Previous month:
April 2019
Next month:
June 2019

THE DEMOCRATS CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES

MIMIW

As the Mueller Report controversy continues in the media – even knowing that Trump did not collude with Russia to interfere with the 2016 elections and did not obstruct justice while performing his constitutional duties – I was wondering if it was possible that the progressive socialist democrats in Congress were using the Trump/Russia collusion allegations to distract from an even bigger national security scandal.

What if …

What if the congressional Democrats found that they had willingly and negligently participated in a national security breach that saw the penetration of congressional computer systems, the large scale theft of taxpayer funds used by congressional offices, and the conveyance of classified information to a foreign intelligence service? And, what if this breach of national security was known to the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies and was being deliberately suppressed by order of the congressional Democrats? With approximately 20% of the Democrat caucus at risk from the perpetrators, what are the chances that some representatives feel coerced to cover up the matter and to pressure others to do the same?

Unbelievable?

Not really. The real charges disappear, and the perpetrator is given a government “get out of jail free” card.

Excerpts from Plea Agreement Letter in the matter of United States v. Imran Awan -- Criminal Case No. 17-cr-161 (TSC)

This letter sets forth the full and complete plea offer to your client, Imran A wan (hereinafter referred to as "your client" or "defendant"), from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia (hereinafter also referred to as "the Government" or "this Office"). This plea offer expires on July 3, 2018.

1. Charges and Statutory Penalties

Your client agrees to plead guilty to Count Three in the Indictment, charging your client with False Statement on Loan or Credit Application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Your client understands that a violation of 18 U.S. C. § 1014 carries a maximum sentence of 30 years of imprisonment; a fine of $1,000,000 or twice the pecuniary gain or loss of the offense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3); a term of supervised release of not more than 5 years, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(l); mandatory restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; and an obligation to pay any applicable interest or penalties on fines and restitution not timely made.

4. Dismissal of Co-Defendant Hina Alvi

As part of your client's guilty plea to the above offense, the Government will request that the Court dismiss all charges in the Indictment against co-defendant Hina Alvi at the time of sentencing.

[OCS: Hina Alvi is Imran Awan’s wife and was apprehended by customs and found to have $12,400 in cash – but was permitted to fly to Qatar with her children even though she was traveling with food and household goods that indicated that she was unlikely to return.]

8. Relevant Conduct for Purposes of Sentencing Allocution

The Government agrees that, as part of its sentencing allocution, the relevant conduct for purposes of determining your client's sentence is the conduct described in the Statement of Offense.

More specifically, the Government agrees that the public allegations that your client stole U.S. House of Representatives ("House") equipment and engaged in unauthorized or illegal conduct involving House computer systems do not form the basis of any conduct relevant to the determination of the sentence in this case.

The Government conducted a thorough investigation of those allegations, including interviewing approximately 40 witnesses; taking custody of the House Democratic Caucus server, along with other computers, hard drives, and electronic devices; examining those devices, including inspecting their physical condition and analyzing log-in and usage data; reviewing electronic communications between pertinent House employees; consulting with the House Office of General Counsel and House information technology personnel to access and/or collect evidence; and questioning your client during numerous voluntary interviews. The Government has uncovered no evidence that your client violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems. Particularly, the Government has found no evidence that your client illegally removed House data from the House network or from House Members' offices, stole the House Democratic Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed or transferred government information, including classified or sensitive information.

[OCS: It appeared that the government sought to exonerate the defendants of all of the serious charges that may have resulted in the criminal indictments and convictions of House Democrats and staff members. Prosecutors do not exonerate individuals of criminal wrongdoing -- they either charge or remain silent. This is the smoking gun -- describing the highly unusual nature of this particular case.

Additionally, it is believed that the investigation was knowingly fudged by Obama Administration law enforcement and intelligence agency officials. How convenient … and how typical of the Obama-era deep state?

Over 5,700 logins by the five Awan associates were discovered on a single server within the House, the server of the Democratic Caucus Chairman, then Rep. Xavier Becerra of California. Up to 40 or more members of Congress had all of their data moved out their office servers and onto the Becerra server without their knowledge or consent.”          

Becerra left Congress in January 2017. Before he left, Capitol Police wanted a copy of the caucus server’s contents.

Becerra presumably told Imran Awan that Capitol Police wanted a copy of the server. What is known is that Awan did produce a copy of a server’s data for Capitol Police; however, after taking a look at the data they were provided, Capitol Police determined they were given a copy of data from some other server instead.

Capitol Police found that the image (the copy of the server contents) they were supplied was false,” said Rep. Perry, quoting a report from the House Office of Inspector General.

So the Awans had access to – in fact, were copying – all the emails, personal schedules and other data from the Democrats they worked for to this server and, according to other reports, a Dropbox account. <Source>

There is an abundance of conflicting and disturbing information that is contained within official government documents which conveniently are being ignored in favor of the Trump witch hunt.]

<Source: DOJ>

Imagine 20% of the house Democrats used IT services from five unvetted Pakistani nationals who were promoted by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former Democratic National Committee Chair who went to extraordinary lengths to defend and protect the perpetrators – even threatening Capitol Police if they accessed a laptop over which she initially claimed ownership and then later retracted.

Bottom line…

Who can say that it was not this group that obtained the information claimed hacked from Democrat servers and released – possibly as a demonstration of how more serious information could be released if the matter was not quashed?

Where are the charges of lying to government investigators? Where are the charges of espionage and computer hacking, identity theft, and using stolen passwords? Where are the charges of defrauding the United States by significantly overcharging for services never performed? Where is the Grand Jury questioning of Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

And, what of the judge that “sentenced Awan to time served — which was one day in detention -- and 11 months of GPS monitoring — plus three months’ supervision? And, said from the bench, “The court finds Mr. Awan and his family have suffered sufficiently.”

This IT matter makes the Julian Assange hacking/password charges look almost petty and ludicrous.

Something stinks in Washington, and it appears that the smell is emanating from the Democrats and some of their wishy-washy GOP RINOs.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



ROBERT MUELLER'S "JAMES COMEY MOMENT" BEFORE THE MEDIA...

MUELLER

There is little doubt in my mind that Robert Mueller, appointed to lead a Special Counsel investigation of the Trump/Russia collusion allegations sparked by the efforts of the Obama Administration, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the Democratic National Committee, was and is witting or unwittingly a conflicted progressive socialist democrat acting to protect agencies and individuals in his past and president life. I no longer believe he is a credible and trustworthy actor worthy of my respect.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “James Comey Moment” before the media…

It appears that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is attempting to avoid appearing before various Congressional investigating committees to answer what could prove to be difficult and unsettling questions about the predicate for the counterintelligence investigation and subsequent criminal investigation that lead to his appointment.

Imagine what might be revealed if Mueller is asked about his previous connections and interactions with the agencies and individuals involved in the nefarious activities surrounding the so-called Steele dossier, spying on American citizens, the use of intelligence operatives who appear willing to entrap the various individuals involved? Or, to explain why his team consisted of individuals with a virulent hatred of the President and whether or not they violated various Department of Justice rules, regulations, protocols, and practices as they went about their business? But, most importantly, why, after two years and $35 million, nobody investigated the origins of the allegations and why Hillary Clinton whose campaign, along with the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, paid for much of the original investigative material used in the probe and was excused for the very tangible evidence of serious crimes that she committed while in and out of office.

Here are the highlights of Mueller’s musings…

Mueller prefaced his remarks by saying that he is getting out of Dodge … the “investigation is complete,” he is “formally closing” the investigation, and that he is “resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life." Probably to be rewarded by his progressive friends and the liberal media for crapping all over our system of justice, and in particular, the President of the United States.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's remarks to reporters at the Department of Justice

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel's office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

[OCS: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s role in this affair, following the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is highly suspect. Even now, the complete appointment order, predicate activities, and the order’s subsequent modifications remain hidden from the American public.]

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the special counsel's office and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life.

[OCS: The 400-page report was not required under the DOJ rules, the report did not have to be given to Congress, the media, or the public. The report was provided to Congress, with only Grand Jury material redacted. There never was a need to include the Grand Jury material, so that failure lies strictly with Mueller and those who wrote the report.]

I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber-techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. 

[OCS: To this date, there is no conclusive evidence that the Russians stole private information from any server because the Democrats refused the FBI's request for forensic access to the allegedly hacked server, the hacking allegations were produced by a vendor associated with the Democrat Party, and there is credible skepticism that the amount of data stolen could have been remotely obtained. It has been suggested that the material was stolen by an insider and provided to Wikileaks.]

These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege and the other activities in our report describe efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

[OCS: This is the pretext which was proffered by those Democrats who wanted to interfere with the election – and especially where it concerned candidate Donald Trump.]

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

[OCS: Considering the actions of the Obama Administration, and especially the actions of Hillary Clinton, this statement is nonsensical as Hillary and her associates destroyed evidence, destroyed documents, and repeatedly lied to the government investigators with impunity and without any apparent consequences.]

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

[OCS: This should have been the first statement in the report to Attorney General Bill Barr and is sufficient in and of itself to satisfy the guidelines of the DOJ.]

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work.

[OCS: The second statement should have been that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with obstruction of justice.]

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

[OCS: Obviously they did not have reliable evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. And, since whatever information they obtained during their investigation was not challenged or tested in a court of competent jurisdiction, it remains as a prosecutor’s opinion. Since prosecutors are neither judge nor jury, there is no reason that any “supplementary” material needed to be provided to anyone, especially not Congress, the media, or the public.]

The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

[OCS: This is a clear indication of Mueller’s malfeasance. Had he believed the DOJ opinion was unconstitutional or that the President committed a criminal act while exercising his lawful sworn duties, it was up to Mueller to refer this to the judiciary for determination and adjudication. Anything less is an abdication of his duty.]

A special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.

[OCS: While the Special Counsel is bound by DOJ rules, regulations, and protocols, this does not preclude independent legal action to seek a ruling on the appropriate nature of the rules – especially where constitutional issues are being considered.]

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

[OCS: Funny, this did not explain why one of the the FBI’s reports of General Michael Flynn’s interrogation, one of Mueller’s initial targets, was written approximately seven months after the fact.]

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

[OCS: While a president may be accused, but not prosecuted, that does not mean that the President gets a free pass. If the matters involve high crimes and misdemeanors, there is nothing preventing the investigation from reporting that fact to its DOJ superiors.] 

And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

[OCS: The above paragraph should contain a warning overlay: Bobby’s Bullshit!Yes, it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when the evidence could not be challenged and a fair adjudication received – but that did not stop Special Counsel Mueller from using innuendo and the lack of a determination to infer that a crime could have been committed. By going beyond the prosecutor’s duties to charge or not to charge, Mueller, in effect, attempted to indict and prosecute a sitting President of the United States in the court of public opinion.]

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president.

[OCS: This is proof positive that Mueller was engaged in a political action against the President of the United States. His duty was to charge or not to charge – and if he did not have sufficient evidence or believe he could prevail in a court of competent jurisdiction, he should have simply walked away after notifying the Attorney General he was unable to indict and/or be reasonably sure he could prevail in a court action.]

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations. The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision.

[OCS: It was Mueller who acted in bad faith. First, by failing to review Attorney General Barr’s 4-page summary of the conclusions; and second, by writing a pissy letter claiming that he should have released more material to avoid media confusion. AG Barr rendered all the political posturing moot when he released the report with only Grand Jury and classified information redacted as required by law.]

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

[OCS: Robert Mueller’s actions, from the selection of his anti-Trump staff to his final report needs to be placed in context of the entire conspiracy to interfere with an election and, more importantly, to hamstring the activities of a sitting president.]

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

[OCS: Ironic, this is a prima facie case of Mueller’s obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress by willfully refusing to respond to questions asked of him by a duly authorized congressional committee. Perhaps Mueller should be asked those questions before a Grand Jury?]

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So, beyond what I've said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it's for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.

[OCS: Considering instances of apparent entrapment, coercion of witnesses, and individual wrongdoing by members of the team like Strzok and Page whose emails simply vanished, I would question the fairness and independence of the investigation.]

These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel's office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election.

And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Speaker Pelosi reacts…

Reacting to Special Counsel Mueller’s remarks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) remarked that “Many constituents want to impeach the president. But we want to do what is right and what gets results. But we do want to make such a compelling case, such an ironclad case that even the Republican Senate would — at this time seems to be not an objective jury — will be convinced of the path that we have to take as a country.”

Nothing is stopping Speaker Pelosi and her cadre of progressive socialist democrats in the House of Representatives from impeaching the President of the United States regardless of what the Senate may do with the impeachment referral. What seems to be troubling for her caucus is that there would be immediate and severe repercussions in the 2020 election cycle should the initial event that gave rise to the original collusion investigation be revealed as a conscious plot by the Obama Administration to interfere in a presidential election and subsequently to interfere with a duly elected president performing his constitutional duties.

Bottom line…

Special Counsel my ass. The entire shebang needs a Special Prosecutor that starts at the beginning and follows the trail.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



CHINA VERSUS TRUMP

It appears that a divided American, a hostile media, and never-ending attacks on President Trump are conveying the wrong message to our enemies, both foreign and domestic. A message that portrays President Trump as a caricature of a television reality star and not a serious leader.

trunp

China Gears Up to Weaponize Rare Earths in Trade War

(Bloomberg) -- Beijing is gearing up to use its dominance of rare earths as a counter in its trade battle with Washington, according to a salvo of media reports in China that included hints from the state planning agency. Stocks of producers surged.

[OCS: To be valuable, rare earth minerals must be mined, refined, and then used in products that someone wants to purchase. Even if the United States is in a so-called “trade war,” most of the fabrication facilities are in Asia and no subject to Chinese tariffs.

Additionally, China is close to a recession, an event the Chinese people have not had to face for at least 40 years and when the stability of the nation is threatened, so will be the leadership of President Xi Jinping who would like to remain in a leadership role until he voluntarily retires or dies in office.]

The U.S. shouldn’t underestimate China’s ability to fight the trade war, the People’s Daily, a flagship newspaper of the ruling Communist Party, said in an editorial Wednesday that used some historically significant language on the weight of China’s intent.

[OCS: I hate it when the media refers to the ongoing negotiation as a “trade war.” Yes, it is about opening up Chinese markets to American goods – but it is more about curtailing the rampant theft of U.S. military and commercial intellectual property. Both sides of the negotiation have their self-serving drama queens and routinely talk tough for domestic consumption.]

The newspaper’s commentary included a rare Chinese phrase that means “don’t say I didn’t warn you.” The specific wording was used by the paper in 1962 before China went to war with India, and “those familiar with Chinese diplomatic language know the weight of this phrase,” the Global Times, a newspaper affiliated with the Communist Party, said in an article last April. It was also used before conflict broke out between China and Vietnam in 1979.

[OCS: I can just imagine Donald Trump asking the Chinese what they might do if their access to U.S. financial markets was slowed down or impeded? There are any number of diplomatic, military, and commercial tools in Trump’s basket. Unfortunately, there are those in Congress like Nancy Pelosi and others who have strong commercial relationships with China and who might seriously collude with our enemies to disadvantage Donald Trump prior to the 2020 election.]

On rare earths specifically, the People’s Daily said it isn’t hard to answer the question whether China will use the elements as retaliation in the trade war.

China is “seriously” considering restricting rare earth exports to the U.S. and may also implement other countermeasures, the editor-in-chief of the Global Times, said in a tweet. An official at the National Development & Reform Commission told CCTV that people in the country won’t be happy to see products made with exported rare earths being used to suppress China’s development.

Editorials in the Global Times and Shanghai Securities News took similar tacks in their Wednesday editions.

[OCS: These are not independent news sources and are every bit as much the propaganda arm of the Red Chinese as Pravda is of Russia, and the New York Times is of the Democrat Party.]

The nation’s producers have rallied hard in recent weeks on the view that rare earths could be an ace in the trade war. President Xi Jinping visited a plant earlier this month, accompanied by his chief trade negotiator with the U.S., fueling speculation that the strategic materials could be weaponized in China’s tit-for-tat with the U.S.

Read more here.

Bottom line…

Let us not forget that these tariffs are producing billions of dollars that are flowing into the U.S. Treasury. (What did you think happened to the tariff money?) And, it would be a bitch if President Trump used that money to protect our Southern Border with a barrier?

Trump may not understand the polite etiquette of the diplomat who breaks bread with our enemies … but he has negotiated with unions and mob bosses (really one and the same in the New York real estate construction market). But, more significantly, he is a counter-puncher willing to fight back and seems to care not one whit about what the opposition and their propaganda press are screaming.

We are so screwed, not because of Trump, but because of people like Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Schiff, etc.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



THE COMING CAMPAIGN


demo-handicap

What politicians don't seem to understand, or are deliberately exploiting, is that many people are worried, they are scared to death they will lose their jobs, they are preoccupied with their bills, spouse, children, and day-to-day affairs. And, they are not concerned with political ideology. They are looking for practical answers from a politician who appears to be trustworthy and capable of delivering on their campaign promises.
At this point in time, the only politician from either party who has bucked the his party and the establishment -- and attempted to fulfill his campaign promises is our current President Donald J. Trump. This in spite of a near-continuous attack by the media, the opposition party, some members of his own party, and elements within the highest levels of his own executive branch of the government.

Never before have we seen such a concerted effort to disparage, disable, and destroy a sitting president.  

Candidate

Political Philosophy

Bernie Sanders

Oldest/White Socialist

Francis “Beto” O’Rourke

Younger/White Socialist

Eric Holder

Black Socialist

Kamala Harris

Woman/Minority Socialist

Elizabeth Warren

Feminist/”Not Minority” Socialist

Why, if these candidates have a college education, are they so blind to the evils of socialism?

Generally speaking, I personally believe there are four root causes:

(1)  They were not educated but indoctrinated by an academic system infiltrated by socialists and communists and subjected to historical revisionism that excused or minimized the evils of socialism.

(2)   Like most progressives, they ignore  both history and logic and substitute “how they feel” for “what they should know.” The same feeling as Barack Obama’s belief that he was so smart he could “wing it” without political experience. And we know how that turned out.

(3)   Like most progressives, they ignore the evil that is socialism in favor of the unattainable, but the more pleasant promises of socialism – social justice and the unicorn society. That is, they judge socialism based on its intentions, not on its historical results.

(4)   They are all corrupt and self-serving, capitalizing on the opportunity to dance on the national stage and willing to put party and progressive politics over our nation’s best interests.

I continue to wonder about the “useful” idiots who fully embrace the progressive socialist democrats and their demonstrably evil philosophy. In fact, I often wondered why good people could adopt such an evil philosophy. Well, it turns out that most of these people, good-natured as they might be, simply overlook historical facts. The character flaw that allows this corrupt view of the world is that they are willing to turn blind eye to the historical precedents that saw hundreds of millions enslaved, killed, starved, or placed into total servitude of their respective governments and judge the corrupt and evil politicians by their intentions rather than their results.

The majority of the mainstream media has lost any semblance of journalistic ethics …

For those of you who believe that the mainstream media, notably led by the New York Times, can be trusted when it comes to progressive politics, consider that one of their reporters, Walter Duranty won the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for “13 articles written in 1931 analyzing the Soviet Union under Stalin. Here is how the New York Times excused his failure to tell the truth about the people who were being killed by Stalin…

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty

Duranty, one of the most famous correspondents of his day, won the prize for 13 articles written in 1931 analyzing the Soviet Union under Stalin. Times correspondents and others have since largely discredited his coverage.

Duranty’s cabled dispatches had to pass Soviet censorship, and Stalin’s propaganda machine was powerful and omnipresent. Duranty’s analyses relied on official sources as his primary source of information, accounting for the most significant flaw in his coverage – his consistent underestimation of Stalin’s brutality.

Describing the Communist plan to “liquidate” the five million kulaks, relatively well-off farmers opposed to the Soviet collectivization of agriculture, Duranty wrote in 1931, for example: “Must all of them and their families be physically abolished? Of course not – they must be ‘liquidated’ or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass.”

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps. Collectivization was the main cause of a famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine, the Soviet breadbasket, in 1932 and 1933 – two years after Duranty won his prize.

Even then, Duranty dismissed more diligent writers’ reports that people were starving. “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine,” he wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March of 1933 describing the “mess” of collectivization. “But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures. Ukrainian-American and other organizations have repeatedly called on the Pulitzer Prize Board to cancel Duranty’s prize and The Times to return it, mainly on the ground of his later failure to report the famine.

The Pulitzer board has twice declined to withdraw the award, most recently in November 2003, finding “no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception” in the 1931 reporting that won the prize, and The Times does not have the award in its possession.

<Source>

In spite of being owned by a Jewish family, the New York Times minimized or buried the news of Hitler’s treatment of the Jews leading to the Holocaust…

150th Anniversary: 1851-2001; Turning Away From the Holocaust
By MAX FRANKEL -- NOV. 14, 2001

AND then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II -- a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination.

The annihilation of six million Jews would not for many years become distinctively known as the Holocaust. But its essence became knowable fast enough, from ominous Nazi threats and undisputed eyewitness reports collected by American correspondents, agents and informants. Indeed, a large number of those reports appeared in The Times. But they were mostly buried inside its gray and stolid pages, never featured, analyzed or rendered truly comprehensible.

Yet what they printed made clear that the editors did not long mistrust the ghastly reports. They presented them as true within months of Hitler's secret resolve in 1941 to proceed to the ''final solution'' of his fantasized ''Jewish problem.''

Why, then, were the terrifying tales almost hidden in the back pages? Like most -- though not all -- American media, and most of official Washington, The Times drowned its reports about the fate of Jews in the flood of wartime news. Its neglect was far from unique and its reach was not then fully national, but as the premier American source of wartime news, it surely influenced the judgment of other news purveyors.

While a few publications -- newspapers like The Post (then liberal) and PM in New York and magazines like The Nation and The New Republic -- showed more conspicuous concern, The Times's coverage generally took the view that the atrocities inflicted upon Europe's Jews, while horrific, were not significantly different from those visited upon tens of millions of other war victims, nor more noteworthy.

Only six times in nearly six years did The Times's front page mention Jews as Hitler's unique target for total annihilation. Only once was their fate the subject of a lead editorial. Only twice did their rescue inspire passionate cries in the Sunday magazine.

Although The Times's news columns in those years did not offer as much analysis or synthesis as they do today, the paper took great pride in ranking the importance of events each morning and in carefully reviewing the major news of every week and every year. How could it happen that the war on the Jews never qualified for such highlighted attention?

There is no surviving record of how the paper's coverage of the subject was discussed by Times editors during the war years of 1939-45. But within that coverage is recurring evidence of a guiding principle: do not feature the plight of Jews, and take care, when reporting it, to link their suffering to that of many other Europeans.

No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime.

As Laurel Leff, an assistant professor at the Northeastern School of Journalism, has concluded, it was a tragic demonstration of how ''the facts didn't speak for themselves.'' She has been the most diligent independent student of The Times's Holocaust coverage and deftly summarized her findings last year in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.

''You could have read the front page of The New York Times in 1939 and 1940,'' she wrote, ''without knowing that millions of Jews were being sent to Poland, imprisoned in ghettos, and dying of disease and starvation by the tens of thousands. You could have read the front page in 1941 without knowing that the Nazis were machine-gunning hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Soviet Union.

''You could have read the front page in 1942 and not have known, until the last month, that the Germans were carrying out a plan to annihilate European Jewry. In 1943, you would have been told once that Jews from France, Belgium and the Netherlands were being sent to slaughterhouses in Poland and that more than half of the Jews of Europe were dead, but only in the context of a single story on a rally by Jewish groups that devoted more space to who had spoken than to who had died.

''In 1944, you would have learned from the front page of the existence of horrible places such as Maidanek and Auschwitz, but only inside the paper could you find that the victims were Jews. In 1945, [liberated] Dachau and Buchenwald were on the front page, but the Jews were buried inside.''

A story buried but not, over time, forgotten.

Read more at the <New York Times>

Bottom line...

It is almost unbelievable that our American press has broken down to the extent that they are serving as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and willfully blind to the socialist threat to America and all Americans. In the case of the New York Times, self-described as the "newspaper of record," what can you expect. The Times downplayed Ukrainian genocide under Stalin and the Holocaust under Hitler. Different from the world of Bernie Sanders and his ilk … but on the path to the abyss.

We are so screwed.

-- steve 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



OCS: MEMORIAL DAY 2019

On this Memorial Day, 2019 …

We commemorate our brave soldiers who died or were grievously wounded to safeguard our precious freedom.

Freedom that is being squandered by those self-serving traitors who are selling out our nation and its citizens in return for ephemeral political power.

While our troops fought to protect each other and our nation, today's political leadership, from the corrupt, incompetent, and uncaring politicians, and the bureaucratic cadre of progressive socialist democrats, down to the bureaucratic executives in charge of the VA hospitals, are playing political power games with healthcare in order to earn bonuses, and refuse to fight equally hard to help distraught veterans recover their health and to adjust to civilian life.

Be grateful for your freedom and remember it should never be taken for granted. We have seen, in just a few cycles of progressive socialist democrats, our national resolve, our military strength, and our stature within the international community eroded by corrupt, incompetent, and uncaring progressive socialist democrats.

Remember who we are and what we stand for -- and kick the bastards that do not agree to the curb.

The Patriotic Kid wishes you and yours a worshipful memorial day …

amerikid glitterribbon7

and reminds you that it is not the government, nor the media, nor the community organizers; but our VETERANS: past, present, and future who ensure your safety, security and your Constitutional liberties.

And while the Democrats decide that their political agenda is more important than leading our great nation …

Cow

our men and women in uniform, their civilian support services, and all their families are sacrificing to keep this nation both strong and free.

  usa

n1124934262_4411

Capture5-29-2010-6.26.22 PM

Capture11-10-2010-8.06.22 PM

Be safe, be well and take care of yourself and your family first.

WHEN YOU ENTER THE VOTING BOOTH … REMEMBER THAT THE VA HOSPITAL SCANDAL -- IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE CARE SYSTEM PROPOSED UNDER "MEDICARE FOR ALL" … COMPLETE WITH DELAYS, DENIALS, AND DEATHS CAUSED BY THE BUREAUCRATS!

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



YABA DABA DO: TRUMP WANTS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL PRICE TRANSPARENCY

UNCLE-SAM-DOLLARS

 

Donald Trump and his magic pen…

Trump Administration Preparing Executive Order on Health-Cost Disclosure

President Trump is expected to release an executive order as early as next week to mandate the disclosure of prices in the health-care industry, according to people familiar with the discussion.

[OCS: this is where I ask, So What? So consumers and others can see a price list, now what?]

The order could direct federal agencies to pursue actions to force a host of players in the industry to divulge cost data, the people said. The administration is also looking at using agencies such as the Justice Department to tackle regional monopolies of hospitals and health-insurance plans over concerns they are driving up the cost of care, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

The White House declined to comment on its plans. Industry groups said the initiatives under consideration are an executive overreach and legal challenges are possible.

<Source: Wall Street Journal>

Nothing angers me more than politicians and “experts” saying “all you have to do is …” followed by some government-imposed administrative rule …

It appears that the Department of Health and Human Services will receive an executive order to issue a proposed rule regarding price-transparency, ostensibly to make purchasing medical care more like the rest of the economy, and less like today’s secretive and frustrating morass.

Saying it is not the same as doing it…

The four areas of emphasis are the following: giving consumers greater control over health information through interoperable and accessible health information technology; encouraging transparency from providers and payers; using experimental models in Medicare and Medicaid to drive value and quality throughout the entire system, and removing government burdens that impede this value-based transformation.

[OCS: Electronic Health Records has been a costly boondoggle and has yet to provide any semblance of value to consumers. In most cases, patient portals are little more than email messaging systems that allow access to limited information. In many cases, these systems have been a burden on physicians – many of whom are now followed by a “scribe” to capture impressions, prescriptions, and procedural information.

Encouraging, but not mandating, price transparency is a bureaucratic joke.]

The key theme uniting these four priorities is the recognition that value is not accurately determined by arbitrary authorities or central planners. It is best determined by a marketplace of many players — in the case of healthcare, patients and, where necessary, their third-party payers. Each piece of our plan for value-based transformation recognizes this, and it’s the main reason I am optimistic that we may have more success, and sooner, than past efforts.

[OCS: The statement “value is not accurately determined by arbitrary authorities or central planners” appears to be oxymoronic since the legislation and administrative rules and regulations are crafted behind closed doors in Washington, D.C. Has anyone noticed that the major third-party payers still cling to regional monopolies and do not compete across state lines? ]

In recent years, we’ve seen substantial advances in terms of adoption of electronic health records by providers, but all too often, this simply meant putting in electric form what had been on paper, at great expense and burden to the provider.  Useful, but hardly realizing the promise of health IT. And this shift almost entirely left the patient out of the picture. It’s not just that the benefits of health IT aren’t always apparent to patients—it’s that unless we put this technology in the hands of patients themselves, the real benefits will never arrive.

[OCS: I am an IT expert and my electronic health records may prompt questions on abnormal test results, but otherwise they contain no actionable information. Many times I am frustrated that information captured over multiple visits to multiple doctors conflicts with the information displayed and there is no reasonable or rational means for correcting mistakes.]

Empowering consumers and individuals has been key to the advances of the information age. Think about how we now often make restaurant reservations, through apps like Open Table. From the restaurant’s perspective, there was nothing wrong with a ledger of reservations or, maybe, a business-focused program for tracking tables. But as a consumer, you had to call from restaurant to restaurant to understand when and where there were tables available. Now, if I pull out my smartphone to make a reservation for dinner on a Saturday night, I have all that information at my fingertips. I’m not depending on the person who answers the phone to get it right. I’m the one in control of the whole process: I can see the available choices, I make an informed decision, and I’ve got the record in my hands.

[OCS: I am willing to bet that restaurants honor their reservations far better than physicians and facilities honor their appointment times. In a number of cases, the automated systems will show multi-month waits for available appointments and make no allowances for urgent matters. I have yet to see a flag for an urgent appointment on any of the larger portal systems.]

We already have the technological means to offer this power to patients, but it hasn’t yet happened. The key to this administration’s approach will not be micromanaging the standards and processes used.

[OCS: Available technology does not always drive consumer acceptance. It is driven by need, convenience, and availability.]

<Source> Remarks on Value-Based Transformation to the Federation of American Hospitals by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex M. Azar II, to the Federation of American Hospitals, March 5, 2018, Washington, D.C.


A little extra … Azar is a politician (former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services), lawyer (Yale Law School), pharmaceutical lobbyist (Biotechnology Innovation Organization), and former drug company executive (Eli Lilly and Company).

An informed decision, my ass.

In response to Trump’s proposed action, I saw one of those nonsensical headlines in the conservative National Review, “Liberate Americans to Shop for Medical Care.”

Most Americans struggle with the decision about what vehicle to purchase and how much they are willing to pay. They are guided through this transaction by sales people who quickly realize that they need to kill to eat – or be terminated. They practice deception, role-playing, and meeting objections. They hand you a standard price list containing the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) and a copy of what they purport to be an actual invoice for the vehicle in question. It is up to you to negotiate an acceptable initial offer – over which the haggling begins. Of course, they never tell you about the spiffs (bonuses) they receive for pushing a particular vehicle, not about the “dealer-holdback” which is paid to the dealer by the manufacturer, nor about the financing incentives, or the true cost of accessories – many added on by the local dealer to up-price the vehicle, nor any of the tricks involving your “trade in.”

At least with a vehicle, there is a common understanding of function, utility, and the result may not be life-threatening unless they lack the skill to drive the vehicle you purchase.

The truth about medicine: is it is a matter of trusting your physician and the facilities and services within your local environment. With few exceptions, you will seek the care, and use the specialists, recommended by your physician.

Not everybody is as fortunate as I am to be located in an area where world-class hospitals (UCLA, USC, CEDARS-SINAI, ST. JOHNS, PROVIDENT) and renown medical specialists abound. And not everybody can project their medical requirements in advance to ensure that they actually can afford the care they may desperately need.

One need only look at the pricing shenanigans involving pharmacy benefit managers, durable medical equipment providers, and hospitals who use “allocated overhead” to grossly inflate the price for their services. You cannot compete against these people. Hell, even Medicare cannot compete against these people considering the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in the medical environment. And, in many cases, it is not only the patients, but the physicians, who are being systemically screwed as they are given patient volume quotas, hospital admissions quotas, and the necessity to “sell” particular goods and services or risk their own compensation.

Knowing the price of something and attempting to use that information are two different things.

Another joke from HHS, “The public plays an important role in the rulemaking process by commenting on proposed rules. Your comments can help shape the Department’s decisions.” Read the submissions and you will find that most of the formal comments come from special interest groups, many with lobbying clout, or activists with media access. Most rules are written in a language that resembles English in that you can read and understand the meaning of the words – but, use dense legalese or reference other rules and regulations down to the sub-sub-sub-paragraph and sentence level, often changing a single word. A million-dollar change from “shall” to “may” would be clearly understandable to the policy wonks and special interests but be totally opaque to the average individual.

Bottom line …

All it takes is a ruling from a partisan activist judge to bollix up the works. Especially if the proposals come from the Trump Administration and appear to conflict with Obama’s signature medical monstrosity.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



FISA WARRANT APPROVALS: NOT UNUSUAL -- CRIMINAL PERJURY

Pelosi-impeach

Before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shoots off her mouth suggesting that the President of the United States threw an unjustified temper tantrum at a meeting of Congressional leaders conferring on infrastructure spending…

“Another temper tantrum, again, I pray for the president of the United States. I wish that his family, the administration, and his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country."

One might consider that Pelosi, just prior to the meeting, told the media …

“The president’s behavior in terms of obstruction of justice, the things that he is doing, it’s very clear. It’s in plain sight. It cannot be denied. Ignoring subpoenas, obstruction of justice, yes, these can be impeachable offenses.”

And the President was completely justified in not negotiating with the same Congressional leaders who tried to spy on his campaign, bring criminal charges against him personally, continued to mount a historic cover-up of a silent coup d'état, and vilified him daily in the media…

“I walked into the room and I told Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi: ‘I want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more than you want to do it. I’d be really good at that, that’s what I do. But you know what? You can’t do it under these circumstances. So get these phony investigations over with.” 

Two-plus years of his President’s programs delayed by the progressive socialist democrats who are trying to impeach him based on a phony document concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee – with the full knowledge and cooperation of the White House. So what incentive does President Trump have to assist progressive socialist democrats in delivering additional pork to their districts and special interest friends like the anti-Trump unions?

Something stinks…

"[Attorney General] Barr stated: The thing that’s interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of these departments. It wasn’t handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted. It was sort of an ad hoc, small group — and most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved. I think there’s a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened. The fact of the matter is, Bob Mueller did not look at the government’s activities."

Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a partisan hack whose activities were not only malfeasant but criminal fraudulent.

Ex-FBI lawyer: Carter Page FISA application approved in 'unusual' way by McCabe, Yates, and Baker

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application.

The Page FISA application was filed by the Justice Department and FBI with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in October 2016. A surveillance warrant was granted and three renewals were subsequently approved. The FISA application relied heavily on unverified research in British ex-spy Christopher Steele's dossier on President Trump's ties to Russia, which was compiled through his employment with opposition research firm Fusion GPS with funding from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm.          

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I'm drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

[OCS: Anderson signed the document under penalty of perjury and now she should be held accountable. She failed to perform her sworn duty.]

"Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA," Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.          

The publicly available Page FISA documents show then-FBI Director James Comey also signed off on it.

Because the FISA application had already been approved at such high levels, Anderson said she did not look at the Page FISA application with much skepticism. “I wouldn't view it as my role to second-guess that substantive approval that had already been given by the Deputy Director [McCabe] and by the Deputy Attorney General [Yates] in this particular instance," she said.

[OCS: Malfeasance, at the minimum, that can be attributed to blind loyalty to her superiors.]

Asked why this FISA application was different, Anderson said she believed “the sensitivity level of this particular FISA resulted in lots of very high-level attention both within the FBI and DOJ.”

“The General Counsel [Jim Baker] … personally reviewed and made edits to the FISA, for example,” Anderson said. “The Deputy Director was involved in reviewing the FISA line by line. The Deputy Attorney General over on the DOJ side of the street was similarly involved, as I understood, reviewing the FISA application line by line.”

Baker recently defended the FBI’s handling of the FISA process, saying “we took [the dossier] seriously” but “we didn’t necessarily take it literally” and did not treat it as “literally true in every respect.” Baker also said, “I am not going to go into details with respect to what investigative steps we actually took to try to validate it.” Former FBI Director James Comey still referred to the dossier as “salacious and unverified” even in 2017.

[OCS: Time to see the entire FISA applications – all four of them, including the three renewals after sufficient time has passed to know that Carter Page was innocent of colluding with the Russians and the Steele material was corrupt.]

Read more here.

Right to the top of the Obama Administration…

John Brennan convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI. The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community. Those brought in signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted access to intelligence from all three participating agencies.

They worked exclusively for two groups of “customers,” officials said. The first was Obama and fewer than 14 senior officials in government. The second was a team of operations specialists at the CIA, NSA and FBI who took direction from the task force on where to aim their subsequent efforts to collect more intelligence on Russia.

The secrecy extended into the White House.

[Susan] Rice, Avril Haines, and White House Homeland Security Adviser Lisa Monaco convened meetings in the Situation Room to weigh the mounting evidence of Russian interference and generate options for how to respond. At first, only four senior security officials were allowed to attend: Brennan, Clapper, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and FBI Director James B. Comey. Aides ordinarily allowed entry as “plus-ones” were barred.

[OCS: This is the Hillary Clinton crowd who were so sure that they would be rewarded when she was elected, that they operated with impunity and unfearful of the consequences.]

Gradually, the circle widened to include Vice President Biden and others. Agendas sent to Cabinet secretaries — including John F. Kerry at the State Department and Ashton B. Carter at the Pentagon — arrived in envelopes that subordinates were not supposed to open. Sometimes the agendas were withheld until participants had taken their seats in the Situation Room.

[OCS: Why isn’t Biden’s involvement in this Russia collusion hoax being mentioned in the media? How can this man run for high office with this many ethical challenges before him? Likewise, John Kerry – an un-American snake of the first order.]

Read more here.

Be careful what you wish…

comey

It was the leadership, not the rank-and-file, who perpetrated this fraud. If there is any impact, it will be because the agency’s leadership was thoroughly corrupt and engaged in criminal activities.

Bottom line…

The progressive socialist democrats demanded the release of the Mueller report, including all classified and Grand Jury proceedings. Now that President Trump has granted Attorney General Barr the power to declassify reports, the Democrats are screaming bloody murder about compromising national security. It is more likely that they do not want names to be named and hope that proceedings can be delayed until after the statute of limitations on criminal activities expires.

Where are the Grand Juries and indictments?

We are so screwed.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



DEMOCRATS: WHAT CHANGED THEIR MIND ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?

In their own words, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Barack Obama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, former President Bill Clinton, and 2020 Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders all condemn illegal immigration and support protecting American sovereignty. So what changed their minds?

Simple, as the United States became politically polarized and divided, the gap between winning and losing major election narrowed to the point where small clusters of voters could tip the scales in favor of those who were willing to pander to these groups.

The progressive socialist democrats mastered educational indoctrination, the use of our own legal system as a suicidal weapon, and turned the media into their propaganda machine. They mastered the art of projection – ascribing their historical sins of slavery, segregation, anti-civil rights, and un-American activities to the GOP. The engaged in identity politics that furthered racism, bigotry, and division in America.

How can you explain this?

If the video cannot be displayed, it can be found here.

The only explanation is that the progressive socialist democrats will say or do anything to gain or maintain political power. In perpetuity, if possible.

Bottom line …

From their actions, one can only conclude that the Democrat Party has been infiltrated by the socialists and communists to the point where it acts as a fifth column seeking to destroy America from within on behalf of our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

This cannot be allowed to stand or else we are totally and completely screwed and our freedoms forfeit to an ideology that leads to totalitarianism and the rise of the collective state over individual freedoms.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



DEMOCRATS FEAR HOW AN OPEN MUELLER HEARING WOULD LOOK TO THE PUBLIC

NADLER Of course, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wants Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify privately, and of course, he is willing to allow Mueller to make a public opening statement and have the transcript of his testimony released to the public after the fact. Full well knowing that transcripts can be edited, but streamed public video tells the whole story. Anything to keep the virulent rancor, clownish behavior, and softball questions from the Democrat majority from being live-streamed or videotaped. Even more worrisome are the GOP questions that will probe Mueller’s selection of a conflicted and partisan team, the use of the Steele material, the involvement of the White House and other Obama Administration agencies, and why he went far beyond his mandate and produced the unprecedented report.

Bottom line…

Congress represents “We the People,” and not the Democrat Party or the Obama Administration. It is time to start telling the truth. WE MUST DEMAND FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. To the extent that classified or Grand Jury information is sought – let Mueller note the exception and testify in a second closed-door hearing. Timelines and information sources leaked to the media should now be acknowledged.

It is time that claims that classified information protects the national interest be challenged instead of covering-up government wrongdoing.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



ELIJAH CUMMINGS: PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES

Cummings

It is supremely ironic that House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) has issued a subpoena to obtain 10 years of President Donald Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm Mazars USA. Ostensibly to carry out the committee oversight activities which remain rather vague and constitutionally questionable, especially since the demand for the production of the records includes years when Trump was not running for office or inaugurated as the President of the United States.

It appears that the predicate for the Trump subpoena, according to Cummings, is the statement of a proven liar who has breached client-attorney privilege to protect himself from criminal charges for activities having nothing to do with Donald Trump, as a businessman, as a candidate, or as the president.

“On February 27, 2019, President Trump's longtime former attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before the Committee that the President altered the estimated value of his assets and liabilities on financial statements-including inflating or deflating the value of assets depending on the purpose for which he intended to use the statements.”

[OCS: Michael Cohen is a witness that has repeatedly lied to Congress and can hardly be considered a reliable or creditable source.

Considering that Congress is not a law enforcement or investigative agency, the matter of shifting valuations, as provided by an individual U.S. citizen operating in the real estate market, is not a legitimate concern for the committee.]

“… raise grave questions about whether the President has been accurate in his financial reporting.”

[OCS: This is supremely ironic given the implications of the material presented below.]

The Committee has full authority to investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office, to determine whether he has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his ability to make impartial policy decisions, to assess whether he is complying with the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and to review whether he has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities.

[OCS: If this were the standard to which elected officials are now held, and a raison d'être to launch a prolonged and intrusive investigation of a candidate or elected official, then the Republic has created a “star chamber” and abandoned the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

There are only two outcomes: one, a criminal referral to the Department of Justice or impeachment with a trial by the Senate. In regard to an impeachment proceeding, it is unlikely that any crime committed prior to taking office would rise to a high crime or misdemeanor as it is presently understood by non-partisan constitutional scholars.]

The Committee's interest in these matters informs its review of multiple laws and legislative proposals under our jurisdiction, and to suggest otherwise is both inaccurate and contrary to the core mission of the Committee to serve as an independent check on the Executive Branch.

[OCS: Being mindful of the separation of powers and all presidential perks, privileges, and duties, one might suggest that since, there does not appear to be any limit to the investigative timeframe, that one might consider the retroactive examination of the Obama Administration and its officials?]

<Source: Cummings 4/12/2019 Staff Memo>

Whoops!!!

Top Democrat's wife may have gained 'illegal private benefit' from his committee activities

A charity run by the wife of Rep. Elijah Cummings received millions from special interest groups and corporations that had business before her husband’s committee and could have been used illegally, according to an IRS complaint filed by an ethics watchdog group.

Cummings, 68, a Maryland Democrat, is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. His wife, Maya Rockeymoore, 48, is the chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party and briefly ran in the state's gubernatorial race last year. The couple married in 2008.

Cummings was once heavily in debt — in part due to hefty child support payments to his first wife and two other women he had children with — but his financial situation has improved considerably over the past decade.

Rockeymoore runs two entities, a nonprofit group called the Center for Global Policy Solutions and a for-profit consulting firm called Global Policy Solutions, LLC, whose operations appear to have overlapped, according to the IRS complaint filed by watchdog group the National Legal and Policy Center on Monday.

[OCS: Crooks often use similarly-named entities to provide plausible deniability of wrongdoing and the comingling of funds – claiming it was a simple clerical error.]

The complaint states that the arrangement may have been used to derive "illegal private benefit." Global Policy Solutions received more than $6.2 million in grants between 2013 and 2016, according to tax records.

Several of the nonprofit group’s financial backers — which included Google, J.P Morgan, and Prudential — have business interests before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Cummings has served as Democratic chairman of the committee since January and previously served as ranking member.

[OCS: Why would large corporations pump significant amounts of money into organizations that would seem to have little

The largest contributor to the nonprofit organization was the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a company that is regulated by Cummings’ committee. The foundation, which gave a total of $5.5 million to Rockeymoore’s

Top Democrat Elijah Cummings' wife may have gained 'illegal private benefit' from his committee activities

Tom Anderson, director of the National Legal and Policy Center’s Government Integrity Project, which has been investigating the nonprofit arrangement and provided research to the Washington Examiner, said the potential for corruption is “off the charts.”

He said Rockeymoore declined to let his organization view her nonprofit organization’s most recent public financial records as required by the IRS. “When a powerful chairman of a committee of the House of Representatives has a wife that is bringing in money from entities with interests before his Committee and she is not providing the transparency mandated by the IRS, there's a serious problem,” said Anderson. “The potential for corruption in this situation is simply off the charts and can't be understated.

We hope Chairman Cummings works with his wife to end the stonewalling and provide the public with what's legally mandated all charities provide.” Both Cummings and Rockeymoore refused to discuss the allegations with the Washington Examiner.

Cummings did not answer questions about the overlap between companies with interests before his committee and donors to his wife’s foundation. Rockeymoore did not respond to request for comment.

The complaint asked the IRS to investigate the “shared leadership,” “integrated operations,” and “shared address and physical facilities” of her two companies. Rockeymoore’s nonprofit and the LLC have mutual clients, donors and projects, and were located at the same address and share a phone number.

According to its website, the Center for Global Policy Solutions is a nonprofit group that seeks to “create healthier communities, strengthen Social Security, and close racial wealth disparities." The for-profit consulting firm, Global Policy Solutions LLC, describes itself as “a social change strategy firm dedicated to making policy work for people and their environments.” The complaint states that they “appear to operate almost as a single entity, allowing for an illegal private benefit for Maya Rockeymoore Cummings and her husband."

Rockeymoore’s consulting firm was selected for a $1 million federal contract with the General Services Administration in 2017 for work on the “Leadership for Healthy Communities” project to combat childhood obesity, according to federal records. At the same time, Rockeymoore’s nonprofit group “served as the national program office for Leadership for Healthy Communities,” according to its website. If both groups were involved in managing the project, “the arrangement is ‘self-dealing’ and cannot be ‘arms length’” as required by IRS law and “prompt the question of whether its organizers are getting fat off the grants,” according to the watchdog group’s complaint.

Cummings struggled with serious financial problems after joining Congress over 20 years ago. His house was placed in foreclosure, at one point; he owed $30,000 in unpaid taxes to the IRS; and he was taken to court multiple times for thousands in unpaid debts. Cummings said his financial difficulties were due to his hefty child support payments. Since marrying Rockeymoore 11 years ago, Cummings’ financial outlook has improved considerably, according to financial disclosure reports and property records.

The couple currently owns two rental properties in Baltimore worth between $250,000 and $500,000 each, and last year, they sold their three-bedroom Victorian row house in northwest Washington, D.C. for $896,000.

Cummings disclosed in his financial reports that his wife earns an unspecified salary from Global Policy Solutions LLC; he did not disclose that she receives a salary from her nonprofit organization, which was $152,000 in 2016, according to the group’s tax records from that year.

<Read More>

Time to subpoena at least ten years of Cummings, Rockeymoore’s, and the involved entity's financial records, including tax filings, bank records, and material prepared by their accountants. In fact, the IRS and the DOJ have a more legitimate right to these documents than the Committee has a legitimate right to Donald Trump’s business records.

In the normal course of things, Cummings would be allowed to amend his previous erroneous filings without penalty and if the matter were ever turned over to the House Ethics Committee, he would probably be given the same treatment as Maxine Waters who clearly attempted to use her official position to pressure a federal financial agency into assisting her husband’s failing financial institution. Perhaps we should also look over the records of all high-ranking party officials and committee members.

Bottom line…

Like President Trump says, this is a witch hunt for the sole purposes of obtaining opposition research on the taxpayer’s dime and to interfere with an election by disparaging a single candidate for office.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell