History Is Now Being Written in Asia!

History Is Now Being Written in Asia!
The EU Summit Must Follow the Example of Singapore!
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Chairwoman of the International Schiller Institute

June 15–The contrast could hardly be clearer. In Singapore, the historic summit between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un launched a process that, beyond the region itself, could guarantee world peace for the future; at the same time, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) rang in a new era in building a new world order based on trust, harmony and joint development. On the other hand, there was the disunited, antagonistic G7 summit, whose European heads of state and government then returned home, only to plunge into a new dispute over the flare-up of the refugee crisis, and to react to that crisis with remedies as heinous as they are useless. It is high time for a policy reorientation on the old continent! The immediate opportunity to do so is the upcoming EU summit on June 28-29!

Notwithstanding all the cynical comments from the usual suspects in the mainstream media, the groundbreaking summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un would never have been possible without the spirit of the New Silk Road, that has swept over Asia in particular in recent years. Indeed, the idea of economically including North Korea in the integration of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union was very much present at last year’s Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. And at the Panmunjom Inter-Korean summit in April of this year, South Korean President Moon Jae-in presented his North Korean counterpart with a USB stick containing detailed plans for the economic development of the North.

The White House, in collaboration with the National Security Council, had prepared a video envisaging the perspective of a modern, industrialized, prosperous North Korea — a high-speed rail system, a Chinese maglev, industrial parks, a country on the rise – which Trump showed the North Korean Chairman during their meeting before the final press conference. One can only recommend to those minds in the West that have already been “categorized” and stuffed full of prejudices by the media, to watch Trump’s press conference themselves in the archives. A sovereign U.S. President presented the outcome of the summit: the total nuclear disarmament of North Korea, in return for security guarantees, the lifting of sanctions and the pledge to make North Korea prosperous. In addition, he announced the immediate end of the U.S.-South Korean military maneuvers. That will save a lot of money, he said, and they are “very provocative” anyway.

The people of both Koreas reacted ecstatically to the live broadcast of the Summit and the press conference. President Moon repeatedly commented with enthusiastic applause. We in Germany should recall the elation at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall to get a sense of the effect on the population there.

Not only did China and Russia in particular conduct important background negotiations with North Korea in the run-up to the summit, but the Russian government has also pledged to assist in economic development, while the Chinese government promised to help provide security guarantees for North Korea. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed the importance of resuming the six-party talks for an internationally secured implementation of the agreement. China’s Global Times wrote that the North Korean economy is by no means as dilapidated as is often assumed: “North Korea has economic and geographic advantages to join the B&R, which will help the country realize its economic potential. It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight. However, getting North Korea into the B&R initiative to promote economic integration may be easier than what people would have imagined.”

The almost simultaneous SCO summit, which India and Pakistan attended for the first time as full members, was opened by President Xi Jinping with the greeting that the future will be guided by the spirit of Confucius, whose birthplace is in the same Shandong Province as the conference venue in Qingdao. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the proceedings of the conference as the beginning of a new era in creating an international order based on mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, respect for diversity and joint development. That, he explained, would transcend the outdated concepts of the clash of civilizations, the Cold War, zero-sum games, or exclusionary clubs.

How different was the G7 summit in Canada! The photo showing Mrs. Merkel, German Chancellor, in a confrontational attitude toward Trump, surrounded by the other heads of state and government, is likewise an expression of the break-up of the geopolitically oriented post-war order, of the “G6 against 1” formation. But actually it was only the G4, because Trump, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte do not agree on the continuation of sanctions against Russia. The disunity of the Europeans is clearly visible on the issue of the refugee crisis. It should be obvious for everyone that neither the idea of turning back refugees at the EU’s external borders, by whatever method, is practicable, nor will there will be unity in the EU before the upcoming summit on the basis of the “solutions” proposed so far.

German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer’s proposal to turn away refugees on the German border, if they are already registered in another EU member country, will tend to lead to the end of the EU’s Schengen agreement, and thereby to the destruction of the foundation of the monetary union. The idea of so-called detention camps in countries such as Libya, which has sunk into internal chaos as a result of President Barack Obama’s military intervention, is so barbaric that it draws the oft-cited “western values” once and for all ad absurdum.

It is expected that by 2040, two billion people will be living in Africa, a huge part of them young people who need education, a job and more generally, a perspective for the future. What the African continent needs is massive investment in infrastructure, industrial capacities and agriculture, of precisely the type that China has made in the last 10 years. China thus helped reduce poverty in Africa from 56% in 1990 to 43% in 2012. At the G20 summit in Hamburg in 2017, Xi Jinping explicitly and repeatedly proposed to Angela Merkel to cooperate with the New Silk Road in Africa. The German government, for its part, has repeatedly spoken of a “Marshall Plan for Africa,” but other than the usual green “sustainable” projects, detention camps, and the securing of the EU’s external borders, nothing has been forthcoming.

The new Undersecretary of State in the Italian Ministry of Development, Professor Michele Geraci, has just published a memorandum for cooperation between Italy and China, in which he identifies eleven sectors in which Italy has an existential interest to cooperate with China. Among other points, the paper states: “Africa and the migrants? Who can help Africa? China.” Geraci reports that China has invested the most in Africa and thanks to China, poverty in Africa has started to decrease for the first time. “China offers Europe and Italy in particular, an historical opportunity to cooperate for the social-economic stabilization of Africa, which we should absolutely not miss. Therefore, we must strengthen cooperation between Italy and China in Africa.”

If the Merkel government is still in place when this article appears, there is a very good way by which the present crises can be overcome – from the migrant crisis to the government crisis and the EU crisis. Taking the example set by the Singapore Summit — that real change is possible, and that the past does not determine the future — the German government should ensure that the agenda of the upcoming European Union summit on June 28-29 be quickly changed. EU cooperation with China’s New Silk Road initiative for the development of Africa should be made the sole subject on the agenda, and Xi Jinping or Wang Yi should be invited to attend, as well as some African heads of state who are already cooperating with China.

If the EU summit, the Chinese government representative, and the African representatives then pronounce in a joint declaration the commitment to undertake a joint crash program for a pan-African infrastructure and development program, and promise all the young people of Africa that the continent will overcome poverty in a short time, such a declaration, due to the participation of China, would have all the credibility in the world in Africa, and would change the dynamic in all the countries towards definite hope for the future, and thus would immediately effect a change in the migrant crisis. It would also free the EU from its current crisis of legitimacy, and give the European nations a mission which would place the unity of Europe on a great new level.

Will the heads of state and government of Europe manage to follow the example of Trump and Kim Jong-un? The prospective of developing Africa together with China, would also give President Trump the urgently needed opportunity to overcome the otherwise looming spiral of trade war, and to balance the [U.S.] trade deficit by increasing trade, primarily through investment in joint ventures in third countries.

The crisis in Europe, the migrant crisis, the crisis of the German government — they have all assumed such dimensions, that the opportunity for a change of course in policy can absolutely be seized. Needed now, are the people to make it happen.

https://www.solidaritaet.com/neuesol/2018/25/hzl.htm
Siehe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMFhG_ff_7w

A CIA Insider Talks….

Those famous words of Ronald Reagan were never more true:

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

When originally spoken, many will relate this quote’s initial intention to social situations of taxation, entitlement control and more social issues. However, it’s become evident that the government – once thought to primarily exist for our protection – has turned bare toothed on its citizenry with a more aggressive, subversive agenda of diabolical proportions.

Alphabet agencies wreaking havoc on the public, the country, and even its own, as we we’ll soon reveal. The dishonesty, the lies, corruptions, yea the treason, is running rampant through every office and orifice in our governing bodies and if not for those speaking out, we’d all be un or misinformed.

In my series of “Insiders,”  I’m pleased to talk next with a former CIA operative. Someone who saw not only the inside, but the dirty wrath of an agency gone amuck.

Verne Lyon-CIA:  Recruited first as a student, Lyon operated as a CIA agent in the 1960s and 1970s. While operating under deep cover Lyon engaged in domestic spying on antiwar Iowa State University students. Codenamed Operation CHAOS, the CIA launched the illegal program against U.S. citizens. Lyon was also involved in destabilizing operations in Cuba. He also worked in Peru, Chile and Mexico. Lyon wrote in a 1990 article in Covert Action Information Bulletin, “The CIA must be put in its place. Should we demand or allow anything less, we will remain vulnerable to these abuses and face the risk of decaying into a lawless state destined to self-destruction.”

This is a first hand account from Verne and his book dealing with sensitive activities perpetrated illegally on the American public. Some of his answers are short as some information is sensitive to his life, his past, the agency, and, at times, a short explanation is all that’s required. We’re grateful for the opinions he can share at this time. Verne offers this expose’ as a foundation for domestic spying.

RB ~  Verne, you’ve led a life whose tale is the basis of spy novels and horror stories; Attempted abductions and assassination, prosecutions. You found a passion for aviation at a young age but then made, or were seduced, into a left turn into an intelligence career. We know it started when you were approached by the CIA to spy on antiwar activities at Iowa State. How did they find and pick you for their Operation CHAOS?

Verne Lyon

Image courtesy of Verne Lyon

VL~ I believe I was approached after a high school/college friend of mine went into Naval Intelligence. He told me he had talked to “some people” about me.  The job of spying on campus anti-war activities paid $300 a month and came with a guaranteed draft deferment. For over fifteen years, the CIA, with assistance from numerous government agencies, conducted a massive illegal domestic covert operation called Operation CHAOS. It was one of the largest and most pervasive domestic surveillance programs in the history of this country. Throughout the duration of CHAOS, the CIA spied on thousands of U.S. citizens. The CIA went to great lengths to conceal this operation from the public while every president from Eisenhower to Nixon exploited CHAOS for his own political ends.

After I signed the documents getting into their “student program,” I asked if university officials knew of their work on campus. They said yes but admonished me to keep this to myself. Apparently some officials at Iowa State not only knew of the CIA recruiting on campus but actually suggested names of select students to approach. Nobody mentioned that the work I just signed up for was illegal at worst and immoral at best. [1]

RB ~ You, like myself, grew up in a small midwestern town but found yourself directed to greater intrigue in your life. How did you take to this move up the status ladder working for a large int’l intelligence agency and did your views of a “worthwhile, needed and valuable gov’t agency soon change?”

VL~   I found it to be almost a dream at the first. Being a secret agent, paid undercover, part of the government’s inner decision making circle, etc. As time went on I became more skeptical with each passing day.

RB ~ Was this domestic spying expanded?

VL ~ As campus anti-war protest activity spread across the nation, the CIA reacted by implementing two new domestic operations. The first, Project RESISTANCE, was designed to provide security to CIA recruiters on college campuses. Under this program, the CIA sought active cooperation from college administrators, campus security, and local police to help identify anti-war activists, political dissidents, and “radicals.” Eventually information was provided to all government recruiters on college campuses and directly to the super-secret DOD on thousands of students and dozens of groups. The CIA’s Office of Security also created Project MERRIMAC, to provide warnings about demonstrations being carried out against CIA facilities or personnel in the Washington area

RB ~ This must have taken a lot of local resources to gather and review “information and activities” on so many people

VL ~ Under both Projects, the CIA infiltrated agents into domestic groups of all types and activities. It used its contacts with local police departments and their intelligence units to pick up its “police skills” and began in earnest to pull off burglaries, illegal entries, use of explosives, criminal frame-ups, shared interrogations, and disinformation. CIA teams purchased sophisticated equipment for many starved police departments and in return got to see arrest records, suspect lists, and intelligence reports. Many large police departments, in conjunction with the CIA, carried out illegal, warrantless searches of private properties, to provide intelligence for a report requested by President Johnson and later entitled “Restless Youth.[1]

RB ~ How much information was gathered and wasn’t this illegal?

VL ~ During the life of Operation CHAOS, the CIA had compiled personality files on over 13,000 individuals including more than 7,000 U.S. citizens as well as files on over 1,000 domestic groups. The CIA had shared information on more than 300,000 persons with different law enforcement agencies including the DIA and FBI. It had spied on, burglarized, intimidated, misinformed, lied to, deceived, and carried out criminal acts against thousands of citizens of the United States. It had placed itself above the law, above the Constitution, and in contempt of international diplomacy and the United States Congress.

RB ~ How ominous did it become when you found the agency who had you spy on Americans was now going after you by framing you for an airport bombing, chasing you to Canada to have you kidnapped and ultimately tracking you to Lima, Peru, bring you back for trial and sentencing you to 17 years in Leavenworth for that bombing? Yuri Totrov, former KGB counter intelligence officer says. “Verne Lyon’s story so shocked me that I hoped he would one day make it public.”

VL~   It was as if the weight of the world had fallen on my shoulders. I felt hopeless, betrayed, angry.

RB ~ “Eyes on Havana,” your revealing book, has the tag line “Memoir of an American Spy Betrayed by the CIA.” The title alone has a foreboding, gloomy aire about it. You talk about “the transformation of a young patriotic engineer…into the second class citizens I am today; a convicted felon who has survived fear, prosecution, and utter collapse of my dreams…” Are you able to realize at lease some of your dreams and goals?

VL~  I have become an accomplished pilot, although my aerospace engineering education was never used to its fullest, I did work as an engineer for a number of years.

Image courtesy of Verne Lyon

RB ~ In your book you say “…Things went from bad to worse and pitted three government agencies against each other and against me in games of cat and mouse around the globe.”[1] From an agency you wanted to dedicate yourself to, this must have been a shock.

VL ~ My two-day trial, the jury’s brief deliberations and the judge’s stern sentence. Seventeen Years, I heard him say. You shall be remanded to a Federal Penitentiary for 17 years. My freedom, my youth my wife, my son all disappeared in those words.[1]

RB ~ Did your overseas positions add any different perspective to your overall view of national security – both foreign and domestic until your apprehension in Peru and return to the states?

VL~  Having traveled to over 100 countries, I much appreciate the views of peoples and cultures  abroad. To best understand the geo/political problems of the USA, you must travel overseas to understand how the rest of the world views us and why.

RB ~ Today we see such a pervasiveness of corruption in the higher levels of leadership. In the early days, was there more of a separation between national security and politics? The line seems very blurry these days.

VL~   The difference between the two was always blurred. Higher ups in the CIA helped write both foreign and domestic policy instead of just providing intelligence.

RB ~ It used to be we never thought of much except who’s playing Friday night at the high school, where’s lunch after church on Sundays, but now… it’s the gov’t in our face, the IRS after our records, the NSA storing emails and phone numbers and the CIA doing who knows what. Did this really need to get to the level it is with normal everyday patriotic Americans?

VL~  It is where it is due to the rapid, uncontrolled expansion of technology in communications, satellites, social media, news from every corner of the world within a few minutes, the internet, hacking, etc. Our society as well as most governments live in the NOW and want to respond at once to news, etc. After 911, we all gave up personal  freedoms for security and the Patriot Act which the government exploits to the max.

RB ~  People used to think that national security meant protecting us from foreign entities bent on our destruction. But then talk of special phone equipment rooms in San Francisco surfaced with connections to the government and that huge collection facility in Camp Williams, Utah came to light. People couldn’t believe their eyes. How were explanations handled internally about such domestic activities? Was it common knowledge that the government in general was now in the data collection/citizen surveillance business?

VL~   I think that Edward Snowden, now living in exile in Russia, showed us how pervasive the government is in gathering all kinds of intelligence on the average citizen.

RB ~  Was Snowden a traitor or a hero?

VL~  Borderline hero

RB ~ While surveilling citizens with ties to terrorists should warrant close examination, can’t John Doe and his parents be left alone in peace? (AKA James Rosen from FOX News?) Has the CIA become more involved in domestic activities?

VL~ The line dividing the domain between the FBI’s former exclusive powers to do domestic spying and the CIA’s mandate to handle everything beyond the borders has become so blurred that the NSA’s collection of date from both actually negates separation of powers.

RB ~ You said in a 1990 article in Covert Action Information Bulletin, “The CIA must be put in its place. Should we demand or allow anything less, we will remain vulnerable to these abuses and face the risk of decaying into a lawless state destined to self-destruction.” Are we seeing that thought in spades these days? Lyon

VL ~  We thought that the East German STASI was the embodiment of George Orwell’s 1984 but we have achieved that status here at home now.

RB ~ You’ve been quoted as saying “The CIA is a state sponsored terrorist association. You don’t look at people as human beings. They’re nothing but pieces on a chessboard.” Was this scary concept surprising to you as you worked more and more in the agency?

VL~   The Agency’s view of the world was divided into spheres of influence where, at times, operations pitted one country or area against others for our benefit. The effects on the ordinary people were ignored for the goal of the greater good.

RB ~ Average Americans think about this data collection and that domestic spying should be spending time, money and resources chasing bad guys in Yemen, Iran or Syria, not worrying about some conversation or email between a guy and his grandmother. Are there other hidden reasonings behind collecting so much private and inconsequential information about non-threats within the country? Maybe political?

VL~  Certainly politics always has a role in what type of intelligence is collected and from whom. With today’s technology that allows us and foreign nations to encrypt private communications, the race to stay ahead of the curve out weighs the concerns for people’s rights.

RB ~ Is the invasion of our privacy “rights” (and maybe I’m using the term loosely) growing out of control, or has the presence of Trump in the oval office stemmed the tide of intrusion into our lives?

VL~   Basically and simply – No

RB ~  For most of us, the Clinton’s have been on the highway of free rides since the 80’s, bypassing every legal stop sign and prosecution toll booth in their path as they speedily wind their way toward fame and riches – mostly infamous riches. Everything they touch seems to be laden with bi-chromatic fingerprint dust and the blood of innocents mixed with confusion. With the questionable death of Seth Rich and other DNC maneuvering, for whose benefit and for what purpose? Was Rich to receive the blame for the hacking but wanted to prove otherwise?

VL~ Investigation, NO enforcement

RB ~  Is the CIA capable of assisting or independently pursuing “political crimes” to bring about justice to those involved in all this current Clinton/DNC/State Dept./intelligence corruption, or should they be more an investigative, enforcement force against more traditional crimes? Or is there really a difference anymore?

VL~   Dem’s vs Republicans – too political.

RB ~ Is enough finally being done to investigate and dig into these email scandals and schemes? Seems like 2 intelligence groups would be more efficient given the foreign component of things.

VL ~  More open but still restrictive

RB ~ And as a follow up, are the lines of communication between the FBI, CIA and NSA now more open than before, or is interagency pride and elitism keeping them from working together efficiently?

VL~     It’s all politics

RB ~  Did you in your wildest intelligence dreams ever think that a major political party could invade the sanctity of our election process by creating false documents, use them to smear an opposition candidate before an election, then use them to assault the privacy of his closest confidants, using them to corrupt the privacy process of the FISA system, all while the long term goal of removing a duly elected president loomed in the back of their destructive playbook?

VL~  Since FISA courts (hearings) are held in secret, much like grand jury hearings, the prosecutor usually controls the hearing and the court will go along with the prosecution’s request 99% of the time so its use is always, in my view, political. The fact that the election process can be corrupted to the degree that it has been is just another example of politics over-ruling facts. Its sad to see its degradation to the point that politics has apparently removed all fairness to the process.

RB ~ Knowing you weren’t there then, but has John Brennan stepped over the line of reason? Is his lying and anti-patriotic, partisan views a change or was it always there, hidden from public view?

VL~ Political leanings always influence decision and actions

RB ~ Did the decision to become so outspoken come easy given your patriotism and seeing the need for truth, or was it a life changing moment with thoughts of reprisals and long term career and personal ramifications?

VL~ I needed to tell the truth

RB ~  With Alexis, Echo, TVs with cameras, home security Wi-Fi cameras, Google phones tracking our every move and refrigerators knowing what we buy  and how we shop, are we living totally exposed with our non-private lives open to become fodder for anyone willing to review, sell or track?

VL~  We allow this for the sole sake of convenience

RB ~ With so many problems and scandals related to political corruption, spying on citizens, immigration, local communities and states opting out of abiding by federal law….are we losing America?

VL~  Its already lost and there is no real way back.

RB ~ And with all the action and complications of a government intelligence / law enforcement position, what was that one fun, rewarding, passionate moment you remember from your whole career?

VL~      Understanding that the world is not our enemy we don’t need to invent enemies.

 

Our thanks to Verne for his time, his service to our country and thoughts, and to his co-author, Professor Phil Zwerling for their input into this book and this article.  This and my other “insider” articles go to the question of whether we can truly trust our own government and their real intentions in their attempt to protect us.

Whistleblowers exist for a reason… to spread the truth of what’s behind the curtain and alert us to wrongdoings that affect our lives, our futures.

This article is just the beginning. You’ll find a fascinating read on the intrigue of Verne’s CIA life and adventures in the US, Cuba and beyond in his book, “Eyes on Havana.” I can’t recommend enough its addition to your reading shelf. It’s an eye opening revelation of what lengths the government will go to destroying policies, laws and lives to get to their final nefarious objectives.

RB

Facts and opinions expressed are those of the interviewee and not necessarily those of the author or erskineovernight.com. Certain passages and quotes used with permission from his book,"Eyes on Havana -Memoir of an American Spy Betrayed by the CIA."

[1] Eyes on Havana- Verne Lyon & Phil Zwerling, McFarland Publishing (January 12, 2018)

Another School Shooting in 3….2…. wait for it….

It’s a bright sunny morning. The school is filled with sounds of studying and socializing as young people fill classrooms and hallways. Thoughts of tests, and plans for finishing the week, then enjoying another weekend of youthfulness. Ah, the carefree life of adolescence.

Then the unexpected, unimagined snap of gunfire breaks the consciousness and rips the flesh of those going about their daily routine of innocence and normalcy. Another day in the life of a school ground shooter changing the lives of his nameless victims.

17 dead. Students, staff, all led to believe it was another regular day until that moment they met the assassin’s random, impartial objective: death and disruption. For it was not meant to be another normal day. The shooter moved from classroom to classroom, pausing briefly each time in the doorway to shoot, then moving on to the next room finding more innocents to kill.

The shooter’s true motive is unknown. Media reports assumed it to be related to his expulsion from school, along with his subsequent feeling of victimhood and hopelessness. Another of “society’s children” victimized by their own actions seek revenge on the blameless and guiltless.

Such was that infamous day at Gutenberg school in Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002. The lone, disturbed yet impassioned murderer, Robert Steinhäuser, brought his wrath to school, much like others, who seek to punish for personal or political reasons. Another in a growing list of slaughtering stereotypes seeking their place in social antiquity.

Thomas Hamilton, in 1996, added his name to the roster with 17 dead in his Stirlingshire, Scotland massacre when he shot sixteen children and a teacher at the Scottish primary school before killing himself. And the list goes on.

LIBERAL DELUSION:

Liberals would have you believe that America is to blame. Our society’s laws, accepting attitudes toward guns, the 2nd Amendment, Trump, or conservative values are to blame for the senseless spray of slaughtering slugs. They portray it’s more unique to America, our open way of life and freedoms. It’s a curse stemming from our right to keep and bear arms.

Violence, murder and mayhem on school grounds have been added as a sizzling hot topic to the long list of liberal talking points, and the complicit media seeking the next big “rights” discussion. It’s another in the established and growing line of “reasons” Americans should let the government run their lives instead of logic, reason, reality and, oh yeah…the Constitution.

But as we saw, the government did not protect these students and teachers. Months and years before, students made remarks that if there was ever to be a school shooting, it would be Cruz on the trigger. The dozens of home visits by police to Nikolas Cruz were dismissed, the many well-intentioned reports by students went unheeded while even direct calls to the FBI were ignored and not passed to local offices for follow up and action.

  GOVERNMENT MISFEASANCE?

And that fateful day? Scot Peterson, the deputy assigned to protect the school, waited outside the building instead of going in; Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said this week Peterson waited for four to six minutes even though he could “clearly” hear gunfire. “I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training. If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.” Maybe knowing an officer’s “heart” is now more important?

Upon their arrival, Coral Springs police officers say they found Peterson and three other deputies outside the school, pistols drawn and hiding in safety behind their vehicles while others, undeservingly, met Cruz’s deadly dose of disdain for their lives.

The bungled handling of the Parkland shooting, before, during, and after, has grown in increasingly important frustration and accusations. Law enforcement failed to act at several milestones in the timeline before the shooting: the FBI didn’t act on a January tip about the danger posed by Cruz, and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office failed to write up a November warning about him.

During a conversation with good friend of mine, a 30+ year veteran of a Chicago suburb police department, came a well-taken point that seems evident in many locals. And it was certainly present in this Florida situation. County sheriff’s personnel seem less trained, less committed or at the least, less involved than those of regular city and state police forces. Broward (or as now referred to Coward) County officers seem to have protected themselves while Coral Springs took action upon their arrival.

My friend’s point being that, while many officers are courageous and professional, many times, the “county sheriff’s” office is more cronyism and a soft retirement gig where former LEOs go for a nice added retirement, are many times not in as good of physical shape, and are looking for a less stressful, less engaging position as their full time, larger community counterparts.

When you put on a gun and a badge, you’re hired to protect and serve – not cower and refrain. Society needs and depends on the concise, immediate, precise actions of experience defending life and property. The call to law enforcement is a strong one not accepted by all. And while abused by some, is a call to duty that citizenry counts on for safety and security.

There could be catalogs filled with reasons and excuses for the actions of the delusional despots reigning death on their fellow man; be it retribution or revenge, misaligned loyalty to some political view, or the result of medicated misgivings.

In the many decades preceding the late nineteen eighties, mass shootings and acts of senseless violence on crowds were “relatively” unheard of.  Prozac, the most well-known SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant, was not yet on the market to be consumed by the handfuls by those with real or perceived mental punishments.

The left loves to demonize our 2nd Amendment and conservatives’ views, saying it’s not our inherent right. But we also need to look at many other issues. Issues such as the overly prescribed, readily available supply of drugs being pushed and pumped into our young people potentially ill-equipped to deal with their effects.

Mass shootings are not a coincidence among legal drug users. Eric Harris was on Luvox when he and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School.  Cho Seung-hui, the Virginia Tech shooter who killed thirty-two people was on an antidepressant.  Withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother, then proceeded to shoot twenty-two classmates and killed two.  Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, another antidepressant.  James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight.  He was under the care of a psychiatrist, but no specific drug information has been released to date.

AN ANSWER?

Should we review the amount of violence perpetrated, promoted and displayed through video games, movies and music? Many feel the permissive nature of the 60s advanced through our recent administration’s lax attitude toward the law and lawlessness, may continually allow people to destroy, disrupt and kill without thoughts of results and ramifications. And those not mentally capable of such responsibilities or are harboring violence need to be weeded out from the gun-buying marketplace.

Add in the ever growing “missing fathers” and the problem is exacerbated. A study in 2013 shows:

Children with negative attitudes about school and their teachers experienced avoidance and ambivalence with their fathers. On the other hand, children with a secure attachment to their father and whose father was involved had a higher academic self-concept. The father-child attachment was more associated with the child’s social-emotional school outcomes than their academic achievement.

[Source: Newland, L., Chen, H., & Coyl-Shepherd, D. (2013)]

The bottom line should be that the result of schoolyard shootings, classroom chaos and mass mobocracy of matriculation lies at the feet of the culpable assassin. There are 89 guns for every 100 Americans as many have one, two or a dozen weapons secluded in their homes that will never kill anyone. Arizona has been an open carry state forever and yet people are not roaming the streets randomly shooting everyone in sight; while Chicago, Baltimore and NY have some of the toughest gun laws with no evident positive results.

Yes, it’s time for reason and improvement in our background checks, societal responsibilities and approach to youth. With a truthful realism of facts and deliberate forethought, we can reduce violence, be it in the hallway of a local school, a shopping mall or movie theater. 98% of shootings take place in “gun-free” zones. I guess they didn’t get the memo.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

Tucker Carlson makes so many valid observations. As media covers this event even more, as people realize their own responsibilities, as the masses take a good look at reality instead of rhetoric, we can hope to reduce the unhappiness of these occurrences.

We enjoy our freedoms in this country but the right to keep and bear arms was not for the purpose of hunting. It was for the protection of ourselves, families and property, and as resistance toward a tyrannical government should that day ever come. (Be it foreign or domestic?)

Some will always lose sight of the real reason behind privileges, and yet, if the will is there, then a gun will be replaced with a knife, a vehicle or other means to murder. Yes, while not a weapon of mass killing, the use of bare hands to commit murder is 25 times more prevalent than using a gun.

Eliminating guns from our lives is not the answer, as our own DOJ found that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 shows no decrease in violence, and even an inexperienced shooter can change a “required” small capacity magazine in 2 seconds.

It’s time to set aside the hidden agenda and rhetoric of confiscation and concentrate on those ideals that will improve the lives and mindset of individuals fraught with fright against an unseen enemy of oppression…their own minds. Take away the drugs, the opportunity to arm themselves, and the societal pressures that plague them…for dealing with an aftermath instead of a precursor…is far too expensive.

~ RB

======================================

 

2018 – The year of the ultimate Washington cleanup?

Will this be the year that Washington corruption sees its doom?

When Trump ran for president, many proclaimed his questionable past, his business dealings, his “Russian” connections. And yet being unproven he still pushes forward with his agenda to “Make America Great Again.

In fulfilling his duties as president, and meeting his promises to improve this country, could he ever have known – or even thought – that such corruption was not only present, but prevalent in his new city of residence? Was he prepared to meet the challenges of lies, deceit, misinformation and political hackery?

We’ve seen an FBI director get fired leaving multiple questions of lawbreaking in his wake. Replaced by another whose wife took hundreds of thousands of dollars in her democratic campaign causing serious conflict of interest proclamations. We’ve seen an impotent Attorney General who seems to bypass any opportunity to defend the rule of law by not fully pursuing those who, in the eyes of the general public, have commited open and overt acts of corruption, lawlessness and possibly treason.

We’ve seen a special council appointed who is hell bent on finding, what seems to be, non-existent evidence of a US hating Trump and his “Russian Connection”, while a previous president’s political book is laid open with more and more pages stained with the blood of American lives, potential treasonous acts, and an agenda that bespeaks of nothing aligned with truth and patriotism.

And through all this, we again see the Clintons at the middle of scheme after scheme after slimy money grabbing scheme. All designed to personally enrich themselves, sell their influence and power. But are they now skating on the thin ice of opposition and truth? Are their chicken about to visit home? Are they close to seeing the justice so many in this country want for their crimes again the country and possibly individuals?

Bill’s speaking fees from a Russian bank involved with a cobal to take over partial control of a valuable American resource. The globe circling foundation that serves to fill the silk lined pockets of the Clintons – all of them – rather than serving the masses extolled vociferously to gain more and more checks and favors.

The growing “email scandal” is still off the front burner but slowly making its way from the rear of discussions as people see the veiled attempts to run questionable activities out of public view. Destroying evidence after an issues subpoena? the use of unsecured resources putting country and its secrets at risk? Hammering and hiding Blackberrys, laptops and smartphones for the purpose of… well, who really knows at this point.

The DNC reveling in its own misdeeds paying for concocted files on a political rival under the guise of opposition research. A ruse involving participation of the nation’s top law enforcement agency and possibly their money? A falsehood potentially used to obtain illegal warrants for the purpose of spying on that opposition then… involving people and information obtained to prosecute for the purpose of political control and destruction?

And we haven’t touched on the sex scandals that are “exposing themselves” at every turn of the calendar, or the other DNC and office holders whose actions exhibit questionable legalities in the lofty positions they hold. And will B Hussein finally be exposed for his socialist/fascist/Communist leaning destructiveness and will America care?

As we look forward to a new year, may we all find peace, prosperity, personal power and presence of mind to better ourselves and our country. God bless America.

-RB

======================================

 

U.S. Troops Die Protecting French & Chinese Uranium?

Did U.S. Troops Die in Niger Protecting French & Chinese Uranium?

by Lowell Ponte

The question looms large!

America was surprised when U.S. troops in Niger were ambushed, and four were killed, on October 4. Why are more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers in this desolate region of Western Africa, and in one of the world’s least developed nations?

According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, America’s mission there is “supporting the French-led and the African troops in the campaign to throw ISIS and the terrorists, the radicals, those who foment instability and murder and mayhem, off their stride.” He speaks truth – but not the whole truth.

Until 1958, land-locked Niger was a French colony bordered by oil-rich Libya to the north and oil-rich Nigeria to the south. Niger has far less oil than its neighbors, but has good reason to be fought over both for territory and one key resource.

“France gets about 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors,” the New York Times reported in 2013, and that year France dramatically increased its military forces in Niger to protect its uranium mines. The terrorists attacking Americans this October were driven off minutes later by French fighter jets streaking to the rescue.

Eighty percent of Niger citizens do not know that their country’s northern desert has uranium, which Business Insider described in 2015 as “the world’s fifth-largest recoverable uranium reserves, some 7% of the global total.”

A handful of uranium mines account for roughly a third of all of Niger’s exports and supply a third of France’s reactor fuel (and possibly the key ingredients for French nuclear weapons as well). No wonder France and its American allies are willing to pay a price to keep these radioactive isotopes flowing, avoid terrorist disruptions, and prevent Islamists from seizing this potential source of A-bomb material.

France, however, is not the only uranium mine investor in Niger. The People’s Republic of China also has reportedly committed to investing $300 million and owns a 37 percent stake in the Azelik mine, along with the Niger government plus one other Chinese and one Korean investor in a joint partnership called Somina.

President Barack Obama sent U.S. military forces to Niger in 2013, apparently to support the French buildup to protect their vital uranium mines from Islamists. In October 2017, this cost four American lives. But did these courageous soldiers implicitly also die to defend a Communist Chinese uranium mine, a potential source of China’s nuclear weapons?

How ironic that the Obama Administration gave Russia 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves, some of which Russia may have sold to Iran, and Iran may have sold to North Korea, to make weapons that someday soon could devastate the United States.

How ironic that Mr. Obama allowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s political slush fund foundation to pocket $145 million from this Russian deal, thereby letting Russia influence American politics.

And how ironic that Mr. Obama also has been willing to put the lives of American troops on the line in Niger to defend France’s – and Communist China’s – uranium.

 

======================================

 

Warning Signs Abound For U.S. Economy

WARNING SIGNS ABOUND FOR U.S. ECONOMY

by: Harley Schlanger

July 7 — In the build-up to the G20 summit in Hamburg, there has been much happy talk coming from Trans-Atlantic government officials, Central bankers and the media about the arrival of the long-awaited “economic recovery.” From Brussels, European Central Bank (ECB) chairman Mario Draghi sounded cautiously optimistic, telling European Union leaders on June 23 that the EU is experiencing economic growth and an “improving business climate”, while ECB Executive Board member Peter Praet was much less constrained. In a meeting of bankers in Paris on July 6, he declared that the recovery “has gathered some further momentum recently,” and that there is a “solid upswing” becoming an “increasingly solid cyclical recovery.”

One might ask if the two of them consider the unresolved Greek debt crisis, and the bailouts of Spanish and Italian banks, in violation of new EU banking rules, evidence of a “solid upswing”!

As for the United States, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen was even more upbeat, after the major U.S. banks passed the most recent “stress test.” In an exchange with London School of Economics Professor Lord Nicholas Stern, Yellen said the U.S. banking system is now “very much stronger” due to Fed supervision and higher capital levels. In fact, she added, another banking crisis is unlikely “in our lifetimes.” When asked if she thinks stock valuations are too high, Yellen replied that “by some standard metrics, asset valuations look high,” but then hedged, saying “there’s no certainty about that.” Her explanation sounded eerily reminiscent of former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, who publicly announced he saw no evidence of “irrational exuberance” as investors sent tech stocks soaring in the late 1990s, before the dot-com stock bubble proved him wrong, by crashing in 2000.

Yet, for all this “good news” from the U.S., there are warning signs that all is not well. Yellen’s vice chair, Stanley Fischer injected a note of concern, saying the “increase in prices of risky assets (that is, corporate stocks and bonds, including junk debt — HS)…points to a notable uptick in risk appetites,” adding that continued high valuations in the face of low earnings “is also a cause for concern.” He concluded by stating that the corporate sector — the stock valuations of which are at record levels — is “notably leveraged”. This is a strange, understated way of looking at the $14 trillion of non-financial corporate debt, much of which will never be collected, which has surpassed the amount of mortgage-backed securities debt which crashed the market in 2008, when that debt reached $11 trillion.

THE FRAUD OF THE STRESS TESTS

The belief that the stress tests demonstrated the security of the banking system, as touted by Yellen, has come under fire, ironically by the Wall Street-loving New York Times. In a July 3 editorial, the editors write, “It’s entirely possible that the system is more fragile than the Fed’s stress tests indicate. By the Fed’s calculations, capital held by the nation’s eight largest banks was nearly 14% of assets, weighted by risk, at the end of 2016.” However, the editorial points out that, using international accounting rules instead of American rules, the capital reserve is only 6.3%.

The difference between the two accounting systems “is largely attributable to regulator’s differing assessment of the risks posed by derivatives, the complex instruments that blew up in the financial crisis and that still are a major part of the holdings of the big American banks.”

In other words, by not dealing with the threat posed by derivatives, by restoring Glass Steagall regulations to force the banks to either write down, or write off their derivative obligations, this ticking time bomb remains a real threat within the banking system.

Further, Fischer’s warning, that there has been “a notable uptick in risk appetites”, means that the need of banks and investors for profit is forcing them to bet on more risky financial instruments. If this approach to investment is funded largely by leverage, as Fischer states, it means that once the bubble pops, the collapse will be more catastrophic, wiping out pension funds and individual retirement funds of millions of Americans — just as in 2008.

As to those who point to the “health” of the stock market, which some analysts have said is “defying all models” by continuing to appreciate, the reality is that the unprecedented expansion of corporate debt, fueled by low-interest lending from banks, is largely responsible, as companies are borrowing money to buy their own stock. Fischer obliquely referred to this when he expressed concern for stock appreciation in the face of low corporate earnings. The total valuation of the Dow Jones average, a standard measure of the health of the stock market, has nearly tripled since its low in 2008, going from 8,046 to 21,349 as of June 30 — while corporate profits during that period have been for the most part low or stagnant.

NO UPSWING IN THE REAL ECONOMY

The standard narrative of the “Obama recovery” which is repeated (mostly by Wall Street-controlled Democrats) is that between 10 and 12 million jobs were created during his years in office. Yet the majority of those were temporary, part-time and low-wage. In 2000, there were 19.6 million employed in the manufacturing sector. Today the figure is approximately 12.5 million. For those employed, wages have remained stagnant, while the labor participation rate is near historic lows, with only 62.9% of potential members of the work force employed, meaning almost 95 million are not working.

The hype about Obama’s recovery is unmasked by looking at some figures on poverty in America. According to the 2014 Census, 14.5% of Americans live in poverty, over 45 million people. As of the end of 2014, the number of children living in families near or below the poverty line is 31 million, a staggering 44% of all children in the U.S. From 2008 to 2014, the years of the “Obama recovery”, that percentage grew by 18%.

To survive, those with access to credit are building a significant debt bubble. Average household debt in January 2017 is $132,529, with total consumer debt growing to $12.58 trillion, compared to $12.37 trillion in 2007. The average household pays over $1,300 per year in interest on credit cards, while unpaid average credit card balances grew from $4,400 in 2015 to $5,551 in 2016. And delinquencies are up: the Federal Reserve reports that 7.1% of all credit card balances are more than 90 days late; for paying back student loans, which now total over $1.2 trillion, 11% are 90 days late; and for auto loans, almost 5% are 90 days late, as repossessions are up, and overall car sales are dropping. Over the last two months, General Motors, whose federal bailout after the 2008 Crash was hailed as an example of decisive political intervention, has announced cutbacks in the workforce and partial shutdowns in plants.

As more people need help, the austerity-minded Republicans in Congress are chopping away at Medicaid, which provides health care for poor children, and threatening other programs which provide food aid, funding for education, etc. With the federal budget under attack, states are not able to step in to help. When the Fiscal Year 2018 budget began July 1, there were 9 states which had no budget, due to significant revenue shortfalls, including the once-wealthy state of Connecticut, and formerly industrial states, including Illinois, Wisconsin and New Jersey. Though some of the states subsequently passed budgets, with significant budget cuts, Illinois hovers on the verge of bankruptcy, with the State Controller saying “derailment is imminent.”

What this partial picture underscores is that decisive action must be taken at once, to prevent a total breakdown of the United States. President Trump won his election in part by pointing to the fraud of the Obama “recovery”, and putting forward major initiatives, which reflected to some degree the policies promoted by Lyndon LaRouche in his Four Basic Laws, including restoring Glass Steagall, launching major infrastructure investments, and an emphasis on reviving NASA as a science driver. As these initiatives have stalled, in part due to the efforts of opponents of these policies to remove Trump from office, the situation for the average American has worsened.

If Trump wishes to succeed, he must now put the full weight of his presidency behind passing LaRouche’s Four Laws, as the central feature of his anti-Wall Street plan, to revive the U.S. economy.

======================================

 

The Coming Battle Between Trump, The DOJ and Comey

The battle for facts and truth goes on:

Have you reached end the end of your political tolerance rope yet?

Has your political insanity tolerance meter pegged yet?

Every day it’s another adventure in the Trump presidency. First the left just knew for certain that Trump and Putin worked together to take over the ’16 election machine and destroy America in the process. They ignored anything to do with Clinton’s lawlessness and rampant deficiencies and inefficiencies in running a campaign, but they pursued this Trump rant for months and months hoping that facts would justify the desire for Trump’s downfall.

Now that nearly a year’s worth of efforts digging and mining sources and rat holes for non-existent proof of ANY collaboration with the Russians has reveal not a “smidgen of corruption,” they’ve moved on to the next talking point – That Trump illegally interfered with the firing of FBI Dir Comey.

Of course forgetting that Trump followed the suggestion of his Asst. AG, ignoring the fact that Dems and Pubs alike called for his firing as far back as last Oct, and TOTALLY setting aside that Trump has the absolute power given by the constitution to fire anyone he chooses for any reason, it’s an ongoing circus of comedic proportion.

The real fly in the pie is the Mueller involvement. The investigative rule (28 CFR 600.7) states that conflict of interest is basis for recusal. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification. After all, Mueller is not only Comey’s long time friend, and co-worker but Comey is a witness and the ties are too strong for an independent connection. It’s widely known that Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé.

It’s clear where all of this is headed.  Mueller’s probe will morph into an investigation of the Trump-Comey meeting to determine whether the president tried to obstruct justice.  It will become a case of “he said…he said”.   Which man will the special counsel believe?  His good friend or the man who fired his good friend? How can Mueller fairly and impartially assess Comey’s credibility versus Trump’s?

The country is no longer run by laws but by leaks, innuendos, half truths and conjecture. The congressional expenditure of MILLIONS of tax payer dollars to pursue a long menu of “nothing burgers” pales in comparison to the fact that actual work and progress is NOT being done toward those issues that bear real importance like the economy, restoration of our rights and freedoms, securing our country from without and within.

The future may be bright, mediocre or dim but there is a future, and time will tell if we survive the outcome.

======================================

 

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached

DEPT OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE • OPINION

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached for Whitewashing Clinton’s Crimes

Former federal prosecutor says that Hillary obstructed justice and destroyed evidence—with the support of the president himself

By Sidney Powell • 10/11/16 8:30am

Just when one thinks the cavalier cabal of Clinton and her cronies has exhausted all manner of corruption, yet another outrage surfaces, implicating even more people.

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

We no longer have a Department of Justice: We have a Department of Obstructing and Corrupting Justice to protect the power elite of the chosen side.

It’s easy to see now why Lynch secretly met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27. Only a few days later, the FBI had its little chat with Hillary—neither under oath nor with a rights warning—in the presence of her coconspirators. Then, Hillary announced she would keep Lynch as Attorney General if she is elected president. Surely by coincidence, the very next day Comey does his song and dance ending the “investigation.”

Comey’s “investigation” was a farce. Any former prosecutor worth a flip would have convened a grand jury, issued subpoenas, gotten search warrants, seized computers, run wire taps, indicted the Clinton cabal, and squeezed the underlings to plead guilty and cooperate. This business of friendly chats, immunity agreements handed out like party favors, and side deals that include the Attorney General approving the destruction of evidence to keep it from Congress doesn’t happen for others targeted by the feds.

Just ask any number of Wall Street executives who for various reasons found themselves on the opposite side of the Department of “Justice.” In fact, my former client, Jim Brown, served a year in prison convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for testifying about his personal understanding of a telephone call to which he was not even a party. Yes, you read that correctly. Read Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.  It becomes more relevant every day.

How did we get here?

Thanks to the work of Judicial Watch and others, we learned over a year ago now that Hillary Clinton ran the most important and confidential of world affairs and the United States Department of State through an unsecured computer server assembled by her minions and ensconced in the basement of her New York home. She did so despite repeated warnings of security risks, against protocol, and contrary to her own memo to all of her underlings. That posed no problem simply because the rules don’t apply to Clinton.

Conveniently, her server also handled Clinton Foundation correspondence that facilitated the personal enrichment of Hillary and Bill by hundreds of millions of dollars. That money came from Bill’s remarkable “speaking fees” at hundreds of events around the world—each of which was quickly approved as requested by Clinton crony Cheryl Mills at the State Department—as if there were no conflict of interest. Simultaneously, foreign entities made “donations” of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to obtain the immediate attention of and curry favor with the secretary of state—and it worked.

The conflict of interest inherent in that entire scenario is palpable. It’s the Clintonian equivalent of the scheme former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow conceived that destroyed Enron—a large side-slush fund that operated as his own piggy bank.  The Clintons boldly went where no one has gone before: They privatized the State Department for their massive personal gain, creating a net worth for each of over $100 million dollars in a few short years. Ironically enough, lead counsel for the Clinton Foundation now was President Obama’s longest-serving White House counsel. A former prosecutor on the Enron Task Force, Kathryn Ruemmler was implicated in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and its cover-up.

The personal home server allowed Hillary Clinton to send and receive all of her emails and run the State Department free from protected, secure, and requiredgovernment channels. It was established deliberately to circumvent the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act—both of which applied to her work-related correspondence.

That was no problem for Clinton however, as she simply “didn’t know how to use a computer,” apparently was incapable of learning to do so (unlike most toddlers in the country), and she liked her Blackberry—which was reason enough for her highness to ignore the national security interests of the entire country.

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: ‘My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.’
Clinton’s insistence on operating outside the government security protocols demonstrated at best deliberate disregard for the law and national security—and, at worst, conduct that was treasonous. That is why 18 USC 793 (d) and (f) make it a crime punishable by imprisonment for 10 years to even move any information relating to the national defense from secure conditions or to fail to return it upon demand. Clinton did both—repeatedly.

The unsecure server also facilitated the clearly conflicting roles of Clinton confidant and protégé Huma Abedin, who was paid simultaneously by the Clinton Foundation and the taxpayers through the State Department. That made it easier for the double-dipping Abedin to schedule meetings quickly for Clinton with those who had paid to play—substantial donors to the Foundation, such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had been denied a face-to-face through those pesky State Department protocols in place for mere mortals. His millions in contributions to the Foundation got him an appointment with Clinton through Abedin in a matter of hours.

We wrote more than a year ago—as soon as we heard one Clinton server was “wiped”—about the Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton. We foresaw the need for a special prosecutor and predicted that if emails could be found, they would likely implicate high ranking people across the government, including the president.

Lo and behold, President Obama, who told the country he heard of Clinton’s private email from news reports, was in reality emailing her at Clintonemail.com and using an alias. He must have forgotten. But, wait—just this week, we get more emails, and there’s now evidence that the White House and the State Department coordinated an attempt to minimize the problem.

Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who has committed lie after lie, obstructed justice, and destroyed evidence with the support of the president himself—conduct for which many people are in prison. Sometimes it’s called False Statements to federal officials, punishable by up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001. Under other circumstances, such as in sworn statements to federal judges or testimony to Congress, it can be perjury under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

And let’s not forget obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1519. That statute was tailor-made to fit the facts of the Clinton cabal’s destruction of evidence. It reads:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Remember the man relentlessly prosecuted by the feds for throwing a few fish overboard? That case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide that fish weren’t the kind of tangible objects/evidence to which Congress intended the new obstruction statute to apply. But emails, computers, and servers are. Senator Clinton voted for that new statute—but it doesn’t apply to her. Well, it would, but Loretta Lynch and James Comey just agreed to destroy evidence of it themselves.

These false statement and obstruction offenses are so easy to prove that prosecutors often tack them on to already multi-count indictments just for good measure when they want to hammer Wall Street bankers or other citizens and business people who actually work for a living.

How many of these federal criminal offenses are established by the limited evidence that has been pried out of the Clintons’ hands or resurrected from unsuccessful although mighty attempts to destroy it? They are truly countless, as each email would be a separate charge but, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just pick three or four—that don’t even include all the conspiracy charge options routinely used by “reasonable” prosecutors.

First, Clinton testified to Congress that she “turned over all of her work-related emails.” Second, she “only wanted to use one device.” Later, she chose her words carefully, claiming “nothing was marked classified when it was sent or received.”  That sounds good to people who are not lawyers, but it’s Clintonese and not the law.

She “turned over all her work emails”?

First, her friend Sidney Blumenthal found a number of emails he exchanged with her about confidential matters of State that she didn’t produce. Next, that pesky Pentagon found over 1,000 emails between Hillary and General Petraeus alone. Most recently, the FBI found roughly 15,000 Clinton thought had been erased completely when she had her servers “wiped” professionally with BleachBit. We’ll never know how many were deliberately destroyed to protect her incompetence and corruption. Mills, Samuelson, and others at Platte River Networks destroyed whatever they wanted.

As both secretary of state and an attorney who had long been paid by the taxpayers, Clinton should know that information “relating to the national defense” is what is protected under 18 USC 793(f). It doesn’t have to be “classified”—marked or unmarked—even though much of it was.

Sure, let’s give her the presidency and the nuclear codes and access to every national secret—ISIS can just hack her and use our own missiles to destroy us. They won’t have to worry about trying to bring nukes into the country.

In any event, according to the FBI’s perfunctory investigation, more than 2,000 of the emails available are classified as Confidential or Secret or higher.

Clinton may have only wanted “one device,” but the truth is that she had 13“personal mobile devices that were lost, discarded, or destroyed.” Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has an excellent timeline of irrefutable, no-spin facts derived from the part of the FBI’s file that has been made public. The timeline of events alone is damning.

Not surprisingly, Attkisson reports that “[a]fter the State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by the House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with Bleachbit, and the FBI couldn’t review them. After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server ‘PRN’ with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.”

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: “My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.”

I guess that’s why they invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination, had hard-drives wiped, destroyed devices with hammers, put theselected emails in the hands of her attorney and refused to produce them for weeks, while her staff all refused to speak without grants of immunity or took the Fifth. I guess it just depends on how you define “cooperation.”

Enter stage left James Comey, Director of the FBI, who fills himself with righteous indignation to tell Congress what a great job the FBI did in this “investigation.” As Congressman Trey Gowdy said, and I concur, “This isn’t the FBI I used to work with.”

Clinton ran her shenanigans without an Inspector General in the State Department. An Inspector General is appointed by the President, but his or her job is to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Clintondeclined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight, and President Obama allowed that. More than a year ago, the Inspector Generals for State and for the Intelligence Community conducted a limited review of only 40 of Clinton’s emails. They quickly found several containing classified information which they immediately reported to the executive branch and advised Congress. They wrote: “This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Remember Richard Nixon? Remember Attorney General John Mitchell?  Remember White House Counsel John Dean? Nixon White House cronies Haldeman and Erlichman? They all went to prison.

It’s not just the private server. It’s not about personal emails or even a few business emails sent from a personal account.

It is about the fair administration of justice and trust in our justice system. It is about the accountability of our highest officials. It is about destroying evidence in the face of a serious investigation. It is about national security breaches of the highest order, and it’s about the privatization and sale of our State Department for personal enrichment. The conduct of the Clintons, their cronies, their Foundation, and now our highest law enforcement officials make the entire Watergate scandal look like an insignificant computer hack.

Where is the Congress? Where are what used to be our great newspapers? The sounds of silence are terrifying indicators of how government-controlled our mainstream media has become. I guess that’s why Reporters Without Borders has dropped our Freedom of Press rank to 46th world-wide.

FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be impeached for their roles in whitewashing Clinton’s crimes and their own participation in the destruction of evidence. They facilitated and participated in the obstruction of justice—spitting in the face of the Congressional investigation. Congress should be able to name a special prosecutor when the Attorney General has a clear conflict—such as meeting secretly with Bill Clinton during the “investigation” and receiving a promise of continuing as Attorney General if Hillary is elected President. The timeline of events and their conduct reek of corruption.

Stay tuned. Clinton’s answers under oath to D.C. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan are due October 13. Remember, he’s the judge who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice following the Bush administration’s corrupted prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. And it was Judge John Sirica—combined with what was then the great Washington Post—who exposed the Nixon corruption.

With more and more government intrusion in every aspect of our individual businesses and lives, we are quickly losing the land of the free, and we now must wonder if any of the brave are home. Who has the chutzpah to stand up to the Clintons?  Where are the real Americans? Hopefully, on election day, they will pour out in droves and resoundingly demand real change. The election and Judge Sullivan are our only chances for justice at all.

Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years, in three federal districts under nine United States Attorneys from both political parties. She was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice—a legal thriller that tells the inside story of high-profile prosecutions.

RIDICULING THE WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTER

RIDICULING THE WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTER — Comments from Crista Huff

I’ve been shocked to see liberals on Twitter aggressively ridiculing the “white working class voter”. Is this about the Twitter libs being bigoted against white people, or about them expressing class superiority, or about them hating Republicans and/or people who voted for President-elect Trump?

Were the libs previously embracing white working class voters because they needed their votes, and now they’re revealing their true colors?

No matter how you slice and dice it, it’s extremely bigoted behavior. Would these people go into a supermarket and ridicule the cashier? Would they stop by a roadside work area and ridicule the guy who’s holding the “STOP” sign? Would they drive up to a toll booth and ridicule the tolltaker? How about warehouse managers and assembly line workers and janitors?

What takes place in the mind of an American when they feel emboldened to express public disdain for vast segments of the population? Why is there no “gut check” telling them that such bigotry is wrong, and that vocalizing bigotry simply doubles down on their shameful impulses?

Are we, as a society, just a couple years away from more overt and individualized persecution?

 

A SURGE IN CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT PLANS WITHIN THE U.S.

President-elect Trump will travel to Indiana on December 1 for Carrier’s announcement that it will not move its Indiana operations to Mexico. Carrier is a division of United Technologies. (Bloomberg, November 29, 2016)

After a discussion with President-elect TrumpFord Motor Company announced that it will not move its Lincoln automobile manufacturing plant from Kentucky to Mexico. (Breitbart, November 18, 2016)

Taiwan-based Quanta Computer has announced that it expects its U.S.-based manufacturing business to expand under a Trump presidency. Quanta makes data center servers, in Tennessee and California, for big-name tech companies. (Nikkei Asian Review, November 29, 2016)

Foxconn Technology Group, an assembler of iPhones for Apple Inc., is considering shifting some production from Taiwan to the U.S., after a June request to do so by Apple. (Nikkei Asian Review, November 18, 2016)

======================================

 

Are You Too Secure?

Are You Too Secure?

Should Terrorists Be?

A court order requiring Apple amounts to an “unprecedented” stretch of an antiquated law — one that is about to spark an epic fight pitting privacy against national security, legal scholars said Thursday. That being… to create a way to help law enforcement get access to a terrorist’s smartphone.

A federal judge in New York last fall unsealed portions of a case revealing that Apple had turned over information to law enforcement about 70 times in recent years, according to the government, based on court orders citing an obscure 1789 law called the All Writs Act. This act allowed courts to issue orders if other judicial tools were unavailable.

This week’s court order was different from those issued in the past as it requires Apple to create new software, experts said, not provide technology already at hand. In essence forcing Apple to make a new software that doesn’t exist in order to violate its own program of making something that was designed to be inaccessible.

“This is a new frontier,” said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. “I know of no other statutory provision that would arguably create an obligation for device manufacturers to help out the government.”

Apple may not have fought orders in the past because “it was easy for Apple to give the data,” she said. “But the architecture of the phones changed. This is about Apple creating a new forensic version of its software to do the job the FBI wants it to do.”

Apple has hired attorneys Ted Olson and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. They are expected to argue the order violates constitutional provisions as well as the All Writs Act and would create bad public policy.

Law enforcement has relied on a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that said the All Writs Act could be used to compel New York Telephone Co. to provide technology to enable investigators to track calls being made in a gambling operation. The phone company was a heavily regulated public utility and already had the technology, however technology has certainly changed since then and key differences from the Apple case, experts said.

UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said a carefully drafted federal law giving law enforcement the right to get around encryption in certain compelling situations probably would be constitutional. But he doubted a court could force a company to write software. “You can’t subpoena or get a warrant for something that doesn’t exist.”

The case, which will be heard in the magistrate’s courtroom next month, would then go before a federal district judge. If appealed, the case will be heard by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the case could be fast-tracked, Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court probably would not want to hear one that poses such novel issues without a hearing by an appeals court. “Context is everything,” he said. “I don’t think the courts have the authority to tell someone to write software, but if the reason is to prevent a dirty bomb from exploding tomorrow, the context would matter a lot.”

David O’Brien, senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, said Apple is likely to argue that the government’s demand would place an unreasonable burden on the company. But the government can counter that public safety is at stake.

In the New York case, U.S. District Magistrate Judge James Orenstein hesitated at ordering Apple to unlock a customer’s smartphone. He wanted to know first whether the assistance sought by the government was technically feasible and whether the proposed order would be unduly burdensome.

Apple had the technology at that time to give the government, but the criminal defendant in the case later confessed and opened his phone for investigators. In today’s newest iPhone models, they are not capable of being unlocked and therefore a new software would be required to be created to accomplish the goal.

We’re in a situation where public safety is balanced with personal privacy AND… a company’s right to preserve its advantage over competitors. People (including terrorists) buy the new iPhone because their privacy is assured and customers know that the government can’t access emails, texts, location and other private information.