets will trumpet details of those to the World. Traditional media will be forced to reluctantly give-in and cover the Epstein story.

TNN is all over it, has been all over the sex trafficking going on in our country, and will bring you every tidbit as revealed and confirmed. Remember this: when we bring you something, you will KNOW it’s factual and factually confirmed. We do NOT bring gossip and innuendo to you. That means you may see and hear some thing from other media sources that you do NOT see and hear at TNN — at first. That will be only because we have not been able to yet confirm them. After all, none want another CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, or Huffington Post. As we get truth, so will you.

We’ll get right to it. Let’s go back to the details of Jeffrey Epstein from 14 years ago when the billionaire hedge fund guru faced the business for the first time for messing around with kids.

Jeffrey Epstein: Sexual assault history

Epstein allegedly created and maintained a network and operation from 2002 “up to and including” at least 2005 that enabled him to “sexually exploit and abuse dozens of underage girls” in addition to paying victims to recruit other underage girls.

In 2005, the world was introduced to the reclusive billionaire who was a friend to princes and an American president, a power broker with the darkest of secrets: He was also a pedophile, accused of recruiting dozens of underage girls into a sex-slave network, buying their silence and moving along, although he has been convicted of only one count of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Visitors to his private Caribbean island, known as “Orgy Island,” have included Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Stephen Hawking.

According to a 2011 court filing by alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, she saw Clinton and Prince Andrew on the island but never saw the former president do anything improper. Giuffre has accused Prince Andrew of having sex with her when she was a minor, a charge Buckingham Palace denies.

Epstein has spent the bulk of his adult life cultivating relationships with the world’s most powerful men. Flight logs show that from 2001 to 2003, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private plane, dubbed “The Lolita Express” by the press, 26 times. After Epstein’s arrest in July 2006, federal tax records show Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation that year.

Epstein was also a regular visitor to Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, and the two were friends. According to the Daily Mail, Trump was a frequent dinner guest at Epstein’s home, which was often full of barely dressed models. In 2003, New York magazine reported that Trump also attended a dinner party at Epstein’s honoring Bill Clinton.

(Trump supporters: don’t get excited. Trump NEVER went to Epstein’s island, was on Epstein’s jet one time only, flying from south Florida to New York with Epstein’s son. Additionally, Trump years ago severed all ties with Epstein. Mr. Trump discovered Epstein had made aggressive overtures to a Trump employee’s underage daughter at Mar-a-Lago. Trump banned Epstein from his resort for life. Further, in the 2006 investigation of Epstein, Trump cooperated with testimony to federal authorities who stated then that Trump had no involvement in anyway and was just testifying about what happened with Epstein.)

Last year, The Guardian reported that Epstein’s “little black book” contained contact numbers for A-listers including Tony Blair, Naomi Campbell, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Bloomberg and Richard Branson.

In a 2006 court filing, Palm Beach police noted that a search of Epstein’s home uncovered two hidden cameras. The Mirror reported that in 2015, a 6-year-old civil lawsuit filed by “Jane Doe No. 3,” believed to be the now-married Giuffre, alleged that Epstein wired his mansion with hidden cameras, secretly recording orgies involving his prominent friends and underage girls. The ultimate purpose: blackmail, according to court papers.

“Jane Doe No. 3” also alleged that she had been forced to have sex with “numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders.”

“We uncovered a lot of details about the police investigation and a lot about the girls, what happened to them, the effect on their lives,” Patterson says.

Prosecutors also allege Epstein “worked and conspired with others, including employees and associates” who helped facilitate his conduct by contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the 66-year-old at his mansion in New York City and Palm, Beach, FL.

Attorneys for  Epstein touted his close friendship with Bill Clinton and even claimed the billionaire helped start Clinton’s controversial family foundation in a 2007 letter aimed at boosting his image during plea negotiations, according to Fox News.

A 23-page letter, written by high-powered lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt, was apparently part of an ultimately successful bid to negotiate a plea deal before Epstein could be tried for using underage girls in that Palm Beach sex ring, and his private island estate on the 72-acre Virgin Islands home dubbed “Orgy Island.” Epstein spent 13 months in prison and home detention after agreeing to a plea deal in which he admitted to soliciting an underage girl for prostitution.

Summary

Child trafficking is a growing problem that cannot be ignored, and the media can no longer stay silent about, regardless of fears that it will call out powerful people and harm tight relationships. There have been too many instances to ignore, including the 1,400 individuals that underwent investigation by the British police as part of a historic VIP sex abuse network believed to include celebrities and politicians. Sadly, that inquiry fizzled out as a result of heavy pressure from powerful brokers in the U.K. establishment. There are various other cases to note, and yet pedophilia and child pornography continue to escape justice. One can only assume that blackmailing and bribery are keeping lips tight.

It was shocking that in his first sex trafficking “hand-slap,” Epstein was given an amazingly light sentence. In his approximate 1-year jail term at a south Florida jail, he was actually allowed to leave and go to work most weekdays. To make it worse, the records of all of the testimony and evidence and court proceedings in that case were sealed and unavailable to the general public. Last week, a federal judge unsealed those records.

Let’s hope that justice for our children is coming back to the U.S. Let’s hope America will have its proverbial eyes opened to the ongoing attacks on our babies. Let’s pray that the truth will be demanded by the public, elected representatives in our government both at the state and federal levels, and that the power brokers will be stymied at their attempts to hide the evil doings at their hands.

Sadly, this is the first chapter of this horror story. Make certain you stay close to TruthNewsNet.org. There are many more very important things happening that we watch and bring details of as they happen. That will continue. But we will certainly make this process and current and subsequent investigations our priority.

”The Truth Will Out.”

How Dysfunctional is Congress?

Short Answer: VERY!

Not in my lifetime has the U.S. Congress been so slow, so inconsistent, and so unwilling to go about the People’s business. There is no doubt part of their job is to oversee the operations of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. But that is NOT their primary responsibility.

The Constitution of the United States outlines the responsibilities and duties of Congress. Article I offers an overview of Congressional power, while Section 8 provides details about each duty. Section 8 includes a total of 14 paragraphs of information about all the duties, including:

  • Borrowing money on behalf of the country
  • Regulating commerce
  • Developing a uniform system of laws
  • Establishing the Post Office
  • Declaring war

Wow! That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Though those 5 tasks for the Congress set by The Constitution seem to be simple tasks, we all know there’s a lot to it. But, in all fairness, there are 535 elected people who are tasked to work together to complete those 5 things every year. And those 535 elected folks each have a staff comprised of dozens of workers to make certain everything necessary for the completion of those tasks is taken care of.

So why does Congress get so little done?

Congressional Actions in 2017 (2nd Half of 115th Congress)

In that most Americans doubt Congress does much of anything, Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) argues that the U.S. House of Representatives is getting things done. The Congressman on his website published a list of the greatest accomplishments of Congress in 2017. Let’s look at them:

(If you want details of any of these bills, click on the hyperlink to be transferred to see the actual bill)

These ten Congressional accomplishments — according to Congressman Shimkus — are the MOST important Congressional accomplishments of 2017! Obviously, his list includes specific bills that originated in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed some bills, too. But it takes both Houses to pass bills that find their way to the President’s desk to be signed into law. Of those ten bills listed by Congressman Shimkus as THE significant legislative 2017 accomplishments, only two were actually signed into law! None of the others — including any that the U.S. Senate passed — even made it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for presidential signature.

Laws Passed thru 5/31/2019 in this the 116th Congress

Public Law Number Bill Number and Title Date
PL 116-19 S.1693 – National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2019 05/31/2019
PL 116-18 H.R.2379 – To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. 05/23/2019
PL 116-17 H.R.1222 – Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 05/10/2019
PL 116-16 H.R.1839 – Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019 04/18/2019
PL 116-15 S.725 – A bill to change the address of the postal facility designated in honor of Captain Humayun Khan. 04/16/2019
PL 116-14 H.R.2030 – Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act 04/16/2019
PL 116-13 H.R.276 – Recognizing Achievement in Classified School Employees Act 04/12/2019
PL 116-12 S.863 – A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the grade and pay of podiatrists of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 04/08/2019
PL 116-11 S.252 – A bill to authorize the honorary appointment of Robert J. Dole to the grade of colonel in the regular Army. 04/06/2019
PL 116-10 S.49 – A bill to designate the outstation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation. 03/21/2019
PL 116-9 S.47 – John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act 03/12/2019
PL 116-8 S.483 – Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 03/08/2019
PL 116-7 H.R.439 – National FFA Organization’s Federal Charter Amendments Act 02/21/2019
PL 116-6 H.J.Res.31 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 02/15/2019
PL 116-5 H.J.Res.28 – Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 01/25/2019
PL 116-4 H.R.430 – TANF Extension Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-3 H.R.259 – Medicaid Extenders Act of 2019 01/24/2019
PL 116-2 H.R.251 – Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Extension Act 01/18/2019
PL 116-1 S.24 – Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 01/16/2019

Are you counting? 19 laws in 2019.

Estimates are that American taxpayers’ costs for funding Congressional operations were $4.4 Billion in 2009 — a decade ago! Current numbers simply “are not available.” But using realistic assumptions, it is credible to believe that number approaches $10 Billion annually. Look at what taxpayers received in Congressional services in legislative actions for the entirety of 2017 and the first half of 2019: 29 pieces of legislation plus the one big meaningful one: tax cuts. Do you feel like we’re getting our money worth?

So What is Congress Doing?

Great question. The #1 concern among Americans is dramatically and emphatically Illegal Immigration. Last week, more than 1,000 immigrants surged through the U.S. southern border near El Paso, Texas — the largest number ever encountered by U.S. Border Control and Protection, with the previous record being set in the month of April, which was 424. This unprecedented invasion spurred President Donald J. Trump to slap a 5 percent tariff on goods from Mexico in an effort to get the Mexican government to take seriously the problem of undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

The mainstream media, predictably, started lamenting on how the price of avocados for American consumers may potentially increase a few cents and completely ignored the $200 billion American taxpayers pay each year in illegal immigration costs. Not to mention the cost of illegal drugs on our youth, and the cost to education and health care on American taxpayers. So, let’s take a look at these dollars and cents.

According to a recent analysis done by Chris Conover, an American Enterprise Institute adjunct scholar, “all told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year.”

Although current federal policy prohibits federal tax funding of health care to unauthorized immigrants through Medicaid or Obamacare, “rough estimates suggest that the nation’s 3.9 million uninsured immigrants who are unauthorized likely receive about $4.6 billion in health services paid for by federal taxes, $2.8 billion in health services financed by state and local taxpayers and another $3 billion bankrolled through ‘cost-shifting,’ i.e. higher payments by insured patients to cover hospital uncompensated care losses, and roughly $1.5 billion in physician charity care,” Mr. Conover wrote in Forbes.

Public education of illegal immigrants’ children is also hemorrhaging the American taxpayer, as, under federal law, all students are eligible to receive schooling regardless of their immigration status.

“Public education is where the real big cost comes in,” Randy Capps, the director for research for U.S. programs at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute told NBC News this year. “The amount of taxes that the parents pay on their earnings, that they pay through property taxes — passed through on their rent — it’s not going to be as much as is spent on public education for their kids and food stamps for their kids.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated it cost public schools $59.8 billion to educate the children of illegal immigrants, and almost the entirety of this cost, 98.9 percent, is borne by taxpayers at the local and state level, through property taxes, according to a 2016 study. At the time, the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were driving increased funding programs for students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) — causing a major drain on school budgets. That was when 118,929 unaccompanied minors were crossing the border during the fiscal year. Already this year, 44,779 unaccompanied alien minors have crossed the border and 248,197 family units, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

More people have been apprehended illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border this fiscal year than in any year since 2009, according to the CBP.

Then there’s the human cost of the drug crisis. In fiscal 2018, the U.S. border patrol seized 480,000 pounds of drugs, including fentanyl, marijuana, and meth, on the U.S.-Mexico border. In January, the CBP saw the largest seizure of fentanyl in the agency’s history — seizing nearly $4.6 million, or 650 pounds, of fentanyl and meth from a Mexican national when he attempted to cross the border.

Drug overdoses, fueled by opioids killed more than 70,000 people in the U.S. in 2017, with fentanyl overdose deaths doubling each and every year.

And today we learned that ISIS has been sending English-speaking terrorists to sneak through Mexico to get to the U.S. And we have no idea how long that has been happening and how many have entered the U.S.!

Can Mexico do more? Absolutely. Mexico needs to do a better job securing its own southern border — which runs only 150 miles across. It also can do a better job cracking down on its domestic terror organizations — both the coyotes smuggling young children across the border and the drug kingpins. Lastly, Mexico could grant asylum to migrants within its own homeland. According to international law, if you leave a country seeking asylum, you are to seek asylum in the first safe country you arrive. Mexico is safe, and the Mexican government can address this.

Who has the legal requirement to take care of the flow of immigrants into the U.S.? Are there laws that regulate all types of immigration? Why are they not being enforced? If they are bad laws, shouldn’t they be changed?

The answers to all those questions are singular: the United States Congress.

Why Doesn’t Congress Act on Illegal Immigration?

The simple answer: They don’t want to.

For Democrats, illegal immigration assures them of millions of “potential” voters that are present in the U.S. Democrats feel certain that whenever they take back the power of the House, Senate, and the White House, they can pass legislation to legalize all those illegals. That gives them instant VOTERS! And they are certain they will be able to lump those in the same Democrat basket in which they have already relegated African Americans and Hispanics.

For Republicans, those in the House and Senate simply don’t want to rock the boat. On the most part, their driving purpose is to maintain the balance between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans know it’s just a matter of time for the Democrats to take control of the Senate and probably the White House. Republicans want to “not make waves” now so that when Dems are back in power, the “revenge factor” will not lead Democrat leadership to strip GOP members of the prestigious committee spots they currently now have.

Remember: Congressional membership is no longer about money like it was decades ago — it’s all about “Power.” With power, you not only control money — billions of discretionary dollars — but everything  else. Balance is the key.

Regarding the border crisis: now that Democrats have come around and dropped their talking point “there is no crisis at the border,” why don’t they just pass legislation to take care of the problem, fund the necessary items to underwrite the current issues, stop illegal crossings, and fund the border wall?

They can no longer blame President Trump. Remember his offer last year? All Democrats had to do in the deal Trump offered Congress was fund the $5.7 billion for partial construction of the southern border wall. In exchange, his offer included hundreds of millions of dollars in new humanitarian money for safety and health of illegal immigrants, it would allow Central American children to apply for USA asylum from their home countries, and it would create a three-year legal status for about 700,000 people now here under the Obama-era DACA program, and some 300,000 people here under humanitarian protections, who might otherwise become illegal immigrants soon.

Of course Dems rejected the offer. So Trump has watched as the crisis down South has reached epidemic proportions and is taking Mexico on in an effort to force them to stop the Central America flood of immigrants through Mexico to get to the U.S. His plan is to use tariffs on Mexican products that come to the U.S. It sounds reasonable to most. But not to Pelosi and Company.

Her patent refusal is sad but not unexpected.

But then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky weighed in on HIS thoughts of the tariff proposal:

President Trump cannot win for losing!

Summary

Here’s the rub: President Trump cannot do it alone. Congress can! They could in a 30-minute session in the House and a 30-minute session in the Senate pass the necessary legislation to stop illegal immigration — if not completely then to a crawl — and give DACA recipients the peace of mind that though their parents brought them here illegally, they have stayed and can stay with government protection while they follow a path to citizenship. But they don’t!

The ball is in the court of the U.S. Congress. President Trump’s options are extremely limited. Many don’t like increased tariffs on China and other countries that are already in place. But they’re having positive results. Those on Mexico would hurt a bit, but their results would mean fair trade, which the U.S. has not had with most countries for decades. And if Mexico would simply honor their own immigration walls for their southern border and turn Central Americans away if not emigrating legally, our southern border crisis would subside!

Each American has only one thing to put into this battle: a vote — one vote. It would be a good thing (if you haven’t already) find out how your House member and your U.S. Senator feels, has voted, and will vote on any illegal immigration legislation issue if and when one comes to the floor for a vote. Let them know where YOU stand. And make some noise.

After all, they are allowing and even encouraging illegal immigrants to keep on coming! And they are making Americans who want the flood of illegals to stop feel guilty for wanting the government to simply abide by the law and enforce it.

After all of this, do you think there’s a possibility that many in Congress are just stupid?!?

 

Play

Who is “Below the Law?”

“I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the president is not above the law.”

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 3, 2019

The Law

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

  1. concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
  2. concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
  3. concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
  4. obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
That’s the law — 18 U.S. Code § 798 — regarding the handling of classified information: the Law. By any understanding of that law and the penalty for breaking the law, when someone does so, their doing so is a heinous act against the U.S. Government that in doing so allows someone — anyone — to access potentially serious national information that could be damaging to the United States in any number of ways.

“Anyone:” Then there’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

(Follow along very carefully these next sentences:)

  • According to documents, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured a senior FBI official into de-classifying emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s illegal private server. The FBI official notes that Kennedy contacted the organization to ask for the change in classification in “exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ More specifically, “State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” according to a conversation relayed by The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen Hayes. The FBI did not take Kennedy up on his offer.
  • Despite initial denials from the State Department, this exchange is entirely plausible. For one, State had plenty of expertise in the deployment of quid pro quo during Hillary’s years of enriching her family foundation by trading government access. Moreover, a senior FBI official has a lot less reason to fabricate a conversation about favor trading than a Clinton functionary has to pressure a senior FBI official into saving Hillary from criminal prosecution.
  • “Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views,” a State Department spokesperson said. No doubt this is true. So why did Kennedy wait until a criminal investigation was well underway to ask law enforcement to scrutinize that particular document at that particular time? Is it customary for undersecretaries of State to ask the FBI to alter the classifications of documents that just happen to protect political candidates at the center of a politically explosive investigation? Did Kennedy — a man who owes his high position to the Clintons — engage in this conversation on his own? Was he asked to do it? For months, law enforcement had attempted to contact him, and he ignored their inquiries. Why, according to FBI documents, did Kennedy only reach out to make this request?
  • What’s even more curious is that FBI Director James Comey didn’t consider this event — or, for that matter, the litany of other actions Clinton’s lackeys took to protect her — as a sign that there was, at the very least, an intent to influence the investigation. This is, of course, was just one revelation in the Hillary email scandal. It’s worth remembering that the illegal email setup was only inadvertently discovered through a congressional investigation into Benghazi. The server itself existed to evade transparency.
  • When caught, Hillary alleged that she “never sent any classified material nor received any marked classified.” This turned out to be a lie. Hillary claimed before becoming secretary she had merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This turned out to be a lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices,” not to mention servers. Clinton — the most competent person to ever run for president, according to Barack Obama — claimed she didn’t understand how classified markings work. This was also a lie.
  • According to the FBI, Hillary sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of these emails contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey said at his press conference in July of 2016. He acknowledged this could have happened because Hillary and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He also admitted that no competent foreign power would have left behind evidence of this hack.

Yet, for some reason, Comey would not admit that this is why U.S. Code makes mishandling information — not the intent of those mishandling it — illegal.

Those who ran Clinton’s server attempted to destroy evidence — government documents — after The New York Times reported on her wrongdoing. Probably another coincidence. Not that intent mattered to Comey, either. Before the FBI even cracked open their laptops, the Justice Department proactively gave immunity to the five people who could have testified that Hillary was lying. (One of these people, Cheryl Mills, later acted as Hillary’s lawyer.) The two Clinton aides with the most intimate knowledge about her email conniving were also given side deals.

Does anyone besides me see any conflict in the happenings detailed above and what Ms. Clinton said in her speech on Monday of this week and in her tweet: “…the president is not above the law?”

Then There’s Congress

Everyone knows that it takes an impeachment proceeding initiated from the House Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, then with that committee’s referral to the floor of the House followed by a successful House vote to impeach to start that process. If and when that occurs, the matter is turned over to the Senate for an actual trial on the merits. Obviously, much debate ensues during an actual trial. At the conclusion, the Senate votes on the charges. If two-thirds of the Senators vote to confirm the House resolution for impeachment, the President is convicted and removed from office.

We want to note here: there’s a process — a Constitutional process. That process requires charges, evidence of violation by the President of U.S. Constitutional mandate that states in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There’s a Constitutional process for impeaching the President, Vice President, and other “civil officers of the United States.” Certainly, Americans support everything within the Constitution, right? But let’s see what longtime Democrat and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has to say about what is being threatened by House Democrats right now:

“The mantra invoked by those Democrats who are seeking to impeach President Trump is that ‘no one is above the law.’ That, of course, is true, but it is as applicable to Congress as it is to the president. Those members of Congress who are seeking to impeach the president, even though he has not committed any of the specified impeachable offenses set out in the Constitution, are themselves seeking to go above the law.

All branches of government are bound by the law. Members of Congress, presidents, justices and judges must all operate within the law. All take an oath to support the Constitution, not to rewrite it for partisan advantage.

It is the law that exempts presidents from being prosecuted or impeached for carrying out their constitutional authority under Article 2. The same Constitution precludes members of Congress from being prosecuted for most actions taken while on the floor of the House and Senate or on the way to performing their functions. The Constitution, which is the governing law, precludes Congress from impeaching a president for mere “dereliction” of duty or even alleged ‘corruption.’ Under the text of the Constitution, a president’s actions to be impeachable must consist of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Consider Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA), who has said the following:

Congressman Waters said this the other day: “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment.”

It is she, and other like-minded members of Congress, who are claiming the right to be above the law. That is a dangerous claim whether made by a president or by a member of Congress.

So Hillary, members of Congress, and most in the Mainstream Media are claiming they are above the Law, who then would be considered to be below the law?

The answer to that is simple: anyone who disagrees with anything any member of the Democrat ruling “Elitist-ocracy” is certainly below the Law and obviously unworthy of the consideration of “Equal justice under the Law.” Who throughout history are some of those “folks?”

  • All those who fled the repression of European elitist members of the Ruling Class who considered anyone not deemed to be eligible for membership in their groups to be less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • African-American men, women, and children who were taken by slave traders in Northern Africa and sold in America had no rights and were certainly less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • Today’s working-class Americans who don’t live and work in Coastal American states or those several interior states comprised of like-minded elites who have garnered favor from the political elite “Overclass” are less than worthy of “Equal justice under the Law;”
  • According to Hillary and other Dems, everyone who did NOT vote for Hillary in 2016 but chose Mr. Trump instead is not only ineligible for “Equal Justice under the Law,” but are reprehensible human beings and deserve no consideration of the benefits of simply being Americans.

Summary

I know this may seem harsh today. But it is time for Americans to wake up and realize liberty and justice for all is about to be “liberty and justice for only an elite few.” And regardless of what the pundits on the Left want all to believe, those elites are NOT the current inhabitants of the White House. They are led by the defeated 2016 presidential candidate and all those who had surreptitiously created, implemented, and maintained her path to the White House so as to cover-up all the wrongdoing committed by her team and others comprised by a large number of very important government officials.

Even in the aftermath of two years of an exhaustive investigation into ridiculous allegations against this president, his staff, family, and many friends, those Elitists still shout in anger threats against all of those who are “below the Law” that support the duly elected president and the Rule of Law.

I never in my wildest dream we would ever see a day like this today. But it’s true: for at least the eight years of the Obama Administration, evil and deviousness ran rampant through the Capital and the Department of Justice in D.C. And the U.S. government was nothing more than a piggy bank for Elitists to tap for their evildoing. Taxpayers paid every dime for what they did. And our children will continue to pay that bill.

Play

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