All Posts (30923)
Muslim used ice cream truck to lure, sexually assault children in North Carolina
Ice cream trucks, pop concerts, nightclubs, Halloween, Christmas parties, every lovely and cherished tradition and symbol of Western civilization are in the cross hairs.
Muhammad was a pedophile, and he is the “perfect example” in Islam.
Man used ice cream truck to lure, sexually assault children in North Carolina, police say
FOX News, November 5, 2017 (thanks to Rick):
A North Carolina man is accused of using an ice cream truck in October to lure and sexually assault at least two young boys, according to police.
Isam Fathee Mohamed Rahmah, 51, of Durham, faces charges of first-degree kidnapping and indecent liberties with a child, Durham police said in a news release Friday.
Rahmah surrendered to authorities late Friday and is being held on a $1 million bond, according to Durham County records.
Authorities said two boys reported being sexually assaulted by Rahmah inside the truck in separate incidents, which happened in late October, FOX 8 reported.
Isam Fathee Mohamed Rahmah, 51, of Durham (Durham Police)
The truck, a red Ford van, had pictures of Popsicles on the side and back and would frequently be seen in the neighborhood.
“It’s frightening. You don’t ever want to hear anything like this,” a mother who wished to remain unnamed told WNCN.
Another neighbor told the television station he bought ice cream from Rahmah before, and believes the 51-year-old might live in the truck.
“There were bags of clothes. He has covers and he has chips and everything,” Christian Aguilar said. “He always drives by here on Saturday and Sunday.”
Rahmah is scheduled to appear in court on Monday.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Somali Muslims Take Over Small Tennessee Town And Force Absolute HELL On Terrified Christians
( Muslims do not assimilate! They infiltrate! )
243 views
Democrat darling and favorite American Indian Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren also said she believes the nomination was rigged: “Yes, I think it was. What we have to focus on now as Democrats is, we recognize the process was rigged.” She continued, “And now it is up to Democrats to build a new process, a process that really works and works for everyone.”
Hold on a minute. Haven’t Democrats and the Left been screaming and moaning for the past year that the election was stolen from liar-Hillary? America has endured months of Demo/MSM insistence of a phony Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy that supposedly swung the election to Donald Trump. And then there’s the oft-repeated refrain that liar-Hillary deserved to be president because she won the popular vote, followed by calls to abolish the electoral college. Over and over again, the message has been how unfair the system was toward liar-Hillary and that Trump needs to be resisted with the goal of eventually impeaching him.
Now, suddenly Democrats are turning on liar-Clinton. To borrow a phrase from a certain book title, what happened? It’s certainly not new news that the DNC rigged the nomination process to ensure liar-Clinton was the nominee. Again, we’ve known this for well over a year. It’s the reason that former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign. So after 25 years of liar-Clinton corruption, why are Democrats only now throwing liar-Hillary under the bus?
First, the corruption waters surrounding liar-Hillary are getting too hot for comfort. We learned last week that the liar-Clinton campaign paid for the infamous dossier that started the whole Russia collusion narrative. And it was revealed just yesterday that Team liar-Hillary paid $168,000 to produce it. Like we have been saying for months, the Mueller investigation may turn against Democrats. And if they don’t have “Trump colluded with Russia” to assuage their Trump Derangement Syndrome, they’ve got nothing.
Second, after 18 months of trashing Trump, the Democrat Party’s approval rating is no better than his, which doesn’t bode well for its mid-term election hopes. Democrats are seen by an increasing number of Americans as a party of the extreme Left and not the mainstream.
So, it appears that since liar-Clinton not only lost the election but blew up the narrative of how she was cheated out of it, Democrats are no longer willing to put up with her lying and corruption.
On an interesting and yet not surprising side note, the big three major news networks didn’t even bother to cover Brazile’s accusation in their newscasts last night. Heads in the sand? ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52230
Bill Moyers: Interactive Timeline: Everything We Know About Russia and President Trump.
When it comes to Donald Trump, his campaign and their dealings with Russia past and present, sometimes it’s hard to keep track of all the players without a scorecard. We have one, of sorts — a deeply comprehensive timeline detailing what actually happened and what’s still happening in the ever-changing story of the president, his inner circle and a web of Russian oligarchs, hackers and government officials.
Since first launched in February 2017, the Trump-Russia Timeline has grown to more than 400 entries — and we will continue to add updates regularly.
What have reporters and investigators already uncovered and made public? What are the connections and patterns? Review the timeline by clicking here
The commission, led by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, came up with 56 recommendations, one of which calls for the establishment of drug courts in all federal judicial districts. For those worried about the failed “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” approach, these new courts will emphasize treatment rather than prison sentences. And for those concerned that we’re getting too soft when it comes to opioid distributors and dealers, some states and localities are going after them with charges of murder.
Other changes proposed by the commission include streamlining the process whereby states can access federal funding, making it easier for first-responders to use naloxone to reverse the effects of opioids (although this is controversial due to the false security it offers), establishing a nationwide media campaign, and creating programs in schools to identify at-risk youth. All of these steps are critical and necessary, but no government program and no amount of funding is going to wipe out the scourge of drug addiction alone.
The Washington Free Beacon, noting a new report from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), reports, “Education and marriage are key predictors of opioid abuse. One third of Americans over 25 had at least a bachelor’s degree and that group accounted for only 9 percent of all opioid overdose deaths, according to the report. Forty percent had a high school degree or less, yet represented 68 percent of opioid overdose deaths. The remaining 23 percent of opioid deaths are attributable to the 27 percent of the population with only 'some’ college education.” It’s pretty hard to argue against the numbers on this one.
But education alone is only one factor. Another is the American family. Leftists hate to hear about this one, but the data increasingly show that the disintegration of families has had far-reaching, negative impacts on our society. Drug addiction is no different.
The Free Beacon goes on to say, “The division among Americans is also pronounced when comparing married/widowed Americans to their single or divorced peers. Sixty-eight percent of Americans over 25 were married or widowed in 2015, and accounted for only 28 percent of opioid overdose deaths. By contrast, never-married and divorced Americans over 25 are 32 percent of the population, but account for 71 percent of all opioid overdose deaths. In other words, the opioid epidemic hits disproportionately those without access to education or marriage.”
Repairing or rebuilding the American family will have a noticeable, positive impact on drug abuse and other ills that plague our society. Yet strong families alone will not wipe out this epidemic. Among the thousands who died in recent years due to opioids, many were young men and women who were part of loving, stable families. Children may well be raised in supportive homes, but the lure of these drugs is both deadly and powerful. Still, we must address one of the root causes of so many problems we face: the breakdown of the family.
David French writes in National Review, “Though an intact family isn’t a foolproof shield against hopelessness, despair, and addiction, it’s still a shield. Do we want to combat the opioid crisis? If so, let’s start in the home. Let’s start with a mom and dad who love each other and stay together — through good times and bad. Let’s start with a culture that celebrates marriage and a community that encourages fidelity. Let’s treat addicts, yes, but let’s not forget that while there’s no way to inoculate any person against addiction, a life of faith, hope, and love is a good start.”
French raises another interesting point here, and that’s the way we think of addicts in our society. Many assume that addicts are deserving of their condition and that what we really need is to ramp up the drug war. But people addicted to hard drugs are concerned with getting another fix, not whether they’ll sit behind bars. It’s simply not a deterrent, at least not for users.
In some cases, addicts know that going to jail is the only way they’ll break the cycle of addiction, albeit temporarily. In at least one state, jails are now being considered as potential treatment centers. With tens of thousands of opioid deaths on the horizon for 2018, we can’t afford to categorically dismiss new ideas.
But sometimes the answers are right in front of our eyes, and we’ve witnessed a precipitous increase in drug abuse (and other social problems) as the number of two-parent families has declined. Mark Alexander reminds us of “a hard truth for men who have abandoned their families, but a harder truth for their children: Most social problems — crime, drug abuse, unwed pregnancy and abortion, youth suicide, school dropouts and the like — are the direct consequence of fatherless households.”
So we should embrace President Trump’s latest proclamation about opioids and welcome many of the recommendations made by the commission. What a president says does matter in terms of starting a national conversation, but conversations in the home are even more critical than a national decree or government program. Simply put, a child reared in a loving, supportive home has a better shot than a kid coming from a broken home.
For too long we’ve looked to the government to solve our problems, while the family unit has fallen into tatters. The essential foundation of our society is cracking, but we keep hoping that politicians will fix what ails us. In some cases, we can plod forward and afford to wait. But the opioid epidemic is sweeping across the country and taking thousands of lives in the process. This time the price is too high. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52228
For the past year, the Democrats have been busy demonizing President Trump, accusing him of committing treason by colluding with the Russians to win the election.
Speaking of which, I wish I had copyrighted “colluding.” It has been used so often and by so many people over the past 12 months that even if I only received a nickel every time some jackass in the media intentionally misused it, I would be a very wealthy man today.
What has made the accusation so bizarre is that for the prior eight years, the liar-nObama administration behaved like a lovesick teenager trying to woo a high school cheerleader. First, we had President liar-nObama assuring Vladimir Putin he’d be more flexible after defeating Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. Next, we had liar-nObama ridiculing Romney during a presidential debate for daring to suggest that Russia was a major menace to our national security.
Then we had Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton handing over a fifth of our uranium deposits to the Kremlin.
When it came to our foreign policy, the liar-nObama administration did everything but get down on one knee and ask for Russia’s hand in marriage.
To suddenly hear that it was an act of treason for a member of the Trump campaign to have even split a blini with the Russian ambassador struck me as bizarre at best and hyper-hypocritical at worst. How is it that we could go straight from the honeymoon suite to the divorce court without passing Go or collecting the standard $200?
Clearly, the Democrats were so desperate to explain how they could possibly lose an election that appeared to be a slam-dunk, it drove them to behave even stupider than usual.
Surely, it must have occurred to someone in Mrs. liar-Clinton’s camp that it made more sense to tie the Trump campaign to China. Why make Russia the boogeyman? Wouldn’t you think that when the candidate herself had pushed the reset button with Russia and later accepted a $135 million bribe to hand over America’s uranium, and when the head of her campaign team, John Podesta, had collected millions of dollars in lobbying fees from the Russkies, it was risky business to shine a spotlight on that very same country?
Was it arrogance on their part? Sheer hubris? Did they all sit around, sipping vodka and noshing on caviar, all the while laughing as they watched their pet poodles in the media run around in circles, yapping about collusion and chasing their own tails?
Speaking of collusion, I keep wondering if Russia paid anything for all that American uranium. I mean beyond the $135,000,000 to Mrs. liar-Clinton and $500,000 to her husband, for delivering a 20-minute speech in Moscow. Did the U.S. Treasury make even a dime on the deal? If so, why haven't we heard about it?
It seems that just about everyone except for Donald Trump and I have been colluding with the Russians, and, thanks to my last name, even I’m not entirely above suspicion.
● Unfortunately, the FBI has placed itself right dab in the middle of the scandal. To begin with, the agency apparently made a financial contribution to the creation of the notorious Russian dossier. Not since the Czar created the Protocols of Zion in order to slander the Jews, has there been a more blatant attempt to use a phony document to libel innocent people.
Whipped up by an English spy and a few Russian collaborators, it apparently accused Donald Trump of consorting with Polish prostitutes, Russian gangsters and Scottish sheep.
The next step was for James Comey, then director of the FBI, to meet with Trump and discuss the dossier. Then, when Trump belatedly fired Comey, Jeff Sessions recused himself. That, in turn, allowed Sessions’ deputy, Rod Rosenstein, to appoint Comey’s best friend, Bob Mueller, to lead the witch hunt into Trump’s alleged ties to the Russians.
Although the word is that the FBI is finally deigning to appear before a couple of congressional committees and answer a few questions, how is it they have been able to stonewall Congress for the past several months? What is the point of our elected representatives holding hearings if they lack the power to indict and prosecute those who simply ignore subpoenas or refuse to testify by taking the Fifth? Wouldn’t you have thought someone would have reminded the arrogant bureaucrats that Barack liar-nObama was no longer in the White House?
Ah, for the good old days, when the only question swirling around the FBI was whether J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual or merely a transvestite with a weakness for corsets and feather boas.
● It seems like just yesterday that I was railing at all the Hollywood movies dealing with conspiracy fantasies in which the villains were ultimately disclosed to be high level members of the FBI, the CIA and other national security entities.
Until Trump was elected, and the curtain was lifted, how could I have ever guessed those movies were, strictly speaking, documentaries; and that in real life, those seemingly fictional characters were based on actual people named Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Clapper, scum-Holder and Lynch?
Some days, I swear, you might get the idea that the Constitution isn’t worth the parchment it’s written on.
I would add that, thanks to Trump’s victory, we now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court; the EPA has been successfully neutered; we are on the verge of a financial boon, thanks to the first major tax cut in 30 years; we have a military that is no longer being micromanaged by a couple of dopes like G.W. Bush and Barack liar-nObama; we have a Commander-in-Chief who recognizes Islam, North Korea and the mainstream media as existential threats to our national security.
All of this leads me to suspect that a poll indicating that a scant 38% of Americans approve of the job that President Trump is doing, while 57% disapprove, was concocted by the same folks who came up with the Russian dossier.
I’m also wondering why the House vote on the budget narrowly squeaked by on a vote of 216-212, thanks to 20 Republicans colluding. I'm beginning to love that word with the Democrats. Who would have ever guessed that you could get that many Republicans to sign a political suicide pact?
● Am I the only person who is wondering if the reason that MGM, the parent company of the Mandalay Hotel, is handling security guard Jesus Campos as if he had entered the Federal Witness Program is because he’s an illegal alien who should never been hired in the first place?
● In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, I think most people would agree that sexual harassment is disgusting. Even if it only consists of smutty jokes in the workplace, those who engage in it are bullies and creeps.
Still, I worry that in the present environment, where women are being pressed to join the crowd, they might start making dishonest charges, figuring that any unfounded claims will be accepted as gospel. Just as no woman who has been victimized should be silenced, it should require more than an accusation to besmirch a man’s reputation and destroy his career.
The charge, if true, is too serious to be used for either blackmail or revenge.
In situations that come down to “he said/she said,” we should all keep in mind the very real possibility that he, not she, could be telling the truth.
● In the past, I have often had occasion to remind people not to reply to an article as if it were a standard email. Doing so takes you to BurtPrelutsky@us.com. That address is only used to distribute my articles. To contact me, please write to BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.
A new problem has arisen over the past few weeks. Twice, subscribers have written to ask if I had taken ill. It seems that they had stopped receiving my articles and assumed that old age had caught up with me. In one case, it had been a week with no articles. In the other, it had been three weeks.
Apparently, their computers had decided to stop accepting mass-mailings. Fortunately, I was able to resolve their problems by sending them the articles they had missed and by placing them on the smaller supplemental list.
There are times I write an article-a-day, times I write one every other day. But if you go three days without receiving a new piece, please let me know because it means your computer has gotten temperamental and I will need to move you to the smaller list.
However, if the reason you don’t receive a piece is because I am incapacitated, rest assured you will receive a notice from Steve Maikoski, the person who creates order out of chaos by managing the electronic side of things for me.
Also on Wednesday, several senators took up Trump’s call to end the Diversity Visa Lottery, created in 1990. “We ought to be more focused and more merit-oriented when it comes to our immigration program. There’s always going to have to be a combination of family-based immigration, but we also ought to reward people who we want to see come to this country and help us grow our economy,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) stated. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) echoed his comments, saying, “Count me in for wanting to eliminate the lottery system for merit-based immigration.”
Even Democrats were scrambling to distance themselves from a law they have long defended. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) sought to shift blame to Republicans for killing “comprehensive” immigration reform: “Of course we would [be open to eliminating the program]. Let me just tell you something: That was part of the [comprehensive immigration] reform [bill].” clown-Schumer, who had his hand in creating the DV program in 1990, blamed Trump for politicizing the terror attack while other top House Democrats blasted Trump for seeking “to further his anti-immigration agenda.” Democrats never have a problem politicizing gun control after a shooting.
Back in 2010, there were clear warnings that the Diversity Visa Lottery was dangerous due to the fact that it essentially created a loophole through which individuals from terror-watch-list countries could gain entry into the U.S. Several lawmakers at the time warned that the program posed a “serious national threat.” As far back as 2004, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General deputy inspector testified that the “program contains significant vulnerabilities to national security as hostile intelligence officers, criminals and terrorists attempt to use it to enter the United States as permanent residents.”
Yet over the years Democrats have repeatedly defended the program. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in 2007 argued, “The Diversity Visa Program is the chance for many people of color around the world to immigrate to the United States and pursue the same American dream that many of the ancestors of the members [of Congress] here were able to pursue.” In 2006, clown-Schumer himself said, “This is an excellent program, and nobody has said it has done a bad job. It’s small; only about 50,000 visas a year… As I ride my bike around New York City on the weekends, I see what immigrants do for America and this program has dramatically helped.” The part about riding bikes is grotesquely ironic given the fact that the truck-driving terrorist plowed over bike-riding victims.
What is clear is that America’s immigration system needs serious reform. Too much of the current system has been designed by Democrats for the sole purpose of building their own party base rather than to establish an immigration system that prioritizes the rights and concerns of American citizens. Too often the idea expressed by lawmakers is that non-citizens have a right to emigrate to America. No non-citizen has a right to live, work or emigrate to the U.S. But every American has a right to demand that our government protect us and our interests first and foremost. The focus of government officials should not be promoting virtues of diversity; instead, they should be committed to protecting and defending the constitutional freedoms and rights of American citizens above all other considerations. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52204
Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter has revealed that business is sluggish due to fallout over his company’s ties to the NFL. He minced no words, either, reportedly complaining, “The NFL has hurt us by not resolving the current debacle to the players’ and owners’ satisfaction. NFL leadership has hurt Papa John’s shareholders.” He added, “Leadership starts at the top, and this is an example of poor leadership.” From Schnatter’s standpoint, “This should have been nipped in the bud a year and a half ago.”
According to Bloomberg, “Back in 2014, when Papa John’s posted a nearly 10 percent gain in North American same-store sales, the company credited its close relationship with the NFL and [Peyton] Manning for driving its business in the U.S. On Wednesday, the tone was quite different. Papa John’s post-earnings conference call was dominated by negative talk of the NFL. The league’s name came up 44 times during the discussion, compared with 12 mentions in the year-earlier call.”
The NFL fallout affects Papa John’s in terms of less exposure (not as many eyeballs are seeing ads). And a dwindling base translates into fewer orders. One also could assume that some fans are so fed up with the politics of the NFL that they are boycotting the companies associated with it as well. Of course, Papa John’s is free to take sponsorships elsewhere, and it may come to that. But its lackluster sales are yet more proof that the NFL opened a can of worms when it neglected to quickly and effectively diffuse the situation. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52211
{townhall.com} ~ Earlier this week, the government revealed that a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted a former Trump presidential campaign chairman and his former deputy and business partner for numerous felonies.
Both were accused of working as foreign agents and failing to report that status to the federal government, using shell corporations to launder income and obstruction of justice by lying to the federal government.
The financial crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2014, and the obstruction charges from 2014 to 2017. At the same time it announced the above, the government revealed that a low-level former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and become a government witness.
Does any of this relate to President Donald Trump? Here is the back story.
At the same time that Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were guiding the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, Russian agents were manipulating American social media sites so as to arouse chaos in general and animosity toward liar-Hillary Clinton in particular. The Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent counsel to determine whether any Americans had criminally helped the Russians.
The alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates appear to have nothing to do with Trump, nor have they any facial relationship to the Russians. So why were these two indicted by a grand jury hearing evidence about alleged American assistance to Russian interference with the 2016 presidential campaign?
When prosecutors confront a complex series of potentially criminal events, they often do not know at the outset of their investigation where the evidence will lead them. Sometimes they come upon a person who they believe has knowledge of facts they seek and that person declines to speak with them. Such a refusal to speak to the government is perfectly lawful in America, yet it often triggers a prosecution of the potential witness so that prosecutors may squeeze him -- not literally, of course -- for evidence to which they believe he can lead them.
The ultimate target of Mueller's investigation is President Trump. It is standard operating procedure when prosecutors have a high-level target to charge those below the target with something just to get them to cooperate. Though the charges against Manafort and Gates need not be related to the Russians or to Trump, they must be real. It's clear they are, as each is facing more than 20 years in prison. Mueller believes that prospect is enough to dispatch their lawyers to make deals with him.
The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear -- even if it is not truthful -- so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.
There is more danger in the seemingly smallest of this week's Mueller-generated events. Papadopoulos was interviewed voluntarily by the FBI on Jan. 27. He was arrested on July 27 for lying to FBI agents during that interview. In a secret federal court proceeding on Oct. 5, he pleaded guilty.
In a profound miscarriage of justice, federal law permits FBI agents to lie to us but makes it a crime for us to lie to them. Nevertheless, why was the Papadopoulos guilty plea kept secret? What was he doing between his arrest and his plea and between his plea and its revelation?
Judges are very reluctant to close their courtroom doors in any criminal proceeding, even if both the prosecutors and the defense counsel request it. The public has a right to know whom the government is prosecuting and what deals or punishments it may be obtaining. Yet if prosecutors can convince a judge that public knowledge of the existence of a guilty plea might harm an ongoing criminal investigation, the judge can keep the plea secret.
That is apparently what happened here. It appears that Papadopoulos was gathering evidence for Mueller, probably by talking to his former Trump campaign colleagues while wired -- a process that would have been fruitless if his guilty plea had become public.
Because Papadopoulos admitted under oath that he lied to FBI agents, the courts will treat his guilt as certain. That gives Mueller great leverage with him. It also gives Papadopoulos great incentive to help Mueller -- truthfully or not -- because he knows he is going to federal prison. He also knows that if Mueller likes what he hears, a five-year prison term could be reduced to six months.
Hence, Papadopoulos could be a treasure-trove for Mueller on the production of any evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Russians and any evidence of Trump's personal knowledge or acquiescence. Papadopoulos has already produced a wild tale about meetings with a Russian professor and a female Russian government agent in London that the FBI apparently believes.
Is this any way to conduct a prosecution?
I have argued for years that squeezing defendants and witnesses by threats and promises to get them to spill the beans is a form of extortion or bribery, not much different from the extortion and bribery that the government regularly prosecutes. "You tell us what we want to hear and we will ask a judge to go easy on you. If not, you will suffer great losses." It is bad enough that the feds can legally lie to us and get away with it, but can they also legally threaten and bribe witnesses to testify against us and get away with it? Can they do this to the president?
In a word, yes. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Squeezing witnesses and defendants is a way of life for federal prosecutors. For the president, it is the tip of a dangerous iceberg.

According to The Daily Signal, “In the past three years, members of the Science Advisory Board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Board of Scientific Counselors received about $77 million in direct EPA grants while serving, according to agency calculations.” This obviously created, at the least, temptation and, even more likely, corruption.
The new rule stipulates, “Members shall be independent from EPA, which shall include a requirement that no member of an EPA federal advisory committee be currently in receipt of EPA grants.” As Pruitt wisely put it, “Whatever science comes out of EPA shouldn’t be political science. From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.” This helps not only to contain conflicts of interests but also injects egalitarianism.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, “Earlier this year the agency broadened its application process, soliciting applications from underrepresented states. … The new pool of appointments, which will be announced in the coming week, will include members from EPA regions 6, 7, and 8. Those regions, which cover Dallas, Kansas City, and Denver, previously did not include a single representative on CASAC [the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee].” Moreover, “Pruitt said current members who are asked to continue their service and have received EPA grants would have to forgo grant funding if they stay on the board.”
Pruitt continues to do laudable work at the EPA. He’s pushing for the elimination of the Clean Power Plan, and he’s stopped another egregious antic — sue and settle. Stated simply: The agency is being turned on its head. No wonder Time magazine just published an inflammatory profile on Pruitt, deriding his involvement with “The Wrecking Crew.” In truth, he’s cleaning up an agency that was wrecked by the Barack liar-nObama administration. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52188
{thepoliticalinsider.com} ~ Former interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile revealed evidence that confirmed the Committee rigged the primary for liar-Hillary Clinton in 2016... Of course, we all knew this from Wikileaks last year, but the admission from such a powerful party figure is a surprise. It wasn’t too long ago that the official party line was that the primary wasn’t rigged. In fact, earlier this year, current DNC Chair Tom Perez said while running for the position, “We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged and it was. And you’ve got to be honest about it. That’s why we need a chair who is transparent.” Ironically, he soon backpedaled and claimed he misspoke. So much for transparency – you got it right the first time, Tom, even if you weren’t allowed to say it. Now the dam is officially breaking. In the wake of Brazile’s explosive news, Senator Elizabeth dinky-Warren agreed that the nomination was rigged... https://thepoliticalinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-rigged-primary/?utm_content=4b4ea4948726422aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI&utm_campaign=TPI_Morning_Newsletter_11_3_2017&utm_source=TPI-Newsletter-11-03-17-morning&utm_medium=email
VIDEO: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/926189366426431488
.
{townhall.com} ~ In considering the indictment of former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, I am reminded of former liar-Bill Clinton aide and defender James Carville's line about the ability of a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich."
Manafort and a longtime business partner, Rick Gates, pleaded not guilty to all 12 counts against them. Manafort is under house arrest after posting an outrageously high bond of $10 million. Gates' bond was set at $5 million. George Papadopoulos, who was a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, has pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI about his foreign contacts with several top Russian officials.
Predictably, the major media are celebrating this as the beginning of the end of the nascent Trump presidency. Within hours of the announced indictments, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof rushed into print with a column titled "Will Manafort Sing? If so, it may mark the beginning of the end of this presidency." Look for more of this wishful thinking that the establishment, the Democrats and all of the mainstream media have been hoping for since Trump won the election.
What Manafort stands accused of has nothing to do with the 2016 election, or with Russian "collusion." No one, so far, has produced any evidence the Russians affected the election's outcome. This is all about overturning the results and keeping "the swamp" full for those who live in it and reject change.
Real collusion might be in the significant share of U.S. uranium sold to the Russians during liar-Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state she signed off on the deal, followed by a $500,000 fee paid to her husband for a speech in Moscow and the millions of dollars that subsequently flowed into the liar-Clinton Foundation from uranium investors.
Special counsel Robert Mueller and Congress should investigate that Russian connection, along with the role of the Democratic National Committee and the liar-Hillary Clinton campaign and the earlier Republican role in creating an anti-Trump dossier that has been shown to be a fraud and yet was used to justify the appointment of Mueller. If the reason for Mueller's appointment is fraudulent, how can it be said that his investigation, which includes staff attorneys who made donations to liar-Hillary Clinton and Barack liar-nObama, is not tainted?
Among the many problems with this investigation is that it has no legal, subject or monetary limits. If Mueller and his associates are unable to prove collusion with the Russians, one can count on them coming up with something else. Far-left members of Congress, such as Mad-Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), openly state that their objective is to "take out" the president, and they don't mean to lunch.
There is also the matter of leaks from the grand jury. Not surprisingly, the details of the indictments matched the leak to CNN. Unless that network employs mind readers and engages in paranormal activity, those leaks are felonies and the leakers should be prosecuted.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are firing up investigations of their own, including long-overdue looks into various questionable and possibly illegal activities by the liar-Clintons. Congress is the proper avenue for such investigations, not special counsels, who can "go rogue" if they wish.
These seemingly endless accusations and investigations are what so much of the country hates about Washington, the "D.C." that increasingly seems to stand for "dysfunctional city." No matter which party controls government, the other party does all it can, by whatever means, to undermine those elected. This behavior solves no problems. It is only about grabbing and holding onto power.
Given the many moving parts in the Mueller probe and the loss of focus on the primary reason for it, the government may have a difficult time proving its case in court. But with unlimited funds and a staff of lawyers who have Democratic affiliations, you can bet they will try to make more than a ham sandwich out of it.
{themadpatriots.com} ~ President Trump is turning out to be an effective and efficient commander-in-chief, having given more authority to the Pentagon and the armed forces to do what they do best... Kill people and break stuff. And in that mission, they have been extraordinarily explosive since January, putting a serious hurting on Islamic terrorist groups around the world. The latest success: U.S. Special Forces in Libya have captured a second suspect in the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, just weeks after the first suspect went on trial in Washington. According to the Department of Justice, Mustafa al-Imam is on his way to the United States via military transport to face charges related to his participation in the 2012 attack that left four Americans dead. The apprehensions are slowly but surely bringing an end to a saga that has been an ongoing source of controversy for the liar-nObama administration and former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton. Initially, the administration flat-out lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, which transpired on the anniversary of 9/11... http://www.themadpatriots.com/freedom-news/nowhere-to-run-trump-exacts-justice-for-2012-benghazi-attack/
There will be more indictments from the investigation into the "attack on our democracy," as liar-Clinton calls it, but they may land on the doorstep of the liar-Clinton crime syndicate — especially in regard to the liar-nObama/liar-Clinton quid pro quo cash for uranium deal.
The Washington (Bezos) Post had been promoting this charade as Watergate on steroids, until it could no longer conceal the fact that it had discovered the fake Trump/Putin dossier, the impetus for investigation, was actually funded by liar-Clinton and the Democrat National Committee.
Again, in the spirit of the Watergate investigation, I ask, "What did WaPo know, and when did they know it?" Did it really take 10 months for some Beltway "journalist" to make the connection between liar-Clinton, the DNC and the Russians?
Four days before the WaPo report, liar-Clinton was still asserting the Trump Collusion Delusion: "The closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians ... the more they just want to throw mud on the wall, and I'm their favorite target."
She might already be Mueller's "favorite target."
The most notable — and expected — indictment was delivered to Paul Manafort, the short-term manager of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. But as it turns out, Manafort did not collude with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election —liar-Clinton, her campaign chief John Podesta, his brother Tony, and the DNC did.
They did exactly what they have accused Trump of doing...
More on Manafort in a minute, but first, let's review how we arrived at these indictments.
In October of 2015, a couple of notable establishment GOP "Never-Trumpers," billionaire Paul Singer, who is closely associated with William Kristol, used the Washington Free Beacon to fund some domestic opposition research on Trump, in hopes of giving candidate Jeb Bush a leg up in the Republican presidential primary. Contracting for "oppo research" is a common campaign tactic, but not so common for a conservative media outlet during the GOP primary.
The Free Beacon obtained the services of Washington-based Fusion GPS, but dropped the project after their man Bush withdrew from the primary in February of 2016.
A month later, looking for somebody to keep the cash flowing, Fusion's Glenn Simpson pitched the project to partners at Perkins Coie, the liar-Clinton and DNC law firm. (These people know no loyalty.) In April, Perkins Coie hired Fusion to continue the black-bag operation, and law-firm partner Marc Elias was the bagman. In the coming months, hundreds of thousands of dollars were funneled from liar-Clinton and the DNC to fund Fusion, which was increasingly under pressure to deliver something big.
In June, Fusion hired Christopher Steele, formerly head of the Russian desk with British Intelligence (MI6). Steele's Russian contacts then fabricated a best-seller about Trump and Moscow prostitutes. Steele insisted that Vladimir Putin was blackmailing Trump, and thus, Trump was colluding with Russian operatives. (Great novel!)
liar-Clinton campaign chairman Brian Fallon once declared, "There's a difference between going out and hiring opposition research firms that work in the United States of America and going out and soliciting information from a foreign national."
Indeed there is.
On 05 July, Steele gave his "election tampering narrative" to an FBI contact, who delivered it to FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok — without indicating that the dossier was paid for by liar-Clinton and the DNC. What better way to hammer Trump than to use a fake dossier to put the FBI on his trail. Then liar-Clinton campaign and DNC operatives started social media chatter to generate interest in the dossier claims.
The FBI then opened an investigation into alleged Trump/Putin collusion to influence the 2016 election outcome.
For the record, here's a keen observation of the obvious: Russians have an interest in undermining our government and economy, as well as confidence in our elections. So do a few other governments run by statist thugs.
If this surprises you, then go back to sleep.
If you're still awake, you have to ask yourself, which candidate would Putin have preferred to face after the 2016 election — Donald Trump or liar-Hillary Clinton, whose "Russian reset" paved the way for him to march into Ukraine, ensuring his oil and gas export capabilities?
If your answer is "Trump," then zzzzzzzzz.
In August, the fake dossier becomes the subject of intense interest over at the CIA, and Barack liar-nObama's CIA Director John Brennan takes it upon himself to brief then-Senate Minority Leader Harry dinky-Reid (D-NV).
Days later, the FBI obtained a FISA surveillance warrant citing the fake dossier as evidence.
Still no mention of who funded it, but if both the FBI and CIA did not know that liar-Clinton and the DNC were behind this charade, we are all in big trouble. Conversely, if they did know who funded it, we are in more trouble!
In the meantime, at the direction of Fusion, still churning their accounts with liar-Clinton and the DNC and in need of some big "fake news" ahead of the election, Steele "briefed" The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo! News, which published an article in September based on information in the fake dossier, but not mentioning it or its source. Otherwise, no takers.
In October, before the contract with liar-Clinton and the DNC ended, the FBI offered to pay Steele in order to keep the investigation moving forward ahead of the election. In November, after Trump's election, Steele sent a copy of the dossier to Trump's adversary, Sen. RINO-John McCain, who then personally brought it to the attention of then-FBI Director James Comey.
In December, Steele added his final chapter to the dossier, alleging that the Russians hacked the DNC's email system — but as you recall, the DNC would not turn over its servers to the FBI for review. Perhaps the experience with liar-Clinton's secret email servers gave them cold feet. (Hmmm)
In January of 2017, Comey briefed then-President-elect Trump on some elements of the dossier claims, a meeting that turned out to be a setup for an FBI leak to CNN. Then the leftist tabloid website BuzzFeed published the fake dossier using the CNN story as its justification.
In March, Michael Morell, liar-nObama's former CIA deputy director (and liar-Clinton's designated director had she been elected), offered this blunt assessment of the dossier: "There is smoke but there is no fire at all. There's no little campfire. There's no little candle. There's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it. ... [The dossier] doesn't take you anywhere."
As for Steel and his crude methods, Morell noted how that undermined the dossier's authenticity: "Unless you know the sources, and unless you know how a particular source acquired a particular piece of information, you can't judge the information — you just can't."
In a previous assessment a year ago, Morell concluded that Trump was, at worst, an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Of course, ahead of the election, liar-Clinton and the DNC were not interested in the facts but only the information's value as political propaganda to undermine Trump's campaign — to influence the election outcome. Ironically, it is still being used to influence the election outcome by undermining his victory.
Morell continued: "Intermediaries paid the sources ... and that worries me. [I]f you're paying somebody, particularly former FSB officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because they want to get paid some more. I think you've got to take all that into consideration when you consider the dossier."
Of course, Steele wanted to get paid more just like Fusion wanted to get paid more — and the only way to do that was to come up with dirt to help liar-Clinton and the DNC sucker-punch Trump.
But by that time, the fake dossier had become the centerpiece of the FBI investigation into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia to win the election. House Intelligence Committee minority ranking member scum-Adam Schiff (D-CA) declared that if there was collusion, "It would not only be a serious crime, it would also represent one of the most shocking betrayals of democracy in history."
According to Daniel Hoffman, former CIA station chief in Moscow from 2012-17, there is no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. In his New York Times op-ed, "It Wasn't About Collusion," Hoffman says Putin deliberately left a trail of breadcrumbs from Trump Tower to the Kremlin.
Well of course he did — but that's irrelevant now. Robert Mueller is on the case. As for his "mandate," Mueller is free to go wherever he thinks a criminal trail is leading him. Recall that the 1998 impeachment trial of liar-Bill Clinton for perjury in connection with having "relations" with female subordinates in the White House began with Special Counsel Ken Star's investigation of the liar-Clinton corruption originating with the Whitewater scandal in Arkansas years earlier. (Predictably, the Demo-controlled Senate did not convict liar-Clinton, though he did have to surrender his law license.)
Bottom line: We now know there was direct collusion with the Russians with the intent of influencing the 2016 election — but it was liar-Clinton and the DNC doing the colluding...
After WaPo finally exposed those details last week, former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is contending with her own considerable corruption problems, claimed, "I wasn't aware of the arrangement at all."
As for the new and improved DNC, it released this statement: "Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization."
Perez claimed, "I don't know how much of the opposition research was Fusion opposition research. I have not desegregated that amount."
Right.
A week later, Perez is still stonewalling questions about DNC payments to Fusion, insisting, "Opposition research is not simply something that ought be done, it would be malpractice not to do it." But of course he made no mention of the fact Democrats were colluding with Russians to influence the 2016 election.
Attempting to pivot back to Trump, Perez added, "We know that we were hacked by the Russians at the DNC," and, "What we know from the research is the Trump campaign and the Russians were talking to each other."
Well, we certainly now know that the DNC would not let the FBI review those hacked servers and that liar-Clinton, the DNC and Russians "were talking to each other" through their Fusion cutouts, and much more...
Now, full circle back to the indictment of Paul Manafort, who Mueller will likely "encourage" to say a few words about somebody else in order to lighten the charges against him.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote of the initial indictments, "After all these months of investigation, the much-anticipated Manafort charges turned out to be unrelated to Russian meddling in the 2016 election, let alone to any purported Trump-campaign collusion therein."
Notably, Manafort's indictment makes no mention of Donald Trump or his campaign, but recall that then-FBI Director James Comey repeatedly insisted that Trump was not a target of the investigation — before Trump fired him.
But what's most interesting about Manafort is his connection with Tony Podesta and, by extension, his brother and liar-Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. The charges against Manafort are connected to the "work" he did for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013-14 — using Tony Podesta as a primary lobbyist for Yanukovych.
On news of Manafort's indictment, Tony Podesta has resigned from his firm, perhaps in anticipation of his likely indictment — one of at least four more indictments in the Mueller pipeline. And the Swamp is a cesspool of lobbyist graft, so more may follow.
On Manafort's indictment, Senate Judiciary member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) insisted, "There is no real allegation in this indictment about the liar-Clinton campaign. ... These allegations involve potential collusion with the Russians, wholly independent of anybody in the liar-Clinton campaign."
Right. Not yet.
Has anybody seen liar-Hillary Clinton lately? If you run into her, please tell her, "Be careful what you wish for..." Ask her how she feels about a special prosecutor, mandated with investigating seven key questions about her Uranium One "deal" with Putin — now that was good old-fashioned corrupt liar-Clinton collusion.
Yet Mueller did not indict anyone in Podesta’s group, or anyone opposed to Trump. The American people elected Donald Trump as president after he promised to prosecute liar-Hillary for her apparent corruption, and now the exact opposite is transpiring as it is liar-Hillary’s side that is bilking the American taxpayers to lock up Trump supporters.
Many innocent people are being forced to spend enormous legal fees to defend against the out-of-control Mueller, who is acting like an independent federal prosecutor even though that law was terminated in 1999. There was nearly unanimous consensus after abuses by independent federal prosecutors in the 1980s and ’90s that such spectacles should not recur, yet Mueller apparently has carte blanche to pursue President Trump and his supporters.
Mueller was installed under the pretext of being merely a “special counsel” for the purpose of looking into possible interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential election. Instead, Mueller has acted without accountability or real oversight in going far beyond the outer limits of his charter.
Nothing in Mueller’s indictment of Manafort has a shred of evidence connecting President Donald Trump or his administration to the unusual charges against Manafort, which relate to activities predating his involvement with Trump’s campaign. Where’s the beef that justifies giving Mueller a blank check on the U.S. Treasury to engage in such a partisan, one-sided witch-hunt against persons, rather than any real crimes that would be within Mueller’s authorization?
The real purpose of Mueller’s bizarre indictment of Manafort is not to end lobbying on behalf of foreign interests, which is rampant in D.C., but to intimidate former and current Trump officials into playing ball with Mueller’s war against Trump. Already, many potential targets of Mueller’s one-sided investigation are being pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by having to hire $1,000-per-hour attorneys simply to defend themselves against alleged crimes that never happened.
Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, has a track record of over-the-top prosecutions ultimately reversed on appeal. As pointed out in a stinging exposé at The Hill, Weissmann had a lead role in the destruction of the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen and the loss of its 85,000 jobs, by seeking a conviction that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed, after it was too late to save the company.
Supposedly, Mueller’s conduct is made constitutional by a modicum of supervision and accountability that he should be receiving from the Department of Justice. But judging by Mueller’s off-the-rails indictment of Manafort, Mueller is not being reined in by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein or anyone else.
It is time to do so. President Trump, for whom the Department of Justice works, should begin by demanding an accounting of how much money Mueller’s team is wasting, and Trump should tweet that information directly to the American people.
With Attorney General Jeff Sessions having recused himself from this issue, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is supposedly in charge of Mueller. But Trump can fire Rosenstein, and he should do so if there is not immediate transparency on Mueller’s expenses and significant changes that rein in the runaway prosecutions.
Mueller’s team is obviously picking the targets and then searching for crimes, even obscure ones, to charge that target with. “Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted,” as renowned U.S. Attorney General and future Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson observed in 1940.
The indictment against Manafort even seems to be written more for the newspapers than for a court of law. “Conspiracy against the United States” shouts the first charge, a rarely used, politically misleading phrase.
The indictment also tosses in a laundry list of demands for forfeiture of assets, a widely criticized technique of prosecutors ordinarily reserved for drug kingpins and notorious criminals. But its message is for other Trump supporters: Tell us what we want to hear, or you’ll lose your home too.
“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes,” the future Justice Jackson said to a gathering of U.S. attorneys in 1940, “a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.” That is tyranny-by-prosecution, and Trump should instruct the Justice Department to stop it.
HILLARY’S ELECTION RIGGING WARRANTS SPECIAL PROSECUTOT
By
Daniel John Sobieski
And don’t forget Uranium One, Fusion GPS, keeping classified emails on an iunsecured private server, deleting 33,000 emails under subpoena, and, well, you get the idea. Unfortunately our AWOL AG Jeff Sessions, whose face was last seen on the side of a milk carton, does not. So we are left with the absurdity of a spcial prosecutor looking into Trump-Russia collusion where there is none while overlooking the multiple Clinton elephants in the room.
The revelation that both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were funneling money through a law firm to Fusion GPS to produce a slimy and fake dossier on Trump culled from foreign sources was bad enough. Now we find, courtesy of the one truthful and remorseful Democrat on this planet, former DNC Chairperson Donna Brazile, that the DNC was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, who probably violated multiple FEC campaign laws in rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders and shifted cash around in a manner that could only be called, what’s the word Robert Mueller would use, money-laundering:
In an excerpt from her upcoming book, Brazile says she discovered a document that explained why the Clinton campaign had such a stranglehold on the DNC. It was published in Politico Thursday.
“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard,” she wrote, “I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.”
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
Hillary Clinton staged a political coup worthy of a banana republic. Brazile has confirmed what the Sanders campaign claimed as early as May of 2016, charges that Hillary Clinton was engaging in money-laundering to help her campaign:
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, on Monday criticized a Hillary Clinton campaign fundraising scheme that state party leaders told Politico has been used as a self-serving “money-laundering” conduit.
Despite Clinton’s pledges to rebuild state parties, Politico found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in the state parties’ coffers.
“Secretary Clinton is looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign,” Weaver said. “We think the Clinton campaign should let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash.”
Sanders’ and Clinton’s primary campaigns both raised about $26 million in April, but Politico documented how the Hillary Victory Fund, a supposedly joint fundraising committee, has been exploited to inflate her presidential primary campaign.
“Secretary Clinton has exploited the rules in ways that let her high-dollar donors like Alice Walton of Wal-Mart fame and the actor George Clooney and his super-rich Hollywood friends skirt legal limits on campaign ontributions,” Weaver added. “If Secretary Clinton can’t raise the funds needed to run in a competitive primary without resorting to laundering, how will she compete against Donald Trump in a general election?”
Turns out that even with money-laundering, Hillary couldn’t win. On a receny edition of Fox News Sunday. House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, notes that in addition to laundering her campaign cash through her wholly-owned subsidiary, the DNC, Hillary Clinton used a law firm to funnel cash to Russia-linked Fusion GPS:
Gowdy said, “I’m not an election law expert, but the good news is you don’t have to be too understated the absurdity believing you can just launder all of your campaign money by just hiring a law firm. Imagine if you and I were running for Congress, and we just hired a law firm and said ‘Hey, you go to all the opposition, you go buy all the television, you go buy all the bumper stickers, you go higher all the experts, and we will launder all of this through a law firm. I can’t think of anything that defeats the purpose of transparency laws more than that.”
He continued, “I am interested in that, and I am also interested in sharing some memory tricks with folks at the DNC because no one can remember who paid 10 million dollars to a law firm to do oppo research. I find that stunning. $10 million and no one can remember who authorized it, who approved it. So you’ve got two issues, a memory issue and then the lack of transparency by laundering money through a law firm.”
And did we forget the Clinton Foundation? As Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett notes, it was used in an influence peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons and advance their political ambitions, colluding with the Russians to, among other things, sell 20 percent of our uranium supplies to interests and donors aligned with Moscow:
It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.
Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.
But that’s not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.
Hillary Clinton was the godfather, or is it godmother, that ran multiple criminal enterprises. The existence of a special prosecutor investigating Trump-Russia collusion is based on a fake dossier she controlled the financing of. Paul Manafort and his co-defendants could make the “fruit of a poison tree” argument, that since the dossier that sparked the investigation into collusion and resulting indictments was politically motivated and financed, and its unverified contents may have been used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants, anything that resulted from it should be summarily dismissed.
As for the aforementioned Marc Elias, his involvement in Hillary’s crimes is just one facet of his involvement with the crimes of Hilary and the Democrats. Remember he sat between former DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta as they invoked the Sergeant Schultz (no relation) defense regarding Fusion GPS
Did DNC and Team Hillary attorney Marc Elias lead John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz into a perjury trap? According to CNN, the two testified to congressional investigators that they did not have any knowledge of the funding for the Fusion GPS dossier that prompted an FBI probe into Donald Trump campaign figures.
In recent closed-door interviews with the Senate intelligence committee, Podesta and Wasserman Schultz said they did not know who had funded Fusion GPS, the intelligence firm that hired British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier on Trump, the sources said.
Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources.
Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.
Whether or not this testimony was under oath, it is a crime to provide false testimony to Congress.
Indeed it is. Add it to the list of crimes that go uninvestigated and unprosecuted as AG Jeff Sessions contemplates his navel. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed and a grand jury empanelled to investigate this list of crimes that would make a mafia don proud. Justice should be blind and not brain-dead. Unless there is a double standard at play here, there is no equal justice under the law and Hillary Clinton was right when she said laws are for the little people.
Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.
“There is clearly overwhelming evidence that there are growing ties between U.S. radicals and the Islamic State, as well as several [ISIS] offshoots and splinter groups,” a recent FBI field report states. In fact, the report continues, “This is the greatest challenge to law enforcement since the Weather Underground and the Black Panther Party.” According to the report, there is evidence that members of a leftist radical group from Oakland traveled this past summer to Germany and met with individuals associated with the Islamic State. “Ties between three key leaders in the Oakland group met in Hamburg with a leader of the AQAP [al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula] and the AQIM [al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb]. The leader from AQAP is an Egyptian-born male who is know to be in charge of finances and recruiting for the group. There is evidence from informants that he is helping the Oakland group acquire the weapons they are seeking, primarily bomb making equipment and toxic chemicals and gasses,” the report surmises. The field report then said, “This group and their connections with radical Islamic groups must be disrupted and destroyed.”
How did this growing radicalization remain under the radar for so long? Klein blames Barack liar-nObama and his Justice Department’s misplaced focus on supposed threats posed by Tea Party “terrorists.” Klein writes, “The FBI is really playing catchup ball, because the liar-nObama administration refused to give the bureau the resources it needed to effectively infiltrate and surveil the radical groups on college campuses. … Any talk of a connection between radical Islam — a phrase the liar-nObama people wouldn’t even use — and American extremists was pretty much laughed off. Loretta Lynch would have blown a gasket if she heard that the FBI was surveilling so-called college political organizations. All that has changed under the Trump administration. Everyone’s aware that the resistance movement, with its effort to get rid of Trump by any means necessary, has created fertile soil for ISIS and al Qaeda to establish a beachhead in America.”
The radical Left in America today poses the greatest threat for the propagation of domestic acts of terror. Reports that these antifa groups are actively seeking out and associating with Islamic terrorists are highly concerning. Americans standing up for their constitutional rights are not the threat; rather it is those who preach that free speech equals violence and therefore must be silenced with violence. These groups are the true danger to Americans and our way of life. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52180
{totalconservative.com} ~ The media is predictably making a lot of hay out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s first indictments of the Russian investigation... but they are glossing over the inconvenient fact that very few – if any – of the charges being brought against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates have anything whatsoever to do with Mueller’s supposed scope of inquiry. Astute readers will recall that this investigation was supposed to determine if Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat liar-Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Right? That’s what all of this was about, right? Well, you wouldn’t know it from reading the charges against Manafort, which are mostly related to financial transactions and money laundering that preceded the Trump campaign by four years! In a column for National Review, former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, himself no particular fan of Trump, said the indictments were only good news for the White House... http://totalconservative.com/former-prosecutor-blasts-manafort-indictment-no-collusion/
Congressional Republicans having utterly failed to move the ball forward, President Donald Trump has used a series of executive orders to weaken liar-nObamaCare since taking office. He has reduced the 90-day enrollment period to 45 days, cut the advertising budget for liar-nObamaCare by 90%, and reduced the number of federally funded enrollment advisers. These actions have lowered the public awareness level to such an extent that some people already believe liar-nObamaCare is done. If only that were true.
Trump put another nail in the liar-nObamaCare coffin last month when he brought an end to cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies. If you recall, these were payouts Barack liar-nObama made to insurance companies to cover their losses and keep premiums artificially low for lower-income consumers. Like many things liar-nObama did regarding his signature law, these payouts were not constitutional because the money was never appropriated by Congress. liar-nObama just used his “phone and pen” to give out the cash himself.
Democrats from 18 states sued the Trump administration to get their illegal money back, but Federal Judge Vince Chhabria rejected their suit. “It appears initially that the Trump Administration has the stronger legal argument,” the judge said, noting that forcing the payments to resume after 2018 insurance rates have already been set would benefit insurers and not consumers.
Though Judge Chhabria thinks otherwise, the long-term effect of the end of the CSR payouts will lead to more insurance companies pulling out of the exchanges. Those that remain will have to raise their rates. But that has already been the overwhelming trend since the year liar-nObamaCare went into effect.
Rates increased across the board for 2017. The price of bronze plans has gone up 18%, gold plans have risen 16% and platinum plans have gone up 24%. Democrats want to blame this increase on Trump, but these rates were set last year. The current insurance landscape is as it would be no matter who won the election last November.
The downward spiral will certainly continue. S&P estimates that enrollment for next year will be 7-13% lower compared to that of 2017. Trying to make the case that this is Trump’s fault is just an excuse by Democrats who want to blame the failure of their Great Health Care Achievement™ on the Republicans. From day one, liar-nObamaCare was on shaky ground. What we are witnessing now is the law’s continued death spiral.
If the two parties continue to play the blame game, however, the only loser will be Americans who need affordable health care. Democrats obviously have no interest in working with Republicans to find a way to achieve the goal of allowing the free market to provide affordable health care and insurance for all Americans. It should be painfully clear by this point that the federal government is incapable of making this happen. A new, market-based solution must be found, or the ranks of the uninsured will only continue to grow. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52175
Obama Rigged Deal To Secretly Smuggle US Uranium To Europe, Asia
Obama manipulated the deal to provide a method of secretly transporting the Uranium One uranium out of the US, to Canada, Europe and Asia despite promises otherwise…
The interview with John Solomon of the Hill and Sarah Carter exposes another false claim that was made by the Obama regime and others who stood to benefit from the Uranium One deal, that none of our uranium would be exported outside of the United States.
Solomon says that claim is “definitely disproven,” there’s not any doubt that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized, through a back door, a third party license to let Uranium One export to Canada and then according to the Department of Energy records and according to a statement that Uranium One gave us, some of that uranium left Canada and went to Europe and possibly to Asia.”
Asked if we know where in Europe or Asia, Solomon replies that we do not, that “it’s proprietary information, the final destinations, at least so far, we’ve not been able to get that.”
He notes that they’ll keep digging but says “The most important point is we’re a country that has to import most of our uranium. Here’s uranium in the United States and for some reason we let it go to Canada and possibly to Europe and beyond.
He notes those were the concerns of lawmakers who objected at the time, and the assurances they were given are now exposed as lies. Hannity questions Solomon on another aspect of his reporting which links Hussein Obama directly to the nefarious deal.
Hannity says, “Barack Obama purposely manipulated the process to allow this trucking company to be the conduit by which they got the uranium out of the country.” Solomon explains there were a series of decisions made by the Obama administration, time and time again between 2010 and 2012, that are incredibly favorable to Rosatom, the state owned Russian nuclear energy industry.”
He notes, “Time and again these decisions are being made while the FBI knows that there is criminality going on by that company’s executives.” Hannity injects the examples of “bribery, extortion, money laundering, racketeering and so on.”
Solomon continues, “And there’s a second thing that I’m just starting to report out now but there were also concerns in the Obama administration, very specific concerns that Russia was engaged in a uranium scheme, that it was going to get enough control of Uranium, dump it on the market, drive all the prices down and put all the other people out of business.”
He says, “Those are two legitimate national security concerns that don’t seem to have an effect on all of these giveaways. Sara Carter also has troubling information about a Department of Energy employee that she shares.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US
44% of Millennials Prefer Socialism, Communism Study Shows
When the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation published their inaugural survey on American attitudes toward socialism and communism last year, the results revealed some very disturbing trends in American society.
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VCMF), a D.C.-based nonprofit were startled to see that one out of every two millennials in the United States say they would rather live in a socialist or communist country than a capitalist democracy such as the United States.
This year’s centennial anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution has caused many to reflect on communism’s place in our collective memory. It has been a full century since Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd and communism made its bloody debut on the world stage. Authors, activists, and politicians alike are asking the question: what has America learned from one hundred years of communism?
The answer? Apparently, not much.
When the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation published our inaugural survey on American attitudes toward socialism and communism last year, the results revealed some disturbing trends in American society.
We discovered a rampant amnesia about the crimes of communist regimes and a growing inclination among younger Americans toward favorable views of communism and socialism.
This week we completed our second annual study, tracking how opinions about communism among Americans have changed since 2016. The results are not encouraging.
For starters, as of this year, more Millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country (44%) than in a capitalist one (42%). Or even a communist country (7%). The percentage of Millennials who would prefer socialism to capitalism is a full ten points higher than that of the general population.
The significance of this finding cannot be overstated—as of last year, Millennials surpassed Baby Boomers as the largest generational cohort in American society.
The largest generation in America would prefer to live under socialism or communism than under a free market system that respects the rule of law, private property, and limited state intervention. This finding is coupled with the fact that, despite Millennials’ enthusiasm for socialism and communism, they do not, in fact, know what those words mean.
U.S. Senator Demands Communist West Point Graduate Be Removed
Our study indicates that the attraction of socialism for Millennials has less to do with their familiarity with the ideology and more to do with their discontent with the current economic system, the flaws of which they blame on free-market capitalism.
At 53%, Millennials reported the highest levels of discontent with the American economic system and indicated their belief that the American free enterprise system worked against them. Seven in ten Americans felt that the highest earners in America do not pay their fair share. Half of them indicated that increased taxes on the rich are the way to solve inequality, while 37% advocated for a “complete change of the American economic system.”
One remarkable finding of our survey is that over two thirds of Americans favor absolute protections for free speech, regardless of their views of communism or socialism. This is good news and indicates that the violent protests and intimidation of guest speakers on American college campuses is not widely sanctioned behavior.
Communists in particular and socialists more broadly have historically and ideologically favored state regulation of the press, speech, and voluntary association.
Our results suggest that Millennials who favor socialism and communism have not thoroughly considered the implications of their stated political beliefs.
Given the apparent growing preference for socialism, one might think that Millennials would be familiar with the world’s newest socialist country—Venezuela.
Unfortunately, Americans are as ignorant of the developing situation in socialist Venezuela as they are of the definition of socialism itself. Six out of every ten Americans surveyed were wholly unfamiliar with Venezuela’s socialist dictator, Nicolás Maduro, and the economic crisis and human rights abuses that have occurred under his rule.
So, 100 years after the Bolshevik Revolution, the majority of the largest generational cohorts in America show great enthusiasm for socialism while completely failing to correctly identify its definition when asked or examine its consequences. It gets worse.
Seven in ten Americans drastically underestimate the number of people killed at the hands of communist regimes over the last century. This is unsurprising, given the fact that half of all Millennials say they have never heard of Mao Zedong, a man whose policies killed nearly 60 million people, making him the greatest mass murderer of the twentieth century.
October 1975 Soviet Red Square Revolution ParadeUnfortunately, these data points are not the only indication of the pervasive ignorance in the West regarding communism’s legacy of fear, genocide, and destruction. This year, communist ensigns emblazoned with hammer and sickle waved opposite Nazi flags in Charlottesville. Ireland issued stamps of Ernesto “Che” Guevara—a racist, homophobic murderer—as thousands gathered in Cuba, Bolivia, and Argentina on the 50th anniversary of his death.
A West Point cadet and Afghanistan veteran wore Che’s image in uniform while publicly proclaiming that “communism will win.” Violent, militant groups on the far left intimidate and antagonize in the name of “anti-fascism” and are praised in the media for doing so. News outlets publish articles extolling the virtues of life under communism, pointing out “all the good things” that communism accomplished.
Meanwhile, communist China’s leader—newly christened the most powerful man in the world—rules the most populous nation on earth with an iron fist while his underlings proclaim him the new Mao Zedong. At home, he uses force and intimidation to consolidate his power while denying his people the most basic human rights. Abroad, he uses deceit, misinformation, and cyber espionage to shut down publishing houses and drown out critical voices while engaging in the most ambitious imperial project since the Soviet Union’s “Evil Empire” days.
Communism isn’t back: It never left. We simply forgot about it. And as it rears its ugly head once more, openly and shamelessly, we seem far less prepared to meet the ideological challenge in this century compared to the last.
A communist revolution in 1917 launched the bloodiest century in human history. In 2017, we have all but forgotten the appalling legacy of this gruesome ideology. We continue to be led astray by the false promises, the mendacious rhetoric, and the ignorant romanticizing of history’s most effective death cult.
Thankfully, there is a silver lining. Compared to last year, more Millennials now think communism is still a problem today. Additionally, Millennial favorability toward communist figures like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Che Guevara has dropped over the past year. Meanwhile, America’s youngest generation—Generation Z—exhibits an appreciation of individuality and a deep mistrust of collectivism in all its forms, especially that of communism. Having come of age after the Great Recession, they are frugal, entrepreneurial, and confident that the American economic system works in their interest.
Despite this positive trend, America’s youngest generation is still largely ignorant of the crimes of communist regimes or how Marxist ideology directly enables such atrocities.
If we want to truly put this horrific ideology on the ash heap of history, we have a responsibility to warn a new generation of Americans about its dangers. We have a responsibility to tell the truth.
Within the inaugural survey, the data is very revealing.
The key findings found:
- The First-of-its-kind YouGov Poll Shows “Bernie Sanders Bounce” for Collectivism
- Surprising Support for Socialism and Communism Among Younger Americans
- 45% of 16-20 year olds would vote for a “Socialist”; 21% for a “Communist”
- One-third of Millennials Believe George W. Bush Killed More People Than Stalin
- Vast Majority Unaware of Communism’s Death Toll
- More Millennials Prefer Words of Karl Marx Over the Bible
- Bernie Sanders’ Philosophy Wins More Support Than Milton Friedman’s
News
White QB Tackled By Black Teammates For Not Kneeling Just Made Shocking Admission About What Else They Did To Him
( People still support kind of behavior by still going to the games and watching on T.V. )
It’s the twenty first century, year 2017, and I am still surprised how things like this still happen and are relevant. Things have escalated very quickly, as a white quarterback suffered a season-ending injury due to extreme racism on the field.
The attitude of black players in the NFL over the past month is getting out of hand. The protests have taken a racist turn, as they are giving black power salutes, inspired by Michael Bennett, a player from The Seattle Seahawks.
Except Derek Carr, all of Oakland Raiders’ players are black. He was the only one from his team that stood proud for the national anthem, as his entire offensive line sat it out.

The talk among the black players who sat out the anthem was, “If he [Carr] wants to stand alone for the National Anthem, he can stand alone on the field.”
The players who needed to protect Carr were not doing their job after the protest. He went on to be sacked four times in a row and had sustained a season-ending injury.
Football is an aggressive sport and we shouldn’t be blaming the other team’s players, after all they were doing their job. It’s Carr’s teammates who are in the wrong, not shielding him and leaving him alone in the field, that attitude lead to Derek sustaining a career-ending fractured spine.
The game came to a complete stop when Carr took a vicious hit. The medics rushed in to help him, but he wasn’t moving at all. He was carried away to a medical tent as the fans were in complete shock to what just occurred.
The Ringer:
“Carr was scrambling in the backfield trying to avoid a sack from multiple Broncos defenders when, falling toward the ground, it appeared he took a knee in the back from Broncos defensive end Adam Gotsis. Carr stayed down on the field before heading to the blue medical tent on the sideline, and eventually the locker room.”
Throwing a game is illegal, and the black players of the Seahawks could go in jail for that, said TV Host Bill O’Reilly later in the broadcast.
Carr’s injury can’t be ruled out as coincidental, because of what his teammates said about leaving him alone on the field. We hope that Carr recovers as soon as possible.






