Category Archives: Legal
Unfortunately, one of the most common problems a lot of business owners are wary of are truck accidents. Even when the drivers are careful while on the road, there’s still the risk of getting involved in one. This could potentially lead to serious injuries and tremendous damage to the vehicle. As for the victim of a commercial truck accident, to file a claim against the defendant, hiring a legal counsel is required. With the help of these professionals, you’ll know your rights and be able to receive fair compensation from the accident.
1. A Legal Counsel Would be the One to Negotiate with the Commercial Truck Insurance Company
Generally speaking, insurance companies– whether it’s the commercial truck policy or your own– would work to keep their money and give as little as possible to the victim. Wherein, the insurance claim adjuster is responsible for saving the company money and refusing to pay the compensation, or if they will, they’ll make sure that they’d be shouldering the least possible amount. Likewise, insurance companies also have a team of lawyers and investigators who would try to win the case and minimize their own liabilities. In simpler terms, they would attempt to put the blame on the victim. As for insurance companies, they are aware that it’s possible for them to delay the claim, lessen the payment, and even manipulate the conversations that would reduce or extinguish your compensation. That’s why the biggest mistake you’ll ever make is trying to negotiate with the trucking insurance company without the presence of a legal counsel. Even if you’re quite confident that it’s the commercial truck owner’s fault, it would still be better to have a professional right at your side.
2. Truck Accidents Are Complicated and It Can Be Hard to Pinpoint the Cause
Considering the fact that truck accidents are complicated, it’s always troublesome to determine who’s at fault. If you want your injury claim to be successful, it’s important that you can prove that the truck driver was negligent with his actions. The best way to prove that is through conducting investigations which would be carried out by a legal counsel. These people have access to the driver’s logs, trucker’s driving history, and black boxes. All of these could be sources of evidence. With the help of a legal counsel, you’ll be able to receive a better settlement amount, especially if you can prove that the defendant is indeed accountable.
3. They Know How to Negotiate for the Settlement You Deserve
It’s quite common for commercial truck accident victims to suffer from severe physical injuries, such as broken bones or spinal injuries leading to disability. Over time these injuries could negatively affect the victim’s life, and let’s not forget how quickly the medical bills can sky rocket during recovery. Unfortunately, you probably don’t know the exact value of your injuries, and it’s difficult to get the settlement you deserve. A legal counsel has handled similar cases before. They know how much it costs to be disabled and they have the idea of the settlement amount you deserve.
It may seem self-evident to most Americans, but now a noted legal organization has weighed in as well.
The American Civil Liberties Union says the overt spying on Americans’ electronic communications – whether to simply collect “metadata” or to capture communications in their entirety – simply violates the Constitution.
In a newly released, highly detailed critique of the NSA’s domestic spying that has since been filed in federal court, the ACLU says the program has had a chilling effect on the First Amendment and needs to be shut down immediately.
‘Allows surveillance that is essentially indefinite’
In the filing, the ACLU warned that such long-term surveillance of Americans’ communications “permits the government to assemble a richly detailed profile of every person living in the United States and to draw a comprehensive map of their associations with one another.”
The court action is part of a lawsuit that the legal watchdog group filed in June, shortly after revelations about extensive NSA domestic spying were revealed in a series of media reports. Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, spoke at length about the spying with Greg Greenwald of Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Snowden has since been granted temporary political asylum in Russia.
Per the Guardian:
Documents from Snowden revealed a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order directing Verizon to give the NSA all call detail records or “metadata” relating to every domestic and international call for three months, in a court direction that is renewed on an ongoing basis.
It “allows surveillance that is essentially indefinite”, the motion says.
The filing is filled with quotes from academic, literary and additional sources in an attempt to illustrate how dangerous mass surveillance of the domestic population by government can be. The citations include writings by author George Orwell, whose fictional but visionary book, “1984,” contained details of a “surveillance society” monitored by an omnipresent and all-powerful central government.
The ACLU filing also cites “The Lives of Others,” an award-winning film about monitoring of citizens by the Stazi (secret police) in East Berlin by director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.
U.S. intelligence and government officials said, following disclosure of the NSA spying program, that the agency has not collected contents of citizens’ communications and phone calls, only the “metadata,” such as numbers dialed, the duration of the calls and what time they were made.
‘Scooping an ocean to catch a fish’
The NSA and the Obama administration have said the program is part of the nation’s overall counterterrorism strategy, but the ACLU says the agency has definitely overstepped its boundaries. The legal watchdog group quoted Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a primary author of the USA Patriot Act, who has said that the law was never intended to give NSA blanket surveillance authority over U.S. citizens. He said the agency has used the law to “scoop up the entire ocean…to catch a fish.”
“The chilling effect of the mass call-tracking program is apparent: any person hoping to approach plaintiffs with proof of official misconduct would be understandably wary knowing that the government receives, almost in real-time, a record of every telephone call,” says the motion.
Included in ACLU’s client list for the motion are potential whistleblowers who are seeking legal counsel and “government employees fearing reprisals for their political views.”
The suit, filed June 11, names Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; NSA Director Keith Alexander; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; Attorney General Eric Holder; and Robert Mueller, FBI director. The suit says that the agency’s continuing tracking of Americans’ phone calls and conversations goes well beyond the agency’s statutory authority and is being conducted in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
Two-time Republican presidential loser Mitt Romney misses the “good old days” when the mainstream media was unchallenged by the alternative media and able to craft narratives, spread propaganda and toe the corporate line completely unchallenged.
As reported by Breitbart News, Romney complained recently that the fall of traditional media, which today does everything it can to discredit and destroy his political party, is a bad thing because it has empowered GOP “insurgents” (i.e. conservatives) while preventing establishment Republicans (i.e. RINOs) from achieving more compromise with the Democratic Party. The Democrats, of course, also seek daily to discredit and destroy the Republican Party and GOP brand.
In the days before Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was elected to the position of Speaker of the House and Romney and the rest of the establishment GOP were trying to convince him to run for the office, the former Massachusetts governor told former Obama operative David Axelrod on “The Axe Files” podcast that the “extremes within our respective parties are having a louder and louder voice and demanding more attention” and “immediate action” as opposed to more “collaborative action.”
Romney said that this is occurring in large part because of the “change in the world of media.”
“There was a time when we all got the news with the same facts, if you will,” he said. “We had three networks we watched for the evening news. Most of us got newspapers. Everybody in the middle class got a newspaper, so we got the same facts whether we agreed or not with them.”
No, Mitt, we all got the same propaganda and one-party bias.
It’s not good when we all have the same information
Now, he continued, Americans dare to “get their news on the web” and “they tend to read those things which they agree with.” He also said that people are “not seeing the other side” and “not even getting the same facts” while “we have commentators” on left- and right-leaning cable news channels “who are hyperbolic in expressing their views on issues.”
Romney went onto to complain that more Democrats consider themselves “liberal” and “in my party, there are more and more who feel they are more insurgent than towards the center of the party.”
“And I think that divisiveness is one of the things that has led to Washington having such a hard time getting things done,” he said.
For the record, the Republican Party was genuinely filled with conservative leaders once upon a time, hence its conservative bent, but that is no longer the case. Today, Republicans get Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Boehner and Paul Ryan as “leaders” who criticize the conservatives of the party more than they do “opposition” Democrats.
Completely off of Romney’s radar and obviously out of his scope of understanding is the fact that the mainstream media he nostalgically recalls is responsible for its own demise just as much as alternative media sources are responsible for their own rise. In the past, there was no free market of ideas, no competition for the status quo, and no challenge to the party line, which is why “we all got the news with the same facts”). When those challenges and choices became available, people began voting with their remotes and computer mice.
Breitbart News noted further:
In this election cycle in which outsiders on the GOP side are getting the majority of the vote, Donald Trump has bypassed the traditional media and gone over their heads to get his message directly to his supporters and American voters. Romney blasted Trump on the podcast and implied that his remarks about women, “members of the news media,” and Hispanics would hurt Republicans like Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks during the 2012 election cycle. Romney referred to “certain things” that were “said by Republicans during my general election race in 2012 colored the perception of the Republican Party and may have caused some people to stay at home.”
They want to control what you can and cannot know
So now, like Democrats, RINO Romney and his merry band of establishment leaders are complaining that they can’t control the narrative any longer. That’s really what this is all about.
You can – and should – read the full Breitbart News report here.
Speaking of new/alternative media, check out truth detectors and honest news brokers like MediaFactWatch.com and Freedom.news so that you don’t let a two-time presidential loser dictate to you what you can and cannot know.
Billionaire businessman and GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, elicits strong emotions from people, there is no question about that – and that includes strong positive and strong negative responses. But one response he elicited from a board member of a local American Civil Liberties Union chapter would be enough to land that person in jail for a very long time if he would happen to utter it should The Donald actually win the White House.
As reported by CBS Denver in recent days, ACLU of Colorado board member Loring Wirbel was forced to resign after writing a post on Facebook that threatened the lives of Trump supporters (as one of the GOP leaders Trump receives Secret Service protection), though some believe it may have been a closet threat to Trump personally.
Wirbel’s post was captured by The Daily Caller, which publicized it. The post stated:
“The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before Election Day.’ They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force…”
So much for the Left’s ‘tolerance’
What is unjust about democratically electing a president? Can you imagine the reaction of a reactionary like this to anyone who would threaten the lives of President Obama and his supporters? And did you catch the reference to one of Nazi Germany’s most notorious figures, Dr. Josef Goebbels, the man who performed painful and deadly experiments on Jews and non-Germans?
Does Wirbel really think Donald Trump is that kind of person? If so, then Wirbel and those who think like him are the real threats to American freedom – not a democratically elected president, regardless of what political party he or she represents.
“It’s almost like, you will think the way we think, you will do what we want you to do, or we eliminate you?” Steve House, chair of the Colorado Republican Party, told CBS Denver, commenting on what was the second threat against Republicans in a week.
The website noted further:
“Fern Delise, 54, of Fountain was arrested after police say she called Planned Parenthood saying, ‘It’s tempting to walk into a republican party [sic] meeting with my dead husband’s gun and just start shooting people.'”
This is the face of the Left’s famous “tolerance?” Threatening to kill someone just because they believe in a different political philosophy? Since when has any elected Republican official ever threatened the lives of Democrats just for being Democrats, or threatened Goebbels-like treatment towards them? I’ll save you the trouble of research: Never. Or at least not since the Civil War.
Because of this political intolerance, House says the state GOP is taking on new security measures at large meetings (just like they would have to if they were being threatened directly by ISIS – which essentially translates to: Democratic voters are behaving like terrorists toward Republicans).
“I think we have to be prepared as a party and I think politics is just overdone,” he said. “We’ve got to realize the country needs to pick leader and we need to do a serious job of doing that but this kind of rhetoric really doesn’t help at all and frankly it scares us and people need be worried about it a little bit.”
Where is Obama? Clinton? Are they condemning this?
Fortunately the ACLU of Colorado stepped up and did the right thing, issuing a statement saying that the organization “does not condone the recent personal Facebook post of regional volunteer Loring Wirbel.
“The ACLU of Colorado is a nonpartisan organization. We do not endorse candidates or parties. We have proudly spent decades fighting for the rights of all Coloradans, regardless of political affiliation, to vote and to freely participate in the political process. Our members, supporters, and volunteers are free to express their own personal views and opinions in their personal lives,” the statement continued. “We have fought for decades to preserve that right, as well, for all Coloradans, no matter how strongly we disagree with the content.”
You know who should come out next and condone this kind of rhetoric? President Obama, Hillary Clinton and every other leading Democrat who has weaponized speech at every opportunity to launch at the Republican Party.
You have to hand it to the Washington Post. The Jeff Bezos-owned legacy media outlet is consistent in its hypocrisy, casting doubts and aspersions on all who are not reliably in the corner of the Democratic Party as well as those who are not reliably in the corner of more and bigger government, which all too often today includes the leaders of the Republican Party.
You might have heard in recent days that billionaire real estate mogul and leading 2016 GOP presidential contender Donald Trump signed a “loyalty pledge” to the Republican Party, a non-legally binding document that ostensibly prevents Trump from making a third-party bid for the White House should he lose the Republican presidential nomination as the GOP leadership hopes.
It was bad enough having to crawl to Trump – he was visited in Trump Towers by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus – to get him to sign; the fact that he signed it was another signal that he is simply too smart for the current crop of GOP “strategists,” major candidates and party operatives.
Trump outfoxes everyone
In the weeks before this “historic” signing, the Republicans’ preferred candidate, Jeb Bush, complained that The Donald has been a Democrat longer than he’s been a Republican.
Trump’s signing of the document pledging that he’s a Republican and that he’ll support the eventual Republican nominee if it is not him makes him a bona fide Republican, and that destroys the claim by Bush and others that Trump is “not really a Republican.”
Check and mate for Trump.
It appears that someone at the Washington Post is upset that this pledge wasn’t some sort of court affidavit or other “legal” document. They claim the Trumpster can back out of it at any time.
The Post’s Chris Cillizza, who writes “The Fix” blog, laments:
GOP front-runner Donald Trump signed a formal pledge crafted by the Republican National Committee that he will not run for president as an independent if he doesn’t win the party’s nomination….
But there is absolutely no reason to think that simply by the act of signing this pledge, Trump will somehow be legally bound to not run as anything but a Republican in 2016. He won’t be.
This pledge is not…a legally binding document. It’s like the sort of pledge you get your kids to sign that they will do their homework, make their beds and eat their vegetables before they can play with your iPhone. It’s a statement of intention, but not a binding one.
Were Cillizza and Co. at the Post equally concerned about Barack Obama violating about 700 promises regarding Obamacare? Did they lose sleep over his broken pledge regarding executive amnesty for illegal aliens? Did they call out his reversal on the traditional definition of marriage?
Obama promised that his Affordable Care Act would lower monthly insurance rates, but that hasn’t happened for most Americans.
He promised that if we liked our health insurance, we could keep it, knowing full well that Obamacare’s mandated coverage minimums meant that Americans could not keep the plans they had.
He repeatedly said – 22 times – that he did not have the authority to issue the executive amnesty that he ultimately issued after the 2014 elections.
When running for the presidency the first time, Obama was adamant he believed in traditional “Christian marriage” before changing his position after the 2012 election and ordering his Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionally passed Defense of Marriage Act.
The Washington Post and its incessant defense of Obama and fellow Democrats is par for the course, as is its faux outrage over a promise that Trump hasn’t even broken yet – and might never break.
I will be doing a series of articles exposing commonly held political myths that many Americans have come to accept as historic fact. These myths were intentionally created by those directly involved in government and by its admirers who benefit from the expansion of state power. Over time, these relatively small groups, compared to the general population, have learned that controlling the public perception of government is essential to achieve their agenda. History teaches that, when government grows in size and power, freedom is destroyed for those subject to its rule. Only a few elite enjoy its benefits at the expense of the majority. It’s vitally important that the focus needs to be on the supremacy of individual freedom. It must be considered the most precious possession that we have. The critical lesson of human history is how rarely individual freedom has been obtained, and how relatively easily it is for it to be taken away.
The primary reason why America is rapidly transforming into a totalitarian police state is that a majority of Americans are ignorant of history. This has led to a lack of interest in the political system. America has become a victim of it’s own success because modern generations don’t understand the sacrifices it took to develop the economy that has produced this great abundance we have known all our lives. This ignorance of the political system has allowed the government, by it’s nature a parasite, to grow so large that it threatens to kill its host. Governments do not create wealth; they profit from the work of others. To put that in simple modern terms, government is the ultimate welfare recipient.
Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” The Federal Government has long ago passed the point of being intolerable. It’s only relatively recently that a significant number of Americans have started to realize just how intolerable it has become.
The central government, created by the Constitution, has become the most powerful government in human history. It has amassed the greatest debt in human history. It’s on track to become the most dangerous government in human history. The Constitution that was intended to limit the Federal Government has become a dead letter. I believe Americans face a similar situation that the German people faced in the 1930s. They too were manipulated through government-created crisis and elected the Nazi Party out of desperation. In our case, we have two tyrannical political parties that are only superficially different from each other. The deception has to be sophisticated because of the American tradition of individual freedom.
Both political parties use the Fabian Socialist technique of incremental change using the political system. The Stalinist approach is to use brute force against its people to achieve their goals. Fabian Socialists only resort to violence in very limited ways. It’s heavily cloaked with legislation to give the appearance of legitimacy. They take over the political parties, education system and media in a coordinated effort to keep the general public ignorant of reality. Unfortunately, they have been extremely successful.
The purpose of this article is not to be an in-depth analysis of the entire political system but to reveal the truth behind the facade of the modern Republican Party. A party that has been in decline for years and appears to be on the path toward extinction. I don’t believe that it’s going disappear in the near future but, rather like the expansion of government, decline incrementally until it reaches the finally stages where the collapse accelerates.
The simplistic narrative that has developed over the years, and amazingly persists today, is that the Democratic Party is Liberal and the Republican Party is Conservative. Those who know the history behind the words Liberal and Conservative are aware that the meaning related to their political use has changed.
Since I’m analyzing the history of the Republican Party, I’ll start with conservatism’s definition. Traditional Conservatism — or as it’s also referred to as, Paleoconservatism or “Old Right” — believes in Laissez-faire capitalism, limited government and a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. To many, that might sound like a modern Libertarian. There are lots of similarities, but there seems to be a few important differences. Paleoconservatives tend to be devout Christians, usually Non-Zionist Christians. They are critical of the libertine attitude of many modern Libertarians. They tend to agree with Libertarians that government should not intervene in most of these social issues but will speak out in the court of public opinion against those values. The major dividing line is over abortion. A significant amount of Libertarians are pro-choice, while Paleoconservatives tend to be pro-life.
The history of Paleoeoconservatives is best summed up in the abstract of an article by Sheldon L. Richman, “New Deal Nemesis: The ‘Old Right’ Jeffersonians” published in The Independent Review: “The Old Right began as a diverse group of politicians, writers and activists awakened by a common threat: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his unprecedented accretion of executive power. The Old Right was not truly right-wing or conservative, drawing as it did from the ranks of “progressive” isolationists, Republican “conservative” isolationists, libertarian iconoclasts regarded as leftist radicals in the 1920s, conservative Democrats, social democratic historians, and free-market liberal economists and journalists.”
For a more in-depth look at Paleoconservatism, I recommend the book Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement by Justin Raimondo.
That’s the history of Conservatism and what it used to mean, but that’s not what modern mainstream conservatism represents now. The Democratic Party lost its Jeffersonian heritage with the infiltration of Progressives in the late 19th century. They were in reality Marxists who called themselves Progressives. This may be a shock to modern Republicans, but there was a time when Democrats, though not perfect, were the ones who were strong on state sovereignty, for low taxes and limited government. They weren’t the Marxist extremists that they have become.
In my opinion, based on historical facts, the Republican Party didn’t really have such an infiltration. They already were, for all practical purposes, “Progressives.” From its birth in 1854, the Republican Party didn’t respect state sovereignty and wanted an all-powerful central government. They were for high taxes. In the early days, that meant high tariffs. They promoted mercantilism, now referred to as “corporatism,” or often called “crony capitalism.” They wanted a national central banking system similar to the current Federal Reserve System, which is at the center of the destruction of the financial sector and threatens our entire economy with inflationary fiat dollars and all the distortions of the economy that it causes. Republicans created the first fiat dollar; in the United States, they were called “greenbacks” and were not backed by gold or silver. They enacted the first income tax in 1861, which was repealed in 1871. With deceptive tactics, they started an unconstitutional war of aggression against fellow Americans. I will talk about the war in more detail in part 2. I’ll explain why what we call the “Civil War” was unnecessary to end slavery and wasn’t even about ending slavery. The primary reasons involved tariffs and Southern independence.
Two concepts of government emerged after the American Revolution, or more accurately called the war of secession from the British Empire. There was Thomas Jefferson’s concept, summed up by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, author of Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution — and What It Means for America Today. As The Mises Review states:
“Thomas Jefferson supported the American Revolution in order to promote individual liberty. To secure this end, it was essential that the central government be strictly limited in its powers. America, in the Jeffersonian view, was an alliance of sovereign states, and the adoption of the Constitution, though it increased the power of the national government, did not fundamentally change this arrangement.”
Professor DiLorenzo describes Hamilton’s concept from his book Hamliton’s Curse: “Hamilton proposed a kind of “king” who would yield supreme power over all people, who in turn would have essentially no say in how their government was run. The states would be mere provinces whose governors would be appointed by and loyal to the “king.”Under such a regime, all political power in the nation would be exercised by the chief executive and his circle of advisors, which would undoubtedly have included Alexander Hamilton as perhaps the chief advisor.”
Professor DiLorenzo points out that Hamilton did not secure what he wanted at the Constitutional Convention and called the Constitution “a frail and worthless fabric.”
Hamilton’s economic concepts were just as troubling. Professor DiLorenzo, in his article “The Founding Father of Crony Capitalism,” describes his economic ideas: “It was Hamilton who coined the phrase ‘The American System’ to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day.”
Professor DiLorenzo shows the connection between Hamilton’s “American System” and the Whig Party of Henry Clay. The Whig Party base fractured, and eventually the party failed. It was replaced by the Republican Party. The name was changed, but the philosophy didn’t.
After three decades of controversy and scandal, will Tuesday’s presidential election loss for Hillary Clinton finally close the book on one of the great American political crime families, as well as the party to which they belong?
She doesn’t think so and neither do Democratic Party bosses. Already they are plotting and scheming for the next election cycle, of that you can be certain. But it may not make much difference. That’s because for all of the pre-Nov. 8 obituaries written about the GOP by the Democrats and their sycophantic allies, the Republican Party is alive and well and stronger than ever.
In fact, interestingly enough, prior to the election, the establishment media was predicting that, with the ascension of Donald J. Trump to the top of the ticket, the Republican Party was on its last breath and would fully and completely self-destruct after the billionaire real estate mogul was soundly thrashed. But instead of that, Trump not only won the contest, House Speaker Paul Ryan credited him with a series of GOP victories that helped the party gain in state contests and hold onto tightly contested majorities in both the House and the Senate.
“We won more seats that anyone expected and much of that is thanks to Donald Trump,” Ryan said. “Donald Trump heard a voice out in this country that no one else heard.”
So, that is the current state of the GOP. What about the Democrats? What about the Clintons?
If you follow social media and you have a somewhat darker sense of humor, you might have seen memes and other posts pointing out that it’s probable a lot of the big money donors – including several foreign countries – who donated to the Clinton’s “charity,” the Clinton Foundation, and were expecting several pay-for-play favors in return for their largess are now extremely unhappy they won’t be seeing a return on their ‘investment.’ That means very likely that such donations will now dry up, given that Bill Clinton as an ex-president doesn’t have anything substantial to offer, and Hillary Clinton is no longer secretary of state and did not win the presidency, rendering her politically useless.
That leaves Chelsea Clinton, their daughter, who could at some point resurrect the Clinton “brand” if she were to enter politics. But considering she and Trump’s daughter Ivanka are close friends, it’s not likely she will make such a move anytime soon. And honestly, after seeing her parents embroiled in scandal after scandal (of their own making) for three decades, it could just be that the last thing Chelsea Clinton wants is a career in politics.
Clintons weren’t being paid millions for their dynamic personalities
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Hillary’s concessions speech to Trump not only marked the end of her campaign(s) for president – having lost twice now – but very likely the end of her political career. It was especially painful, given that her campaign had a better “ground” game, more money, sounder organization and more endorsements, as well as a party unified behind her. But after serving as first lady, then a U.S. senator and finally secretary of state, there does not appear to be, at age 69, any future path for her in public life.
There is always the charity, of course, but now – without anything of value to offer since the Clinton Foundation was always more of a political operation than a charity – it’s not a certainty that the foundation will survive.
Let’s face it: Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t get paid kings’ ransoms because they are such dynamic, powerful and insightful speakers. They were being bought and paid for by parties who were interested in the access the two of them could provide. It made no sense for her, as a presidential candidate, to claim she was a ‘champion of gays and women,’ for instance, while accepting tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments that purposefully target and persecute gays and women.
When Clinton was on Obama’s Cabinet, for example, more than $165 billion in arms deals were made to Clinton Foundation donors. As reported by International Business Times:
In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.?The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire…
Tracking the decline of Democrats
When these issues were raised during the campaign, the Democratic Party and its propaganda wing – the establishment media – lectured anyone making the case this represented classic “pay-for-play” that no, those donations were not tied to those arms deals and anyone making the accusation was unfairly piling on Clinton because she was a woman or some such nonsense.
Turns out, more Americans believed those who were shining a light on these dirty deeds than the Democratic spin machine.
Now, what is the future looking like for the Democratic Party? Based on recent history, it isn’t good.
Consider that beginning in 1994 – two years into Bill Clinton’s presidency – the Democratic Party lost control of the House, for the first time in four decades. Since then there has only been a four-year period – 2006-2010 – where the party has recaptured Congress; it held the Senate majority until 2014. Each time the party held the presidency, and that president surged to the far political left (with Clinton it was gun control, higher taxes and his wife’s attempt to pass Obamacare-style health reform legislation; with Obama it’s been Obamacare, unlimited immigration and a liberal social agenda), the Democratic Party has lost control of Congress, either partially or completely.
Is the demise of the Clintons coinciding with the demise of their party?
And now, with the election of Trump, the country has once again repudiated the leftist-socialism of the Democratic Party. But instead of “learning a lesson,” the party’s elders will continue to double down on a political domestic agenda that shuns traditional American values, our constitutional order, separation of powers and the uniquely American culture, in favor of political correct policies that are really little more than soft tyranny.
The Democratic Party has become one giant hypocrisy. It claims to be inclusive, but it divides the American people by gender, race and sexual preference. It claims to be tolerant, but is impatient and hostile to anyone who has an opposing point of view. Rather than encourage dialogue to settle differences, Democrats shout down, humiliate and belittle political opponents. Instead of being champions of the Middle Class, they pursue and implement big government policies that hurt and destroy the Middle Class. And instead of embracing all of the Constitution, Democrats adhere to, or ignore, our founding document based on their own political objectives at the time.
There’s no question that the political ‘dynasty’ of Bill and Hillary Clinton is over following her defeat. The fact is, it’s very possible, too, that she and Obama have taken their party down with her.
No taxis. No buses. No trains. No flights. Stores shuttered. Empty streets. Doors locked. Massive police presence. Stay inside. Don’t move. Watch television. Get the latest reports.
If you need to muse on something, you might remember a few significant events that occurred on or around Patriot’s Day, the anniversary of the opening battles in the American Revolution:
Final attack on the Waco Branch Davidian compound: April 19, 1993.
Oklahoma City bombing: April 19th, 1995.
Columbine school shooting: April 20, 1999.
Virginia Tech shooting: April 16, 2007.
Boston Marathon bombing: April 15, 2013
Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, though. Things happen. They’re meaningless.
But have faith.
That’s right. I forgot. We’re supposed to take it on trust.
The word from on high has come down.. The two Chechen brothers planted bombs at the Boston Marathon.
The FBI claims they have video to prove this, but of course we haven’t seen it.
What we have seen is two men, white-cap black-cap, with backpacks, walking through the Marathon scene. That’s it.
The FBI also claims at least one of the bombs was put together inside a pressure cooker. Of course, we have not seen any FBI forensic data to back up that assertion. We never do in these cases.
But the FBI are the elite forensic professionals, aren’t they? They’re the best in the world. We have to trust them, don’t we?
Well, they fed us a story about an amateur ANFO (ammonium-nitrate-plus-fuel-oil) bomb in Oklahoma City, in 1995. That turned out to be a fraud. In fact, Fred Whitehurst, one of the FBI’s own scientists, blew the whistle on the vaunted FBI lab for faking proof that ANFO was the main explosive substance.
Actually, the forensic lab at the FBI has been under continuous fire since the 1990s.
Whitehurst went a lot further than blowing the cover on the FBI op in the OKC bombing case. He pointed to chronic lab problems resulting in the questionable convictions of up to 10,000 federal defendants, many of whom remain in prison to this day and have not obtained justice.
In 2012, Whitehurst redoubled his attacks, stating, “While I was reporting issues at the FBI crime lab, FBI Director Louis Freeh was doing everything he could to shut me down…”
In August of 2012, the Washington Post exposed the failure of the Dept. of Justice to remedy these horrendous FBI forensic injustices.
And we’re not simply talking about FBI breaches in the 1990s. In 2009, as CBS News reported, an FBI lab tech, Jacqueline Blake, was under the gun for allegedly misinterpreting DNA samples in 103 criminal cases, and FBI lab scientist, Kathleen Lundy, admitted she gave knowingly false testimony, under oath, about bullet analysis in a Kentucky murder trial.
So when the FBI says a pressure-cooker bomb killed and maimed people on Boston streets, you should accept, at face value, the veracity of that claim, in the same way you would accept the statement that the moon sets every night in a lake in New Jersey.
When the FBI tells us that two brothers planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, we should resist “hypothesis by hypnosis.”
The actual facts require an entirely separate and independent investigation.
Though all major media outlets are fully aware of the badly stained reputation of the FBI, these networks go along like worshipful little puppies, on each new occasion, when the Bureau commandeers a crime scene.
All of a sudden, the FBI are kings, and the past is wiped out.
The media anchors, and the federal agents, are One. Their forte is staging mutual charades. In this regard, they have few equals.
The anchors breathlessly await each new FBI announcement in the Marathon murders. They put out the red carpet, they extol the Bureau as if, in the firmament of the just, it has no flaws of any kind.
Major media are truly advance men for the Bureau. Well, they have to be in a major crisis like this one, because it takes two to tango. You can’t have a coherent story line for the public if the media are doubting and questioning the FBI at every turn. When was the last time we saw that?
The public wants a story about heroes and villains, with all separations clearly drawn. That’s the media bottom line, and it takes precedence over a search for the truth every time.
The incurious, passive, and FBI-directed media never stop to wonder why doctors at Boston hospitals are reporting so many lower-extremity injuries, some requiring amputations. This fact strongly suggests that exploding shrapnel was directed along a low height.
To accomplish that, professionals had to design the bombs. No amateur would have a clue. Do we have evidence either one of the Tsarnaev brothers was a pro? If so, where is it?
But not to worry. If Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer open their arms wide to Richard DesLauriers, the FBI agent in charge of the Marathon case, if they characterize the Bureau as exquisite and virtuous servants of the people, as “part of our extended family,” as the best of the best, as moralists of the first order, then so should we. Without question. Automatically.
The younger Tsarnaev brother is now in custody. The older brother is dead.
The case is wrapped up. Everything is good.
Except, as a number of writers have pointed out, including Paul Watson, Tony Cartalucci, Kurt Nimmo, and James Corbett, the FBI has a history of involvement in terror events. The Bureau has encouraged and fomented pathetically obvious terrorist plots.
David Shipler, writing in the NY Times (April 28, 2012, “Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the FBI”) details a string of these ops. What he fails to point out is this: such events condition the American people to believe in the war on on terror. Without FBI agents initiating these self-fulfilling prophecies, the enormous infrastructure/industry dedicated to stopping terrorism would take on the bizarre appearance of a manned tank permanently parked outside a candy store.
So if the Tsarnaev brothers were involved in the Boston bombings, consider that they could have been drawn into a Bureau plan and supplied with the materials to execute that plan.
They could have been told it was a drill, an exercise, to “test the system.” They could have been told the bombs were inert They could have been used as patsies.
Yes, it would be a better world if we could always rely on the authorities to make clean arrests for clear crimes, present accurate evidence at trial, and obtain honest convictions. But unfortunately, we are not living in that world.
Go back to the 1993 Trade Center bombing. The NY Times exposed the covert role of the FBI through the testimony of one of the Bureau’s dupes (informants), Emad Salem, who was told he would be given fake bombs for a fake event that would scoop up real terrorists. But Salem then stated the FBI decided to go ahead with real bombs at the last minute.
Salem was never permitted to take the stand at trial and testify. The Times article exposing this was written by Ralph Blumenthal. Over the years, on two occasions, I’ve tried to talk to Blumenthal about his piece. The first time, some years ago, he blew up on the phone and told me I had the facts (of his article) all wrong. The second time, a few days ago, I emailed him, and so far I’ve received no response.
The elite media of this country are schizoid, intentionally. They like it that way. A scandal here, a scandal there, about our institutions? No problem. But then when the chips are down—which is to say, a big story looms up on the horizon, an irresistible monster of a story, like the Boston bombings—these fabricators of print and image adjust their ties and do their hair and go through their time-honored paces:
“Here are the pure and wonderful and guiltless good guys…and there are the bad guys…and we will watch the good triumph over evil…and you, the public, will follow along with rapt attention…”
In order to achieve this emotional arc, corners will be cut. Elements of the story line that don’t fit the mold will be omitted. They never happened.
The suspect in the Boston bombings the FBI had in custody, the one they were about to present in court the other day? The cancellation of that party, the suddenly closing down of the court owing to a “bomb threat?” Never happened. A misprint. A glitch. A dream.
The black ops men circulating at the Marathon? They all just happened to be wearing the same clothes, sporting the same insignia. No one was holding a radiation detector. That was a transistor radio or a cigar humidor.
The celebrations are on in Boston. The first city of any size to be locked down completely can open its doors.
The resolution has been achieved. Well, it had to be. The Bureau and the president couldn’t afford to let this go on for weeks and months, with no arrests and no take down.
That would be unthinkable.
Looking effective and looking presidential are priorities of a magnitude it’s hard to imagine. Inside the game, the players are excruciatingly aware of reputation and face and credibility. These are the psychological molecules that can drive a person up into the stratosphere or put him down in the alley with the garbage.
And it always helps to have hole cards. For example, foreknowledge that the op has a prefigured end. A designated perpetrator. So you can say, “Justice will be done, count on it.” And you’ll be right.
It helps, for example, to know you can deliver the goods on the names of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11, and you can make them known twelve seconds after the towers fell. You can pull out the names of men your people had been warning, about months before the event, the men you paid no attention to, until you needed their names.
Guilty? Innocent? Does it really matter? If you can decide what evidence is good evidence, you’re the king.
You can stage reality and then say, through hard work you found out what it was.
You can roll up the sky and roll it down again, and you can discover new planets and then delete them, and no one in the hypnotic trance induced by your fully owned media will remember.
But everyone will be safe. You proved that by locking down the city where the American Revolution was born, on the anniversary of the day its opening battles were fought. Then, in 1775, the message was freedom. Now, in 2013, it’s the same message, except the meaning has been turned upside down. Freedom is universal police presence and deserted streets, and people buy it like top-flight merchandise at a fire sale.
A symbolic gesture, purposely designed by evil men? You must be hallucinating. Take two Brian Williams and call me in the morning.
Right now in New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and a growing number of other cities, tens of thousands of protestors of all stripes and political persuasions are marching in protest of the corporate corruption that has infiltrated and taken control of the US government — and the mainstream media (MSM), of course, has been virtually absent in covering this massive and escalating demonstration against the current state of US politics.
The ongoing demonstrations, which are part of a new movement called Occupy Wall Street (OWS), have already resulted in numerous cases of violent police abuses, the shutting down of the Brooklyn Bridge, and even the voluntary arrival of members of the US armed forces who have reportedly come to help protest and protect protestors from attacks by local law enforcement.
Most Americans still have no idea that the protests, which officially began on September 17, 2011, are even taking place, though, because the MSM has been too busy focusing on the next presidential election cycle and other safe, pre-planned news segments. But the events are getting so large and disruptive that the media will be unable to ignore them for too much longer.
While not everybody involved in the OWS movement is necessarily fighting against totalitarian government and for true freedom and liberty — InfoWars explains that many protestors are actually demanding bigger government and higher taxes as a solution (http://www.infowars.com/occupy-wall-street-p…) — some of the protestors do appear to understand that big government is the problem, and not the answer.
But regardless of what the protestors believe as a whole, they still have every right to peacefully gather and protest without being abused by their own government. And unfortunately many protestors’ constitutional rights have been violated, as early reports and video clips that spread like wildfire on YouTube showed police pepper spraying protestors and aggressively arresting individuals for no apparent reason (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/se…).
Then on Saturday, a group of US Army and Marine troops reportedly traveled to New York to help support the movement and offer protection for protestors against police abuse. One Army serviceman by the name of Ward Reilly posted a message on Facebook on his way to the protests saying, “I didn’t fight for Wall St. I fought for America. Now it’s Congress’ turn,” a sentiment apparently shared by the other servicemen veterans traveling to protest locations (http://antinewworldorderparty.wordpress.com/…).
Throughout the week, we will be covering the day-to-day happenings associated with OWS that the MSM is ignoring, so stay tuned for more updates. You can also watch a live feed of the OWS events in New York City at the following link:
A growing group of military veterans, police officers and first responders has a message for those in the ruling class who seek to impose their unconstitutional will on the nation: “Not on our watch.”
Members of the group called Oath Keepers have pledged that while they live and breathe – and serve – there are a set of orders they don’t ever plan to obey, should they be asked to do so. And they are urging others like them to join as well and make a similar pledge.
“Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like-minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution,” the group says on its website.
And now, Oath Keepers is calling on members to form so-called “civilization preservation” teams in local communities, to “be both a potential operational unit for community security and support during crisis, but also, as mission #1, to serve” the American people. The teams would be modeled on U.S. Army Special Forces “A” teams whose mission is primarily “to train and then lead others” in key “preservation” skills. There is a lengthy description of the program here.
The group’s board of directors has urged its members to begin forming these civilian preservation teams without delay.
As for the orders that the group’s members pledge never to obey, they include any order to:
— Disarm the American people: “The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.”
— Conduct warrantless searches, such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or people: “One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of ‘writs of assistance,’ which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious.”
— Detain Americans as unlawful enemy combatants or allow them to be tried by military tribunals: “One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people.”
— Impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or enter said state in force, without the invitation of the state’s legislature or governor: “One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt ‘to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power’ by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as ‘military governor.’ The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution…. Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.”
— Invade or occupy a state asserting its sovereignty, declaring the national government to be in violation of the compact on which that state agreed to enter the union: “In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty. Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.”