Previous month:
November 24, 2019 - November 30, 2019
Next month:
December 8, 2019 - December 14, 2019

WILL DEEP-STATE BANKING AFFECT 2020 ELECTION?

There was little or no doubt during the 2008 mortgage meltdown and the broader financial crisis that followed that many of the nation’s largest and systemically important financial institutions were technically insolvent. That the institution’s obligations exceeded their assets and ability to use their existing liquidity to service their short-term debts coming due. The solution was TARP or the Troubled Assets Relief Program. A program where the financial firms used their illiquid and dodgy investment paper that nobody wanted to buy as collateral for good federal funds. The word collateral, in this instance, being a fictional device used by the politicians and financial community to allay the fears of a nervous public.

The poohbahs at the Treasury and Federal Reserve claimed that they recovered $441.7 billion of the $426.4 billion disbursed; declaring a “profit” of $15.3 billion. However if one were to recast the funds in constant dollars and include the operational expenses, one might find that the profit evaporated into a loss estimated at $24 billion.

The Dodd-Frank Dodge …

The poohbahs are claiming they are just ensuring that the financial system, the same systemically important financial institutions, have enough liquidity to stave off another financial crisis. Interesting because Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. A skeleton Act named after two of the most corrupt individuals in Congress, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) who chaired the House Financial Services Committee and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) who chaired the Senate Banking Committee. These are the people who treated the two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as the Democrat’s slush fund and an employer for their corrupt friends who earned multi-million dollar salaries. A key provision of the Act was to explicitly state that there would be no further government bailouts of "too big to fail" financial institutions and that each of the systemically important financial institutions must develop a “living will” providing for their “resolution” or dissolution as dictated by circumstances.

Another perverse provision of the ACT allows financial institutions to simply borrow their depositor’s funds to effect their own “bail-in.” Where fiduciary duty is nothing but a dirty little lie.

Difference Between Bank Bail-In and Bank Bailout

A bail-in and a bailout are both designed to prevent the complete collapse of a failing bank. The difference lies primarily in who bears the financial burden of rescuing the bank. With a bailout, the government injects capital into the banks to enable them to continue to operate.

The government doesn't have its own money, so it must use taxpayer funds in such cases. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the banks have since repaid all of the money.

With a bank bail-in, the bank uses the money of its unsecured creditors, including depositors and bondholders, to restructure their capital so it can stay afloat. In effect, the bank is allowed to convert its debt into equity for the purpose of increasing its capital requirements.

A bank can undergo a bail-in quickly through a resolution proceeding, which provides immediate relief to the bank.

The obvious risk to bank depositors is the possibility of losing a portion of their deposits. However, depositors have the protection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), insuring each bank account for up to $250,000. Banks are required to use only those deposits in excess of the $250,000 protection. <Source>

[OCS: There is no guarantee that the FDIC will be able to provide enough funding from its own capitalization without resorting to bail-out funds from the government (taxpayer) or any fixed time-schedule for the return of withheld funds.]

What is going on?

According to published reports, the Federal Reserve just added another $72.8 billion, of what it calls “temporary liquidity” to its balance sheet which itself now totals $4.07 trillion. As far as I can tell, the Fed has provided $208 billion in short-term “repo” interventions plus other Fed manipulations of Treasury Bill pricing.

fed-repo

Of course, both the Federal Reserve and the financial institutions have a narrative to justify the Fed intervention of September 17, 2019. And, of course, it was all a fluke …

September 16th was the day the quarterly tax payments were due – draining cash that would have been invested in repo funds.

September 16th was also the day that $78 billion in Treasury debt was scheduled for settlement – draining even more cash from the financial institutions as they needed to pay for their previous purchase of government instruments.

And, all compounded by the LCR (Liquidity Coverage Ratio --12 CFR Part 329.10) which mandates an FDIC-regulated financial institution “must calculate and maintain a liquidity coverage ratio that is equal to or greater than 1.0 on each business day.” This is the reserve amount kept at the Fed and which is theoretically needed to ensure solvency and guarantee sufficient liquidity in the system. More cash leaving the financial institution’s coffers.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell was allegedly petitioned by the financial community to lower the LCR requirements to free-up additional funds, but the Fed apparently decided that instead of lowering the LCR, they would inject the necessary liquidity into the system. In October, the Fed announced it would be buying $60 billion of debt each month into June of 2020. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

Since many financial institutions use repo funds to fund their daily operations and trading activities (much like a check-kiting scheme), any major interruption of these funds represents a problematical liquidity event. Hence, the need for the Fed’s intervention. But, don’t call it a bail-out because these are short-term funds.

In any event, the questions not being asked are why the bank’s risk management systems seemed blind to these dates and/or could not correctly predict the outcome in time to stave off a liquidity event? Or was this an excuse to petition for a lower LCR.

Let us not forget that the Federal Reserve is not a government institution, it is a private corporation, ostensibly owned by its member banks, and operates in secrecy for the benefit of its owners. The Fed has never revealed who actually owns how much of the Fed. And a comprehensive audit has never been performed as if that were even possible. The audit of Fannie Mae took several years and cost over $1 billion and was obsolete the day after the audit commenced. 

Bottom line…

Just what are the major financial institutions doing that is putting pressure on the system – and why are their executives still earning outrageous salaries? Why aren’t the risk management systems predicting adverse events and taking preemptive corrective action? Or, are the financial institutions playing the system for financial and political gain?

I cannot help but think that the same “deep state” which corrupted the nation’s intelligence and law enforcement may be at work to provide a financial “October Surprise” should the election be extremely close in 2020. A conspiracy theory? Perhaps? But, as we have seen, a number of events, pooh-poohed as right-wing conspiracy theories, were in fact conspiracies between like-minded individuals seeking to derail the candidacy of Donald J. Trump, and continue to operate to this day to impeach the President and, if possible, remove him from office – which is unlikely. In essence, throw enough dirt against the wall and disrupt the 2020 election in favor of the progressive socialist democrats.

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



REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR -- 2019

Dedicated to all of the military members and support staff who gave their lives to protect the United States of America from our enemies on December 7, 1941, and who stood watch over America in an uncertain time. 

taro-patch

Division Patch: The Taro Leaf

My Father (24th Infantry “the First to Fight Division,” 63rd Field Artillery Battalion, Battery C; Schofield Barracks, Hawaii -- Saturday, December 6th, 1941) 
Capture12-6-2010-7.44.17 PM

Re-read the speech given by Franklin D. Roosevelt on December 8, 1941 …

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Bottom line …

We live in treacherous times; with a divided nation polarized by corrupt politicians pursuing their own personal and political agenda. When our enemies, both foreign and domestic are using our own laws against us. When our military faces an asymmetrical threat – a guerilla force that does not wear uniforms, hides among women and children and thinks nothing of using medical and religious buildings to shield their nefarious activities. And should we fire back, we are roundly condemned in the media for the loss of “civilian” life and the destruction of “religious” or “medical” institutions.

We watch our enemies mutilate and behead people whom they consider “infidels” – claiming their religion is the “Religion of Peace” and mounting a media campaign to feed “happy-talk” propaganda to the American people. All-the-while condemning our use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” to save lives when they themselves use hand tools, power tools, electricity, and red-hot metal to coerce confessions and extract information. Where the rules of engagement favor the enemy over our own soldiers.

Most of our generals struggle with political correctness and trying to preserve some semblance of their careers. Knowing that a military is designed to kill people and break things in order to force a “diplomatic” solution on terms favorable to America. Not act as a police buffer between warring tribes or rebuilding the infrastructure of a country when our own infrastructure is desperately in need of repair or replacement.

We pretend that our enemy, Saudi Arabia, is our friend even though much of the radical jihad is funded with Saudi money – perhaps as a bribe to prevent the jihadists from overthrowing the Kingdom. We saw a Saudi military officer undergoing flight training in Florida kill Americans a few days ago and we still were respectful to the Saudis rather than upset our profitable trading partner who are purchasing our weapons systems. 

We are approaching a tipping point when we must make a decision. To fight for the America of those who went before us or to become a Marxist paradise like Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela.

Do not dishonor those who died fighting for an America we know and love. Start thinking about what you can do to change the House leadership in Washington, and in your state and your communities. If we do not, once again, unite against a common enemy, we are doomed.

-- steve

flag


“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



DID LAW PROFESSOR SUSAN KARLAN ALREADY FAIL HER SUPREME COURT NOMINATION TEST?

OCS-QUOTE-karlan

In Karlin’s opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, Karlin opined that “Based on the evidentiary record before you, what has happened in the case today is something that I do not think we have ever seen before: a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to ‘faithfully execute’ the laws and to ‘protect and defend the Constitution.' The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency.”

What evidentiary record?

You mean the opinions, suppositions, and presumptions of those Trump-hating hyper-partisans who disagreed with the way the President faithfully executed the duties of his office in matters of foreign affairs? The only fact witness to testify was Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who stated unequivocally, under oath, that the President did not ask for a quid pro quo and that any idea to the contrary was his presumption.

If Professor Karlan ever stands for nomination to the Supreme Court, I can see clips from her performance before the House Judiciary Committee played at her Senate confirmation hearings. She is pointing out her partisanship, lack of understanding of the Constitution, and her lack of judicial temperament. Or even worse, a clip of her 2006 remarks at the American Constitution Society’s 2006 national convention.

Speaking before the American Constitution Society’s 2006 national convention,  Professor Karlani, in her closing remarks, had this to say...

"The rich pampered prodigal sanctimonious incurious white straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world, and they always have."

[OCS: Sounds like she is describing Hunter Biden who was given a seat on the board of Burisma Holdings, a corrupt Ukrainian Oil Company, although he had zero experience in oil, gas, or business in the Ukraine. What he did have is a rich, powerful daddy who greatly influenced the political future in Ukraine -- and who bragged on tape that he withheld a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee unless the State Prosecutor was fired. The very same prosecutor who was investigating corruption in the company that employed Hunter Biden.]

"But what about us? Snarky bi-sexual Jewish women who want the freedom to say what we think, read what we want, and love who we do."

[OCS: I was not aware of any law -- or anyone -- who has even attempted to tell a Snarky bi-sexual Jewish woman what to think, read, or love. Primarily because they don't listen and continually repeat their shrill mantra endlessly like a broken record.

Hardly someone I would want on the Supreme Court deciding constitutional matters in an impartial manner according to what the framers said or intended.]

Bottom line…

Just what we need on the Supreme Court, "a snarky bi-sexual Jewish woman” who sees everything through the prism of her vagina and toxic progressive ideology.

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



BRAIN TRAINING FOR DEMOCRATS?

Today I received an email for dog training and just for giggles, I changed the word dog to Democrat -- and came up with a brand new product with almost unlimited (half the nation) potential....

----- Original Message -----

From: Brain Training For Dogs <redacted>
To: steve@onecitizenspeaking.com
Sent: 12/5/2019 3:07:43 AM
Subject: The secret to making your Democrat’s problem behaviors disappear


Hi ,

No matter what your Democrat’s problem behavior is...

Be it jumping, peeing inappropriately, aggression, pulling on the leash...or whatever...

There is ONE SOLUTION that can help STOP this problem now'

The sad fact is...

Most Democrat trainers miss this solution entirely.

They give you cookie cutting training programs.

They use outdated and ‘mean’ dominance techniques.

Or worse yet...

They have no qualifications and are complete phonies.

So what’s the answer to stopping your Democrat’s behavior problems?


In 4 simple words...

Discovering your Democrat’s hidden intelligence.

Let me explain...

In my 10 years as a certified trainer...there’s ONE BIG LESSON I have learned.

More intelligent Democrats are better behaved.

A More intelligent Democrat takes commands easier

...and understands what you need from them.

The good news is...

No matter how clever you think your Democrat is.

You can  >>> unlock their hidden intelligence quickly and easily.

>>> I’ll explain everything on this page. <link redacted>

Don’t waste a second longer coping with problem behaviors you don’t need to be dealing with.

PS Check out the brain training for Democrats course now. It’s great for eliminating any bad behaviors by tapping into your Democrat’s hidden intelligence.

PPS- check out the cool Democrat pictures on this page. <link redacted>

Of course I need to test my new product to see if it works. So I set about choosing a test panel where the results would be obviously apparent and even newsworthy…

test

Sorry to report … the test failed. The four test subjects, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler, haven’t learned anything new and are as mean, stubborn, and recalcitrant as before.

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



DEMOCRATS ATTEMPT TO GANG RAPE PRESIDENT TRUMP AT IMPEACHMENT HEARING

Living in partisan fantasyland …

First I would like to remind you that all four attorneys that will be testifying in the House Judiciary Committee are not employed by the United States to advocate for the nation, three of them were chosen by the Democrats precisely because they will recommend the impeachment of President Trump, and the Republicans chose one because that’s all of the opportunity that was afforded by Chairman Nadler and the majority on the Judiciary Committee.

The order of testimony was carefully staged to leave a lasting impression in the minds of the public – a negative one and one that favors impeachment, although it is clear that any underlying evidence is mostly based on hearsay, supposition, and presumption. The Democrats are hoping that the public will tune out by the time the GOP witness is presented. 

That the Democrats have, once again, inverted American jurisprudence is not surprising. The first and most egregious example being the presumption of guilt unless the accused proves their innocence. And the second, being lectured on the law before any witness testimony, which sets up a false expectation where the panel will try and fit the testimony to meet the criteria of the law, rather than letting the testimony flow freely and then judging how it meets legal standards.

Unfortunately, impeachment appears to be a political process that means whatever the majority of House members vote and whatever action the Senate decides to take. Whether or not the process is ruled by law developed since the enlightenment almost seems irrelevant to the Democrats.

If these proceedings were to be based on Presidential actions taken with respect to Ukraine, one might expect that the first two legitimate witnesses would be the  false whistleblower to explain the predicate criminality that sparked the impeachment inquiry, followed by Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee to testify, under oath, about his Committee’s involvement with the so-called whistleblower prior to filing the complaint and the extent to which committee members or partisan third-parties drafted the actual complaint.

One would also expect the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community to follow the Chairman to explain the limits of the whistleblower process and the mysterious alteration of a long-standing form to allow hearsay evidence to be accepted as legitimate as first-hand knowledge. And, the penalty for filing a report containing material errors and omissions based on hearsay. The minority committee members would have the right to employ a form of “due process” by ceding time to the President’s attorney to question the witnesses.

But this is the last thing the Democrats want, as it highlights the impeachment effort as partisan political nonsense based on a lack of legally acceptable evidence and the supposition of fairness by those attempting to elicit facts amid the haze of personal ambitions and institutional agendas.

Injecting race in a non-racial process…

And, just when you think it cannot get worse, here comes Representative Al Green (D-TX), a black racist who views everything through the prism of his own racial preferences, to complain that there is a lack of diversity among the initial four witnesses. That we somehow need to select a person of color in order to send a message to the world subliminally. Green asks, “Are we saying that there are no people in this country, no scholars of color that can address this issue? Of course, Green ran to the cameras to give his opinion. Still, the truth is that he should be asking Chairman Nadler, a man of his own party, why the Democrats – the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and the KKK – why they did not choose a person of color. What does this race-baiting charlatan accomplish by asking rhetorical questions at a media event rather than openly challenging his party during the hearings?

The pundits start layering-on their constitutional ignorance based on their hatred of President Trump…

I find it ironic that Fox News Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano has put forth his ignorant opinion that “Democrats have credibly argued that he committed impeachable offenses by directing his subordinates to not participate in the investigation. Seeming to cap his profound opinion by claiming that “reasonable minds cannot disagree without rejecting history and constitutional norm.”

Not only does Napolitano seem to dismiss the president’s perks, privileges, and plenary powers, but also the long established “separation of powers” and executive privilege where the President does not serve at the pleasure of the House of Representatives.

Then there is the personal animosity and embarrassment that comes from Napolitano suggesting that President Trump was considering him, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court and then seeing other more qualified men nominated for the position.

In spite of the ignorant venom spewed by Napolitano, the fact remains that President Trump has been the most open and transparent president in modern history, making individuals and documents available to legitimate investigators.

That the President denies access to those who want to fish through his affairs to find an impeachable offense is understandable. Consider that the official tax authorities in Washington, D.C. and in New York have the President’s full and complete tax returns, filed under penalty of perjury, for his entire filing history – and yet the House Democrats seek these returns so they can be leaked to embarrass the President, his family, and associates. If it were simply a matter of upholding or monitoring the law, they need only turn to the auditors charged with the task for a report on any potential wrongdoing.

The bad news is that Napolitano is not the only ignorant or intellectually dishonest person out there: consider the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and you can see the depth of the partisan hatred.

The highlights -- Déjà vu all over again: witnesses who witnessed nothing and who are providing their opinions on what the impeachment clause means and how it should be applied to the House Impeachment Inquiry.

These are not textualists who are attempting to construe the constitution as envisioned by the Framers, but academics who are attempting to overlay the constitution with their own interpretation.  Not one of these individuals has personal knowledge of a single fact in the Schiff Report. With the exception of Turley, the other three professors are major progressive socialist democrats who have often advanced extreme and wacky takes on the impeachment process. As for the Democrat panels, it was obvious that some of the dumbest members were provided with questions so they did not look like the fools that they are in real life. 

[DEM CHOICE] Professor Noah Feldman, a smug, snarky, pretentious professorial type lecturing the public as though we were students.

“On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.”

[OCS: I am not aware of any constitutional, legal, or even House of Representatives’ procedure that empowered Noah Feldman to act as a judge or to state a conclusory indication of guilt.

Especially since the so-called testimony and evidence placed before the House was without sufficient due process and was mostly hearsay, contained material misstatements of fact, and was based on opinion, speculation, or presumption.

The President was denied due process and his legal counsel never allowed to participate.

Additionally, evidence was presented from an anonymous whistleblower who may have colluded with the Committee and coordinated testimony. There was significant witness tampering by the Committee Schiff.

So the conclusions of Noah Feldman are based on faulty evidence and an apparent partisan understanding of the materials before the House. It is virtually impossible for Feldman to have read and comprehended nearly 500 pages of both Democrat and Republican Impeachment Inquiry reports overnight.]

[DEM CHOICE] Professor Pamela S. Karlan, obsequious nerd with a degree of anger and displeasure.

Based on the evidentiary record, what has happened in the case before you is something that I do not think we have ever seen before: a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to “faithfully execute” the laws and to “protect and defend the Constitution.” The evidence reveals a President who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency.

[OCS: Again we have an incomplete, untested, and highly flawed evidentiary record based on little more than opinion, speculation, or presumption. The conclusion is unwarranted and unsubstantiated by the evidence.

Another professor who goes beyond speaking about the law to provide an odious analogy and then pronounces the President guilty and worthy of impeachment.

I also find it despicable that Karlan would use a pre-crafted laugh line that disparages President Trump's youngest son. "The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron."]

[DEM CHOICE] Professor Michael Gerhardt, an attorney type and well-measured speaker.

As I explain in the balance of this written statement, the record compiled thus far shows that the president has committed several impeachable offenses, including bribery, abuse of power in soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader to benefit his political campaign, obstructing Congress, and obstructing justice.

[OCS: Again relying on a record that would be insufficient to bring a case in any court of competent jurisdiction and cannot withstand any challenge under the federal rules of procedure and the constitutional requirement of due process.]

If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil. No one, not even the president, is beyond the reach of our Constitution and our laws.

[OCS I would argue that if the House attempts to impeach on a thin, flawed and partisan record, then, the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards.]

[GOP CHOICE] Professor Jonathan Turley, an attorney type and well-measured speaker.

… one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president

I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation.

[OCS: This is the clearest, most concise rebuke of the Democrat’s Impeachment Inquiry to date.]

A comparison of the current impeachment inquiry with the three prior presidential inquiries puts a few facts into sharp relief.

First, this is a case without a clear criminal act and would be the first such case in history if the House proceeds without further evidence.

Second, the abbreviated period of investigation into this controversy is both problematic and puzzling.

[Third] The Ukrainian matter is largely built around a handful of witnesses and a schedule that reportedly set the matter for a vote within weeks of the underlying presidential act. Such a wafer-thin record only magnifies the problems already present in a narrowly constructed impeachment. The question for the House remains whether it is seeking simply to secure an impeachment or actually trying to build a case for removal. If it is the latter, this is not the schedule or the process needed to build a viable case.

If the House wants to make a serious effort at impeachment, it should focus on
building the record to raise these allegations to the level of impeachable offenses and
leave to the Senate the question of whether members will themselves rise to the moment
that follows.

[OCS: It is obvious that Turley, while no fan of Trump, is able to muster a cogent and competent argument against the methodology used by the House Democrats and their  rush to judgement on the matter of impeaching an American president. Unlike the three preceding professors, Turley made his case without smugness, anger, or rancor against Donald J. Trump.]

Bottom line…

In the final analysis, who are these four lawyers, presumed to be constitutional scholars, but in reality are simply four shopped opinions?

Are we ready to destroy America and deepen the divide between Americans to bring about the socialist revolution that the Democrats, now infiltrated by radical communists, seem to want?

What remedy do “We the People” have to counter a band of rogue, opportunistic Democrats, and their partisan pipe dreams?

The answers are that all of the presumed legal scholars are advocates for themselves and their partisan or professional agenda – no more, no less because there is no actual body of law, only customary precedent and practice, when it comes to the political process of impeachment. This should not be, but it is what it is.

I honestly believe that outside of New York, California, and Washington D.C., most Americans do not want their nation to be split and feel that they are being ill-served by their current representatives who appear to be representing their respective political parties and their agendas rather than the welfare of America and ALL Americans.

And the remedy is simple: We go to the polls in November of 2020 and vote – sending a message to one and all about how we feel about their self-serving partisan antics and removing those who are hell-bent on destroying our nation from within.

As a side note, I find the Democrat’s continual re-statement that “No person is above the law” to be offensive as long as Hillary Clinton and her cadre of co-conspirators walk free in this land.

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



MR. NADLER, READY FOR YOUR CLOSE-UP?

OCS-QUOTE-NADLER


“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



COMING ATTRACTIONS: THE SCHIFF SHOW -- FEATURING THE NEGATIVITY OF NADLER

NADLER

In most cases, the law is not about truth or seeking justice, it is about selling your narrative to a skeptical audience…

When I was considering attending law school, I went to an introductory program that featured a well-known and well-respected attorney. He started out by saying that there is common law, statute, law, but the real truth is that as a  practicing lawyer, the law is whatever you can sell a judge and jury and not be overturned by a higher authority. That justice for the rich and well-connected is quite different from that administered to the poor and minorities. That, many judges are dumb as rocks and simply use the briefing materials as the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to factual decision-making, no critical thinking involved. And, most importantly, as an attorney, you must be prepared to speak from both sides of your mouth as you are an advocate of your client not necessarily a seeker of truth, justice, or some higher purpose. So much for law school.

Therefore, when I read the House Judiciary’s plan to seek the testimony of four constitutional law professors to explain the law to the lawyers who sit on the House Judiciary Committee, it was a BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) moment.

First, as we have been repeatedly told by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) (Stanford, Harvard Law School), impeachment is a constitutional process, not a legal one. Proof positive being the denial of due process for the party being investigated and the denial of committee rights to the minority committee members. Proceedings were held in secret, likened to Grand Jury proceedings, with the exception of continual leaking of cherry-picked testimony by Chairman Schiff and his cadre of staffers.

Second, the use of an anonymous complaint to initiate proceedings, written by a whistleblower who not only did not qualify as a whistleblower, but perjured themselves on the complaint form, and worst of all, conspired with members of Adam Schiff’s staff to craft and file the complaint itself. And, now we are being told that the testimony of the whistleblower is not necessary to the proceedings and it is unlikely that Schiff will call for their testimony in the near future.

Third, almost all of the witnesses before the Committee lacked first-hand knowledge of the events on which they were testifying and were merely substituting their judgment over that of the President of the United States with respect to conducting foreign policy.

And four, the Committee ignored, and refused to consider, what appears to be wrongdoing as evidenced by an on-camera confession of the principal involved, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Enter the nattering wing-nut Nadler…

House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D-NY) (Columbia, Fordham Law School) continues the Schiff show by trying to convince the American public of the constitutionality of the proceedings – even in the face of one-sided ignorance of due process or any of the precedential procedures granted to all modern impeachment targets.

As far as I can tell, the primary articles of Impeachment are “we do not like President Trump” and we will attempt to impeach him on the flimsiest of circumstances that have been practiced and documented by decades of Democrat politicians.

report-2

Item 1 – Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States and it is normal and customary for the incoming administration to replace the Ambassadors of the outgoing administration. In this case, the Ambassador to Ukraine was a holdover of the previous administration which was overtly and covertly hostile to Donald J. Trump, both as a presidential candidate and as the President of the United States. It does not matter why the Ambassador was removed, even in caught advancing the interests of individuals hostile to the agenda of the new President.

Item 2 – Presidents have always used individuals as back-channels to seek and convey information; especially under circumstances where members of the State Department or other agencies were prone to adversely interfere or leak details of confidential discussions and documents.

Item 3 – Ukraine was one of the most corrupt nations in the region and it was prudent and proper for the President to withhold substantial U.S. aid pending an examination of a new President and Administration that recently took power. Several individuals testified under oath that the Ukraine was not aware of the freeze and therefore did not act further in regard to the freeze. But, let us not forget that it was former President Obama that denied the Ukraine lethal military aid when they were being actively attacked by the Russians and it was President Trump that supplied lethal weaponry to Ukraine in each of his three years in office. This puts the whole matter in perspective and shows the Democrats for who they really are -- pro-Russia sycophants. The delay was also to determine whether or not France and Germany planned to contribute "their fair share" to the effort.

Item 4 – There is no direct evidence that this was true and the only person to testify about a conversation with the President admitted that it was his presumption and the President did not issue or convey such instructions.

Item 5 – This is a specious argument. We do know, from several corroborated sources, that individuals of the previous corrupt Ukraine administration did interfere with the 2016 U.S. election and did so at the urging of prominent Democrats. The idea that a corruption investigation, mentioned casually in passing, into Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities in the Ukraine constituted interference with the 2020 U.S. election. In fact, this entire impeachment effort on the part of the House Democrats constitutes prima facie evidence of interfering with the 2020 U.S. election as they appear to lack a suitable candidate to challenge President Trump’s re-election bid.

Item 6 – Assumes facts not in evidence and, if indeed conveyed by an unofficial individual, does not necessarily indicate direction by the President of the United States.

Item 7 – The alleged “alarm” was raised by a CIA whistleblower who acted as a covert spy in the White House and who improperly interviewed a number of people to compile a “whistleblower” complaint that was replete with errors and falsehoods.

Item 8 – There was no “scheme” to be exposed. And, any scheme in play was one of the Democrat’s making.

The Constitutional Experts …

Other than Turley, whose appearances on Fox News appear to be supportive of Trump’s position, Karlan and Feldman will probably be pro-impeachment/anti-Trump, while Gerhardt might be the moderating voice of reason. As with all legal arguments, we need to base our decision on the merit of the argument and less the reputation of the attorney.

Bottom line…

Never in the history of the United States has a political party attempted to overthrow a duly elected President using pretextual “evidence” which could never be admitted in a court of competent jurisdiction. The impeachment was scheduled since day one of the Trump presidency. There is no offense against the Constitution or the nation -- except that which was perpetrated by House Democrats.

Unfortunately, I currently believe that few will be held legally responsible for their actions and that history’s judgments will be rendered long after my death.

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



HOW DID ADAM SCHIFF GET AT&T TO SURRENDER PHONE LOGS FOR A JOURNALIST, A RANKING MEMBER OF CONGRESS, AND TWO PRESIDENTIAL LAWYERS?

Starting on page 155 of the Democrat’s Impeachment Report, you can find phone logs of calls made by or to the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, reporter John Solomon, and presidential attorneys Rudy Giuliani, and Jay Sekulow. And, of course, a corrupt liar Lev Parnas who will do or say anything to avoid a harsh sentence for his criminal activities.

Was there a finding of probable cause concerning criminal activity? Or was it political activity that was being investigated?

p-1

p-2

p-3

What make this data collection so astounding is that the usage of the same type of call logs produced a frenzy when corrupt congressional  democrats are targeted.

Did the House Intelligence Committee coerce AT&T into producing the documents or was it done willingly because a number of former intelligence and law enforcement officials work at AT&T?

Bottom line…

Perhaps we need to examine the call logs of Adam Schiff, his staffers, the so-called whistleblower, and other members of Congress.

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



WHY?

Now that Thanksgiving is officially over, why is it that many Democrats were not giving thanks for living in an exceptional nation, but telling us that we are living in dark and distressing times that can only be remedied by granting venal “elite” Democrats more power over individuals and ignoring our founding principles which helped to create this great nation?

Why is it that the Democrats, the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-civil-rights, continues to bang the drum about slavery in the United States?

Why is it that the Democrats, who have governed the inner cities for decades, continue to spend billions of dollars and not move the needle one iota when it comes to literacy, poverty, disease, and crime?

Why is it that minorities are given a pass by the Democrats when it comes to meeting social, cultural, and educational norms?

Why is it that the Democrat-biased media refuses to hold Democrats responsible for their political corruption and lack of results, preferring to tear America down rather than build America up?

Why is it that the Democrats are laser-focused on defeating President Donald Trump and yet not one of their proposed platforms, be it the green new deal or Medicare for all, is good for America or Americans?

Why is it that the Democrats have defunded the U.S. military but saw nothing amiss with giving billions of dollars and a pass to Iran to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles – all the while chanting “Death to America?”

Why is it that decent people buy into Democrat propaganda as if it were the gospel truth? Or listen to ignorant celebrities who would be failures but for a single God-given talent?

Why should “We the People” follow corrupt, lying, and immoral Democrats down the rathole to further decay, disruption, and death?

All of these Democrats have knowingly lied to the American people and now ask for your trust as they attempt to assassinate the character of the President of the United States…

trust

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Bottom line …

How bad can it be? Just consider that the Democrat media is suggesting that Hillary Clinton, a known corrupt, lying, anti-America unindicted felon, is thinking she has a chance to enter the race and be nominated at the convention by the “super-delegates.” Consider what the Democrats have done to California, New York, and Washington, D.C. and ask yourself if those enlightened leaders can lead a school board let alone the great United States of America.

At this point in time, President Trump is the ONLY viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States which will give both parties four years to clean their respective organizations and start rebuilding a party that puts America first.

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



SELF DEFENSE BOOKS -- A $37 INVITATION TO YOUR OWN DEATH?

SELF-DEFENSE

Sometimes you get an email pitch for something that is not only stupid but maybe deadly to attempt…

I Laughed When My Attacker Pulled Out A Gun...

[OCS: This is one of the oldest direct mail headlines in existence. It comes from the original “They laughed when I sat down at the piano -- but when I began to play…”  It was written by advertising expert John Caples for the U.S. School of Music and is often noted as one of the most effective ad headlines of all time.

The truth is that there is nervous laughter which telegraphs your fear – and then there is stupid laughter which may anger your assailant.]    

"Don't you dare move! Hand over your wallet, NOW!" <redacted link>

A hooded figure emerged from behind me waving his black .44 magnum, waiting for my reaction.

But all I did was bite my lip. I wanted to laugh.

Not only did this fool still have the safety switch on... but he had no idea he was begging for a death-wish by asking me to reach my arm out toward his hand.

[OCS: There are very few .44 magnum semi-automatics around, so it is probably a revolver, and most revolvers do not have external safeties unless they are customized by a gunsmith. Just screwing up this one issue gives me pause to reconsider the rest of their advice.]

Little did he know that handing over my wallet would put me in close enough range to execute the 3-Point Death-Touch.

[OCS: Sounds like science fiction and something Star Trek's Mr. Spock would execute.]

Now, I'm no trained fighter. And I've only mastered this technique just recently.

[OCS: Coincidently, the longer sales pitch is signed Frank Bell – who is touted in other products as a martial arts expert. Same guy? Who knows? But why trust your safety or that of your family to some schmuck off the street?]

But if a move can dismantle an enemy in 5 seconds without needing years of training to master it... then who needs to buy firearms?

[OCS: Perhaps we should tell our law enforcement people they are doing it all wrong. They are taught that anyone holding a knife within 7-yards (approximately 21 feet) is a deadly threat. And, if you point a gun in their direction – even by accident, deadly force is authorized.]

It makes sense why Kung Fu masters are trying to ban this short video that shows how it's done.

[OCS: Why would Kung Fu masters try to ban this video – it makes no sense. If anything Kung Fu masters spend a lifetime telling their students to avoid conflict rather than embrace it. And, even the most proficient master is not likely to recommend that their students engage an armed assailant unless it is an existential threat. Give them what they want, it’s not worth your life. Better yet, avoid dodgy areas and people.]

It's the surefire way to flip the script on your attackers, making them run for their safety.

[OCS: Even with professionals, there are no “surefire” methods that work on everyone. Especially someone “juiced on PCP” or other drugs.] 

Just like what happened in this "botched" robbery.

Here's what ended up happening... <redacted link>

As soon as I got in close enough to hand him the wallet, it was lights out for him.

[OCS: Consider the strength and skill it takes to actually render an assailant unconscious. Now ask yourself if you remember your NAVY SEAL training? Oh! You’re not a SEAL, DELTA, or a special operator – time to reconsider.]

In 5 seconds the gun was in my hand with the robber on the pavement on all four limbs, begging to be let go. Which I did after the cops arrived.

[OCS: If you are holding a gun when the cops arrive – they just may shoot you and think the person on the ground is the victim. Learn how to interact with the police for their safety and yours.]

This is the kind of power you get when you discover the secrets in this video. Watch it here before it gets removed. <redacted link>

But be warned: I'm not sharing this to inspire you to go buy a cape and become your city's own Batman, even though you certainly would be powerful enough...

[OCS: Yeah right! Drive through a “gang” neighborhood and re-evaluate this stupidity.]

I'm sharing it because now with these secrets, you'll never have to feel helpless or fear for your safety when confronted with an attacker.

[OCS: False confidence and overestimating your abilities can get you seriously DEAD or injured.

Watch the video here. <redacted link>

Want to see the video, it can be found on YouTube here.
Want to read the pitch for $37 “Family Self-Defense System” video? -- it can be found here.
-- And, if you really want the product, wait for the “one time” special price pop-up as you leave the page.

“The Lazy Man’s Training Method That I Developed That Allows You To Master Devastating Moves Even While You Are Just Watching Tv!”  -- The marketeers used another famous ad line, this time from Joe Karbo’s famous “The Lazy Man’s Guide to Riches.” Unfortunately, when it comes to your life, lazy doesn’t cut it.

Bottom line …

If you believe any book, recording, or video can give you the skills to cope with a life-threatening attack, you are delusional. If you lack the strength, flexibility, and coordination to perform in awkward positions, you are in grave danger. And what about those unexpected events, like your wife smacking you accidentally in her panic or your children running toward you or the assailant?

If you do a Google search and see many positive reviews – even ones using the word “scam” – it is probably a program or product sold through affiliate marketing links and offering the same program through multiple sources.

The key to self-defense is:

Prepare for adverse encounters.

Don’t just purchase a firearm, train with it weekly and be prepared for the consequences of killing someone – perhaps even a family member by accident. Try shooting at night without hearing protection – and you will find that you are blinded and deafened after the first shot. Prepare for it with training, not just thinking about it. Purchase special ammo that will not penetrate walls and doors. Think about an assailant wearing body armor.

The best self-defense system for homes is strong doors, secured windows, and loud alarm systems. And, training family members to seek safe spaces or leave the area.

Maintain situational awareness at all times. Don’t visit dodgy neighborhoods, flash cash or jewelry, be aware of your surroundings. Especially when entering your car, garage, and home.

While most localities have criminalized the use of formal weapons such as police-style telescoping batons, there is usually nothing illegal about carrying a golf club, baseball bat, or using a screwdriver as a substitute for a knife.

Most people who purchase these products are “information junkies” who collect information to make them richer, stronger, more productive, more attractive to the opposite sex – and wind up with a hard disk full of useless crap.

Take a class. Ask a cop. Don’t just read a book, listen to a podcast, or watch a video.

Best of luck.

-- 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